Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by DB on August 15, 2011 at 5:05am

LOL, oh no u don't Van Derhoven!  I'm not going thru the lists of all auctions houses that appear to have sold a secretarial brand.   Although, I still have a concern on one of the pics you posted in the side by side that says "in-Hand" but it doesn't have a connection to the JA.  If that is really an in-person" one then it shoots an arrow at the thought process. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 14, 2011 at 6:45pm

Greg,

Sorry if I missed something, but do we have a Jackie Gleason secretarial study, or is there a well-recognized one elsewhere on the Web we can link to? 

I don't doubt you, but from what you're saying, the odds of getting a Gleason that isn't secretarial from a dealer or at auction are about the same as the odds of getting a DVD that isn't bootleg in China.

We need a solid study to point people to, like the one Mr. Zipper did on Charlton Heston secretarials that collectors and dealers have commented on. Without a solid study--which can be done within a week or two based on what I've seen--your efforts to date will be dramatically less effective.

You've done a great job taking the bull by the horns. Now you need to turn it into digestible meat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 14, 2011 at 7:10pm

Thank you! Please place it in the Movies/TV/Plays forum. 

Please focus on the autographs exclusively in your study and not the sellers or authenticators. Leave that for the discussion to follow, and of course, this discussion will always be there. It's clear that a lot of pros don't know how to identify a Gleason secretarial. I'm not sure who besides you is involved in detecting the proposed Gleason secretarials, but you've all done a great job.

Thank you!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 14, 2011 at 8:47pm

PSA/DNA doesn't knowingly call items that aren't genuine real. Not only is there no incentive to do so, there's a disincentive. They fail tons of autographs, but if Heston and Gleason are any indication, it looks like low to moderately priced classic Hollywood may be a problem area.

This doesn't seem to be a problem in team sports, which was where they focused originally. They have a strong track record there. And while we're finding all these Hestons and Gleasons--and others will presumably come out--their Marilyn Monroes and other high-end autographs are generally highly accurate. But if these are any indication, their low to moderately priced classic entertainment is less reliable than many of us thought.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 15, 2011 at 8:16am

I think that the way for PSA and JSA to resolve not just this dilemma and Hestons, but similar ones, is for them to have a full-time quality control manager. The manager wouldn't need authenticating skills, but would take certain pieces and get outside opinions, and would check sites like ours and listen to the marketplace. They also would make sure systems are in place for as effective authentication as possible.

And I agree, they need to cancel COAs they make mistakes on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on August 15, 2011 at 9:01am

I don't know if they know what they're doing or not. A lot of the problem has to be, as with the Charlton Heston's, bad exemplars. I think it's a far-reaching problem which engulfs a lot of classic Hollywood stuff. Most of these ttm SP's that every third party authenticator passes are secretarial. It's all over the place too and in a lot of cases, the signatures differ widely from known, authentic in person exemplars. It isn't safe because these bad items like the Heston's secretarial had to be accepted as a exemplar. Actors and actresses aren't signing thousands of requests through the mail each year, not on a large scale at least. A lot of this stuff is junk.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on August 15, 2011 at 9:21am

I think part of the issue is that there are no published studies for many of the middle and lower tier autographs. Elvis, Beatles, Marilyn, Sinatra, JFK, etc etc... there is a ton of reference material available.

Heston and Jackie Gleason and people like them... little to no reference material. So the TPAs are just winging it based on conventional wisdom when it comes to signatures that have not been studied widely.

I have some degree of trust in JSA/PSA for sports, historical and some high dollar items. Contemporary Hollywood and mid tier vintage celebrities -- no way. I think it's a roll of the dice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brandon Mysinger on August 15, 2011 at 6:05pm

@ Steve C....BINGO!! This is the post of the year!!!  I have been screaming this forever.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on August 15, 2011 at 7:58am

Then Steve, it is as I put out there before a list of options.  Pick one.  If they are not knowingly then it is either training or incompetence in this case.  Of course, they may know better or they have "exemplars" that differ with that which has been posted.  They certainly don't appear to use the exemplar they provide for others to compare to authentic as if they did they would discount the greater majority (as JSA apparently does) presented to date.  Unfortunately, this inventory builds up over time and as we all know there are no published recalls or corrections... and as such the reputable auction houses like R&R, as greg indicates, are stuck holding the bag.  Then again the in-house people at these places perhaps should not be so reliant in certain areas.

 

Unlike Zippers, where the monkeywrench exists, there are very few "actual" in-person obtained exemplars to compare with and that is where I submit, as Mike indicated, where there is a fly in the ointment.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 15, 2011 at 9:20am

They wouldn't do it knowingly. Not only could that ruin a business that does millions of dollars a year if it got out. It could hurt the entire company, which does perhaps 20-times the business of PSA/DNA alone.

This is a quality control issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on August 15, 2011 at 3:00pm

ok, Steve;  presume you are right then WHY are they not using their own exemplar that they indicate people should check to see if it is authentic or not (oh and charge for it).

 

Now this one does not follow, btw, the original one I posted nor does it comport with a number of ones that Greg has indicated either.  I also have some issues with some that Greg has posted  as well (be they in-person, or in his opinion secretarial) as the My Best Wishes may or may not play a role completely.

 

nonetheless, if anyone publishes an exemplar than those ought to be the only examples of authentic.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on August 15, 2011 at 6:12pm

DB,

I agree they should follow their own exemplars. Where are their exemplars published? Where did you get the one above?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 12
• Next ›
• Page