Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by GraphingMlb on February 11, 2014 at 7:11pm

I dont know the beatles but I am sure JSA has to have a little more knowledge then you or i

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GraphingMlb on February 11, 2014 at 8:09pm

Will you just made my head spin...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D on February 11, 2014 at 8:13pm

I wouldn't take a JSA opinion on this ball. They are horrible with Celebrity signatures and music is all over the place. I'd stick with them on Baseball and that's a crap shoot sometimes. JSA has a new crew of guys over there now and it seems like throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks. Outside of Jimmy himself I wouldn't consider any of those guys experts. Sorry but that's my honest opinion as of late.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GraphingMlb on February 11, 2014 at 8:24pm

What a shame

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 12, 2014 at 5:26am

Jimmy signs off on every full LOA so on any full LOA you are ultimately getting HIS opinion.

Granted, on the regular non pictured cards, he doesn't necessarily look at every one but he will never issue a full LOA without personally affirming his opinion on the autograph.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 12, 2014 at 8:40am

No question that they lost two of their more experienced authenticators to SGC (possibly on purpose) and I certainly question some of their on site authenticators. However, I admit I do not know their credentials. I just know some are very young and very brash.

However, Jimmy makes the final call on all full LOAs. They claim they all have to agree on the autograph but I guarantee he can overrule the gang if he wants to. That is the power of owning the company.

I trust him on sports but really don't deal in entertainment autographs so I have no idea if this McCartney is authentic as it certainly looks off based on the authenticated ones I normally see. 

However, he knows that his LOA provides this item with instant value so I have to believe he felt comfortable authenticating it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D on February 12, 2014 at 10:53am

I wouldn't say they lost 2 of their more "experienced" authenticators to SGC, I wouldn't consider Mike Root an expert of authenticating autographs I personally wouldn't let him "authenticate" a Ham sandwich. I would say they lost an experienced authenticator when Larry moved on or was asked to move on (depending one who you talk to). The young kids they ham working there now wouldn't know a real signature if it was signed in front of them.

Yes Jimmy does have an opinion when it comes to deeming a signature authentic or not however the way I understand the operation at JSA is, if the consensus of the people looking at the signature agree that it looks good enough to pass then they pass is and normally Jimmy goes with the consensus opinion. The way they come to their conclusion is on a numbering system so they will ask the "authenticators" that are present to look at the signature and based on a 1-10 they will issue the item a number with 1 being the least likely genuine and 10 or 10 plus 10 being without a doubt authentic. They DO NOT ask every authenticator to look at an item If they are not present at a particular show and very rarely do they send music signatures to Roger for his opinion. I think we've seen these mistakes on this site before where a music item was called out "authenticated" by JSA that was deemed not authentic by mostly everyone here and Roger even chimed in to say they were indeed forgeries and he never looked at those particular items. JSA just doesn't have the staff experienced enough in the celebrity and music fields to render an opinion. They did at one time have an authenticator on staff that was well versed in celebrity and music signatures however I think he may have went to work for PSA/DNA in California.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 12, 2014 at 11:18am

You really think Jimmy will pass/fail an autograph when he disagrees with the consensus.

Highly unlikely. It is his company. He may go along on non pictured items but not on the full LOA ones. It is ultimately his reputation on the line, not his employees.

My point about Root and Studebaker was that they were certainly more knowledgeable than the young kids you referenced. Not sure how proficient his son is either but I think he is decent.

I also know for a fact at shows they send Jimmy scans on a lot of items before making any determination. They have told me they were doing so especially on potential high dollar autographs.

If he is not comfortable, they ask to take the item back with them for more study.

I once bought 50 Mantle Ray Gallo photos that came from Stacks of Plaques at a show and they would not authenticate them on site. They said they could call them inconclusive and refund my fees or take them back and render a final opinion but if they opined "Not Authentic," I would be out the fees.

They took them and authenticated every one when they had them in hand as I knew they were authentic.

They try to do their best to get it right. Did they blow this one? Maybe? But why would they put their reputation at risk when they could have easily just failed it since it is certainly atypical and still get the same fee. It makes no business sense.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D on February 12, 2014 at 12:10pm

Randy I agree with you that Jimmy does look at high profile signatures and when I say High profile I'm referring to Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, Ted Williams and guys along that line and mostly vintage guys. I know for a fact that when it comes to newer MLB guys, Celebrity, and music items Jimmy has no knowledge in those areas and will push them on to someone else on staff for an opinion, Jimmy himself has told me this personally. I know that they are supposed to forward all music signatures to Roger for an opinion but I do also know that at shows on the weekend they can not get in touch with Roger most of the time so they will either render an opinion themselves or take the items back with them. I'm trying not to trash JSA but I think they are just venturing into areas that they have no experience in and it is best they just say we don't have exemplars on that and cant do it instead of just stickering it or saying its no good when it is. I just trust PSA/DNA when it comes to music and celebrity items over JSA.  

When it comes to the JSA letters Jimmy may look at the photo on the letter and sign it based on the fact that everyone else agreed to the item but I know for a fact he doesn't read the letters because he's signed off on letters stating it was a signed photo when in fact it was a Baseball I've also seen letters that were for a baseball bat and the letter states cut signature.

I guess the bottom line is no one is perfect but at the same time if your paying for an "expert Opinion" you should get one.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 12, 2014 at 12:25pm

Agreed.

As I said, I only do sports and I think he is credible. If he doesn't know entertainment he should not authenticate it unless he uses Roger Epperson or someone like him that is knowledgeable.

Since Roger has not voiced his opinion on this item, I have to assume he was not asked to look at it and didn't sign off on it.

He probably won't jump in this discussion since technically based on the JSA web site, he is a consultant and wouldn't likely add fuel to the fire.

It looks terrible but it is so bad based on known authentic exemplars, there has to be a reason for certing it.

There was a Ruth discussed on here a month or so ago that looked awful but had his LOA. I know Ruth pretty well and have never seen one that looked like that one deemed authentic but again, what was the reasoning?

It is much easier to reject when on the fence than to authenticate especially when the autograph looks so far off the norm so why did he take a chance? Was it submitted by a big customer? Who knows?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D on February 12, 2014 at 1:24pm

I don't think Roger would have a problem voicing his opinion on here either way, He has in the past come on and said he didn't sign off on items so I think his reputation is on the line as well so he probably hasn't seen the thread yet to comment on the ball in question.

My opinion is a signature should be authenticated on what it is and not the story behind the signature or who submitted it and the quantity  of items submitted. Far too many times when an item is submitted to JSA the first question is "where did you obtain the item" and my question is are you authenticating the story or the signature?

I'd be interested to hear what Roger has to say though.

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 14, 2014 at 3:56am

I think it is more prudent to reject when on the fence.  in this case, I don't see the fence.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page