Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy on January 9, 2014 at 3:34pm

You get what you pay for. They cull out blatant forgeries. For $10 that is all you can expect.

No question they are extremely careful not to opine "Likely Genuine" unless they are pretty sure they will pass it on a full inspection. Most of the time they get it right in my opinion although I know they do occasionally make mistakes both ways.

Obviously, this service is mainly for the novice who really knows nothing about the autograph in question.

However, I use it for very expensive unauthenticated items like Ruth or Gehrig just as a backup to my own opinion. If I think it is authentic and for $10 they agree it is "Likely Genuine", it gives me a little more confidence in my own opinion and I generally bid on the item.

If they opine "Likely Not Genuine", I normally pass because even if the item is authentic,  it is a difficult item to sell without a legitimate 3rd party certificate.

I personally think the two major companies, JSA and PSA/DNA have greatly helped the autograph industry. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Darin Harvey on January 9, 2014 at 3:37pm

Disagree...As a collector, its a good thing

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Kaminski on January 9, 2014 at 3:41pm

I think it's a good thing, especially for those collectors that really don't know about a particular signature. It gives them a decent opinion at an O.K. price. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 5:29pm

What tweaks do you think could be beneficial?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Kaminski on January 9, 2014 at 5:32pm

My idea to clean up autographs eBay was for eBay to partner up with an authentication company (preferably the one with the best reputation, likely PSA right now) and for them to check up every autograph that goes up on eBay. It's very unrealistic as it would take tons of people/hours so maybe only doing it for items that have asking prices of $150+ or something would be more viable. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Shepherd on January 9, 2014 at 4:11pm

I believe that it is hurting the hobby...for forgers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 4:38pm

I'm not saying that psa isn't good for the hobby but there are legit examples that are getting a not genuine label.
I know you get what you pay for - that's why I would never do something as big as a babe Ruth auto on quick opinion. I doubt they would ever pass something like that on a quick opinion anyway.
How would you feel if that Ruth went in and got a full jsa letter? A little mad that you missed out.
I think a tweak could be that they have a middle category where they say they are unsure either way.

I also find it interesting that most collectors say that a coa "isn't worth the paper it's printed on" since it's just a persons opinion....but they always want one lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on January 9, 2014 at 5:02pm

They do pass Ruths and Gehrigs on "Quick Opinions" if they are pretty certain they are authentic. Although most unauthenticated Ruths and Gehrigs are forgeries, sometimes you get people who have inherited authentic ones and know nothing about 3rd party authenticators. They stick them on Ebay and let them fly. I have bought several authentic ones over the years like this for bargain prices.

I agree you can miss out sometimes on a legitimate example. I purchased a Roy Campanella from a trusted dealer with no authentication because I knew it was authentic. I listed it for sale on Ebay and a "Quick Opinion" came back "Likely not Genuine." I ended the auction and returned the item for a refund which I got.

The seller submitted it to JSA for authentication and it passed. He then sold it on Ebay for more than triple what I originally paid for the item. I don't know if PSA/DNA would have passed it if they had it in hand but I suspect they would have as it was a classic pre-accident Campy autograph.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 5:26pm

Yea see that's exactly what I mean.
They deemed it not authentic but jsa passed it and now you think psa would have passed it too.
I think they should have a middle option. A "in hand analysis required" option

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on January 9, 2014 at 5:29pm

They have an "unable to render an opinion" option that they sometimes use.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on January 9, 2014 at 4:49pm

I like the service for assurance on autographs that you are 90% sure are good but want more assurance.  A while back I did a bunch of quick opinions for Eli Wallach signed flats to back up my own opinion, and it helped me get a pretty good deal; also did it with a Joe DiMaggio that I wanted another set of eyes to verify and helped my purchase.

A quick opinion is the furthest I'd go in the authentication process.  It's cheap (as of now), you don't have to pay insurance/shipping for your items to reach their facility, and it doesn't bite as much if they fail the item.  One submission to them was enough for me to realize that quick opinion is the way to go; spend more time learning the signature yourself so you don't "need" authentication.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Carlos on January 9, 2014 at 4:50pm

Obviously the examples they deem authentic are the ones they see straight away and like. But what about the exception? The in-person auto? The weird surface auto? Things aren't always black and white.

• ▶ Reply

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