Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 14, 2014 at 6:26pm

I've seen exact photos that were photo shopped and looked as real as this one. I think you've got to use exemplars. Did JSA do that or did they get a copy of the picture? No way to know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Bautista on February 14, 2014 at 6:35pm

How about if a jsa authenticator is standing right there in a jets sweater witnessing the autograph .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Bautista on February 14, 2014 at 6:36pm

Well I should say ex . Cause he no longer works there .

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 14, 2014 at 8:00pm

I don't know. How do you know he was there? Cause he told you? Just curious.

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 14, 2014 at 5:29pm

Okay, I'm just putting this out here with the disclaimer that I'm not trying to resurrect a dispute, as I know we have pretty different opinions on PSA and JSA.  

Granted, they do appear to have gotten that right, which is great and a bit of a relief.  But, really, I'm not sure how impressed we're supposed to be. There's a proof photo, which stands on its own.  JSA did absolutely nothing that any one of us on this site couldn't do.   Or anyone looking at the photo for that matter.

On related topic, isn't there perhaps some sort of standard of quality that these authenticating firms should consider?  Do you really want to put your company's seal of approval on something that looks so completely wrong and just godawful in general?  Granted, setting this standard might be somewhat complex - consider the fact that crappy, illegible scribbles are just about par for the course these days.  But you you really want to be associated with such a ugly product?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 14, 2014 at 6:38pm

I like disputes so keep stirring them up. This forum would be boring without them.

We're to be impressed because they were correct in their authentication and the reason is irrelevant and other than a couple of members here, no one would have ever believed it without the photo proof and they would have continued to be bashed because no one wants to believe that Paul forgot what letter of the alphabet his name starts with. I can honestly say I have never spelled my first name wrong since I first learned how to write it.

No one here, as far as I know, ever has any first hand knowledge other than Mr. Zipper or Roger in their respective areas of consultation as to how a decision is reached on any of their  authentications. We have no idea of any provenance they may have to support a decision as they obviously did in this case.

Terrier said he would have more respect for them if they rejected an item with specific photo proof like this one has that the autograph was authentic. Are you kidding me?

We all speculate, mostly anonymously, whether they are right or wrong.

It's easy. If we are proven wrong, we can just stop posting on that subject and move quietly to another topic. 

To your final question, I would never collect an autograph that did not look somewhat like the person's name. I'm old school and love the fact that until about 1990, you could actually read most major league baseball player's autographs. Now they are hideous.

However, if they are authentic and your hero, you don't care.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on February 14, 2014 at 7:37pm

@ Rich: "Do you really want to put your company's seal of approval on something that looks so completely wrong and just godawful in general? Granted, setting this standard might be somewhat complex - consider the fact that crappy, illegible scribbles are just about par for the course these days. But you you really want to be associated with such a ugly product?"

That is a really interesting question. For my personal LOA I have declined to issue letters for items I thought were likely good, but were weak examples. It's a choice I have made to not issue letters for what I call "51 percenters." I want my personal LOAs to be for strong positives and I have that luxury.

But one could make the argument that clients are paying for an opinion one way or the other from the TPA and they don't have the luxury of ONLY certing prime examples. It's possible JSA and or PSA do decline to certs certain examples they think are probably okay but are unusual... I really don't know.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rich on February 14, 2014 at 8:03pm

There are a lot of autographs that are just plain awful, almost embarrassing to display (Pacino is a prime example).  Many are really unable to be authenticated without validating the source with 100% assurance or seeing it yourself.  But I'm sure the companies are just stuck - think of how many modern sports autographs this applies to (almost all of them, I think).  And how many A-list celebrities in high demand would they have to turn down?  Just settling any sort of standard would be a headache.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D on February 14, 2014 at 8:00pm

I personally didn't "crucify" JSA on the Sharpie signed baseball other than make a comment about the backwards "P". I think there was really only 1 member that was totally against that ball as it is atypical.

I also don't take shots at one particular authentication company in general I think they all have flaws and some more so than others but I also have a good understanding on how they all work and what type of knowledge is behind each company which anyone should know if they are putting their trust in that company getting it right when they authenticate an item.

I also don't like to put members under the bus but Randy you are one of the members that made a comment on the JSA Jeter forgeries that I posted a few weeks ago and you saw nothing wrong with the ones I pointed out and even said you've seen Steiner authenticated Jeters that look identical but when another member posted a magazine (I think an SI or Yankees magazine) with the same exact Jeter forgery example but with a GAI sticker on it you were one of the first to say it's probably not good because it has a GAI sticker on it. Which comes to the statement I made yesterday that a lot of people buy signatures based on the coa and rarely on the signature itself. I should say inexperienced buyers. I'm not taking a personal shot at you or anyone else but when a signature is bad or just doesn't look right and its authenticated by one of these companies for money then they should be open to the criticism when they don't get it right. I still feel strongly that the original baseball in question is not authentic and even if a photo were to surface I would still stand on my Opinion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 14, 2014 at 8:47pm

Your final statement makes it useless to respond.

Your opinion is better than positive proof. I would have expected no less.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason D on February 14, 2014 at 8:53pm

I figured as much.

I think the opinion of JSA or PSA/DNA for that matter is all that's needed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Dodder on February 18, 2014 at 3:38am

Steve I think you bring up a very valid point with this photo. It is obvious that the p looks like a g. I am sure that all the signatures Paul signs in person are rushed but I sure would not want to be the person to authenticate the ball.  

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• Next ›
• Page