Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 25, 2018 at 5:55am

Couldn't agree with you more, Jimbo.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by TradeGeek on September 25, 2018 at 1:24pm

I also totally agree with Jimbo. 

I have never sent anything to a TPA. But I also invested a lot of time into understanding the hobby and how to avoid forgeries. The vast majority of casual collectors aren't going to do that. So TPA's have their place, even if I don't like them. 

I also agree re: stickers. Why do so many companies place them in prominent locations? Especially on fabric. I see autographed jerseys with stickers on the numbers and it makes me go nuts. Spend thousands on something that has actually been damaged by the authenticator. I don't get it. I do think they view it at advertising.  

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• Jordan.JPG, 54 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on September 25, 2018 at 5:53pm

I believe the rationale is that they have to place the sticker on the number rather than somewhere else on the jersey because the number could be switched out otherwise. For example, place a number with a fake sig on the jersey that has the hologram. The example you show though makes no sense... the sticker should not be on the unsigned number.

This could all be solved by issuing only letters with photos so there would be no need to sticker the item.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by goodcat on September 25, 2018 at 5:48pm

I have to admit, I didn't really understand your original question

I just went with the flow and answered accordingly haha

Hey... it is what it is and people are voicing some good reasoning and responding

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 27, 2018 at 4:46pm

I would never want to be a professional authenticator. First, because I am not nor ever will be qualified. Second, authentication comes down to three possible choices.

1. Authentic

2. Not authentic

3. Unable to determine

Most authentication services refund the fee if option three is chosen. Not much money in that and it takes as much time for come up with that conclusion as the other two.

Authentication is not a science. It's an educated opinion. I understand people take comfort in their COAs. But, it is and always will be a flawed system. Errors cost someone money and rarely, if ever, is it the authentication company.

It's a good gig if you have the skills along with a thick skin to handle the criticism.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on September 27, 2018 at 5:58pm

There is, or at least should be, a science to authentication. I think every authenticator should break down each signature being authenticated into as many factors as they can, and check each factor against his/her authentic sample pool to determine the statistical likelihood that each factor may occur. Additionally, an authenticator should work to assure that their authentic pool thoroughly reflects each celebrity's range of signing variations, by populating their pool with signatures that are the messiest through most legible versions as well as different product/item types, pen thicknesses and, when relevant, era/years, etc.

On the Clapton thread and about being conservative at times: I am definitely highly conservative when it comes to signatures that are a combination of two things: hyper minimal and highly valuable. I may even be conservative for each of those factors individually. More than anything though, the above mentioned method should always be the approach.

Hopefully my joining this thread won't lead to a bunch of people going at me. I didn't even proof read this comment so go easy on me. ;)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by BallroomDays67 on September 27, 2018 at 6:12pm

I'm not trying to "go at you", but would be interested to know which of these signatures from RACC trusted sellers in your opinion fall within a "range of signing variations."

https://live.autographmagazine.com/forum/topics/jerry-lee-lewis-sig...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on September 27, 2018 at 6:21pm

I'm glad you joined in and am happy you are a part of this community. My concern is not the authentication service being an option for the collector. But, rather, that too much influence over the hobby can occur. It's already getting to the point if someone wants to sell an autograph the first question is, "Who authenticated it". 

If it's not got the right sticker then many "collectors" won't even consider it. That's their right, of course. But it won't be long until a collector will be extremely limited where they can sell their item unless they are willing to pay an authenticator their fee. Or consign their item to an auction house who offers these "pre-certified" guarantees.

I recently had a phone conversation with someone who told me that if XYZ says it good then I can sell it easily at ABC vendor. That I would be better served to keep quiet and move it on down the line.

What's wrong with that picture?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on September 27, 2018 at 6:47pm

Of the 100+ IP autograph dealers who are listed on the RACC Trusted Sellers list, less than 3% of their inventory has been authenticated. This means 97% of a large portion of the items being signed today hit the market without a sticker.

I don't think TPA has as much of an impact (on modern autographs, anyway) as it may seem. Most of the legitimate sellers who obtain items themselves prefer not to submit, and they sell on their own reputation and the transparency of their inventory.

Of the dealers who buy and sell, it seems many of them prefer to get additional opinions to help assure they are well informed. Also, most dealers conclude that TPA adds value.

Regarding buyers, most are fans and not enthusiasts who trust that authentication services are making good decisions. And of the collectors, some trust TPA and some prefer to study themselves. One thing I can tell you for sure is that the internet is really helping to inform buyers in lots of great ways. The communities are growing.

My opinion on the guy who suggests selling a bad item down the line is that they may lack integrity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by marc e on September 27, 2018 at 9:50pm

I sell on racc here Ebay and other places. I have never got an ugly sticker on my stuff. If the buyer wants to I have no problem with him  but I dont do it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on September 27, 2018 at 11:43pm

Tim,

Killer discussion you started here.

My opinions:

1) I think that ALL authenticators should authenticate autographs as if they're guaranteeing the authenticity for life. They should feel confident that an autograph is genuine before approving it.

2) Third-party authenticators that aren't specialized should not be used as final arbiters on authenticity. They are not in the business of authenticating to help settle disputes. They rarely will discuss why they feel an autograph is or is not real. That's not their business. They're in the business of authenticating an autograph to decide if it should get their COA. Big difference.

3) Stickers on the front of memorabilia: I feel along the lines of most members in this discussion about them. If I explained in detail how I felt about them I'd have to suspend myself from the site.

4) Autograph grading is not a fad. Every one of us grades an autograph when we're buying or selling. We just don't put a number to it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mr. Steffman on September 28, 2018 at 4:38pm

I have a topic I'd like to hear people's thoughts on.

I was an in person "professional" collector on and off for over 20 years, and signatures that I obtained personally throughout this time period still come up on the market. When I see them, I often recognize them right away and recall the experience.

On to the debate: Now that I am a full-time authenticator with AutographCOA, and having sold all of these autographs ages ago, how should I feel when autographs which I obtained myself are now being submitted to ACOA? Of course I know they are authentic, as I witnessed them being signed myself, but is there some potential conflict of interest or compromise of integrity if an authenticator is certifying items that he is the original source of? Or is that fine?

I know I can certify these items and no one would ever know that I was the original source. Nonetheless, I'd like to hear people's thoughts about it, as it's come up a few times already and I've wondered about it.

• ▶ Reply

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