Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rich on April 2, 2012 at 6:08am

If PSA and JSA can't keep up with autopens and preprints of the world's biggest stars, it doesn't do a whole lot for their overall credibility.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E.B.G. on April 2, 2012 at 10:51am

I agree with you Richard.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 2, 2012 at 6:15am

Rubber stamp I presume.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 2, 2012 at 7:29am

All three above are exactly the same. You can see areas within the signature where the ink application is uneven and pooled... there are no flow lines. Definately rubber stamp.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 2, 2012 at 8:22am

i do notice on the last one, that there is a smear on the bottom part of the "K" in kirk... but that's not a signature smear.. that's a machine smear.

Correct… it’s most likely a skid mark from when the stamp was set down. It was probably set down at a slight angle and the lower left portion hit first and skidded a bit. That is why only a portion of the signature has the smear.

As it is with underwear, skid marks on a signature are bad. :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by E.B.G. on April 2, 2012 at 10:52am

Mike, if they make a million mistakes, it should matter.  A lot!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on April 2, 2012 at 10:51am

Zipper is right that it's a stamp. I even own one. Douglas has been sending these out for years. I usually don't post this kind of stuff unless it's very easy to tell what I'm talking about (like when it's the same exact sig over and over again) because most people on this board have more experience in contemporary sports than things like this from vintage Hollywood actors. PSA and JSA can be pretty terrible with some of these old stars. Sometimes it feels like they don't even put in the requisite amount of time to actually look at an item and faithfully authenticate it.

• ▶ Reply