A Jimmy Spence authentication question.

[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.

[drc]

I think you should first find a mistake in their opinion before criticizing their method at arriving at it. If their opinion of that many signatures is accurate, it's a lot tougher to say their methodology was bad.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by drc

I think you should first find a mistake in their opinion before criticizing their method at arriving at it. If their opinion of that many signatures is accurate, it's tough to argue their methods were wrong-- as their methods led to correct answer.

I am pointing out that their method at arriving at their conclusion does not seem to match the method that they explain they use to arrive at their conclusion as written out on the LOA. that is a huge problem regardless if they ended up getting it right or not.

I said before if they say on their LOA that it is an Letter of provenance instead of a letter of authentication, and they are taking the word of someone that the lesser known players signed the piece and they put that on the Letter of provenance, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all as it is truth in advertising.

If they promise a process to authenticate the autographs, shouldn't they be held accountable to that process? That's what you bargained for. Otherwise they could state on their LOA that they arrive at their conclusion anyway they want to and trust them, they will get it right. but they don't say that. You want the autographs authenticated, don't you? Authenticated means inspected.

Otherwise it's the trust game.

I never said they got the piece wrong, I said how can they authenticate according to their process that they promise with over 150 signatures on this piece? And shouldn't they have to do what they promise? Otherwise an LOA with a promise that doesn't get followed is what?


Integrity of the process is no big deal if it happens to turn out okay anyway? That's an incredible statement.

Take the safety guide off of a power saw for ease of operation and if you didn't chop off any hands today, you can't argue with that decision to forego the safety process which is suppose to ensure everything goes right because it's the end result that matters. And today everyone came out alive, so let's keep doing that. And if someone criticizes that decision, tell them to point to an amputee in the shop before their criticisms can have any weight?


Pay the post office for registered, insured mail, for a very important piece you are sending, and if they turn around and send it just regular mail, and it still gets there, would you be happy at how they sent it vs. how they said they were going to send it and the process you paid for vs. the process you got?

Still got there, so how can you be mad if you paid for registered and insured like they promised? Still got there. They got it there. They got the desired result for you. What's the problem? You have no right to complain and expect them to follow the procedures they advertised they will use to move your piece of mail. After all, who are you? Only the paying customer. If it still got there, then no problem, But keep paying for the registered and insured route like they promise.

See how that works?

[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

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by ibuysportsephemera

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

You had a chance to post any statement I have made DEFENDING Morales.
You posted nothing.

Guess I have never defended Morales then.


My question which hasnt been answered by anyone yet, is why are their sacred cows? Why would Spence be above criticism? Why are people scared? I could say the absence of most people posting and saying this type of practice of authenticating 150 plus signatures wouldn't be kosher would be a defense of Spence. Well if you are defending Spence, then DEFEND him! Just like if I wanted to defend Morales, I would. I don't see anything.

I have never called Spence scum, and idiot, a criminal, etc. yet when I bring up valid criticism, not just name calling, it's "Bashing". Go start a Morales thread, I don't mind.


I assume people don't want to wade into the debate when it concerns JSA or PSA, and that's fine, and I make no assumptions if they are for/against someone or their practices of authentication when they make no statement, because I am fair when I assess people's views. You know I am critical of Spence and PSA, and you don't like it, so you have to change the debate, and change it quick to something else, because criticism of JSA or PSA just cannot be tolerated.

Look for anything I have said that calls psa or jsa names on a personal level, then look at my criticism, then look if the criticism is valid. You would think I shot Santa Claus on how some react negatively to VALID criticism (and most of the time they cannot defend the practices, but dislike me for pointing it out, why?) but most say nothing, But I don't castigate them for saying nothing. It's everyone's right, and when the day comes when we have to read off a prepared sheet in order to comply with the law, would be a sad day in America indeed.

[steve B]

I would only assume that they only looked at the names listed on the LOA.

Steve B

As an aside, if the brazilian wood on that guitar is rosewood it's big trouble. (Endangered species)

Second aside - My saw has none of the factory safety guides. Quite honestly of the three it came with one damaged the work, and the other two were so poorly made as to be less safe than no guard at all. I add safeties as needed and work carefuly.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by steve B

I would only assume that they only looked at the names listed on the LOA.

Steve B

As an aside, if the brazilian wood on that guitar is rosewood it's big trouble. (Endangered species)

Second aside - My saw has none of the factory safety guides. Quite honestly of the three it came with one damaged the work, and the other two were so poorly made as to be less safe than no guard at all. I add safeties as needed and work carefuly.

And if they did only look at those names, it's cool, but they should just say so, not that they looked at them all.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Originally Posted by travrosty

You had a chance to post any statement I have made DEFENDING Morales.
You posted nothing.

Guess I have never defended Morales then.


My question which hasnt been answered by anyone yet, is why are their sacred cows? Why would Spence be above criticism? Why are people scared? I could say the absence of most people posting and saying this type of practice of authenticating 150 plus signatures wouldn't be kosher would be a defense of Spence. Well if you are defending Spence, then DEFEND him! Just like if I wanted to defend Morales, I would. I don't see anything.

I have never called Spence scum, and idiot, a criminal, etc. yet when I bring up valid criticism, not just name calling, it's "Bashing". Go start a Morales thread, I don't mind.


I assume people don't want to wade into the debate when it concerns JSA or PSA, and that's fine, and I make no assumptions if they are for/against someone or their practices of authentication when they make no statement, because I am fair when I assess people's views. You know I am critical of Spence and PSA, and you don't like it, so you have to change the debate, and change it quick to something else, because criticism of JSA or PSA just cannot be tolerated.

Look for anything I have said that calls psa or jsa names on a personal level, then look at my criticism, then look if the criticism is valid. You would think I shot Santa Claus on how some react negatively to VALID criticism (and most of the time they cannot defend the practices, but dislike me for pointing it out, why?) but most say nothing, But I don't castigate them for saying nothing. It's everyone's right, and when the day comes when we have to read off a prepared sheet in order to comply with the law, would be a sad day in America indeed.

It's simple...you pull examples from Spence and question their authentication. You started this thread and mentioned Spence and Morales together in the original post. That is why I questioned you. I know next to nothing about autographs compared to you guys, but I can go on CC every month and pull multiple items that Morales has lent his name to that are questionable. Why haven't you ever started a thread critical of Morales? That is my only question.

Jeff

[thetruthisoutthere]

Travis has every right to post here just like the rest of us do. If he wants to question a JSA certed item, that's his right. If he wants to criticize JSA's method of authenticating the above item, that's his choice. If Travis can't criticize Chris Morales, that's up to him.

But recently Travis said (paraphrasing) that Todd Mueller is the top expert when it comes to authenticating autographs. Now keep in mind, that Travis is criticizing JSA for certing the above Negro League “Baseball’s Greatest on the Field” 22” x 24” Framed Print Signed by (150+) Negro League Hall of Famers and Greats.

But yet his top expert of choice, Todd Mueller, certed and sold the below horrific Derek Jeter forgery. This isn't a piece that contains 100+ signatures, but a piece that contains one autograph of Derek Jeter. Tell us, Travis, how did your authenticator of choice get this Jeter wrong? After all, Travis, Mr. Mueller only had one signature to examine, not 150 signatures.

MuellerJeterForgeryPathetic.jpg