We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/321411296210
The LOA doesn't mention Maris at all. Wouldn't he be the premiere signature on a 1958 As ball?
So, was the Maris added after December 19, 2011 (date of authentication), which implies it's a forgery, or did PSA really authenticate the ball without mentioning Maris at all?
Tags:
Yeah, that's what I meant, Mike. Whenever I've seen a team signed item, Maris is always mentioned on the LOA either as a notable or clubhouse. This LOA did neither. If I were the owner, I would have complained to PSA, and I'm sure Joe would have gotten it fixed, as he has fixed other issues I had with PSA, in the past.
As for how it would imply a forgery, Anthony: If the LOA doesn't mention Maris, and he's the premiere signature on the ball, the implication is that it wasn't signed by Maris. Since he died well before PSA started authenticating, it would have been impossible for him to sign the ball later.
So, either the Maris is forged or somehow PSA (and the person who had it authenticated) missed that Maris signed the ball. Those are the only two explanations I can think of.
I got a response from PSA today, and they said that if Maris was on the ball when authenticated, he would have been the premiere signature. As such, he would have been listed as either authentic or clubhouse.
So, this goes back to the original concern:
It's either a forgery (added after Maris' death) or PSA and the submitter missed Maris' signature at the time of submission.
That makes sense, but PSA's representative said it wasn't a Maris authenticated ball. I even sent them the link to the original ball. Here is the exact quote from the email sent to me:
"PSA/DNA would list the primary signers and HOFers on the LOA/LOO. In the case below, Roger Maris would have been listed on the LOA, even if the result was Clubhouse."
This was in reference to:
"Also, if I've compiled a list of all the players represented on the ball (22 signatures), would the LOA name all of them as either authentic or clubhouse? The reason I ask is related to another A's signed ball that was authenticated by PSA (http://www.ebay.com/itm/321411296210). According to the seller, the ball was signed by Maris, but the LOA has no mention of Maris. I would assume, as the key signature on the ball, that Maris would be either mentioned as authentic or as a clubhouse."
I understand it being possibly an oversight, but that fails the logic test for me. If I submitted a team ball to PSA with Maris (or Mantle or DiMaggio or Williams), only to have it returned as authentic with no mention of the key signature, I'd immediately email Joe and find out why. If it were an oversight, I'm confident Joe would have done what he's done in the past, directing the ball be sent to his attention, so it could be reviewed again. I really don't see a scenario under which the owner of the ball would simply ignore the lack of Maris being mentioned in the LOA, if the Maris were, indeed, authentic.
Something else that makes me curious is the LOA mentions 28 signatures, but when you actually count them, there are 29. It seems far more likely that the Maris was added than the authenticator both missed the Maris and miscounted.
Jsa takes like 5-10 minutes on certain pieces, with psa they look to see who sent it in, and if its not somebody who sends them hundreds of autos they give it like a 30 second look. Its a good Maris (His signature or original 50's secretarial) just needs to be mentioned, the ink is uniform and its NOT on the end where it could be added later
Posted by CJCollector on November 11, 2024 at 6:03pm 0 Comments 1 Like
Posted by CJCollector on November 9, 2024 at 2:32pm 7 Comments 0 Likes
Posted by CJCollector on October 30, 2024 at 3:13pm 2 Comments 0 Likes
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin. Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service