1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[RichardSimon]

Travs, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Though autographs have to stand on their merits and I would certainly never let a provenance story sway me, I still think that provenance matters. It helps if you are a good BS detector and can tell when the provenance is BS.
Of course when I have the guy who forged the Black Sox items I showed above, the same one I believe who forged the 1927 Yankee baseball, when I have him in my apartment and he is trying to sell me stuff, his provenance meant nothing. He claimed to have a hobby store in Forest Hills and this stuff that he was trying to peddle "just walked into the store."
Someone else who used to post here used to say that to me also.

[David Atkatz]

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Once again, provenance is not a story. Provenance is the verifiable history of an object; key word here being verifiable. An auction catalog, say, from the 1950s, in which an item appears, proves where that item was at that time. It thus could not have been forged, say, by someone who hadn't even been born then.

Again, provenance is not the word-of-mouth story that a seller tries to hand you. True or not, that's just a story.

Understand what provenance is, before you criticise.

Agreed. By definition provenance is provable history or chain of ownership.

[RichardSimon]

You are correct and the word of mouth story from the young man in my apartment was totally transparent to me and I knew his word of mouth was BS.
He never fooled me nor did his partner fool me when he tried to sell me that 1920's NY Giants ball.
I always judge the autographs on merit but I do find that most of the word of mouth stories I am told, ok I won't call it provenance, are more often than not believable. Certainly not always but more often than not.
I deal a lot with people outside the hobby and have found much success in dealing with them.
When I buy a Roger Maris signed photograph, and totally think the autograph is authentic, and the photo is inscribed To Yvonne who told me she worked in Maris' dentists office, and asked him for an autograph, and I make my payment to Yvonne G------, well, I tend to think that person's word of mouth story is true.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Provenance stories just cloud better judgment, all provenance stories do is push a questionable or bogus autograph over the edge to the good side. if it was dead on, no need for provenance, it only helps the so-so autographs gain legs when they shouldn't.

These companies are afraid to give 'no opinions' , or 'unable to authenticate' is what the problem is.

Halper had Ruth hair with provenance3 signed on an envelope by Ruth himself. That provenance really helped, didn't it? It probably pushed it over the edge from "who the heck can know for sure it's ruth hair', to 'well it must be good, it has ruth provenance.'

Provenance is only for the weak autographs. Only one million percent lock solid verifiable provenance helps, and that is almost zero percent of the provenance we see in these auction listings, and in those miniscule cases, the autograph stands up for itself anyway.

I would rather have a dead-on autograph with no provenance, than a shaky looking autograph with good provenance, because the provenance story will fall through way before the dead-on autograph will. Because when it comes down to it, you have to collect autographs, not stories or certs.

I have to agree with the rest provenance is a very important aspect of an item. Sometimes provenance is more important to me than Most of the experts put together. "if it was dead on" as you say dead on to who an autograph expert where it has already been proven time and time again that even the best at the game can and will continue to be fooled at the expense of the poor person who is willing to put down hard earned money on the word of a So called expert! Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.

[David Atkatz]

It may not be possible to say with 100% certainty. But it is possible to say, at times, with, oh, 99.5% certainty. That's good enough for most.

[slidekellyslide]

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

[batsballsbases]

David my friend and you know you are 99.5% might be a good average to hang your hat on but that .5% ended up costing you alot of money!

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.

That holds for all "collectables," not just autographs. Can anyone prove, with 100% certainty, that the 1934 Goudey Gehrig in front of me is real? Can it be proven that someone hasn't figured out how to just-about-perfectly counterfeit Goudeys? It ain't likely, but it can't be 100% ruled out.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

David my friend and you know you are 99.5% might be a good average to hang your hat on but that .5% ended up costing you alot of money!

True enough! But that's the risk any collector, of any collectable, takes.

[barrysloate]

With any transaction the buyer must utilize as much information as possible, and provenance is a very important tool, in some cases the most important. But Travrosty makes a good point that every bad piece will have a story to go with it. So it's important to assess and verify provenance. Having someone say, I know it's old because I bought it from an antique dealer is not acceptable provenance. But there are some very great pieces that have resided with families for generations, and the story behind them may be a critical piece of the whole puzzle.

[David Atkatz]

It's not just "not acceptable provenance," Barry. It's not provenance at all.

In the fine art world, the key element in passing a forgery is manufacturing a provenance. That is not making up a convincing story, it is physically manufacturing a paper trail that "proves" the piece's age and history.

[barrysloate]

Agreed David, but I can't tell you how many times I have been offered reproductions, usually advertising pieces, and when I tell the seller the piece is a modern repro, he tells me that's impossible because he purchased it at an antique store. That's the kind of story Travrosty was calling out.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Hey guys, a simple request - Stop using swear words. Thanks.

Sorry Dan, I thought that particular word was acceptable.
Would you want me to go back and soften it up?

[slidekellyslide]

I think I changed most of them to BS already. Not a real big deal and normally I'd gloss over it, but a thread on the other side turned nasty that I had to clean up a bit and I'd like to be consistent.

Thanks.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Agreed David, but I can't tell you how many times I have been offered reproductions, usually advertising pieces, and when I tell the seller the piece is a modern repro, he tells me that's impossible because he purchased it at an antique store. That's the kind of story Travrosty was calling out.

I quite understand that, Barry. But in calling that story "provenance" he shows a (common) misunderstanding of wha t provenance actually is.

I suggest you read "Provenance: How a Con Man and a Forger Rewrote the History of Modern Art, by Laney Salisbury, and Aly Sujo. Here's the publisher's description (emphasis added):

Filled with extraordinary characters and told at breakneck speed, Provenance reads like a well-plotted thriller. But this is most certainly not fiction. It is the astonishing narrative of one of the most far-reaching and elaborate cons in the history of art forgery. Stretching from London to Paris to New York, investigative reporters Laney Salisbury and Aly Sujo recount the tale of infamous con man and unforgettable villain John Drewe and his accomplice, the affable artist John Myatt. Together they exploited the archives of British art institutions to irrevocably legitimize the hundreds of pieces they forged, many of which are still considered genuine and hang in prominent museums and private collections today.

[batsballsbases]

Yes Richard please control yourself. Dont make me reach thru my computer screen and give you a slap!

[barrysloate]

Provenance is not an exact science. Usually the very best provenance is finding something that has been with a single family for a long time, say a ball Babe Ruth signed in the 1940's, or a Beatles signature from 1964, that has never been on the market ever, and you become the very first owner after the original family. But even that is based upon feeling confidant that the family isn't lying. And sometimes they do lie. Good judgment and common sense is important.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by travrosty

very few provenance stories are verifiable. most are stories that grandpa got it when babe ruth made a train stop in peoria, then they show an old article in a newspaper that anyone could have gotten anywhere, then that's provenance. It's really nothing.

out of the two photos i have shown of the 1927 spring training yankees, both had so called 'good' provenance, one was from henry Johnson's girlfriend, the other was suppose to have been given by ruppert to a hotel owner, well at least one of these stories is bogus. probably both.

A good autograph doesnt need provenance, so provenance is not important.

way too many of these authenticators are bamboozled by the backstory, we have seen the luis firpo that was as bogus as a three dollar bill certed by spence, and it came from the famous so and so collection. that was probably the provenance, that a famous collector had it in his collection, well halper did that too, (it's from the famous halper collection, so it must be good) and halper had all sorts of far flung stories that were bogus.

If psa or jsa starts authenticating by provenance, then they going down a slippery road. You either authenticate the autograph on its own merits, or you don't, or advertise the company as a 'provenance authentication company'

Just for the record as to why I disagree with Travis on why Provanence is so important or why provanence does play a role in a story, here is one for you. I have worked for many famous people in my lifetime. I was given this picture and many others by a great man whos name is George George. Google him and you will see who he was. Since we have been talking about Jack Dempsey. Here is a picture of him ,Standing next to him is Rube Goldberg. George George was Rube Goldbergs son. Changed his name for professional reasons. Like I said google him and you will find out why. I have no COAs no letters,no nothing . There is no way you would ever convince me that I would need one as this picture was given to me by his son. I dont think Jack would ever taken the picture with Rube then gave the man a fake signature! Do you! George died in I believe 2008at the age of 88,a great friend. Who knows this story other that me well up until now no one. But now you all do. Provanence? You tell me.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Provenance is not an exact science. Usually the very best provenance is finding something that has been with a single family for a long time, say a ball Babe Ruth signed in the 1940's, or a Beatles signature from 1964, that has never been on the market ever, and you become the very first owner after the original family. But even that is based upon feeling confidant that the family isn't lying. And sometimes they do lie. Good judgment and common sense is important.

A very strong +1 from me.
The art world and the autograph world obviously operate very differently.
People in the art world will knowingly create a paper trail for a piece.
But the family that is selling me a 50 or 60 or more year old autograph book, that grandma got by standing outside the NYC nightclubs, did not create a paper trail for the book. They would never have thought of doing that. You judge the autographs and you appreciate their word of mouth story.
Barry and I seem to have used the word provenance a bit loosely according to the definition presented in this thread. But as far as I know that word has been used in this hobby for "word of mouth stories."

[barrysloate]

Richard- if someone wanted to make up an incredibly elaborate story that seemed so convincing nobody would even question it, I'm sure they could. That's why you really have to assess the story and decide for yourself. It's not a science. I've heard some very credible stories attached to really significant pieces, and there is always a part of me that wonders if they are no more than just very carefully thought out lies.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Yes Richard please control yourself. Dont make me reach thru my computer screen and give you a slap!

Al,
It would be easier for you to reach over and slap my son, he lives in CT too.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Richard- if someone wanted to make up an incredibly elaborate story that seemed so convincing nobody would even question it, I'm sure they could. That's why you really have to assess the story and decide for yourself. It's not a science. I've heard some very credible stories attached to really significant pieces, and there is always a part of me that wonders if they are no more than just very carefully thought out lies.

Absolutely true. I assess the autographs and stories all the time and consider myself to be an excellent judge of both.
I have to tell the board a good story here.
Years ago, get a phone call from a guy who tells me he has a Munson era Yankee signed team ball. We made an appointment and he shows up with his two sons. He had told me his story about how he got into the dugout and the ball was signed for him. Well when I meet him, he proceeds to pull out a facsimile machine signed ball. I tell him what he has and he gets really angry. "I got the Yankees to sign this ball." He is raising his voice to me, in front of his two sons. Well I said "you may have gotten the Yankees to sign a ball, but not this ball." I was glad that this was taking place in front of a couple of people as he obviously could not do anything, but he actually shook me up wth his phony anger.

[batsballsbases]

See Richard great people live in Ct.!! My mother and father grew up in the Bronx.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Barry and I seem to have used the word provenance a bit loosely according to the definition presented in this thread. But as far as I know that word has been used in this hobby for "word of mouth stories."

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[RichardSimon]

Barry, According to the prior post, I think you and I have just had a great fall and nobody can put us back together again.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

See Richard great people live in Ct.!! My mother and father grew up in the Bronx.

Me too,,, some good times there as a kid.

[batsballsbases]

See I knew there was some Bronx in you ! They were married at the Immaculate Conseption church on Gun Hill Rd. Took thier photos at the Botanical Gardens across from Fordham. I will have to ask my mother where she lived. She is 87. Lives 5 minutes from me.

[RichardSimon]

I lived at 174th and So. Blvd and then 219 and Wh Plains Rd. near Gun Hill Rd.

[batsballsbases]

I will check with her tomorrow. I know my father moved around alot in the bronx.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Barry, According to the prior post, I think you and I have just had a great fall and nobody can put us back together again.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[batsballsbases]

Richard,
Alerton Ave and Morris Ave

[RichardSimon]

That was not near me.

[shelly]

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by shelly

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

Ditto!!!!

[David Atkatz]

Right you are, Shelly. The reason I posted here was not so others could learn from my mistake, but because I knew I'd never get away with trying to foist it off on someone else.

This coming from one who's been convicted--literally--of selling forgeries.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Right you are, Shelly. The reason I posted here was not so others could learn from my mistake, but because I knew I'd never get away with trying to foist it off on someone else.

This coming from one who's been convicted--literally--of selling forgeries.

You can write whatever you want about Shelly, but I am proud to call Shelly my friend. Since "Operation Bullpen" Shelly has done, and continues to do, all he can to assist in ridding the hobby of the "bad guys."

He has also paid his debt to society and refunded monies to those who purchased bad stuff from him.

[David Atkatz]

Then I guess I must be one of the "bad guys."

[Caseyatbat]

Chris, catching up to your comment from yesterday. Yes I share your opinion that the ball would not pass now or five years ago. I was just asking David so I could hear the entire story. If he had re-submitted the ball to be authenticated again since he had owned it because I was interested to see how the story played out. At the time in the thread, the only information we had was that David owns this ball and mentioned it had been approved by Spence in 1999 and now is believed to be a forgery.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by shelly

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

Nice racket the authenticators have then. Keep submitting the same piece every 5-10 years, because we know more now, then we did then.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

At the time in the thread, the only information we had was that David owns this ball and mentioned it had been approved by Spence in 1999 and now is believed to be a forgery.

That's all the information there is.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Then I guess I must be one of the "bad guys."

Why would you make that comment? Have I ever called you a "bad guy?" Do you have a guilty conscience about something?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

i've got to say guys, and i will take some flack for this, but collecting autographs is one f**king miserable hobby. Every collecting field has to deal with some level of fraud- coins are cleaned, stamps are reperforated, baseball cards are trimmed- but the fraud in the autograph hobby is so off the charts i don't know how people can really enjoy it. And the idea that an autograph collector needs to educate himself may be somewhat true, but take david a., who has been studying yankee memorabilia for decades. He certainly is at the top of the learning curve, yet look at this stinking mess. I have to think a 27 yankee ball in that condition is worth well north of 50k, and his example is now worth exactly zero. Hobbies are supposed to be relaxing endeavors; i would need a regular supply of xanax to deal with this shit. This is going to drive so many collectors out of autographs and will have a significant impact on its future. If somebody asked me the best way to get started in autograph collecting, i would tell him to collect hummels instead.

+1000

[mark evans]

Originally Posted by shelly

I have read this thread over and over again and I have one big question. If David had not received the advice of Jodi and had placed this ball in an auction with a top auction house, would the letter he had from 1999 been good enough to allow the ball to be sold.
Or would the auction house re-examine the ball now? I think they would re-examine it. At the time this ball was examined authenticators had no idea what skills certain forgers had. This ball was done by one of the best. I think that some of the better authenticators now know the work of this forger (Johnny F..g ) extremely well and probably would never pass it. That is why it baffles me why you are thanking someone for not putting up a ball that we all know today would never pass a top auction house.

This may well be true. Nevertheless, David deserves credit, in my view, for exposing the story of his ball for the benefit of all.

By the way, both Shelly and David have been helpful to me in the past and, in my view, are assets to the hobby. No need for conflict.

Mark

[keithsky]

Didn't the certs the TPA issued years ago say in the cert "Guarented Authentic" where now they say "Our Opininon". If it says Gurarented Authentic I would think you could go back on Spence for that. That is why they changed the wording because of that so they won't be held responsible for something like this. Just my opinion.

[David Atkatz]

This 1997 SCD ad was just passed on to me. Compare that Ruth signature on the left to the one on my ball.
It seems that someone was aware of this forger's work as early as 1997.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by D. Bergin

Nice racket the authenticators have then. Keep submitting the same piece every 5-10 years, because we know more now, then we did then.

Dave,
I can understand the frustration in your comment.
However, as much as everyone would like authentication to be an exact science, it is not.
Until someone comes up with a computer program to do it, there will always be a learning process involved. A daily learning process.
Everyone here knows that I am not a defender of the alphabet soup guys but I have to state what I think about your statement.
I think the policy of TPA auction house LOA's and then "send us more money for a real LOA" is reprehensible. I have openly disagreed with some of their opinions. However, I have to respectfully disagree with you on this one statement you made about authentication.

[travrosty]

Some people see an old loa from psa and they ask for the piece to be "recertified" before they will buy it. Seems like an LOA is not all what it is cracked up to be. I have heard people say that you should look at an older psa cert with some skepticism because they didn't know as much back then.

But then what good is the LOA then if any LOA's issued before a certain year are looked at with a jaundiced eye? A guarantee would solve that problem. If they were so bad way back in the day, but issued a guarantee, let them pay for their mistakes. They took the customers money and put it in their pocket. They should be on the hook in some capacity if they screw up.

But they didnt issue a guarantee, so customers are stuck trying to figure out when the cutoff date is. Hint:there isn't any. It's as bad now as it was then.

[novakjr]

I've come to the conclusion that any authentication(aside from Morales and such), just means that they didn't have enough evidence to support it being fake at the time of authentication.

The simple point is that authenticators have ZERO way of telling you if something was definitively signed by an individual, unless they witnessed it first hand. All they have is a way of telling definitively that certain ones weren't.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

This 1997 SCD ad was just passed on to me. Compare that Ruth signature on the left to the one on my ball.
It seems that someone was aware of this forger's work as early as 1997.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to Richard Galasso? Is he still around?

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com