PDA

View Full Version : Interesting on ebay: Locker Room Mem says 9 of 10 David Wright GAI autos 'were not genuine'



Number9
06-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Interesting:


http://cgi.ebay.com/BEWARE-of-Un-Authentic-David-Wright-Autographs_W0QQitemZ320121737407QQihZ011QQcategory Z27260QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Eric
06-03-2007, 09:12 PM
It's like in the book Operation Bullpen when they put (6 I think) autographed photos in front of Mark McGwire and he identified one as being genuine. That autographed was obtained by his agent, it wasn't even an piece being sold by a dealer

David
06-03-2007, 10:07 PM
Scientifically speaking, Locker Room & Wright should look at 10 authentic Wright autographs (perhaps signed at private signings, shows, etc) and see how many they think are fake and genuine. Without this, we can only guess what is their accuracy rate in judging David Wright autographs. One might assume a player can authenticate his signature 10 out of 10 times, but that's an assumption.

mvandor
06-04-2007, 10:24 AM
C'mon guys, while I do feel from my personal experience that GAI is VERY liberal in authenticating, moreso than JSA or PSA, this is an ebay listing where a seller is trying to scare buyers into believing only HE has authentic Wright signed items. NOT a very objective source, no?

allstarsplus
06-04-2007, 11:00 AM
C'mon guys, while I do feel from my personal experience that GAI is VERY liberal in authenticating, moreso than JSA or PSA, this is an ebay listing where a seller is trying to scare buyers into believing only HE has authentic Wright signed items. NOT a very objective source, no?

All valid points, but obviously Locker Room is trying to protect their investment. Their comparison system looked valid based on the balls they wanted to present.

It is interesting that David at least has a consistent style of signing the "g" in Wright almost like McGwire had later in his career with his "g". Anyone buying a non-LRMEMO David Wright ball should at least compare sigs in the same fashion and there are probably some good sigs out there.

I don't know if 1 out of 10 is accurate, but David seems to sign at the ballpark so probably some of those make it on to eBay.

Caveat emptor, buy it for $50 and take your chances or $199 on LR's site.
http://www.lrmemo.com/product_p/dw-omlb-hs.htm

Andrew

otismalibu
06-04-2007, 11:06 AM
Saw this, for what it's worth...

http://www.thebrillreport.net/2007/06/gai_draws_fire_.html

mvandor
06-04-2007, 11:08 AM
Good catch Otis, I just caught that and was gonna report it but you beat me to it. Seems the heat on GAI is really being turned up. As I indicated, my experience is GAI is the most liberal, in part because they have a financial incentive to be. Bummed to read about LT/GAI issues as I have an LT jersey authenticated by GAI that might be suspect now.

David
06-04-2007, 01:29 PM
I had heard that GAI was the most conservative in authenticating. At least that used to be the case. By conservative meaning, if the sig doesn't match the norm don't authenticate it. I heard that Mike Gutierrez left GAI as they were too conservative.

GAI gives COAs at many in person signings, including autograph shows. It would be interesting if one of these Wright autographs was from a show. I don't know that he has ever done a show or signing for anyone other than Locker Room. In person signing companies like Tri Star, Steiner, etc are reliable as all the autographs from in person signings including shows. They aren't authenticators, other than reporting what they see (seeing the guy sign the ball).

It should also be noted that Barry Bonds called an item fake that had his hologram and COA.

One of my favorite art world stories is about Salvador Dali. At a dinner party, a collector approached Dali with a signed print and asked if it was authentic. In front of the people Dali said it was not authentic. Later, Dali pulled the collector aside and said he had indeed made and signed the print. However, he hadn't yet been paid by the gallery. Once he was paid in full, Dali said, then the print would be authentic.

David
06-04-2007, 01:51 PM
I should note that I don't want it to come across that I'm disparaging Locker Room or David Wright, as I know little about them. In general, a player's hologram on a ball (any player) is considered strong proof of an autograph's authenticity. If Locker Room is Wright's exclusive agent and the balls come with Wright's hologram, there's no reason that I see to believe their autographs aren't genuine ... I just also know that GAI has traditionally been considered a reputable autograph authenticator, and sometimes gives in person signings, so would expect good proof to know they got 90 percent of Wright's autograph's wrong. A Locker Room advert on eBay isn't an independent study of GAI.

David
06-04-2007, 02:36 PM
One last thing I would want to know is how did Locker Room pick these ten GAI autographs. 10 after all isn't a random number, and translates easily into 90 percent, 80 percent, 50 percent, "9 out of 10," "8 out of 10," etc-- which are nice sound bite numbers. After all these numbers were made for an ad and presumably they didn't want numbers like 7 out of 15 or 79.753 percent.

Did they randomly pick 10 eBay Wright GAI autographs and examine them? Were there 100 GAI Wright autographs, and LR picked and chose 10 of these autographs? Say 9 out of the 100 looked bad and Locker Room picked those 9 (plus 1 good one for aesthetic purposes) and said 9 out of 10 were bad? If that's the case 90 percent would be way deceptive, as the true number would be GAI correctly authenticates over 90 percent. Obviously, LR wouldn't publicize and ad saying "David Wright says GAI gets over 90 percent over his autographs correct."

My problem is, unless verified by an independent source, you should start by being skeptical of study percentages and claims presented in an ad (of all places). Have you ever heard of a University Med School study first being released in a newspaper ad? By their very definition, advertisements are propaganda used to put the advertiser in the best light-- which means any numbers and claims contained were picked, chosen and presented to put the advertiser in the best light. Even when the numbers are essentially correct, the advertiser still grooms and frames them to look their best, and omits any counterpoints.

mvandor
06-04-2007, 06:21 PM
This was my authentication experience with GAI and PSA.

During my first few months as a rookie collector a few years back, I took a dozen newly acquired NFL collectibles to a show in L.A. to get them authenticated at the PSA/DNA booth. They passed but a few and rejected the rest. I was shocked and dismayed.

So, I took the balance to the GAI booth, and easily got nearly all of the remainder authenticated.

Conclusion? At least that day, with the authenticators at the show, PSA was very tight in its process (perhaps too tight in my opinion), while GAI was more liberal in their authentication (too liberal in my opinion as items even I had questions about were approved). I've since purged the unauthenticated items from my collection.

My beef with GAI is their policy that they charge less for items they reject than ones they approve, a unique policy amongst the major authenticators. I don't need studies to tell me that's a major flaw in business model in that they have a significant financial incentive to approve rather than decline items presented to them.

MichaelofSF
06-04-2007, 07:42 PM
I've attended a few shows to have items signed by players that had on site authenticators (Tri Star, GTSM, GAI, MLB (deloitte)).

In my experience at these shows, you stand in line to get the autograph from the player, then go to a separate line to get the authentication sticker from the company (Tri Star, GTSM, GAI). I was personally surprised by this method because someone could easily stand in line, get one item legitimately signed, while carrying a bunch of other items with phony signatures and then present them all to the authenticator to get the sticker placed. Tri Star at least catologues which item was signed, but at that particular show at least, you could have duped the authenticator. GAI and GTSM just placed the sticker on, without even checking the autograph. While most of these companies items may be authentic there is definite room for error with the methods that they employ.

However, my experience with MLB authentication via Deloitte and Touche was superb. You stand in line to get your item signed, and right next to the athlete is a representative of the company who logged what was signed and placed a sticker on the item. This takes questionable tactics out of play as far as I can think of. An authentication is only as good as the authenticator.

On a side note, I'm glad I was able to get Wright to sign for me for free at a game and I know it's real.

rp43
06-04-2007, 07:58 PM
The whole idea of someone authenticating a signature they did not see signed is ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is the fact that ebay is basically saying that anything authenticated by GAI, psa/dna is authentic. I am an inperson autograph collector and pretty much know who signs and who doesn't and what their habits are and know people who are getting things approved by GAI which are not real. Like with card grading you don't want to use a noname company or it means nothing. With GAI authenticating signatures that are not real people are taking their chances and if it comes back deemed authentic you can sell it on ebay and it does not matter what anyone else says, in the eyes of ebay it is rock solid. there are people out there who can forge anyone with there eyes closed. Then you have gai authenticating young athletes such as Durant and ODen when it is not even truly established what an authentic sig looks like. THEY DON"T KNOW and are laughing all the way to the bank and so is ebay. GAI is handing out licenses to sell fake autos.