Authenticity is Everything
Has anyone tried this Verimarx Ai tool that's advertised on this site?
Was wondering if anyone here has used it here and had it work well? I can't find much information on this tool, supposedly it detects forgeries, just wanted thoughts on it.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo
-
Thank you Dom. Yes, but if one always needs to seek a visual in-hand inspection as suggested what is the real function here? I would hope the collector is doing some of this...to me its akin to wanting a bronze medal for swimming w/o ever getting wet. What is the "base44" thing? I do not claim to know. I don't know what to make of the varied online reviews either. I am curious, how long have you collected autograph Dom?
-
Permalink Reply by Dominick Lisi
-
Eric,
I would encourage approaching this from a more academic perspective. It is, after all, a tool designed to improve as it continues to “learn.” Its value lies in the information it provides—currently at no cost, or potentially a modest fee in the future—which may help collectors avoid expenses of $100 or more associated with an in-hand visual inspection. Collecting, at its best, invites us to learn, evaluate, and contribute to the broader knowledge of the field. In many ways, that shared pursuit of understanding is precisely what draws us to the hobby.
To address your second question, I have spent more than forty years as a historian, collector, and enthusiast. My primary focus has been sports, militaria and military-related autographs. While you appear to be seeking absolute perfection, our aim is the continued expansion of knowledge.
-
-
-
If this thing can return a result in 15 seconds as mentioned there is no time for human review to verify for quality control. That makes me nervous. I hope collecting never has an "autopilot" = that would remove every texture in an increasingly smoothed world.
-
-
Eric,
I'm not entirely sure where "15" seconds came from.. It usually takes 2-3 minutes. To ease your mind... this is why we are asking for input, images, and feedback. We want to ensure that the systems learns..and learns well.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin
-
I said 15 seconds, Dom, because I thought that was what it took. But I forgot that was for a couple of smaller images. I don't think any of the ones I uploaded took a minute, though.
-
-
-
As good as the major TPAs are—I think they're pretty darn good overall—there are 2 common complaints:
- You don't know who is authenticating your autograph.
- If your autograph fails authentication, they don't tell you specifically why.
With VeriMarx, you know "who's" reviewing and analyzing your autograph. It is.
And it tells you specifically why it came up with the analysis results it did.
-
-
After that, they still recommend "forensic examination." This seems another step to decide if a TPA is warranted. That can all be done by a diligent collector IMHO.
-
-
Eric,
That is exactly how a diligent collector becomes knowledgeable — by understanding the why behind an opinion, not just the conclusion. That is what VeriMarx is intended to do.
You are also right that, at its core, this is about helping arm a collector with more knowledge so they can better decide whether a third-party authentication is warranted. It is not meant to replace learning, and it is not meant to discourage careful review. In many ways, it is meant to support that process by helping collectors identify the kinds of characteristics and questions they should be paying attention to in the first place.
A diligent collector can absolutely do a great deal on their own. The reality, though, is that not every collector has the same depth of experience across every signer, format, or era. VeriMarx is designed to help shorten that learning curve, reinforce informed examination, and make that knowledge more accessible. The goal is not blind reliance — it is better-informed decision-making. See “Operation Bullpen”…
-
Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67
-
The goal is to explain the why — identifying potential forgery indicators, common forgery techniques, and inconsistencies, and then comparing those observations against known authentic representations where applicable.
That would seem to be only half of the equation. It’s important to compare signatures against known forgery styles in order to identify consistencies with those styles, and not just inconsistencies with known authentic exemplars.
-
-
+1 Like all those "Ringo's" from several years ago, or the dunkin R&R Nimoy's etc.I think this was thread.
-
-
Right. That style, SoCal, Joe Long, etc. They’re still being authenticated by TPAs.
-
-
That’s a good point, and to clarify, we do perform comparative analysis as part of the process. We look at how a signature relates to known authentic exemplars, but we do not weigh that as heavily as the forgery-side analysis.
The reason is that a signature can differ from authentic examples for entirely legitimate reasons—age, writing conditions, speed, surface, instrument, fatigue, and countless other variables. What often becomes more telling is when a signature shows traits that are consistent with known forgery patterns or repeated non-genuine styles.
So it is not an either/or approach. Comparative review is part of the equation, but the stronger emphasis is placed on identifying characteristics that may indicate forgery. The goal is to give collectors a more informed understanding of the why behind an opinion, so they can better decide whether further examination or third-party authentication is warranted.
Sign up for our Newsletter!
Photos
© 2026 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
