PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS IN THE DISCUSSION FORUMS, NOT BLOGS.
READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST, THANKS.

Views: 2024

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's two different people each giving their opinion. They don't agree. I am sure this happens, or would happen if people submitted to multiple authenticators.

It stinks for sure but obviously can happen. You have to look at the reputation of each authenticator to see which you trust more.

One thing I learned a long time ago is that there are some authentic autographs that are not authenticatable.

In other words, there is overlap between good forgeries and bad authentic autographs, so to preserve the integrity of the autograph hobby/business, those in the gray area should all be rejected. However, some authenticators might give the greenlight to those.

Indeed. But it's difficult to decide which authenticator to trust more since both Beckett and JSA are very reputable in the business. I tried submitting to PSA/DNA but they currently aren't accepting any submissions. 

Best to rely on oneself. You have more interest in your graphs than any 3rd party. Collect exemplars, use your eyes and trust your judgement. 

Here is a "Jackie Gleason" from the PSA Facts page followed by a selection of forgeries I have collected from a single seller on eBay. Exactly half of the exemplars PSA show are not real. One is by Sydell Spear and one is this very poor forgery from eBay...

I made the composite before the pink forgery was on PSA's page. Click to enlarge:

ERIC=THANK YOU ! PLEASE WRITE A COLUMN REGARDING YOUR POINT.

Not sure I can add anything to the images above - which say a lot.

Some of my Gleason work:

I got the autograph back and this is Beckett's explanation:

Apparently...

-The signature has an atypical letter slant, angle and pitch

-The signature exhibits excessive pen pressure and/or improper shading

-The formation of the letters and overlapping of strokes is irregular or unusual

-There is irregular spacing between the letters and/or names

-The sizing of the letters are exaggerated and/or undersized

Being that there is another post regarding Beckett passing an autopen signature, I've completely lost my faith in these companies. 

I sold a quite nice Charlie Chaplin ANS quite some time ago that the buyer submitted to them shortly after he had received it from me.

He sent me the results and their reason for failing it pretty well had these same points in the same order.  It's a stock response.

Plus, you learn a lot along the way!

You've actually received great advice here, Dennis.  

Study the signing habits through verified exemplars of the person that you are interested in.  Compare the piece you are interested in to them. Submit a scan of the piece here, if you care to for feedback.

Above all I would say trust your instincts after doing these.  It will be your collectible and you need to feel comfortable with it.

Plus, you learn a lot along the way in doing these!

join the club!!!!!

They all make mistakes just like everyone does, and they can have their ups and downs. But autograph collecting is much safer because of them. That's why the forgers and forgery dealers hate them so much.

It’s unfortunate that you don’t always receive specific information as to why an item failed authentication. I’ve encountered the same scenario, except it was JSA disagreeing with PSA/DNA. Hopefully you’ll gain some clarity from members who are familiar with his signature.

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2021   Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service