Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DB on May 18, 2012 at 3:05pm

Ed - PSA & JSA are pretty good at sports and last I knew Ruth falls in that category.  Simon as I have heard can also hold his own and there are at times disputes over exemplars.  Having said that - all 3 have made errors and I suspect will do so into the future.  When there is a dispute, provenance especially when it comes to deceased (& sometimes living) can become a differential.

Once again, it would be nice to see what is being discussed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on May 17, 2012 at 11:27am

I personally would not question a Ruth authenticated by Richard Simon

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 17, 2012 at 11:47am

Thanks for your input. Keep in mind that I am not questioning the legitimacy of the autograph as I fully believe it to be authentic but it has been turned down by one of  the major authentication companies through an auction house.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 17, 2012 at 1:14pm

The Babe was turned down by one authenticator through an auction house? That's a different situation—I thought your client submitted it. Depending on the auction house, there's a good chance the authenticator didn't look at the autograph in person. Most forgeries are obvious enough that it's unnecessary to have them in your hands tell that they're bad. But a small percentage need to be seen in person, and barring that, the authenticator may lean conservatively.

No matter who authenticated it, if there's a question among legitimate authenticators, I'd clear it up before you sold it again.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 17, 2012 at 2:59pm

Actually, it was rejected by the auction house first and they told my buyer they sent it to PSA/DNA and they also rejected it. I have the original email from them stating that fact but obviously  there is no guarantee they actually sent it off if they were not comfortable with it. I asked my buyer for the actual rejection letter so we will see if I get it with the return.

I fully agree with Steve that JSA and PSA/DNA are not clowns and have helped this hobby tremendously. I will not put my experience and knowledge in their class but they have asked me in the past about the provenance on an item and in my opinion that is none of their business. They should make their decision solely on their knowledge, exemplars, and experience. That is what we are paying for.

We know from the 500 home run sheet from Barry Halper's collection that even the best authenticators, and I consider Mike Guiterrez to be one of them, make mistakes when they take someone's word over what they see. Barry said he got Ruth and Foxx in person on that sheet and he had the most extensive collection in baseball so why wouldn't even the best authenticator take his word for it over what the signatures revealed. It is now pretty much 100% conclusive that either Halper forgot the origin which I guess is barely possible or he just fabricated the story. My point is that the supposed provenance to Halper's home run sheet cost someone $58,000 and my guess is that they never recouped a penny once it was widely recognized to be a fake because Sotheby's guarantee was up well before it became widely accepted that the Ruth and Foxx were forgeries. The only loser in this scenario was the collector who purchased the piece based on an expert's opinion.

My problem with most of the authenticators from time to time is they do may mistakes as everyone does but they will rarely admit to mistakes. My respect, although already high particularly for Jimmy Spence and Steve Grad, would be higher if they just said ocassionally that they made a mistake.  However, they can't because then they would lose credibility and eventually business. Having said that, I still agree with their opinions most of the time and there is no doubt they have helped the hobby.

I just think collectors must realize that they are not always right and there are many other very knowledgeable autograph experts that are just not as well known as the "Big 2."

Bottom line is if you are buying for your collection, use your own knowledge and your most trustworthy expert and then enjoy your item. That is the beauty of collecting.

If you are buying for resale, buy JSA or PSA/DNA certified material and at least it will be widely accepted as real whether it is or not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 17, 2012 at 4:28pm

I did not state that exactly as I meant it to be. Most(probably 90% or above) of the autographs authenticated by JSA or PSA/DNA are likely genuine. In the old days, every dealer just put his own COA on what he sold and collectors believed the items were real. In those days, the real ones were probably less than 50%, likely even much less than that. So, we have come a long ways since Operation Foul Ball. I bought many Mantle, Dimaggio, and Williams autographs with the bogus forensic documents in the old days. I ate thousands of dollars in the learning experience but I know now it was my own fault and nobody else's. Collectors today are doing the same thing but the difference is that today's widely accepted authenticators are not likely to be part of the next Operation Foul Ball. They will continue to make some mistakes which will always be magnified but it will be just that, mistakes, rather than thievery. The old days represented the worst of the hobby. The progression has been great. Certainly, I don't like it when they disagree with me or another widely regarded authenticator, but it is just their opinion and their LOA clearly states that fact. There are collectors out there like you who would trust my authenticator's LOA over the widely recognized ones and that is fine. It is however easier to sell an autograph with the widely regarded ones simply because they become completely liquid if you ever need to sell them. Even collectors sometimes have to part with items for financial reasons and liquidity is important in those situations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Travis Christenberry on May 17, 2012 at 5:20pm

90% would be pretty pathetic actually. Imagine 10 out of 100 authenticated Michael Jackson 8x10's (valued at around $700) being forgeries. That would be awful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 31, 2012 at 11:11am

Randy, I think you're spot-on except for one thing. Provenance is important in authentication...but it's often not available. Not which independent authenticator previously certified it, but a piece's ownership history, especially how far back you can solidly trace evidence of its existence.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 17, 2012 at 1:19pm

Even the best people make mistakes. No one channels God's knowledge of everything...no matter what their marketing materials say. :) 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chad B on May 17, 2012 at 11:36am

Do you want to post an image of it? That might be helpful.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on May 17, 2012 at 11:46am

Do not currently have an image because the item has not been received as a return yet.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Travis Christenberry on May 17, 2012 at 5:53pm

I remember Harry. And yes they looked terrible.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page