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

[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!

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[thetruthisoutthere]

Travis, what method did Mr. Mueller use to authenticate the below Sandy Koufax pathetic forgery?

After all, Travis, it's only one signature, not 150 signatures.

[travrosty]

Here we go again. deflect, change the subject, because there is no defense for the item I have shown. typical.

Mr. Mueller can answer for himself, he has put forth an authentication challenge publicly to anyone with no takers.

Spence must not have anybody willing to defend what he does when no one speaks up for him except to accuse me of something. Then they just bring up someone else like morales, mueller, someone else and claim i 'attack' spence or 'attack' the tpa's. Just go start a morales, or a mueller thread if you want. But this spence thread has more than made its point when inevitably, people try to derail the topic at hand with other diversions. happens every time.

I saw a cc thread recently when cc and morales were lambasted, items from their auction shown and name calling began. i dont care but notice no one came online and tried to steer the topic to someone else. no one defended cc or morales by saying, well, what about this other guy, lets look at him, dont talk about cc or morales, this other guy over here did this, and so forth.

But we constantly get that here when the sacred cows of spence, jsa, grad, psa come up. they cant debate the facts or choose not to, so let's switch the topic.

It is an abbot and costello routine every time, but instead of saying "i don't know" which is instantly followed by "third base", it is the word spence, or psa, instantly followed by someone yelling "Morales".

Third party authentication companies don't mind a bogeyman, so they can claim that the hobby really needs them to save collectors from these bogeymen. It gives them a reason for being. Find a monster and then tout yourself as the white knight coming to save the day. No one ever questions the white knight when there is a monster around. When the monster is sick, the white knight might get nervous as no one needs a knight without the dragon.

The case of the disappearing wagner autograph certed by spence was one of the biggest stories i have ever seen regarding authentication, and the rug sweeping began. Where was everybody?

Notice no one on this board that I am aware of has any morales certed items at home. but do they have spence and grad certs? wonder why they won't say anything to critique them? maybe they have a vested interest in the certs they have at home and want to protect them? Not everyone is like this but some are. When GAI was equal to PSA I bet no one would criticize them out of fear also, but when they declared bankruptcy, their certs plunged in credibility, and everyone piled on because there was no more intimidation factor or backlash for speaking out. They were fair game. No downside to criticizing them. Now people with a collection stockpiled with psa or jsa's certs don't want the GAI phenomenon to happen to them. And some people have thousands and thousands of items certed by psa or jsa. Quite the incentive to slap down someone like me for speaking out at basic issues making valid points.

For full disclosure I don't have Morales, JSA or PSA certed items. I do my own homework and if something I buy has a cert, I simply place it in the wastebasket since they don't guarantee their opinion. When someone guarantees their opinion, I will keep the cert because it's then a warranty.

I have always said, I have never been against the concept of third party authentication, I just don't like the way it is being done now and can't endorse the current system of what I consider fast food authentication and no guaranteed opinions.

Mueller is not a TPA. But his opinion is valued by myself. If Spence of Grad's is valued by others, that's great, it's a free country.

[David Atkatz]

Travis, too many people are too heavily invested in the alphabet guys' product. They have no trust in their collections beyond that instilled by the CoAs. To admit that JSA and PSA suck is to begin to doubt their own holdings, and that's not going to happen.

PS: Chris, whatever would you do if you lost the ability to take screenshots?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Here we go again. deflect, change the subject, because there is no defense for the item I have shown. typical.

Mr. Mueller can answer for himself, he has put forth an authentication challenge publicly to anyone with no takers.

Spence must not have anybody willing to defend what he does when no one speaks up for him except to accuse me of something. Then they just bring up someone else like morales, mueller, someone else and claim i 'attack' spence or 'attack' the tpa's. Just go start a morales, or a mueller thread if you want. But this spence thread has more than made its point when inevitably, people try to derail the topic at hand with other diversions. happens every time.

I saw a cc thread recently when cc and morales were lambasted, items from their auction shown and name calling began. i dont care but notice no one came online and tried to steer the topic to someone else. no one defended cc or morales by saying, well, what about this other guy, lets look at him, dont talk about cc or morales, this other guy over here did this, and so forth.

But we constantly get that here when the sacred cows of spence, jsa, grad, psa come up. they cant debate the facts or choose not to, so let's switch the topic.

It is an abbot and costello routine every time, but instead of saying "i don't know" which is instantly followed by "third base", it is the word spence, or psa, instantly followed by someone yelling "Morales".

Third party authentication companies don't mind a bogeyman, so they can claim that the hobby really needs them to save collectors from these bogeymen. It gives them a reason for being. Find a monster and then tout yourself as the white knight coming to save the day. No one ever questions the white knight when there is a monster around. When the monster is sick, the white knight might get nervous as no one needs a knight without the dragon.

The case of the disappearing wagner autograph certed by spence was one of the biggest stories i have ever seen regarding authentication, and the rug sweeping began. Where was everybody?

Notice no one on this board that I am aware of has any morales certed items at home. but do they have spence and grad certs? wonder why they won't say anything to critique them? maybe they have a vested interest in the certs they have at home and want to protect them? Not everyone is like this but some are. When GAI was equal to PSA I bet no one would criticize them out of fear also, but when they declared bankruptcy, their certs plunged in credibility, and everyone piled on because there was no more intimidation factor or backlash for speaking out. They were fair game. No downside to criticizing them. Now people with a collection stockpiled with psa or jsa's certs don't want the GAI phenomenon to happen to them. And some people have thousands and thousands of items certed by psa or jsa. Quite the incentive to slap down someone like me for speaking out at basic issues making valid points.

For full disclosure I don't have Morales, JSA or PSA certed items. I do my own homework and if something I buy has a cert, I simply place it in the wastebasket since they don't guarantee their opinion. When someone guarantees their opinion, I will keep the cert because it's then a warranty.

I have always said, I have never been against the concept of third party authentication, I just don't like the way it is being done now and can't endorse the current system of what I consider fast food authentication and no guaranteed opinions.

Mueller is not a TPA. But his opinion is valued by myself. If Spence of Grad's is valued by others, that's great, it's a free country.

I'm not deflecting anything, Travis. I wasn't there when JSA examined that particular item but I'm sure after looking at literally thousands of autographs (both good and bad) over the years you don't always have to examine certain autographs for a long length of time to determine authenticity.

That Jeter forgery certed and sold by Todd Mueller Autographs was determined by me to be a 100% forgery in one second. All I asked was how your expert Todd Mueller determined that one Derek Jeter signature (not 150) to be authentic? Maybe someone here other than you, Travis, can answer that question.

Travis, you question JSA certing that 150 signature item. My parallel question is how Todd Mueller certed that single (not 150) Derek Jeter pathetic forgery?

Travis, you want to attack JSA that is your right here on Net54. You want to attack and bash PSA; you have that right, too. You have your agenda, Travis, and I have mine. You want to attack a company that gets it right 95% (probably higher in my opinion) that's your right, Travis. Then I will defend that company that gets it right 95% of the time and I will attack someone like Chris Morales, Forensic Investigator, whose certed autographs I have looked at for a long, long time and have yet to see one autograph that he actually got right.

You praise Drew Max for getting that Joe Louis signed bell examination correct on the Pawn Stars show, but not a peep from you about Drew Max getting the FDR Letter To Clergy wrong on the Pawn Stars show. You bash John Reznikoff for mis-identifying that Al Pacino signature, but not a word from you about Drew Max and that Bram Stoker signed Dracula book debacle on the Pawn Stars show.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Travis, since you're so intent on continuing your PSA and JSA bashing, I will ask you to do the following. Go on Ebay and find some of the PSA/JSA certed Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Mickey Mantle autographs that PSA and JSA got wrong and post them here. Post them here with screen shots along with your comments that PSA & JSA got them wrong. Just like I do with the Chris Morales, Drew Max, Ted Taylor and Todd Mueller certed autographs that I call out.

And you can't write that ABC and XYZ "got this and that wrong." I want you, Travis Roste to post screen shots, photos and your comments.

[travrosty]

It was a purported sonny liston signed bell and i made the comment that max got that one right by declaring it a fake. that was factual.

As far as all these other demands. I don't have to prove myself to anyone.

And as far as babe ruth is concerned. If you look at ALL the babe ruth signed items that they (abc, xyz) have ever certed both on ebay and at all the auction houses (and that's a heck of an undertaking but one I have done), you will quickly be able to determine that Babe Ruth is a lost cause as far as their ability to correctly identify Ruth.

The Christmas tree lights on that one have bunched up to a Clark Griswaldian ball so messed up that unraveling it is nearly hopeless. I would trust Ron K. on Ruth before anyone else, especially the big TPA's that don't guarantee their opinion. It's messed up.

You go play with Drew Max, and Morales, etc. I just don't need to spend my time on them. If they are a known quantity, (which they seem to be for everyone here), then mission accomplished.

Are you sure it's 95%, not 99% like Orlando, Cyrkin, others will state, or even 99.9% like John R. states? I really wish we could straighten out the % so the people following the script could get it synced up with each other.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It was a purported sonny liston signed bell and i made the comment that max got that one right by declaring it a fake. that was factual.

As far as all these other demands. I don't have to prove myself to anyone.

And as far as babe ruth is concerned. If you look at ALL the babe ruth signed items that they (abc, xyz) have ever certed both on ebay and at all the auction houses (and that's a heck of an undertaking but one I have done), you will quickly be able to determine that Babe Ruth is a lost cause as far as their ability to correctly identify Ruth.

The Christmas tree lights on that one have bunched up to a Clark Griswaldian ball so messed up that unraveling it is nearly hopeless. I would trust Ron K. on Ruth before anyone else, especially the big TPA's that don't guarantee their opinion. It's messed up.

You go play with Drew Max, and Morales, etc. I just don't need to spend my time on them. If they are a known quantity, (which they seem to be for everyone here), then mission accomplished.

Are you sure it's 95%, not 99% like Orlando, Cyrkin, others will state, or even 99.9% like John R. states? I really wish we could straighten out the % so the people following the script could get it synced up with each other.

That's exactly what I thought you would write, Travis.

You see Travis can't criticize Chris Morales and Drew Max. He's not allowed to. Imagine claiming to be "for the hobby" but not a word criticizing Chris Morales and Drew Max.

Travis "did his job" commending Drew Max and that Sonny Liston item that Drew Max examined, but Travis "can't do his" job criticizing Drew Max and the FDR Letter to Clergy. But then Travis "did do his job" when he joined in the bashing of John Reznikoff.

Travis, you just wrote "And as far as babe ruth is concerned. If you look at ALL the babe ruth signed items that they (abc, xyz) have ever certed both on ebay and at all the auction houses (and that's a heck of an undertaking but one I have done), you will quickly be able to determine that Babe Ruth is a lost cause as far as their ability to correctly identify Ruth."

Prove it. And not with that ABC and XYZ crap. You see Travis uses that ABC and XYZ crap because he knows that both PSA and JSA watch every word he writes.

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Si...item337254033f

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Si...item337254033f

What about it?

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-AU...item19c0c5e75e

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-AU...item19c0c5e75e

Two nice photos, Travis, but what about them?

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-MI...item58920e5b9f

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Prove it. And not with that ABC and XYZ crap. You see Travis uses that ABC and XYZ crap because he knows that both PSA and JSA watch every word he writes.

Why would Travis--or anyone else for that matter--be afraid of mentioning JSA or PSA by name? What are they gonna do if he mentions them by name? Put out a hit on him?

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-MI...item58920e5b9f

Now it's three nice photos, Travis, but what about them?

[David Atkatz]

"I know you are, but what am I?"--Pee Wee Herman

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Au...item56479fb549

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ty-Cobb-auto...item2a19bb0a8d

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by travrosty

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Au...item56479fb549

Travis, your silence is deafening. Thank you.

[David Atkatz]

Stop being such an infant, Chris. You challenged Travis to go to eBay, and find Ruth items certed by PSA which he thinks are questionable. That's exactly what Travis is doing, and you know that full well.

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Joe-Louis-19...item2a1a7fee70

[travrosty]

a picture is worth 1000 words.

like you, i cant comment on specifics. These are tough, i just cant make a call on them, according to the certs they are 'authentic'.

maybe you should send them to ron k. or haulsofshame for their opinion.

psa and jsa hardly know who i am and they are certainly not hanging on my every word. that's cloak and dagger stuff.

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Si...item19b22ec862

[travrosty]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Si...item1c07e5b8ad

[travrosty]

got to take a break.

[drc]

..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drc

..

...and I trump you with three dots

[drc]

I posted a snide comment about this thread, then felt is wisest to remove it.

[David Atkatz]

How could anyone believe both those (almost identical) "Ruth-signed" napkin pieces are real?