A Jimmy Spence authentication question.

[travrosty]

Being in the authentication field myself at least as a hobby and on a non paid basis, I wonder how the paid authenticators such as Jimmy Spence can authenticate a litho such as this which has been signed by over 150 Negro League players.

http://www.premierauctionsonline.com...rchvalue=negro

Going by the standard on which these authenticators claim to operate, it would seem they would have to authenticate a signed litho like this using:

1. Multiple exemplars for all 150+ signatures, many of which are more obscure, non household name Negro League players.

2. Examine - the flow slant, pen pressure, letter size and formation of all 150+ men. (Is anyone familiar with the letter size, pen pressure of most of these players without spending some quality time looking at the multiple exemplars they claim to use on each autograph?)

3. At least a few to several minutes if not more per autograph, that is after identifying some of the signatures, which would take more than a moment on some of these if not most, matching them up to the multiple exemplars per player, and physically keeping track of the ones you already authenticated so you don't miss any. Wouldn't that add up to more than several hours if not a couple of days to authenticate just this one litho?

If that is the case, going by Spence's rate of presumably a couple thousand dollars for a days work authenticating for dealers or auction houses, wouldn't it make an authentication like this very cost prohibited making the authentication more costly than the item may be worth?

If this is a litho that was signed in bulk, and the person submitting the stack of lithos would have got them all certed, with the first one taking the time to be authenticated, and the rest getting the LOA based on the first one (remember, this is not touted as an in-the-presence wittnessed item), would JSA still have to cross check all the signatures from one litho to another to make sure that all 150+ signatures were the same ones and are present on all the lithos and that no extra signatures were squeezed in on the subsequent lithos that weren't on the one they painstakingly examined? Wouldn't that take a long time to cross check each one from the 'control' litho to the other ones if indeed there were more than one submitted?

If this was just a single that they certed, and there was not a stack of subsequent similarly signed lithos, then we can assume that Spence identified each one, even the sloppy signed ones, many who are not household names, used multiple exemplars for each of the 150+ signatures, checked for flow,slant, pen pressure, size and formation for each one, spend several, several hours doing such and evidently charging a fee that was not more than the signed litho could be worth or fetch at auction?

Got it, it had to be done this way, right? As this is the proper and thorough way of doing it. I would like JSA to come on here and explain just exactly how they certed this 150 players signed item - where the examplars are and the number of hours it took and the fee, since it seems to be a monumental task that would preclude the formal authentication process as a viable vehicle based on time and monetary considerations.

I have heard in the past how Christopher Morales has certed an item with 100 plus signatures on one item, and people have blasted him, (and maybe rightfully so) on how he can use his forensic abilities to spend hours upon hours it must have taken painstakingly examining the signatures and not charge the thousands upon thousands of dollars it must have cost in his time and labor doing so. I am just wondering where those people are and if they don't question Mr. Spence in the same way, and if not, why not?

Is Spence above questioning in the same way other examiners are questioned when certing an item with well over 100+ signatures? We ask for Morales' examplars, but we don't ask for Spence's, why not? Why aren't we asking James Spence how long he took to examine these 150+ autographs and at what cost like we rightfully question Chris Morales when he examines a multi-dozen autographed piece? Why are some authenticators not to be mentioned or confronted?

Why are there sacred cows?

If I were examining this piece, I would have had to tell the submitter.

1. I will have to spend a considerable time identifying all the 150+ signatures. This will take quite awhile and a considerable charge just to do this. Unless they could identify them ahead of time for me and provide me with a key, but I would still have to take considerable time to cross check each one to make sure before I even began the actual authentication process.

2. I would have to have solid exemplars of all 150 negro leaguers in my exemplar files. If I don't, I would have to take considerable time to search other collectors, dealers, and online to find such exemplars. There may still be some that I would not have exemplars for.

3. I would then have to start the actual authentication process for each signature. Checking the formation, slant, flow, etc. to make sure each signature is legitimate. This would take many, many, many hours to do this.

4. I would then list on my COA exactly how many signatures were on the signed litho, how many I could authenticate, and how many I could not, and the names of the players that I authenticated, the names of those I could not authenticate, and any others that I couldn't identify. This is to make sure no one could fraudulently squeeze in a name of one or several negro leaguer in the future thus adding money to the piece, especially if the player's signature was rare and valuable. (The JSA LOA just lists 150+ autographs, not the exact number, and only lists a few of the most famous players, not every one.)

5. If the lithos were a stack of lithos all signed at the same private signing or show, (this was presumably a negro league reunion), and they wanted them all certed, (I am not claiming this is the case, but if it were), I would still have to perform steps 1-4 on at least one of the lithos, even if the submitter said he was at the show and had all the players sign them and who would fake these signatures? (We know where that road leads, don't we?) It's autograph authentication, not autograph trusting.

Then I would have to compare each and every signature on that litho to the other signed lithos, keeping track of all the autographs, noting any additions or substractions in the number of signatures on each subsequent litho and noting any anomolies and creating a separate LOA for each litho listing each players signature.

Even if there were no additions and subtractions and each litho was signed in the same spot by the same player on each one and the autographs matched up beautifully to the one I had already authenticated, I would still have to go through each signature and match them up and keep track.

This would take considerable time, especially if the number of lithos signed were of a large number. Not doing this is authenticating the provenance, or taking someone's word that all the lithos are the same, and it is not authenticating autographs, it is doing something else in my opinion, and not following the procedures that even these authenticators list as what they are paid to do. I take JSA at their word that they look at EACH autograph on EACH piece, even if they are the same, signed as duplicates en masse at a private signing or show, and look at slant, flow, pen pressure, letter sizing, and formation of EACH individual autograph as their LOA for each piece states.

5. Even if the signed litho is a single and they didn't submit any more, (like I assume is what happened with the submitter to JSA, but I don't know for sure as I couldn't find any evidence otherwise,) steps one through four would take many, many, many hours at considerable expense and I would have to bill them for my time to properly authenticate the lithograph. They would have to decide if such a time consuming project with a hefty price tag would be worth it. Multiple signed pieces, even signed exactly the same, would seemingly have a monumental fee attached to it if it were properly authenticated cross checking each autograph.


Someone tell me if what I have described is overkill, or if it is the way the hobby should expect for a thorough examination of such a piece as is stated on a JSA LOA.

I assume by how they describe their authentication process that they did it this way, proper and thorough. But I would still like to see their examplars for all these autographs and find out just exactly how long it took to authenticate and at what cost for this monster of a piece.

I would like your thoughts -

[drc]

Perhaps there was supporting strong documentation, such as demonstrating that it was signed at show or reunion.

[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

[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.