The Importance of Context in Autograph Authentication: The Case of Roy Foster, Jr.

[sreader3]

Professional autograph authenticators typically render their good/bad decisions by looking within the “four corners” of the item in front of them; they do not consider outside context. This comports with their business models that prize efficiency—and usually works fine. An autograph authenticator can often tell if a signature is real by comparing it against “on file” exemplars, so-called “signature-matching,” and further determining that the pen and substrate of the sample were in use at the time the signature was penned.

But that approach doesn’t always work. Consider the case of Roy Foster, Jr. Some of you may remember Mr. Foster. I pulled his card from a Topps pack in 1971 and while I am getting old, I am not yet ancient. In 1970, Roy Foster, Jr. was a budding star outfielder for the Cleveland Indians. He had 23 home runs and a .824 OPS his rookie season. He polled second behind only the legendary Thurman Munson in the A.L. Rookie of the Year vote and was featured on his 1971 Topps card with one of those cool rookie all-star trophies. From there his MLB career went mostly downhill and he retired after the 1972 season.

Mr. Foster suffered a stroke in the mid-2000s and died of complications from that stroke in March 2008. He was not much of a signer at any point in his life. There are not too many examples of his pre-stroke or post-stroke signature around. But, seemingly, Mr. Foster’s pre-stroke signature (which is present in facsimile form on his 1971 Topps card) is the metric that today’s professional autograph authenticators use to determine whether a submitted signature is authentic—they compare the signature on the item to their “on file” pre-stroke signature exemplars. In doing so, they ignore the context of Mr. Foster’s life, namely, the stroke that he suffered in the mid-2000s which radically changed his signature.

My post-stroke 1972 Topps Roy Foster, Jr. autograph was rejected recently by both PSA and Beckett authentication. Yet I have little doubt that it is good. I know this from talking to advanced collectors and doing some Internet research. I discovered images on the Internet of several of Mr. Foster’s post-stroke signatures that match the one on my ’72 Topps. Digging deeper, I contacted the fans/collectors who posted these images and learned their stories of how they acquired those signatures through-the-mail after Mr. Foster suffered a stroke—one even telling me how he sent Mr. Foster a get well card after the incident and how Mr. Foster’s caretaker sent him a note lamenting that Mr. Foster was sorry that the inelegant autograph was “the best that he could do."

My point here is not to bash professional autograph authenticators. I think they are pretty good at what they do: signature-matching. However, they are deficient in that they do not take context into account, which is necessary to render an accurate opinion when, as all too often, their signature databases are wanting.

My Signed 1972 Topps Roy Foster, Jr. for comparison with

https://www.baseball-almanac.com/pla...hp?p=fostero01

and

http://sportsgraphs.com/royfoster.jpg

[theshleps]

I think in general they do a good job especially the ones who have been in the business for many decades. Like you say though they do not know everything. I have some autographs signed in front of me that have been rejected on multiple occasions by PSA and JSA. Looking at my own signature it would be quite hard to authenticate. Some radically changed signatures of people post stroke or post some neurological disease they are aware of and some they are not. Just look at it as a fallible but educated opinion that can always learn more

[dgo71]

Originally Posted by theshleps

Just look at it as a fallible but educated opinion that can always learn more

I agree with that in principle, it's just unfortunate that the prices don't reflect the margin of error. It seems like even very common signatures can see 1000% increase in price once they are slabbed. I realize that's the fault of the secondary market and not the authenticators themselves, but it would be nice if people didn't automatically assume a slab equates to authentic and vice versa. It can be very misleading for new collectors and frustrating for long time collectors who understand the context the OP mentions. I'm quite sure I have dozens of signatures in my collection that were signed right in front of me that would not pass because they are atypical.

[sreader3]

Thanks for those thoughtful responses, with which I agree.

I wonder if one of the TPAs might consider adding an “enhanced authentication” service where the customer could submit extrinsic evidence of authenticity and pay to have it considered. Obviously this would make the most sense for expensive items.

[drcy]

I assume that, as they cannot be 100% accurate, they fall on the side of rejecting authentic autographs over accepting fake.

[sreader3]

Originally Posted by drcy

I assume that, as they cannot be 100% accurate, they fall on the side of rejecting authentic autographs over accepting fake.

Yes, and I get that — although some fakes inevitably slip through.

Also, I am curious what their standard is. If greater than a preponderance of being authentic (50.1% chance), what is it? 75% (clear and convincing)? 99% (beyond a reasonable doubt)?

[mrmopar]

I'll dig out the 71Topps Fosters I have. I am fairly certain they match yours. I didn't look into his life, but remember thinking how childlike his signature looked when I finally found one, not thinking it might have been this instead.

[mrmopar]

Here are my Foster sigs. Looks like one may be pre stroke, although only one really looks a bit shaky. I got all from ebay, so I can't provide any back-up info. I was collecting the trophy set pretty hard and Foster was not easy if I recall. Some or all may have been purchased before he died, but can't be sure of that either. All could even be fake for all i know.

[theshleps]

Originally Posted by sreader3

Yes, and I get that — although some fakes inevitably slip through.

Also, I am curious what their standard is. If greater than a preponderance of being authentic (50.1% chance), what is it? 75% (clear and convincing)? 99% (beyond a reasonable doubt)?

At least as of precovid with PSA the expensive ones needed to be OKed by both Keating and Corcoran. I am not sure on the cheaper ones. To me it seems like it also depends on the company. In my experience PSA is most likely to reject. Than JSA. Beckett most likely to accept.

[sreader3]

Thank you Curt and Michael.

Curt -- Congrats on a legit pre-stroke Foster and three legit post-stroke Fosters (at least as far as my non-"expert" eye can tell)! Very nice -- although I wouldn't bother submitting the post-stroke ones to PSA or Beckett. I also like your "trophy set" collecting meme. I have thought about starting one of those many times!