I just noticed this signed Michael Jackson photograph authenticated by PSA/DNA for sale. The only problem is the signature appears to be an accepted secretarial style. What do you guys think?
Unfort its not the first time nor will it be the last. Here's another one of their blunders. This authenticator (within PSA) should not be used for MJ again when he makes this easy of a mistake. But... to be fair, PSA doesn't do that bad on MJ's... in fact I know many that are close but questionable to me, and when I have people shoot PSA a 15.00 QO to verify what I am thinking, they usually side with caution and do not give an opinion.
there are many examples of signatures that at one time were thought to be authentic, but later deemed secretarial. if it is older cert, it is likely they opined based on information available then. if it is a current cert, with a known secretarial, then there is no excuse.
I have seen a few (and posted) mistakes by PSA concerning MJ autographs where the PSA LOA is dated near the time of MJ's passing. The date of the LOA is very important when buying an MJ autograph. There is no doubt, though, that PSA shouldn't be making mistakes like this now.
I've seen a Muhammad Ali autopen with psa
Not only was it an autopen but it was the most common autopen of ali out lol.
Even a quick google search would have shown that
When contacted they told me they stand by their opinion lol