Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[batsballsbases]

Disturbing to say the least! Why I always say this is why I stopped collecting autographed anything many years ago. To see all these FRANKENSTEIN pieces pop up years later to be questioned really makes you wonder if many of these items were real in the first place.Sad fact of life my friends is if there is money to be made someone will always find a way to expliot it for all it is worth. Sad part to me is all this " increditable material" sitting in great collections can it all be real? We are suppose to believe that a person with such vast knowledge of autographs issues a COA,LOA, Piece of garbage A, what ever you want to call it ,then a person puts down 10,20,30,40 thousand on an item,only to find out years later that it is fake,junk,garbage. Who is held accountable? Laughable fact is all these "experts" laugh at all the other "experts" when their items are called into question and deemed fake.
Fact: no one can tell even an "expert" that an autograph is 100% good or 100% bad. Its a GUESS. Eduacated as you think you are sorry its still a guess. Until someone puts money in an account to reimburse the poor guy who got stuck with your A$$ wipe LOA,COA then my friend you have no right calling yourself an expert.

[springpin]

What is the opinion of board members on fakes/forgeries in other areas of baseball collectibles? How about gloves, bats, uniforms, pennants, trophies, etc.? I find fantasies and reproductions in pinbacks, but they are not really all that common.

[RickGallway]

[slidekellyslide]

I'm not pointing any fingers here, just theorizing...what's to keep any of these so called hobby experts from pocketing huge sums of money on forgeries themselves? With what some of these items sell for their word on one or two items can be worth what I make in an entire year.

[smokelessjoe]

I have not read the article yet, so maybe I should not comment...? But the first thing I notice is the Cooperstown Postal Date Stamp. Is it my eyes or does the top pic have a date of 1929 and the bottom one 1939???

Sorry if I have just stated the obvious...

[smokelessjoe]

I just realized its probably just a blurred image... Sorry about that.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I'm not pointing any fingers here, just theorizing...what's to keep any of these so called hobby experts from pocketing huge sums of money on forgeries themselves? With what some of these items sell for their word on one or two items can be worth what I make in an entire year.

Dan,
I agree 100% Jeez let me get my expert (of which Im one myself) to give me a COA on this worthless piece of crap for my next auction,make myself a quick 30 thousand and by the time anyone finds out I will be long gone! As Eddie Murphy would say "hay its christmas time I need to buy that GI Joe with the kung foo grip. I feel it out there there PANICKIN ,PANICKIN I tell ya"

[DinoPro]

I have collected sport memorabilia for 30 years.
This article is quite the eye-opener !!

[dog*dirt]

This whole thing makes me sick. Although autographs are not really my thing it is just bad for the hobby in general, whether it's memorabilia or cards. We just had some recent posts as why some people feel the hobby is in decline and when you constantly see articles like this it is not helping to add people to the hobby..

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by dog*dirt

This whole thing makes me sick. Although autographs are not really my thing it is just bad for the hobby in general, whether it's memorabilia or cards. We just had some recent posts as why some people feel the hobby is in decline and when you constantly see articles like this it is not helping to add people to the hobby..

+1

[batsballsbases]

Shawn,
I think its just the blur all the cards in the article seem to be dated June 12 1939.

[tcdyess]

I was just looking at the Huggins & Scott auction going on with all those JSA LOAs.... certainly makes me wonder...

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by RickGallway

The video spectral comparator they claim to have that detects erasures must have been loaned out to Batman at the time.

[Scott Garner]

Yikes!! Another black eye for the hobby.......

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Yikes!! Another black eye for the hobby.......

+1

[Caseyatbat]

This story is incomplete and also may be misleading. This item was sold at auction, so I am assuming it most likely had an "auction letter of authenticity", rather than a full letter. It is pretty common knowledge that their "auction letters" are pretty much quick opinions. And are far from the same thing as fully authenticating the item. They do not give detailed results everytime on auction letters. Since they are just looking at the items briefly and moving on to the next, I am sure they are not getting caught up on things like: removals, enhancements, etc. Those are things that the buyer may not find out until later when they are sent in to be fully authenticated. Some people say, "why should I send it in to be fully authenticated when it already has an auction LOA? Well that is why, your "auction letter" is really just a quick opinion (which is better than nothing, but far from fully certified). Also you may be saying, "well they why would I buy an expensive item that has only an auction letter?" The answer is, it is risky. The item usually does not sell for as much because of the reasons stated above. Or if you do buy it, make sure to get it upgraded to a Full LOA immediately, just like it says to on the auction letter. So you still have the option to return it.

In the article, my assumption is further backed up when Nash mentions that Spence noted in the so called "LOA" the autographs were all 9's and 10's. This is the tall tail sign that this item carried an "auction" letter of authenticity rather than a full letter. Because Spence does not grade autographs. This most likely happened because in an auction letter, the actual "lot description" from the auction house is entered into the auction LOA as the description. So when Nash says, "Spence noted they were 9's and 10's". That was most likely the auction house noting in that in their own description and used in the auction LOA which is still common practice to this day.

Also, this "incident" occurred 11 and 13 years ago. That was literally the first few years this type of authentication was introduced. I am sure they have learned a lot since and moved on. Good Luck trying to get something like that by them now, especially if it was being fully authenticated. I am sorry, if this is the best the criticizers have, this is not good enough. In my opinion, the good they do far outweighs the few instances such as these.

[vintagechris]

I had won a lot of signed football cards around 400 from an auction house that was a mix of years with over 200 signed cards from 1985. It had a JSA Auction LOA with it. When I got the lot in, it literally took me less than three minutes to realize that a large number of the 1985's were blatant forgeries. Three minutes!
But for some reason JSA wasn't able to pick them out at all.
There were forgeries of people who have been signing in the mail since their playing days. people like Harry Carson and Charlie Joiner. People who's signature literally hasn't changed at all or very little since the 70's. I am familiar with many players sigs that were in this lot but there were some I was not familiar with and there would be duplicates of several players and many with different style sigs. Knowing that players change the way they sign, I looked for many of these "variations" and a large % I never found. In this day with the internet, you can usually find examples of players variations in the way they sign.

Anyway, here is an example of what I got from that auction house.

[RickGallway]

Casey, as the saying goes: In modern business it is not the crook who is to be feared most, it is the honest man who doesn't know what he is doing.

Are you the "honest man" or just playing stupid here?