Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on March 6, 2012 at 8:13am

Yes. That's the secretarial (or forgery of a secretarial--who knows) of his signature. JSA and PSA were authenticating his secretarial version signature for a long time. JSA said they wouldn't be authenticating the secretarial version anymore, and though PSA was quiet about it, we've since seen a secretarial version deemed secretarial correctly.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou reves on March 6, 2012 at 12:42pm

Sadly the damage is done, they should pull the certificates if one was issued so it cant be verified on their site?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on March 6, 2012 at 1:33pm

like that will ever happen!  This is a major issue with regards to this actor and continues to be one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou reves on March 7, 2012 at 8:23am

So then why does everyone continue to praise these so called experts, when they know they got it wrong and do nothing to correct it? If they take the verification off line they are helping to fix it but by not doing anything they are saying its good? So why keep saying they are good for the business? 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on March 7, 2012 at 8:33am

The pundits will say 'cause they get more right than wrong.  Since there are few stats it's hard to argue and they have become engrained in product branding in the minds of the collectors.

I know I have sent some along to spence and not even a "by your leave" response.  Nor does it get pulled down.  That is nothing but sheer arrogance.  I can understand that they may not have the images in many cases stored so it makes delisting an issue.  But, when it is clearly one that they are sent then there is absolutely no valid reason I can think of to not delist.  Can you?

Continually reporting these becomes tiresome...   even if it was "hopefully" before the "secretarial" exemplars were exposed.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 7, 2012 at 8:39am

I still can't understand why they don't see the importance in keeping an image of everything they authenticate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on March 8, 2012 at 12:27pm

somethings take time;

This listing (370358257216) has been removed, or this item is not available

of course, it still doesn't mean it won't show up someplace else.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on March 8, 2012 at 4:06pm

Removing some items from an eBay-approved authenticator would open a can of worms. I still think it should be done. I do rest a lot of responsibility on the people who buy these autographs. If there were one rule to collecting autographs, it should be: know your autograph. These people don't know what the hell they're buying. Third-party authentication isn't the be all and end all. Each person has to know their autograph or odds are they'll get ripped somewhere down the line.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou reves on March 8, 2012 at 5:46pm

The point is if Spence wont take action why do people keep praising him or tell everyone he is so great? Put the pressure on them by NOT even mentioning them dont advertise for them by word of mouth and send people to him, this could be said of PSA also.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 8, 2012 at 6:05pm

Louie,

You make a good point, but you can depend on PSA/DNA and JSA authentication much more than you can depend on autographs authenticated by most other authenticators, dealers or auctions. 

BUT...they are less reliable in certain areas. For example, classic Hollywood secretarials. 

EBay is so big they need to handle things on a large-scale level when they can, which is why they set their policies by authenticator instead of the autograph. 

So if an authenticator is known as one that likely authenticates forgeries, they eventually kick them off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lou reves on March 8, 2012 at 7:01pm

So we continue to turn the other cheek and ket PSA and Jsa junk that is bad be sold on ebay and take everybody else's off? Again making the novice think they are great when in fact they are as bad as everyone else? Back to the same old story. Help the friends make money while everyone else loses...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on March 9, 2012 at 2:24am

we have been down this debate before.  NOONE knows how many they get right or wrong.  The only noise that get's illustrated (me included) are the ones that appear to be in error.  Has ANYONE here simply posted illustration and illustration of the ones theyget right?   How much fun would that be - boring!  It would be like reading the daily newspaper with a daily story; Mailman didn't get bite today.

Todate, I believe I am the only one who has done anything close to a sampling study on Heston which can stand on it's own legs.   To determine if authenticity in that sampling has improved, regressed or stayed the same it would need to be repeated at certain intervals.

What needs to occur, and perhaps EBAY is heading that way, is to have these TPAs listed on their site back-up their opinions just like CU does with their other business lines.  At least when they make the error it will become an expense to them.

That won't clean up the other myriad of service issues that we have commented about over and over again but at least it would be a start if it ever materializes.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page