What's up with PSA "Quick Opinion"?

I submitted three items yesterday for PSA to give me a "Quick Opinion" as to authenticity. All three are from Ahlers and Ogletree Auctions in Atlanta. Two were Charles Dickens autographed signed letters and one was a Mark Twain ALS. You can search their items, including these, on liveauctioneers.com. Put Ahlers & Ogletree in the search box. They currently have several Dickens and Twain items.

All three PSA opinions came back as "Likely Not Authentic." I'm no expert, but the writing is similar to other examples and these are multi-page letters. How often do forgers forge multiple pages and make up content that is wholly relevant to the subject? The cynic in me is wondering if PSA deems almost everything "Likely Not Authentic" because it's more efficient for them to do so. Or perhaps a machine is doing the quick opinion "authentication"?

For example, here is one of the two Charles Dickens items they say is "Likely Not Authentic."

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/169997640_charles-dickens-hand...

I'd like to hear your thoughts. Thanks.

Tags: Dickens, PSA, Twain

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by JMS1223 on January 31, 2024 at 5:08pm

I once submitted a Helen Keller signature I saw for sale for Quick Opinion and it came back “Not Likely to Pass Full Authentication” so I didn’t bid. Ended up going for $83. Thought I saved myself from buying a fake then a few months later I see the same exact Helen Keller signature with a full Letter of Authenticity and sold for $1000. I was mad.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LiverpoolWalrus on January 31, 2024 at 5:22pm

Was it a full letter of authenticity from PSA? If nothing else, this illustrates the awesome value of a COA/LOA from a reputable source. Sorry it didn't work out for you. I think somethings up with those "Quick Opinions."

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JMS1223 on January 31, 2024 at 5:37pm

I believe it was from Beckett actually but still one of the big three (the other two being PSA and JSA).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yony Mark on February 1, 2024 at 9:11am

I've come to the understanding that "Quick Opinions" are mostly worthless and are mostly a way for the companies to make some extra money on the side.

PSA and Beckett themselves have stated that quick opinion != full authentication, and that an item that failed the quick opinion test, won't necessarily fail the full in-house authentication process they offer.

It also makes sense business-wise for the companies - if they can't get to a "quick" conclusion about the item at question, better off painting it as "Likely Not Authentic" and stating that quick opinion != full authentication.

You'd be much better off asking on this forum, or the RACC Facebook group, about the specific item. Many times, collectors of the genre of the same item know much better than third-party authenticators.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JMS1223 on February 1, 2024 at 9:20am

Agree. Regarding that last part where we post photos here for opinions, I did that once and found watches on the eBay item spiked once I posted it here. I believe I created some unwanted competition and lost the item due to that. It also made the bids go much higher. So buyer beware about posting photos - SOME people will find the item and bid if they like what you found.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LiverpoolWalrus on February 1, 2024 at 11:25am

I have no problem with companies making extra money on the side, but it has to be for a legitimate product or service. If it's true that PSA simply rubber stamps most Quick Opinions as "Likely Not Authentic" because it doesn't have the resources to give the item a proper review, I would say the practice sheds doubt on the company's integrity and reliability, which many people think is beyond reproach.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Yony Mark on February 1, 2024 at 12:55pm

But that's exactly what's happening. PSA simply rubber stamps most Quick Opinions as "Likely Not Authentic" because they don't want to spend the resources to give most items a proper review - when the 'proper review' is their full authentication service.

And again, they're honest about it. They mention themselves that quick opinion != full authentication.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on February 1, 2024 at 11:37am

"quick opinion "authentication""

There have been many threads lately that made me want to borrow this wording from the OP. Quick Opinions, Signature Review - they are not authentications of any kind. Some get that crossed. An item that passes QO can fail, an item that fails QO can pass full exam. We just saw an item pass one QO, and then fail another service (rightly so). We also saw a good item fail (for perhaps understandable reasons). It is my belief that, if one is going to use these services, the collector should rule out obvious forgeries, the secretarials, the common preprints, Autopens, facsimiles, etc. and establish live ink before submitting for such a fast render. One thing is clear - buying on the strength of such a fast render alone is not the best idea.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 1, 2024 at 11:44am

I just submitted a PSA authenticated Macca SP that in my opinion is definitely a forgery. The asking price is $7,500. I was curious to see if they would take a fresh look at it and recognize it as a known forgery style. The Quick Opinion result was “Likely Genuine.”

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by LiverpoolWalrus on February 1, 2024 at 8:20pm

The price alone would make me think it's a fake. Macca SPs are certainly in demand and fetch a tidy sum, but McCartney is nowhere near the $7,500 level. Reminds me of many eBay autographs where the sellers ask unrealistic astronomical prices...and never get them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on February 1, 2024 at 8:46pm

Well, it was graded a “Gem Mint 10”, so it’s exceptionally bold with no skipping or tracing. If only it was real. The same forgery style on photos from the same photo session are available from Autograph Central for $350.