We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

Authentication Ethics and the "Gray Area"

When you send something to PSA/DNA or Roger Epperson for example you will get some of two responses. Likely Genuine or Likely Not Genuine. But should there be a gray area? I have only heard of 1 instance where PSA/DNA said they just could not tell and thus awarded the submitter a credit for another authentication (not a refund). I can see why they don't want to refund them, they did provide a service either way but I feel there should be more honestly from the authenticators with the sharpie age of signature because out of context a lot of them are impossible to tell if they are real or not. Case in point, Steven Tyler. This guy signs a ton these days and it isn't common for him to just put an S.T. or even Dave Grohl.... how can anyone say for sure that this autograph is real?

now, I know these are real as I know the sellers and they are 100% above board if I didn't have that context and I was an authenticator how could I know for sure when all I have is the image and no context?

So, should there be a gray area? Would you feel ok with an "We just can't tell"?

To me there is 100% slam dunk authentic and 100% slam dunk fake but often on this site I ask for the context because I can't sometime tell unless I see the source.

1 member likes this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike T on February 22, 2015 at 7:44pm

The problem is that they will do it for the average joe submitting items, but they blindly authenticate for their mass customers with no regard for the signature at all. If they did that 100% across all their customers, they would be much better off, albeit much poorer.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 22, 2015 at 7:43pm

I think that the people on this site can give as good of an opinion as any third party authenticator. Maybe even better. Doesn't wow the public but I still struggle why a $100 autograph is being offered for $300 just because of a COA issued by a third party. We are so gullible!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 22, 2015 at 8:57pm

I finally wrote JSA a pretty blunt email after I saw them rubber stamp two forgeries of my favorite band from some forgery seller who has an "in" with them apparently. Not only were they forgeries, they were pretty much the only forgeries of that band I'd seen on Ebay thus far. In addition, they'd already been removed by Ebay after I forwarded them confirmation from the band that they were fake. JSA slapped their sticker on them anyway. Zero competence or effort in this area - they just went with the dirty seller's story apparently. Nice job.

http://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/anyone-had-experienc...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on February 23, 2015 at 2:42am

One time I submitted 3 pieces to PSA, all different genres (2 sports autographs and 1 entertainment. All three were genuine but I wanted solid paperwork for them to sell in the future, and PSA gave them an "unable to determine" grade. After some arguing, I got a refund instead of a credit though.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by N.Steiger on February 23, 2015 at 10:58am

huh... interesting... good for you Mike.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2t7o4rndea2r0 on February 23, 2015 at 9:00pm

Most interesting is the question of source. Over time and after buying many bad items initially, I've met a couple of collectors/ sellers in whom I've come to have a high degree of confidence. Yet I seem to recall early on that it was generally accepted best practice for authenticators to reject background information, provenance, or "the story" because the focus is supposed to be on the signature only. I always thought this strange. Now it seems that the background and source are considered important. This makes sense to me. Of course every seller has a story. I've certainly heard my share. And a terrible forgery can't be overcome by a good story. But if a truly honest broker says something was obtained in person, even if it looks slightly unlike more common examples, then wouldn't it make sense to accept the item as legitimate? Recall the Bob White deposition. He was asked specifically, lead really, to acknowledge that for a third party examination to be truly objective and therefore, legitimate, the source should not, cannot matter. He replied, if I recall, "seems reasonable". When I watched this, I perceived it to be a setup, possibly related to Roger, and specifically related to the Zeppelin album. I wouldn't be remotely surprised to see this particular testimony come up later. But I could be wrong. My view, for however little it's worth is that the source, the provenance can be important in a thorough examination and should be received and considered to an appropriate degree based on the circumstances.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 23, 2015 at 11:19pm

I feel like I'm generally decent at distinguishing the good from bad sources. If I have any doubts, I pass. I think PSA and JSA's judgement in this matter ranges from spotty to flat-out bad. I'll stick to my own judgement.

I think I've said this a few times before, but I strongly advise other collectors to skip ugly scribble autographs and especially bad examples altogether. I understand if there's someone you just have to have and can relate to that, but consider how difficult down the road it could be to resell it if all you have is a "he said" story - even if the source was solid and acknowledged at the time as being so. Some of these IP collectors selling inauthenticable, ugly scribbles for hundred of dollars just kill me. If it looks like garbage and you can't authenticate it, then I have zero interest in dropping a big wad of cash on it. I don't care how hard it was to get - crap is crap.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on February 24, 2015 at 2:27am

Most of you who frequent this site are skilled and passionate about the autographs you collect and have taken the time to distinguish the fact from the fiction. But the average Joe does not have the time or inclination to do so. The source is an important piece of the puzzle but should not be taken into account by a third party authenticator. Perception can be more important than reality. Third party authentication is not protection for the buyer. It is a marketing tool for the seller. It is a shame the a COA has become more important than the autograph.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 24, 2015 at 4:35am

I think they probably feel they're leaving too much money on the table by conceding that they probably can't authenticate most celebrity scribbles based on the signature alone. If they were incredibly careful about screening the source, maybe we could give them a pass. But they aren't really.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony on February 28, 2015 at 7:35pm

I was selling a bunch of my autographs to another collector that I had got personally over the years. Naturally he wanted them authenticated by a third party so I agreed to Send them to PSA. I can't recall exactly how many autographs it was but I'll guess it was over 200 of them. PSA gave me a discount and charged me around $4,000 to authenticate them. It took them 5 weeks and when they sent them back ONLY 3 of them passed!!!! I was speechless. Several of the items were high end items that were very rare and literally one of a kind and had impeccable provenance. I called PSA and wanted an explanation but got no where with them. The collector wanting to buy my items DID in fact buy many of the items and the high end items that PSA failed. Ironically, one of them items DID have a PSA letter from 2005 but the same person failed it when I resubmitted it because I couldn't find the letter at the time but did have a copy of the auction clearly stating it was certified authentic by PSA. I found the original letter in the 5 weeks they had the item. Now get this, I called PSA and told them this and they wouldn't budge or change their opinion. The item was an original, very rare one of a kind thing that only 1 of these pictures is known to exist signed. After the collector got it from me he turned around and put it up for auction 2 months later and PSA authenticated it for the auction company that submitted it to them!!! The same guy who authenticated it in 2005 and rejected it when I submitted it 7 years later authenticated it for the auction company 2 months after rejecting it from me. And their could be no confusion as whether he had seen it or not because it is a one of a kind signed photo. No other exists so he couldn't have been confused. That is when I lost total faith in third party authenticators. To me it wasn't a mistake, it was a matter of WHO submitted the autograph and the relationship you have with them or the relationship they have with various auction company's.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on February 28, 2015 at 8:06pm

What I don't understand is, what is the deal with the invisible stamp thing that they can shine a light on then? Wouldn't they be able to see that they already authenticated the item?