We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

ELVIS Front and Back signed german post card.

IS IT REAL?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on September 1, 2011 at 10:31pm

Greg,

You're writing where you can't be answered directly. I couldn't agree with Roger Epperson more:

If someone is bumped while they're signing and the authenticator can't tell for sure who signed it, or it's so sub-par and atypical they don't want it with their OK on it even if they think it's likely genuine, then they have every right to reject it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on September 1, 2011 at 11:41pm

Owners of these autographs have a choice. They decide to seek the expertise of an authentication company. If a company doesn't pass an item, they don't destroy it. It goes back to the seller. They do as they will with it. They may try to sell it or keep it. If one knows something is genuine because they got in-person or use their own exemplars and are comfortable with it, not passing through an authentication company doesn't tarnish the auto one bit.

It is all opinion. The opinion of the seller and the opinion of the authentication company they choose. The autographs still exist, even without a PSA sticker or being eligible to be sold on RR or somewhere else. Autographs don't have to be big business. Responsible authenticators don't have the benefit of being there when the item was signed, they inspect and test the handwriting of the autograph to the best of their ability. That's all they say they do (besides those forensic document examiners and their fancy claims).

I think it's worse when PSA authenticates Charlton Heston's, Jackie Gleason's, or Tony Curtis' secretarial. Who ever thought we'd want some elderly secretary's signature?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on September 1, 2011 at 11:43pm

In other words, I'm more worried about what they do pass than what they don't pass.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Lando on September 2, 2011 at 6:20am

I am going to give my opinion, for what its worth, on the evolution of third party authenticators, and where it appears to be now.

years ago, people were buying "bargain" autographs on ebay, and getting constantly burned. Enter PSA/DNA, and then a slew of others, some more or less qualified. Back then, people did not consider these as "opinions", instead, they were considered declarations of absolute authenticity. Forgetting the fact that the only way you can be 100% certain of authenticity, is to get the autograph in person. Everything else is an opinion.

It became a big business for these companies to the point where if you had an autograph that was totally consistent with a signer's style, if it didn't have a psa sticker on it (or equivalent), it was seriously undervalued.

Over the past couple of years, several blatant errors have been publicized where each major authenticator has blundered. What does this mean? nothing more than they are providing an opinion, and sometimes that opinion turns out to be in error.

What does that mean now, when a prospective collector searches for a desired autograph on ebay, and finds one with a sticker? based on everything that has come to light on the known mistakes, what value does an authentication truly have? does it really provide the buyer with piece of mind, which was the original intent?

These companies cannot be experts on EVERY single autograph submitted to them. I have seen college team signed basketballs authenticated, and I wonder, on what basis can they render an opinion? do they have a collection of known exemplars from unknown college players?

Currently, I believe that people still use these authenticators to "bless" these signatures, because they still appear to command somewhat of a premium.

Where I would like to see this hobby go is back to where autograph collectors use their own judgement, coupled with sites like this that provide guidance, education, and even, opinions. From their they can draw their own conclusions.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on September 2, 2011 at 5:13am

This picking and choosing of which traits are allowable and acceptable will lead eventually, over time, to an authenticator engineered version of what a historically influential individuals signature ought to look like.

I don't get it. Isn't this what you are doing with your theory on the downward tilted P?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on September 2, 2011 at 8:36am

... and should be destroyed, like a helpless, unwanted infant? unable to fend for itself?

Not at all. Just like a dealer or auction house has a right to only buy and sell autographs that they feel comfortable with their "stamp of approval" on, if an autograph is so atypical or defective that it could lessen the value of items with the company's name on them, they should pass on approving them. But I don't think they should charge to authenticate those pieces either. Or they should charge a much lower fee at least.

What we really need are authentication boards.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tony Lando on September 2, 2011 at 10:33am

or no opinion rendered, and no charge. I have seen that from some of the very specialized, highly reputable authenticators.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sling on September 3, 2011 at 1:02pm

yeah, no opinion is excellent

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on September 2, 2011 at 11:00am

Neither is this forensic document nonsense. This DNA testing the paper junk or whatever the hell they do is BS like the movement of burn patterns were supposed to be indicative of arson or not in the 90's.

People seek the advice of authentication companies. That's their prerogative. Personally, on eBay, items that are legit but don't have authentication I typically see sell for what the item would sell for minus the price of what authentication would be. Maybe sellers lose a small premium for not going through the hassle and testing of authentication.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Brick Hunter on September 2, 2011 at 11:01am

Also, the authentication companies don't agree. Just look at JSA's secretarial Gleason compared to PSA's authentic example, right?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on September 2, 2011 at 11:08am

Greg,

I don't think anyone's suggesting to call it a forgery if it's likely genuine but unacceptable to approve. That's not the thing to do. The right call is to decline to issue an opinion and refund the submittor's money.