Warning: Disturbing Autograph "Authentication" Material!

[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.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, as a non user of TPA who proudly sells his own material without TPA, and you Casey as one who does use TPA, we have to agree to disagree. And I would vehemently disagree with your use of the words "few instances."
Travis can outline way more than a few as can Peter Nash and others. I have already given details of three instances that happened to me where PSA was DEAD WRONG. Two of the three were Babe Ruth autographs.
And Casey since you opened the door in your post to auction certs. well you yourself know what a scam that is.
And though this is OT don't get me started on the autograph registries. Why don't they just start a registry for the size of your penis? Oh damn, I just gave them an idea.
ps. If that p word is anathema to a mod then please go ahead and change it.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Well, as a non user of TPA who proudly sells his own material without TPA, and you Casey as one who does use TPA, we have to agree to disagree. And I would vehemently disagree with your use of the words "few instances."
Travis can outline way more than a few as can Peter Nash and others. I have already given details of three instances that happened to me where PSA was DEAD WRONG. Two of the three were Babe Ruth autographs.
And Casey since you opened the door in your post to auction certs. well you yourself know what a scam that is.
And though this is OT don't get me started on the autograph registries. Why don't they just start a registry for the size of your penis? Oh damn, I just gave them an idea.
ps. If that p word is anathema to a mod then please go ahead and change it.

Richard,

Would this penis registry idea of yours include a hologram sticker on the actual unit? This could get ugly....

[Caseyatbat]

Yes agreed the auction letters are horrible. Especially for the reason I mentioned to you the other day. When dealing with auction letters for high end items, proceed with extreme caution. If the auction house really cared about the buyer and has nothing to hide, then they should use all Full LOA's when dealing with valuable items. I believe Huggins started using all full LOA's for this reason. Buyers don't pay as much for an auction letter. very risky

Also I understand your frustration with the disagreement over the 3 instances you experienced. I have been through similar experiences myself. But I feel those situations are a little different because they rejected the items, rather than passed them and found out they were wrong later. Even they might tell you the autographs may very well be authentic they are failing, they just did not feel confident enough in them to pass them at that particular point in time. When dealing with high end autographs that are going to be eye balled by everybody, I think that makes sense. If they have any doubt at all, they probably just fail it. Especially if they are at a "show" and are on a time-clock. They are not going to sit there at a show and think about any one item when they have all of that stuff to get through in that one day.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by 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.

Pathetic attempt at an excuse and to say they don't make mistakes like that today is not paying attention. If an auction LOA isn't worth a darn, then they bamboozled collectors for years. If a 1939 induction hof signed piece by all living members of the inaugural class only warrants a quick glance, then that incompetence is just as bad as if they took a hard look at it and passed it.

If anything is worth a good inspection, it is something like that. there is no such thing as quick opinions for such important pieces like this.

This piece getting by them is one thing, but you seem to miss the crux of the story, that it got by them twice, with the wagner signature darkened the second time. quick opinion auction loa or not, they would remember such an important piece as only 2 years went by. for them not to remember it, especially with a cool ty cobb provenance letter that would stick out in your mind, is too hard for me to swallow. i would remember it easily.

They wouldn't do anything like that today? Did you see them recently cert a Thomas Sayers 1860's boxing autograph and issue a FULL LOA, only for both psa and jsa to take the letters back because they admitted there are no exemplars for Sayers autograph? If they are guilty of that craziness, there is nothing, and I mean nothing I am surprised about these days. And they only retracted the Sayers certs because collectors pointed it out and embarrassed the auction house and the authenticators, prompting them to turn tail and bail on the piece.

To foist the auction LOA excuse is pretty weak. They put their name on it. spence/guttierez, they need to be held accountable. Otherwise anyone can claim "auction loa" amnesia and get away scott free? You put your name to something, you take ownership of it. Otherwise it is the best gig in the world. cert something without any responsibility for your cert? We certed it, just kidding. try again, another cert, aw, just kidding. Don't hold it against us!!!! Some of these piece are 20k, 50k, 90k. C'mon. A quick little mistake we should sweep under the rug? I think not.

I have at least 50 instances of them being DEAD WRONG, just on boxing, not just on something that could go either way, but obvious, obvious mistakes that only incompetance or not paying attention, or authenticating too fast, with people authenticating out of their expertise could bring. Not just on small names, but Sullivan, Jack Johnson, fitzsimmons, Jeffries, Dempsey, Louis, Schmeling, Ali, Liston. Were these all "quick opinion auction loa's? No! Does it matter if it is a quick opinion or not. No, not in my book. They want to opine, whether auction loa, ebay quick opinion, or full loa, they better get it right, they are affecting other peoples time and money.

Defending the indefensible like this just really winds me up. Like I said, is THIS enough now? Evidently not for some, well there's more, a lot more, just wait.

[Caseyatbat]

Travis, Yes I believe auction letters are not worth a darn. if you print out a quick opinion offered on ebay I believe it is worth the same as an auction letter. And it is not Spences fault the auction house decided not to fully authenticate the item. If someone is to blame here, I would blame the auction house. Such a valuable item should be fully authenticated to eliminate any doubt for the buyer and reduce their own responsibility. I am sure Spence would have rather fully authenticated the item and take pics for his registry, but that is up to the auction house. Is it possible they wanted auction letters for a reason? In this case, it is self explanatory why they would.

And yes I keep hearing about the same story over and over again about the Sayers autograph. Everybody knows it happened, at least they made good for it and took it off the market. That is one instance. And the 50 instances you mentioned, should not include items they turned down. Only should include the ones they did infact pass when they should not have. Which does not happen very often, but of course it does happen. Why? because if they have any doubt they usually don't pass it. Hence why so many people hate them. And I would rather keep it that way. If they start passing items they have doubt on, at what point does it stop? Next thing you know they would be passing everything and end up like the rest of terrible authenticators out there. I would rather them keep their standards strict and not forgiving.

[vintagechris]

Originally Posted by 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.

For me personally, I think there is something wrong when an authenticator is charging for his quick opinion, then charging someone again for their "real" opinion. Step back for a minute, doesn't that just not seem right?

I mean an authenticator gets paid by the auction house to authenticate something with an auction LOA, and basically they are saying this piece of paper means nothing until whoever buys it from the auction house gets it "upgraded" to a "real" LOA. Meanwhile the auction house is marketing the item as real because it has the "approval" of the alphabet boys and the alphabet boys get paid twice!

Doesn't this almost seem like a conflict of interest? The authenticator takes money out of his pocket and the auction house's pocket if he doesn't pass stuff. If you ask me, the auction houses and the authenticators are greedy because I don't believe most auction houses are holding these authenticators responsible for this garbage. Why? because they are getting paid by people who eat this garbage up in their auctions. Meanwhile, the alphabet boys get paid twice and smile all the way to the bank!

It is my belief that if you are paid by someone to authenticate something, you take your time and do it right the first time and charge what you are going to charge. I have seen to many cases where something got an auction LOA when it was obvious it wasn't even looked at by anyone who was knowledgeable about autographs

[Caseyatbat]

Rick, what exactly is the reason you are "attacking" me? It seems it is my age for some reason? or possibly because I did not agree with everybody else about this issue. Either way, not quite sure what your problem is. I am just expressing my opinion after looking at all the evidence that was given in the story. And I gave reasoning behind it, so you either agree or you don't. We are all entitled to our own opinion. In my opinion, auction letters mean close to nothing. they can not be taken seriously. I believe TPA's only charge about 10-20 dollars to do these auction letters, so obviously they are not going to spend much time with each item. Just look at briefly for things that stick out to them, and then they move on. As compared to when they fully authenticate, they typically do a much more thorough examination (especially for higher end items). For instance, here is a yankee team ball on ebay with an auction LOA, http://www.ebay.com/itm/1957-NY-Yank...item1e6a6a3961. In my opinion, that Mantle is a "clubhouse" autograph. But it does not say that in the auction letter description. I am not surprised to see this, it is an auction letter. These are the types of things to be careful of when buying items with auction letters.

And no, I will not "trust you". Why would I do that? That is what scam artists say to me as they are a offering a bogus Babe Ruth autograph for me to buy. I would trust somebody a lot more like Richard who has been in this hobby since the beginning and I know he has lots of experience, which is everything in this hobby.

[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?

[Caseyatbat]

Rick,

What exactly are you referring to when you say that? That I am playing stupid? It is obvious, the story that is being talked about here is about an "auction letter of authenticity". That means the item was only briefly looked at. Maybe even possibly through an image on the computer rather than in person. And images in 1999 were far from what they are today. That means no machinery was used for this "quick opinion" such as that crazy machine he has available when items are fully authenticated. In fact, since this item was sold by the same auction house twice, this item probably never was fully authenticated. Rather, auction LOA's both times. Which would mean Spence did not take pictures of the item for his exemplars or to put in the letter. So in that case, he would not have pictures on hand from the first time he authenticated that item in 99.

What is stupid is buying an item for 20K based solely on an auction letter. An auction letter is in now way a guarantee it will pass a full authentication process. More like the 7 dollar PSA quick opinion offered on ebay, in a fancier form. So tell me Rick, what exactly is your argument here? I am not playing the "honest guy", rather I am pointing out things from this article that do not add up and people may not be aware of.