|
Author
|
Topic: Authenticity decals on astronaut autographs
|
jtheoret
Member Posts: 344
From: Albuquerque, NM USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 07-08-2014 04:20 PM
   
Why do the likes of JSA and PSA DNA continue to mar otherwise perfectly nice autographs by putting their stickers on the face of the item? Does anyone think this is a good idea or adds any value whatsoever? I think such items are absolutely worthless after those stickers are on there and you literally could not pay me to take one. I just don't get it and think its a real shame that companies purportedly "protecting" the hobby are destroying so many wonderful pieces! Can anyone make them stop? |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 07-08-2014 04:41 PM
Only if no one sends them items to authenticate. I agree it is a terrible practice and I would not buy any item with a sticker on the front.
|
Steve Zarelli
Member Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 07-08-2014 04:46 PM
The submitter has the option to place the sticker on the back of the item, or in the case where a Letter of Authenticity (with photo) is issued, you can opt to not have the sticker on the item at all. It is an option you select on the submission form.I had a conversation with a contact at one of the major TPAs and asked him about sticker placement. He told me that some submitters INSIST on placing the sticker front and center. He told me sometimes on a vintage item, they will call the submitter and double check, "Are you sure you want a sticker on this? We can put it on the back or you don't need it with a full letter..." and the some people want it that way and there is no convincing them otherwise. I agree that I prefer not to have any sticker placed on a signed item... especially a vintage piece. But in all fairness, it is not entirely the fault of the third party authenticator. When I issue Letters of Authenticity, I place no foreign substance on the item. A large clear image on the LOA should suffice. This is how it has been done by many dealers, authenticators and appraisers long before hologram stickers came into play. |
stsmithva
Member Posts: 1933
From: Fairfax, VA, USA
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 07-08-2014 07:46 PM
My gosh, I'm amazed that those stickers are something that the owner requests, ignoring options to not have the sticker placed on the front. I always assumed it was something done by clueless authenticators. They are just terrible - so distracting and unattractive. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-08-2014 08:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Zarelli:
But in all fairness, it is not entirely the fault of the third party authenticator.
At the end of the day though, it is the authenticator that is placing the decal on the autograph. Regardless of what the customer requests, the authenticator can, and I would argue should, follow a "do no harm" motto and choose to only offer options that leave the autograph unmarred. |
rgarner
Member Posts: 1193
From: Shepperton, United Kingdom
Registered: Mar 2012
|
posted 07-09-2014 04:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...only offer options that leave the autograph unmarred.
Or at the very least have some sort of disclaimer that states it will cause the value of the item to drop by marring the front. |
Steve Zarelli
Member Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 07-09-2014 06:12 AM
Some would argue it increases the value by "showing the item is authentic."Believe me, I agree and understand that the stickers are a detraction to many. I'm just trying to illuminate the fact that there are many others who don't feel the same. Granted, those types of collectors are probably more numerous in sports and entertainment genres. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-09-2014 06:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Zarelli:
Some would argue it increases the value by "showing the item is authentic."
The irony, of course, is that if a decal is what is required to assure authenticity, it further calls the signature into question. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-09-2014 11:37 AM
Just throwing it out there in light of the above comments: the ASF puts a sticker on back of their photos stating the autograph is authentic, signed by the executive director. I guess the belief is, if it's ASF it must be good? Although it looks like it's a regular paper label sticker. |
jtheoret
Member Posts: 344
From: Albuquerque, NM USA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 07-09-2014 01:51 PM
Enjoying the input, and thanks for the clarification Steve about the practice, though I agree with Robert that it shouldn't be an option to mar the front of an item like that. I am not sure I even like stickers on the back. To each his own I suppose, but to the extent some items are truly historical, its kind of short-sighted (and arrogant) to engage in that kind of practice in my opinion. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-09-2014 02:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
I guess the belief is, if it's ASF it must be good?
It is a bit different though, as ASF is not acting as a third-party authenticator. The Foundation is attaching the label to its own original product (in this case a signed photo, which it produced and had signed). |
JasonIUP
Member Posts: 282
From: PA
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 07-09-2014 03:42 PM
I, too, would not buy a flat with a sticker on the front. I almost never buy anything with a Spence or PSA sticker because it's too expensive and I usually don't value their thoughts on authenticity. The authenticators have culpability for damaging items, but so do the people who continue to buy items stickered, especially on the front. To me, needing to see a sticker on the front shows an insecurity; a need to prove to anyone who sees it that it's (apparently) real. |
moonnut
Member Posts: 248
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Apr 2013
|
posted 07-09-2014 07:54 PM
I believe the stickers to be for the novice that doesn't want to do the research themselves. Instead place the work in the hands of someone else. An "expert". I put the word expert in quotations because, do we really know that an expert looked at it? They receive such an abundance of items that sufficient time to come to a positive conclusion is a lot of time not given. So who is delegated some items? Steve, you may have more insight to this. I would rather deal with Mr. Zarelli personally than send to one of those multi-million dollar companies. I have seen many items authenticated by those companies that to me are questionable. Also, blatant autopens stickered as authentic. Explain that. |
Steve Zarelli
Member Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 07-10-2014 07:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by moonnut:
So who is delegated some items? Steve, you may have more insight to this.
I don't want to publicly speculate on how certain mistakes can happen because I do not know for sure. I can only speak to the part of the process I am involved in.
I currently provide consulting services to JSA, SGC and PSA (in addition to RR Auction, etc.) With JSA and SGC, they typically send me **most** of the space material that is submitted. I think there are items submitted at shows or in other settings that for one reason or another are not sent to me for review. While my opinion likely weighs heavily on the final decision, I am not the only reviewer and I do not have final say on whether something gets certed or not. Prior to me, JSA had another knowledgeable space consultant, so they have recognized the need for a space specialist for at least the last several years. SGC (the well-known card grading company) started authenticating autographs last year and I have been reviewing for them since the beginning. PSA will contact me occasionally and ask for my opinion on an item, but that is only a fraction of the space material that passes though PSA. With RR Auction, I review every space item. Obviously, with my personal Zarelli Space Authentication LOAs, I review every item and I take a conservative approach by only issuing letters for items I have a high level of confidence in. There have been times when someone sent me something that I thought it was probably authentic, but it was somewhat of a tweener… so I passed on issuing a letter. My approach is to not issue letters for what I call “51 percenters.” I hope this adds some insight. |
moonnut
Member Posts: 248
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Apr 2013
|
posted 07-12-2014 10:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Zarelli:
I do not have final say on whether something gets certed or not.
That, to me, can be a bit scary. Those companies would surely use your name when needed though. I would definitely have a backup to the review response, such as an email that i can keep in my records. I'm glad that you do all the reviews for space in RR and with your own Zarelli Space Authentication because maintaining that control gives assurance to the consumer. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-13-2014 10:43 AM
I'm sure the stickers can be removed by a conservationist. I can't think of any other class of collectible where artefacts would effectively be vandalised under the vague notion of "authentication". It's more of a corporate "branding" by the authentication agency than a meaningful guarantee of authenticity. |
Steve Zarelli
Member Posts: 731
From: Upstate New York, USA
Registered: Mar 2001
|
posted 07-13-2014 04:22 PM
The stickers can easily be removed from glossy photos. They will self destruct, but quite removable by a lay person. Lithos on the other hand might be more of a challenge. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-13-2014 05:10 PM
Hope the adhesive on those stickers are archival grade. A sticker may come off, but the glue? |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 08-09-2019 04:02 PM
I've got no idea being Australian, but are those small stickers removable from glossy red stamps and not leave residue? Thank you.Editor's note: Threads merged. |
SpaceyInMN
Member Posts: 355
From: Andover, MN
Registered: Dec 2013
|
posted 08-09-2019 10:57 PM
Interesting thread that I hadn't seen on here before. I personally won't buy any item that has an authenticity sticker affixed. In my opinion, it completely defaces the original item.Mike, regarding removal of the sticker you referenced, I'm not entirely certain what sticker you're talking about, but I've had good success very carefully using Goo Gone to remove stickers and residue, but you have to be careful, depending on the surface of the item. If the item is glossy, it's fairly safe, but on porous materials, it can cause staining, since it's oil based. It's always best to test it on a similar item without value before trying it on anything valuable. I haven't personally used it, but I know some people use WD-40 for a similar purpose with good success. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 08-10-2019 01:16 AM
Thank you my friend.  I've used WD4 with good results on glossy magazines, and yes this is a shuttle crew glossy. I'm still tossing up whether to take the plunge (it already has a hand written STS xx in the TRC and I can live with that) but the sticker kills my interest quite a bit. Asked the seller for a small discount and "no go" on that either. I just know it won't sell so I'll mull over it. But really appreciate your thoughts mate. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 08-10-2019 08:17 AM
If you were to use WD40 (or any other fluid) on a photographic print, glossy or matte finish, it would destroy the photo. Definitely not recommended. |
Mike Dixon
Member Posts: 1397
From: Kew, Victoria, Australia
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 08-10-2019 05:03 PM
Well that's made my mind up Pass. |
advertisement