A Jimmy Spence authentication question.

[travrosty]

true, but that is not authenticating autographs, it is accepting the documentation at face value. the LOA claims they authenticated the autographs and the autographs are consistent with slant, size, formation, pen pressure, flow, not that they are consistent with documentation telling them that the autographs were signed at a show and are therefore subsequently real.

There is a big difference between the two, and I don't have a problem with them authenticating paperwork or provenance, if that is what they state on their LOA instead of flow, pen pressure, slant, size, formation, comparing to exemplars they have been exposed to in their professional careers, etc.

Because then it changes from autograph authentication to provenance or paperwork authentication. They charge money to authenticate autographs, not to pass something based on paperwork alone. It would leave the door open for people to gin up some paperwork or show fraudulent documentation to try to get something passed based on that doctored paperwork without having each autograph looked at on their own merits. Something I am not claiming happened here but once someone theoretically goes down that road, a smooth road could get bumpy in a hurry once submitters find out that an authenticator is open to doing it this way.

JSA has a service called the witnessed protection program that they use to authenticate on the spot, witnessing each autograph, that is the only way I know of that they can positively authenticate something without comparing each signature to a known exemplar like they claim on the LOA. They should do what they claim, and I take their LOA's word that they did.

I just don't know how it could make any financial sense for the submitter figuring in how very long it had to take to examine each and every one of the 150+ signatures, identify them and compare them to multiple exemplars like the LOA states, all these signatures of which they had in their exemplar files or had access to others' files. I hope JSA has an incredible Negro League exemplar file. Kudos if they do. But why don't they list all the signatures on the LOA and the exact number of signatures as a tamper-resistant measure?

[Bilko G]

there is no way they authenticate every single signatures flow, pen pressue, slant, size, formation etc.

I would imagine they probably authenticate maybe the 10 most known autos and and if they pass assume the rest are authentic as well.


Also like DRC mentions, he probably had some documentation to go with some of the sigs as well and maybe he had many pictures of the different Negro Leaguers signing this piece. Like i already stated, i highly doubt each auto is authenticated personally.

[ibuysportsephemera]

While your point seems valid, this is not the first time you have written a thinly veiled attack on Spence while mentioning Morales. I sometimes wonder what your real purpose of doing this is? I don't think that any of the authenticators always get it right and I don't personally collect autographs, so I don't have any horse in this race. However, as long as Morales is associated with the crap that is put out by Coaches Corner, he shouldn't even be mentioned in a post with Spence. Just my 2¢.

Jeff

[earlywynnfan]

Does anyone think it was actually taken out of the frame?

Ken

[GrayGhost]

I can't disagree w Trav's constant attacks on JSA, meaning that he is taking every chance to attack them. His novella here on the Negro league print makes a LOT of sense, as does his statement of taking LOA's at "face value". But, constantly pointing out weaknesses in JSA or anyone else just seems like whining at times.

I would overall still take JSA or PSA , or Richard Simon, Stinson, or someone like that over Drew Mucks, Preddy, or Moorales any time. Yes, it is because of "reputation and advertising" to a large degree. In the end, I still feel they get more right by a LARGE PCTG than the FDA's I named.

In the end tho, if not comftorable w the Alphabet guys, Richard, Stinson or FDA's opinions, then do NOT buy the item, WITHOUT researching the signature(s) if possible. This part of the Hobby has taken a HUGE hit lately, and its now time for the COLLECTOR and HONEST DEALER to start being more proactive and less reactive to someone else's opinions

Scott Roberts

[frankbmd]

Spence's letter lists Jetroe as a key.

I thought it was Jethroe. Is there an h is his exemplar?

Whose proofreading at JSA? I guess they don't have time.

I spent 2 minutes searching for Jetroe and came up with the following link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNl3_ncbdzU

The guy seems to be pleasing his audience, but I'm not sure why.

[murphusa]

as Kevin Keating has done alot of work with Negro League players, his letter would be my choice for this piece

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I can't disagree w Trav's constant attacks on JSA, meaning that he is taking every chance to attack them. His novella here on the Negro league print makes a LOT of sense, as does his statement of taking LOA's at "face value". But, constantly pointing out weaknesses in JSA or anyone else just seems like whining at times.

I would overall still take JSA or PSA , or Richard Simon, Stinson, or someone like that over Drew Mucks, Preddy, or Moorales any time. Yes, it is because of "reputation and advertising" to a large degree. In the end, I still feel they get more right by a LARGE PCTG than the FDA's I named.

In the end tho, if not comftorable w the Alphabet guys, Richard, Stinson or FDA's opinions, then do NOT buy the item, WITHOUT researching the signature(s) if possible. This part of the Hobby has taken a HUGE hit lately, and its now time for the COLLECTOR and HONEST DEALER to start being more proactive and less reactive to someone else's opinions

Scott Roberts

Why is it whining? It doesn't have anything to do with being comfortable with them or not, it's about them following the rules and doing what their LOA says it does. Most collectors have no idea if they check every autograph or not. If they aren't, shouldn't people know about it? Why a free pass?

Again, the argument surfaces that someone shouldn't be held to standards as long as they are better than "this guy" over here. As long as there exists this guy over here, the bogeyman, then someone who may be better than him only has to be better, not the best they can be.

Its the old addage, that if we are on a camping trip, it seems futile for me to put on running shoes to outrun a grizzly bear. my response would be that I don't have to outrun the grizzly, I only have to outrun YOU!

[sago]

Regarding OP's thoughts on the Buck Leonard 150 autograph piece, I have some thoughts as well.

It's a limited edition of 1000, but it's not clear if it's a signed edition of 1000.

I would guess that it's a signed edition of 1,000 as the signatures are just too organized. They were probably signed in the same place by each person.

Given that, it was most likely signed at an organized event. Should take about a minute to find a possibility.

http://buckoneil.com/articles/one-la...eball-history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_Awards_%28NLBM%29

Why would anyone want or need JSA, or anyone else for that matter, to provide an additional "opinion", rather than rely on the "fact" of who and who was not there?

BTW, http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Au...item4cfc8db6b0

seems more of a secretarial signature. It's more likely to be an actual game used ball than a signed Ruth.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

While your point seems valid, this is not the first time you have written a thinly veiled attack on Spence while mentioning Morales. I sometimes wonder what your real purpose of doing this is? I don't think that any of the authenticators always get it right and I don't personally collect autographs, so I don't have any horse in this race. However, as long as Morales is associated with the crap that is put out by Coaches Corner, he shouldn't even be mentioned in a post with Spence. Just my 2¢.

Jeff

Why is holding Spence to his word an 'attack' on him? Do you believe he authenticated all 150 signatures on this piece signature by signature? If not, why do you accept the authentication as something that is alright to do, Morales nonwithstanding? You are changing the subject. Like I said, why are there sacred cows? What's everyone afraid of?

I think when people question Morales ability to authenticate 75 items on a piece, wondering how he can authenticate it in a presumably quick turn around timeframe, and for a price that is reasonable, why it is not fair to ask the same question of Spence when this piece is 150 autographs, all of the autographs claimed to be consistent with pen pressure, slant, flow, letter sizing and formation?

Why let Spence slide? That's all I am asking. Should anyone hold him to do what his LOA's claim they are doing?


The funny part about your post is that you say at the beginning, "While your point seems valid" then you totally abandon that point, and it's an important point. Why drop the point when that is the big deal here. Even you agree the point is valid, if the point is valid, then why shy away from asking questions as how this can happen? Why bury it and bring up ME?

Unless you just don't if anyone was to do it this way? It doesn't bother you. What's next? It always no big deal unless it happens to you I suppose.

I didn't authenticate the thing and I never would or could without doing it the way I pointed out it should be done if one wanted to follow the procedures set out in the LOA, that is matching ALL the signatures with exemplars and checking the slant, flow, pen pressure, sizing, and formation. If someone is not doing that, then an LOA is lip service and totally doublespeak with no meaning.

And if that is the case, why is that okay with you? That is the most important question anyone can ask. Why is that okay? I won't get an answer other than, well, he's seems to be better than the other guys. Is that a get out trouble free card?

Go buy a guitar that you like because the wood is from Brazil, pay a bunch of money, bring it home, then find out the wood is from tijuana, and when the person says no big deal, still plays good, do you then say -

'well okay' I won't hold you to what you said in your description.

If it says the autographs have matched exemplars with pen pressure, flow, slant, sizing and formation, then the autographs should do that, and not anything else.

Otherwise a letter of authenticity is really a letter of provenance, taking someone elses word that the players signed it at a show and not knowing it for sure. If one of the players signing had to go to the restroom, and the guy next to him signed his name for awhile, how would you know if you didn't check each autograph but took a guys word for it that the lesser known guys just signed them all so no need to check them out like the bigger names.


IT'S AUTOGRAPH AUTHENTICATION, NOT-

AUTOGRAPH - I TRUST YOU!

I give Spence the benefit of the doubt although I would like to see all 150 plus exemplars for all of these players, a lot of which probably haven't had an item with their signature on it submitted before due to their obscurity, but I can't see how the authenticator could make a business model out of authenticating pieces like this without charging several thousand dollars if indeed they did authenticate it due to how the LOA states they did, something that probably wouldn't make the piece worthwhile to get authenticated. The pieces aren't quite fitting together for me but if Spence can clear it up I would believe him if he said he painstakingly sourced out and checked out each autograph with proper multiple exemplars for each of the 150 negro league players on this piece.

[ibuysportsephemera]

It is clear that you have an agenda with Spence and I could care less. BUT, in many threads you use Spence as a launching pad to somehow defend Morales. That is my whole point, plain and simple. Morales is scum because of his association with Coaches Corner. As I said before...Just my opinion.

Jeff

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

It is clear that you have an agenda with Spence and I could care less. BUT, in many threads you use Spence as a launching pad to somehow defend Morales. That is my whole point, plain and simple. Morales is scum because of his association with Coaches Corner. As I said before...Just my opinion.

Jeff

Jeff, I respect your opinion, but please give me an example of how I 'somehow' defend morales.

Just do a plain cut and paste and put any paragraph of mine you can find anywhere that defends morales either at spence's expense or not. When people say things like that, I expect them to back it up with proof, not just fuzzy memories.

thanks.

[travrosty]

Below is from Spence's website. In the standard authentication process, EACH member of spence's team individually inspects each piece to verify and concur with the other members, and each LETTER that composes each signature is carefully inspected for characteristics.


So seeing as this is a 150 plus signature piece, how long would it take for each member of spence's team to independently review and inspect this piece?

Then they employ a scoring system to figure out if it passes muster. They are scoring 150 plus autographs over several authenticators and it takes how long to do this at what cost?


At the very end they say they have strict examination standards for certification. Good to know for a 150 athlete signed piece.

------------------------------

The Standard Certification Process
Each item is methodically examined and reviewed individually by each of our authenticators to ensure their expert instinctive impressions are in agreement. This intuitive sense has been developed after many years of examining thousands of autographs. The expert is extremely familiar with many different variations and evolution of an individual's signature and can quickly identify irregularities evident in a clubhouse, secretarial, or forged signature.

Second, the expert more closely examines each and every component and letter of an autograph, paying close attention to characteristics such as signature flow, style, spontaneity, letter angle, etc. In most cases, this process performed separately by each authenticator will quickly eliminate the vast majority of non-authenticate autographs. In cases where closer examination is required, James Spence Authentication employs a high-technology authentication tool to reinforce the expert's findings. The Video Spectral Comparator is a powerful workstation designed to examine questionable documents and autographs using sophisticated color and infrared imaging, magnification, coaxial lighting, side lighting, and on-screen, side-by-side or overlaid autograph comparisons. The VSC detects erasures, reveals masked and obliterated signatures, differences in ink types, and several other features useful for autograph forgery detection.

The authenticators then collaborate and employ a scoring system for the final determination of an item's authenticity. Certified items are then given a registration number and the tamper-evident label is applied to either the item itself or the Letter of Authenticity (customer preference). Items that fail our strict examination standards for certification are returned with a failure letter detailing the inconsistencies.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Jeff, I respect your opinion, but please give me an example of how I 'somehow' defend morales.

Just do a plain cut and paste and put any paragraph of mine you can find anywhere that defends morales either at spence's expense or not. When people say things like that, I expect them to back it up with proof, not just fuzzy memories.

thanks.

Travis....this thread... http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=146382

You had the opportunity to denounce Morales and you never did, but you certainly called out all of the alphabet boys. I was glad to see that my memory and impressions were correct.

Jeff