We have brought up eBay sellers lock-em-up-bob and samsobo before on this site. They are both eBay sellers who scribble on cheap base cards from the 80's, and sell them all as "signed" on eBay. These are eBay power sellers making thousands upon thousands of dollars based off of an eBay scam.
Both of these seller's use bogus "proof" photos and the power of positive feedback to continue to scam buyers on eBay. Myself and others have brought these forgeries up several times.
Now this alone is no surprise, as we all know eBay is a cesspool of scammers/forgeries. Despite the fact that their entire business is based off of .10 cent base card forgeries, eBay does not care.
Here is where the real problem lies... PSA/DNA is falling for their JUNK. We all know people make mistakes, but PSA/DNA is authenticating and slabbing more and more of these awful forgeries which is a great concern for this hobby. It has become evident to me recently that neither PSA/DNA or JSA have any clue on a lot of athletes. I have pointed out plenty of flatout LAUGHABLE Don Mattingly forgeries authenticated by both "TPAs" recently. It's beyond "mistakes", it's merely a guessing game.
A fellow collector reached out to me and shared some photos he has been archiving on this subject. Ready to spill your morning coffee?
The pattern I see is you being dismissive of threads exposing fakes. You've been here less than a week and have done it several times.
Your standard response seems to be along the lines of, "People can fake 18th century X, so this doesn't matter."
Your bio indicates you are a "professional authenticator." What's your name?
I'm not. I just checked whatever box. I didn't think it would be public. I'm just a collector/part-time dealer.
How do you know they're "fakes" you're "exposing?"
I mean -- look at Greg Maddux's signature. It's a loop and a zig-zag. Someone actually sent that in to an "expert" at PSA to examine. They must have extracted Greg Maddux's DNA embedded in the cardboard fibers to make sure he really touched the card and signed it. That's the only way you can "authenticate" that scribble.
You are confusing me Appleton
You're slamming these baseball authenticators and yet you collect 19th century signatures.
Who authenticates them for you? Or do you only use your own eyes. Because there's no way you can convince me that you witnessed any signatures via IP from the 19th century.
I'm just not understanding your rants, or Stephen Duncan's support of them.
In other words, what is the difference in these baseball cards to what you collect? Someone has to authenticate them at some point.
What's confusing about what I said?
Look at Greg Maddux's signature again if you're having trouble understanding. It's somewhere between George W. Bush and Jack Lew in complexity.
I think you have to look at 10,000 Maddux signatures and then do an average of the loop's diameter and angular tilt. Then do the Pythagorean theorem on the zig-zags.
Once you finish calculating that then you'll be at a 50/50 probability of whether it was actually signed by Maddux.
And yet your reply in no way answers my questioning.
I wasn't just referring to your Maddux comment. I was commenting on your all your responses.
But you do have an elaborate way of expressing yourself, as meaningless as it is.
+1 for Steve.
The takeaway is faith. that these are observations. Unless you have gotten a signature yourself, seen it written with your own two eyes, there's an element of faith involved in authenticity. A company's thumbs up can reduce the element of faith necessary, by virtue of their reputation. Or increase the need for faith based on their lack of it.
I've submitted 6 autographs obtained in person to two different companies. Majors. 3 were green lit, 3 were red lit. I witnessed all 6 of these signed! Two of them were by the same player; one of them green lit, the other one flagged.
So the takeaway is the same as that story tommy Lee Jones tells in No country for old men about "nothing is ever certain".
My take away is rather different. It is just further confirmation to do my own work (aka "collecting"). Otherwise, I am just listing names and then names of people who had opinions on those names and/or other "brand" names etc. I'd rather spend my time reading about ink or paper sizing or signing habits or just about...anything. Not to you Woody, but so much posturing here these days I am getting a backache.
IMO, this forum is the best place to seek answers for authenticity. We have the best of the best here. Mantle, Maris, Joey D., Williams, who in this hobby is as good as Chris Williams, Terrier, Big John, et. al, etc., at sorting out the gold from the chaff? Aerospace; who in this hobby is as good as Big Z at giving these the nod or not? This forum is comprised of members, each having their own niche of expertise at levels that transcend the grading services.
The #1 takeaway is that if you want answers about authenticity, you can do no better than right here. And that's a fact; not an opinion.
very well said Woody
For me, I was not talking about the forum. There are many good eyes here (at least 25 pairs I know of, give or take). I was addressing people buying TPG stickers and reputations/brands with no self-generated opinions or input but a large dose of delusion. I do agree the cumulative knowledge here, across so many disciplines, is invaluable.
The experience you posted Woody, 6 sigs submitted with 50% failed, and yet you saw all singed, speaks volumes. One take away for me is "don't submit". Were you going to sell them? Why submit items you had signed yourself?
Just curiosity. Those 6 were my first submissions to any grading service. I chose those 6 cards out of hundreds. They had enough value to make paying for the process worthwhile, but not so great a value as to inhibit my sending them. I had no intention to sell them. Just a tryout to see how it works. It wasn't a test of their abilities, I wasn't out to prove a point, and honestly, the 3 no flies surprised me, I never suspected those three being flagged. Matter of fact, I know they make mistakes, it's no surprise, I've seen it many times with the autos that I feel I have a great deal of expertise in, like Ruth. But none of these 6 submissions were anywhere near the magnitude of a Ruth, I had no reason to believe that any would fail, especially as they were self-witnessed. During the time I've been a member, this is actually the first time I've ever mentioned it! I didn't think it was any type of shocking revelation, an error by a major; everybody makes mistakes. I only mentioned it because it seemed pertinent to this discussion.