Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rick on December 23, 2018 at 8:30am

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on December 24, 2018 at 12:58pm

Anyone?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on December 27, 2018 at 9:11pm

What are the autograph grades for? They saying these are all 10’s as in perfect signatures? I don’t get it. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on December 27, 2018 at 10:20pm

+1. I'm happy I don't get it! IF one were to "grade" I do not see how what is signed is not taken into account (Glossy? Paper? Album page? Matchbook? Ticket?)! And signed with what? Inextricable. Is paint pen on velvet graded on a curve or something? And every item is different - unique. At least with coins you start of with a theoretical 70 and work your way down with more or less the same factors in play. The PSA site is down for maintenance, but as I recall an 8 can have retrace by the signer...1/2 of the first name only can be a 9 (I saw a "Rog" Waters graded at 9).... I posted it in a thread 2 years ago but I can't find it. Gimmick. Nonsense! But perhaps good for streamlining sight unseen buying like those little metal rounds...if you want that. I don't.

I just found my old post about this - partly re-posted below:

"9: Mint. A PSA Mint 9 is a superb condition autograph that exhibits only one of the following minor flaws: A very light skip (almost unrecognizable to the naked eye), a slight acceptable variance in boldness of the autograph (still very bold and clearly readable - even at arms length - but perhaps not quite as bold as an autograph that would qualify for a PSA Gem Mint 10) or a some other aesthetic issue such as undesirable location if the location of the autograph hinders the eye-appeal of the autograph, slightly, in some way.

NM-MT 8: Near Mint-Mint. A PSA NM-MT 8 is a super high-end autograph that may appear to qualify as a Mint 9 at first glance but upon closer inspection, the autograph may exhibit one or more of the following: A slightly more noticeable skip in the autograph (though still very minor in nature) slightly inferior boldness of the autograph or very slight fading (the autograph must still be completely legible and intact), or some other aesthetic issue such as undesirable location if the location of the autograph hinders the eye-appeal of the autograph, slightly, in some way. For example, a very light bleed on one of the letters may be acceptable if minor or some very minor unevenness to the signature if the uneven nature of the autograph is limited to a small area - no greater than approximately 20% of the signature. A very light retrace, by the original signer, may be acceptable."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Paul on December 24, 2018 at 1:28pm

I like the de Niro signature looks OK to me. Sorry I don't know much about the other two , I will leave it to the experts

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on December 26, 2018 at 3:18pm

Thanks.  One of my biggest questions is whether the PSA/DNA certification can be trusted.  Looking up the number on PSA’s website it looks correct to the photo, but I’m sure this can be faked somehow.  Anyone else have an opinion?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by posterguy on December 26, 2018 at 10:09pm

From startiger :

"Not sure I like any of these three sigs...De Niro usually does not sign that wide/drawn out (esp. the "Rob" part) - and Pesci does not sign his last name on a second line shifted to the right (the P always overlaps the J).
Goes to show you can't always trust the authenticators...PSA got paid $70-$80 to issue this Letter of Authenticity so if they had failed it (as they should have), they would still keep the money, but that dealer that sent it in would not send others in the future for PSA to make more money...

Also curious is that all 3 sigs use the same exact marker (unless all three actors were obtained at the same place, that is questionable) and especially the Pesci and Liotta making an effort to sign in blank space and careful not to overlap anyone else's sig (whereas street-obtained sigs. by autograph hounds are usually at totally random places on the photo)

The seller lists it for $3,000 obo on eBay:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/DENIRO-PES...x10-PHOTO-with-PSA-LOA-GRADED...
which is downright laughable. Even if all three were full exemplars of their sigs. (in which case it would be worth around $250-$300 IMHO)
The eBay seller (typhoons3) has thousands of authenticated items for sale (and he lists them for crazy premiums) and must be a cash cow for PSA sending items in...
1,502 of their 3,516 items are authenticated by PSA. On an average of $15 a piece, they paid PSA $22,000+. How likely do you think PSA will be to reject items they send in for fear of killing this cash cow?

The problem happens when bad stickered items are purchased by collectors (or speculators looking to make a buck) who resell them years later in the secondary market. All provenance and original submitter source gets lost.
This is why I always try to pay attention to the signatures themselves - and even if one part of it looks off, I walk away - sticker or no sticker.
I mean, what's the point of owning an atypical version of an autograph (even if it happens to be authentic) in a serious collection where you want to keep for years?"

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on December 27, 2018 at 7:48pm

Thank you so much, especially for your time and attention to detail.  You make some very valid points.  Possibly saved me a bunch of cash.  Thanks again!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by posterguy on December 27, 2018 at 9:01pm

Its not my own opinion , that why i used the " " marks.......but that opinion does make sense if you ask me

• ▶ Reply