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

Two online authentications disagreeing

I recently obtained an amazing autograph on hibid dot com from an estate sale auction. I didn't end up paying very much money at all but before I put in what turned out to be my final bid a week ago, I submitted it to SWAU for a quick $10 opinion. SWAU came back with Likely Genuine.

Post-auction, I submitted it to Beckett for an additional opinion. It came back with the dreaded Unlikely to Pass Full Authentication.

SWAU has steered me right numerous times before and Beckett has been nothing but a source of much frustration.

In the opinions of those reading this, do I look for a third opinion or do I trust SWA's word?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 1, 2024 at 8:31pm

Generally speaking, these are quick opinions. Not in-hand examinations, not authentications. When we had sales here members were not allowed to sell on the strength of a quick opinion alone regardless of source. Items with quick opinions can still fail if submitted for full authentication.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colin Ryono on January 1, 2024 at 8:48pm

1. Aside from the ink being tested, what can be seen by an authentication rep in-person vs online? I'm not asking for purposes of debate/argument. Merely curious.

2. On the reverse of your statement that "Items with quick opinions can still fail if submitted for full authentication," is it also true vice versa, i.e items that failed quick opinions were authenticated in person?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 1, 2024 at 9:05pm

1. Every quality that cannot be seen in a two dimensional scan or photograph.

2. If you mean can an item that failed a quick opinion still be authentic the answer is yes. It is just a quick opinion. I believe you are reading way too much into these opinions. They are not authentications.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colin Ryono on January 1, 2024 at 9:09pm

I appreciate your replies and forgive my ignorance, but what qualities in an autograph can't be seen in a scan/photo?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 1, 2024 at 9:20pm

Pressure, paper. A lot. Too much to list. For starters, one cannot rule out a preprint or facsimile (unless they are recognized) or a photocopy from looking at a scan. Look at the scan below which I made - can you be certain it is not a well made color photocopy?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 1, 2024 at 9:23pm

PS - Another thing to consider. If I enlarge a scan I will be seeing digital artifacts eventually. If I have the item, I can use a glass and see the actual item w/o any loss of data.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colin Ryono on January 1, 2024 at 10:52pm

Thank you again for your replies.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 1, 2024 at 11:09pm

Most welcome.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on January 2, 2024 at 3:15pm

Colin,

I think that your Henson autograph is real—a great example of what they often look like when he's not rushing and has a decent surface to sign on. The BAS authenticator may have thought it was printed since it's signed on a Muppet play program.

Beautiful piece from a beautiful man. We met him on a plane to Disneyworld back in 1989. My younger daughter, then 2, walked up to him in his seat and they talked for a couple of minutes.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric Keith Longo on January 2, 2024 at 3:17pm

"The BAS authenticator may have thought it was printed since it's signed on a Muppet play program."

"Beautiful piece from a beautiful man. We met him on a plane to Disneyworld back in 1989. My younger daughter, walked up to him in his seat and they talked for a couple of minutes."

WOW! Did he sign?