posted 01-19-2007 04:13 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikelarson:

Unless every autograph in your collection was signed in your presence, there is some level of risk that it isn't authentic. And even if it was signed in person for you, what happens when you or your family goes to sell it? You know it's authentic, but you can't prove it 100% to the person you sell it to.

Mike

[Edited by mikelarson (January 18, 2007).]

---

Well, some of my items, I have photos of me standing in front of the athlete or celebrity while they are signing that particular item. It's the best COA you can have.

posted 01-19-2007 04:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:
I still personally believe, very much so, that none of the 3 autographs on this item is authentic.

---

Paul

posted 01-19-2007 04:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mikelarson:
Some of the responses in this thread sound like they are written by our politicians in Washington. For all the criticisms being leveled towards specialist authenticators like Scott, generalist authenticators like PSA/DNA, and auction houses like RR, I have yet to hear any of these critics offer up any meaningful alternatives to better address the issue of authentication.

---

quote:

---

PSA/DNA, a leading authentication service that sprinkles its holy water upon an estimated $1.3 billion worth of collectibles each year, has been taking its share of lumps. PSA/DNA (or its parent company, Collectors Universe) is embroiled in two lawsuits and has been assailed by the Universal Autograph Collectors Club -- the oldest such organization in the country -- for allowing active dealers to serve as authenticators (conflict of interest, anyone?), blessing autographs that had been produced by rubber stamp or autopen, issuing signed Certificates of Authenticity (COAs) for items an authenticator never actually saw and giving auction houses a COA letter to hand out with items that had been given a less-than-full examination.

---

posted 01-19-2007 06:46 AM               

quote:

---

"Widespread credentials"? You mean such as these?: http://www.frangipaniforensics.com/Professonal.html

---

It would be nice if there was a centralize "wall of shame or suspect" where people for or against could chime in.... pictures could be posted, experts or authenticators or whatever they choose to self promote themselves as could weigh in on the subject. Of coures, I wonder about the longevity as there are certain sentiments by a minority few, even here, that might make it impossible...

quote:

---

specialists like Scott are basically no good. If one doesn't understand the reasons that specialists are better at authenticating than generalists, To that end, I would like to know, db54, how you think authentication should be handled since you don't like PSA (bravo!) nor specialists (???).

---

quote:

---

You use the word "experts" in quotation marks in your posting. Who here has called themself an "expert?"

---

quote:

---

Some of the responses in this thread sound like they are written by our politicians in Washington.

---

-db-

posted 01-19-2007 07:08 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by autocut:
Well, some of my items, I have photos of me standing in front of the athlete or celebrity while they are signing that particular item. It's the best COA you can have.

---

autocut - the naysayers and they walk amongst us will say, how can we be sure that is an "authenticate" photo especially with the power of computers and photoshop.

I too, like you, have an extensive photography support log of people signing and alongside. I suspect, that collection when the kids inherit it will also come under fire in time as well. Of course, someone may also question the Glenn Mercury photo inscribed to me as a secretary's signature vs the Marine Colonel himself.

posted 01-19-2007 08:07 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by db54:
Scott, that would be a start but as I have found one needs to have confidence that there weren't earned in online correspondence courses. ...Also interesting is frangipani's perspective on Ebay's position.

---

Anyway, you seem to have very obvious issues with R&R (and as far as I recall you never criticize by name any of the other auction houses - you know, the ones who continually put out catalogs with obvious autopens represented as handsigned?). Also, what gives you the impression that I rely solely on my own judgement on every single item? On very difficult, "tweener" items I run them by a few very very knowledgeable and well-known collectors for additional opinions. My only goal is to give an accurate judgment of each item. But I don't take any of your comments personally. You obviously have a personal grudge against R&R. I hope you get over it.

posted 01-19-2007 08:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by db54:
mjanovec - If you read the R&R catalog on their authenticators, It clearly states; "...we are proud to work with a group of experts providing authentication..." Of course, they are not going to say, "well, they really aren't experts" but rather avid collector's who feel confident that they can authenticate "real" from "memorex".

---

My post was in reference to Richard's post about "experts" on the CS forum, not about R&R. Even still, Scott isn't calling himself an expert...it's someone at R&R who is.

Who do you think are true experts, db54?

posted 01-19-2007 08:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott:
LOL. I think my posting of that link went way over someone's head ....

---

posted 01-19-2007 09:17 AM            

1. Frangipani is not out of prison because he was never in prison.

2. db54: Scott's credentials are irrelevant. It's his experience that makes him good. I think some people *can* authenticate and some *can't.* What credentials do the PSA people have? Steve Grad used to be an in-person autograph seeker. That might make him good at knowing the autographs of people he personally obtained, but I question where his experience comes from outside of those names he obtained himself.

Remember the story on Jim Spence a few years ago? A local news team did a story on him. Not only did the reporter do a Mike Schmidt ball herself in the van, only to have Jim pass it and fail a real one that was brought along, but he stated that Babe Ruth was definitively left-handed (not a space reference, but it need to be mentioned.)

3. For those who didn't understand the true reason behind Scott's posting of Frangipani's credentials, there's a whole story from about seven years ago that I don't feel like typing. The point was that his credentials didn't make him a good authenticator.

posted 01-19-2007 09:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonIUP:
To address a few issues...

1. Frangipani is not out of prison because he was never in prison.

---

Yeah, I guess being a very bad autograph authenticator and issuing tons of meaningless COAs isn't reason enough to go to prison - I guess. And I believe that originally the "PSA" in PSA/DNA stood for "Professional Sports Appraisors." I believe that they had that on their Website, but may not now since they have branched out into other autograph fields.

posted 01-19-2007 09:33 AM               

quote:

---

Anyway, you seem to have very obvious issues with R&R (and as far as I recall you never criticize by name any of the other auction houses - you know, the ones who continually put out catalogs with obvious autopens represented as handsigned?).

---

quote:

---

You obviously have a personal grudge against R&R.

---

quote:

---

I think my posting of that link went way over someone's head .... LOL.

---

quote:

---

Also, what gives you the impression that I rely solely on my own judgement on every single item? On very difficult, "tweener" items I run them by a few very very knowledgeable and well-known collectors for additional opinions.

---

quote:

---

My only goal is to give an accurate judgment of each item. But I don't take any of your comments personally.

---

As someone who has led a number of Sarbannes-Oxley reviews, I can tell you that with Financial Reporting and Controls -anyone connected with an event or organization that resulted in failed financial information is held equally responsible. (Mike, look it up if you want to become a real politician) It's unfortunate that many of these auction houses are not listed on the exchange.

I tend to keep this same principle in mind for other industries lately as well and apply the weight equally to those who are consigners & then supporters of the practice or authenticators in an operation that has apparently glaring ethical issues.

-db-

posted 01-19-2007 09:54 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JasonIUP:

2. db54: Scott's credentials are irrelevant. It's his experience that makes him good.

If credentials DO make someone a good authenticator, how was that Armstrong ball that I posted a couple weeks ago passed by Reznikoff? I think he has some credentials above and beyond that $30,000 handwriting camparator spectromator analyzor.

---

Jason, we may agree to disagree on some of this as one's experience is part of those credentials. I am not a CQM because I passed the bar but rather because of 30 years in the field. However the CQM designation cites a specific body of knowledge that one is expected fully understand as well as follow.

As you cited in the examples it is not the credentials but how (or if) they are utilized. To merely slosh off, as some have done here, as occassional mistakes is however is not the answer.

Setting the bar, standards, process and ethics is the first step to reign in the unethical (knowingly or those looking the other way) and then holding them accountable.