We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Paul & Ringo Signed CD's
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on
-
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Alayof on
-
Ballroom, I also sent to Beckett for a signature review my first George Harrison autograph which I bought last year. The one that in your opinion wasn't authentic. Their answer is: Likely to Pass Full Authentication
-
-
-
I don’t think I told you it isn’t authentic. You contacted me via PM and asked for my opinion and I told you I had concerns about it, which I did. You also claimed that I said your IP Macca isn’t authentic, which I never did.
-
-
-
I found the PM, Daniel. Here's what I told you:
It's probably genuine, but doesn't have some of the characteristics that I look for in an 80's-era Harrison signature.
-
-
-
Jason from Tracks UK says it looks like a George Harrison autograph from the early 90's. Anyway, regarding the Ringo forger, I have just sent an email to Perry and told him about the issue and also showed him all the bad examples from this forger. I asked for his help because I don't know what to do.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Joe W. on
-
I always look at these discussions that seem to eventually focus on the authenticator instead of the autograph itself. Since our opinions are free the only value is in the opinion itself. People tend to disregard free advice when it doesn't work to their benefit. I'm not sure why these questions even come up when a solid certificate has already been issued.
Certain authenticators add value to a signature. The reason is simple, they have a high degree of accuracy and the market has placed an almost sacred trust in their opinion. They provide a certain level of financial protection and, to a degree, peace of mind.
I have NO problem when someone decides to sell an autograph with legitimate certification papers. Isn't that why we pay more to purchase the autograph to begin with? Or pay for that coveted "Third Party Service"?
-
Permalink Reply by Paul on
-
Yep that's correct, there's no need for collectors to be virtuous if the items been authenticated . In some circumstances the TPA will pass anything for a cheque, so once again it's very fickle money making game.
-
-
The problem is not TPA services. The issue is that the VAST majority of "collectors" place too much confidence in them. I'm not against TPA services in general. Most do the best they can although the market should fully understand none are perfect.
Sometimes we get so caught up in the details we forget about the bigger picture. Forgeries are the number one issue facing the hobby today. Most forgeries are not authenticated by a TPA service. And it's a crime which is being blatantly ignored by law enforcement and those who can stop or, at least, reduce it.
In the end, we are responsible for what we buy and what we sell. If Frank Caiazzo, Perry Cox, Roger Epperson, PSA, JSA, or whoever else recognized issues a LOA. Then sell it if you choose. Without guilt. That's "playing the game" according to the standard the market accepts.
It's the Antiquities of the world and the guy signing on his kitchen table we need to run out of town. And put behind bars if possible.
-
-
What if overwhelming evidence exists that a mistake was made in authenticating the item? Is it still okay to sell it?
-
-
Overwhelming? Yes. Someone would have to define what sets the bar for overwhelming. I understand that knowledge is ever growing and new facts are discovered. I think new evidence needs to be shared(this site is great at that) and eventually be officially recognized by the TPA services.
There may be a few people forging and attempting to get TPA services to authenticate them. But, for the most part, it's honest people trying to verify their autographs are authentic.
I still believe that TPA services are more helpful for sales and marketing purposes.
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
