Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Bruce Juice on December 7, 2015 at 9:37pm

That's not always true Bjarte as I sent PSA a non-rushed Springsteen for a quick opinion that failed.  A few weeks later, I sent them the money for the full certificate and it passed right away.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on December 8, 2015 at 4:35am

But that is the issue with the whole QO/TPA system. It is almost ran like two separate entities and if one fails it another might pass it. Also with PSA you don't even know who is looking at it. Here at least we know who is more reliable with certain signatures and no one is having to pay for their opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on December 8, 2015 at 6:58am

There seems to be a lot of,one will pass an item on quick op and the item will be sent into the other company for authentication and they fail it.
I haven't been impressed by the services of qo, unless thd item is a really expensive item, i dont feel the need to use these companies anymore.
Steve asked for experts to comment on Duncans item, but we see the experts in the field are going back and forth, so it remains up to the experienced collectors to unite and sort the authenticity of an item out as best as possible.
The aml site seems to be the middle ground between Tpa's.

Permalink Reply by Vestland on December 9, 2015 at 9:50am

Latest news on this is that I had Roger Epperson to look at it...: "Without question authentic"! I respect Rogers opinion on The Eagles higher than anybody elses opinion, so thats good enough for me...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on December 9, 2015 at 7:08pm

Would be enough for me as well. Value his opinion more than PSA all day.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sling on December 6, 2015 at 1:35pm

what is the novel "forgery" Mr. Duncan is writing?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on December 6, 2015 at 3:28pm

I had considered asking that same question, but Mr. Duncan doesn't answer questions.

He owes us nothing.

Maybe it is a rollicking adventure about a once well respected grapher that hoards all his real autographs but forges mountains of stuff to pass on to trusting collectors.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on December 6, 2015 at 3:15pm

Unfortunately without Mr Duncan actually here responding to questions on where he obtained all of these Eagles signatures. And no Im not asking for dates and times. The question was "Did you get them All in person'? Sadly I have my doubts also and feel stupid myself for trusting blindly. Oh well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2t7o4rndea2r0 on December 6, 2015 at 3:44pm

You should not feel stupid because you did not trust blindly. You took the very human approach that a person is innocent until proven guilty. And as of now, not a single thing presented here leads to Stephen Duncan being a forger / fraud. I have quite a lot to say on this subject but can't right now. Back tonight to outline the many ways that this discussion fails as any type of serious/ respectable analysis and the far fewer number of ways that it may be valid.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on December 6, 2015 at 5:09pm

We've had talented collectors give opinions, but experts on the music haven't contributed to the discussion yet. If you own some of the autographs being discussed, talk with them and ask them to read the discussion and then tell what they think. That will help you make the right decisions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on December 6, 2015 at 6:32pm

Hi Chris, the reason I put "blindly" trusted was because I just assumed  the signatures were good and never looked too hard at them. Nobodys fault but mine (Zep). I don't think Mr. Duncan is a forger but I don't think he witnessed all those autos being signed. I believe if he had just said so,people would have understood. By leaving he has just left everything up for speculation which doesn't look good. Shame, I always considered the collection solid. I could kick myself because Im no kid and am not usually naïve. like others have said the signatures must speak for themselves.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2t7o4rndea2r0 on December 8, 2015 at 11:34am

Hi Ian,

Sorry for the delay.  I wrote a long reply then set it aside to think more.  What follows are just my observations and opinions about parts of this discussion. I don't expect everyone, or anyone to necessarily agree.  This is just my two cents.

1. Broadly speaking, and with variations between, there appear to be two camps of people: those willing to accuse a complete stranger of forgery and fraud, and those who find this discussion interesting but are unwilling to assume from the outset that fraudulent activity has take place.  I have two comments on this point.  First, I am not a litigious person.  I don't know if Stephen Duncan (hereafter SD) is or not.  But I do know plenty of people who view the legal process completely dispassionately and who would, if they were accused publicly of fraud without a shred of evidence, initiate a proceeding resulting in a process server arriving at the accuser's door within a couple of days. Aside from the moral implications of baseless accusations, I am quite surprised that there are some here who appear to be willing to risk what could result in a pretty uncomfortable and potentially very costly process with literally nothing to substantiate the specific claim that SD forged autographs.

2.  If you approach this entire discussion from the point of view that SD is not a dishonest person, and never has been, then what is the worst that has taken place here?  A guy has compiled a collection of autographs, the vast majority of which were obtained in person and the remainder obtained through the mail or standing on the other side of a door while a celebrity was supposedly inside a room signing things for fans.  He spend the last up to 30 years having no reason to believe that signatures not signed in his presence but represented as authentic by officials, were anything other than authentic. This is not a stretch at all.  And if this is true, imagine his surprise to be hit with this discussion out of the clear blue.  

3.  SD did not ask for this.  He does not make a living selling signatures.  To the small handful of people who have purchased from him, during a limited period and on a temporary basis, numbering only a very few items (three of which I own) SD is obligated to answer questions about authenticity.  To anyone else, he has no obligation whatsoever.  I state this so unequivocally because there seems, within a certain segment of participants here, a perception of entitlement.  I have thought about this a great deal, and I just don't get it.  Contributors to this discussion are not regulators, have not been assigned the task of evaluating/auditing SD's collection and while some may have particular technical capability and experience, none have any actual authority whatsoever.  

4.  There are some who say "only the ink matters".  This sentiment has been used by those who appear to have a malicious purpose as well as by those who don't.  This is an issue I've been thinking about since long before this discussion materialized.  I believe it is a topic about which honest, well meaning people can disagree and is somewhat central to this discussion.  My view is that background/source/provenance does matter.  For me it comes down to this.  A finance professor of mine was fond of saying, "for something to be true, it has to be true all the time".  So if provenance doesn't matter in this discussion, then it doesn't matter in any discussion, ever.  And if that's true then a known forger could produce a terrific example (perfect slant, flow, spontaneity etc.) and this group would have to accept it as real.  For me, SDs experience does matter; his stories do matter.  And as Steve Cyrkin stated at the very beginning of this, if SD says he was there, then he was there.

5.  Exemplars/ authenticity opinions.  One of the most troubling aspects of this discussion, to me, is the inconsistent nature of the "critical analysis" being applied here.  In no area that I have any experience with, would much of what is in this thread be taken seriously at all.  Example; three McCartney books.  It is interesting to go back and read opinions on these.  There was disagreement about which of the 3 must be bad.  Then SD explained where they came from and all is silent.  About some of the McCartneys, they were bad, until someone, Ballroom maybe?, said wait a minute, these might be good.  Then all stopped.  Because maybe that one guy thinks they're good. Then he came back, sorry jumped the gun.  Now those are bad again.     

6.  Eagles. This deserves its own paragraph.  There are 90 (exactly, if I counted right), Henley signatures on SD's page.  There appears to be broad agreement that most are great.  Those that are now being labeled "cookie-cutter" represent a small minority and those who don't like that particular signature seem to me to be literally making this up as they go - and I mean exactly that.  Step away from this discussion for a few days then come back and read the criticism of the Henley signatures.  The "group think" that has evolved here is obvious.  As I pointed out, there are at least 3 versions of Henley's signature that are verifiable.  Am I expected to believe that SD forged these and got everything right except the Y?  Let's establish what is known.  Every member of the Eagles knows SD by name and face.  Every one of them.  He has been in front of the members more times, in person, than anyone here.  He has more Eagles signatures than probably anyone in the world.  If you assume from the outset that SD in an honest person, why the hell would be forge a signature?  And further, if he were to forge a signature, why would he make up an entirely new style when there are authentic examples right in front of him or get it all right except the Y?  Steiger's explanation for this, that forgers are lazy, feels to me like another example of someone literally just making something up in the moment.  To believe that SD would forge an Eagles signature strains credulity to the breaking point.  

7.  PSA.  When PSA rejected my two Eagles LPs, I believed immediately and still do that it is their mistake, similar to a mistake they made on U2 items I submitted some months ago.  I can offer at least one example right now of an Eagles-related PSA blunder.  A collector buddy of mine, who many of you know, had a Henley-signed Desperado LP.  PSA rejected it.  Relatively soon after, that LP sold, I believe on Iconic Auction / PressPass, with a PSA sticker.  How did that happen?  PSA means nothing to me, other than one thing.  The public places more economic value on items approved by PSA than by any other authentication company.  Recognizing this, I've submitted some things in the past.  But as for actual authentication, I have no faith and am unmoved by the suggestion that because PSA doesn't like the Eagles items I purchased from SD, they must be bad.  No way.

8.  I've asked myself what I would do in this situation if I were SD.  One possibility is to go one item at a time, one person at a time and address everything.  Another possibility is to focus on specific issues I personally find most important and work more strategically on the rest.  Yet another possibility is to reexamine all that I have and try to segregate what I know for a fact was signed in front of me from everything else.  In other words, a bottom-up approach, or a top-down approach.  It seems to me that SD may have originally intended bottom-up then faced with mounting hostility, decided to walk from this discussion and approach the issue(s) from the top down.  I don't know what SD is doing, but if you take him at his word, he's searching for "proof" and working on the website.  I'm perfectly fine stepping away from this until he's done and taking a look then, however long that takes.    

9.  Some participants in this discussion presented themselves and their opinions with dignity, professionalism, intelligence and courtesy.  Some of those posts were ignored by SD and he replied to some with a degree of frustration that I didn't feel was deserved.  Innuendo comes to mind here.  I don't know SD well, but I feel like I know him a little.  My observation is that he was overwhelmed by this discussion and it became emotional for him, particularly certain criticisms that are connected to events that are very meaningful, such as the time he and his wife spent with Brian May.  I'm not making excuses for SD.  I'm simply acknowledging that personally, I've come away from this with a good degree of respect for some contributors to this discussion, both in terms of technical competency and professionalism.  And while I would like to think I may have handled communications better, I can't claim to have any idea what it must be like to be blind-sided by a discussion like this.

10.  Someone here recently intended to suggest to me that my objectivity was clouded and to ask me what it would take for me to accept that the items I bought from SD were fake.  The post was deleted but the beginning still came to me in email.  The point about objectivity is valid, in a general sense.  In the past, I have been subject to emotional reactions when it was suggested that something I own is fake.  I can recall exactly two occasions.  But you learn from experience.  So here's my objective answer.  Either Roger tells me that he made a mistake and that they're bad or SD comes back and says that some but not all signatures were executed in his presence, opening the possibility that they aren't real.  In both cases, I'd have a conversation with SD, who, I will say again, offered me a full refund when PSA rejected these.  

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 23
• 24
• 25
• 26
• 27
• …
• 40
• Next ›
• Page