HBO's Real Sports w/Bryant Gumbel - Must see Episode

[vintagesportscollector]

This is the 1/1 card in question I believe. I don't collect autographs, but this card still did amaze me. Disappointed (but not suprised) to see it's a fake.

[Rob L]

What's interesting is that because it is on an Upper Deck card that is allegedly authentic, I would have not necessarily thought there was a problem. Closer examination of the two autographs in question shows that the Ruth signature is not real smooth and the J in Johnson is a hybrid between his later signature and early signature.

It's too bad that someone spent 85K for this!!

Rob L

[sammy]

Unbiased reporting? I believe it was a total of 6 different authenticators / companies besides Frangipani.

It is really a shame they only mentioned Frangipani by name in regard to the authentication of "alleged" forgeries. Why was he the only one that the hidden camera trick was used on?

Why didn't they do that with all the ones that authenticated the "alleged" forgeries, or at the very least, mention their names?

Now that Upper Deck Authenticated is mentioned in the Real Sports report as having sold "alleged" forgeries, does that make their other vintage autographed items questionable?

Makes one wonder how "unbiased" this report actually was.

[slidekellyslide]

That's a good question Sammy. I would assume that Frangipani was accessible while the others weren't. It could be that they used the hidden camera on some of the others, but the others weren't fooled by the forgeries? What's really a shame is that Frangipani wasn't put away with the rest of the scum that was involved in the forgery ring. IMO he was an accessory to the crime....he never turned any of that stuff down, even when he was getting piles of Ruth autos all at once.

With that said I would love to know the names of the other companies that gave COA's on the forged items. I have it on my DVR so I'll have to watch it again and see if I can freeze frame the screenshot of the COA's they show.

[ChrisCavalier]

It is really a shame they only mentioned Frangipani by name in regard to the authentication of "alleged" forgeries. Why was he the only one that the hidden camera trick was used on?

Hello Sammy-

I believe the reason Real Sports used the hidden camera with Frangiapani was because Frangiapani's name was the one that came up in the tape recordings of the forgery ring saying he was the person who would authenticate the items if submitted to him. I might be mistaken but I don't believe any other authenticators were mentioned on the taped conversations and Frangiapani was apparently the one who authenticated the vast majority of the items in question.

However, it is interesting that they intentionally did not want to show the other authenticators that didn't "pass" their test with additional items. Apparently, they wanted to focus on the ones that did pass their test (Global Authentication and Richard Simon) to establish their credibility since they also asked them to render an opinion on the Upper Deck SP Quad card.

Does anyone else have a different take?

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier
CEO - Game Used Universe

[ironmanfan]

If you recall, when the FBI guy was in the warehouse that stored the forged inventory of Greg Marino, they ran across numerous forged items (i.e. Ruth cuts) that already had Frangiapani's "COA's" (all with the same date). The HBO Producers sent the stuff back to him to see if he would authenticate it a 2nd time as legit (which he did). Thats the main reason I believe that they profiled him..............Why would any collector be sympathetic to this guy?

[sammy]

Well, you have to admit, he is consistent in his opinion, right or wrong.

The items he reviewed again were "alleged" to be items he reviewed 5+ years ago.

Being as these were from totally different and new "clients", you cannot factually state he authenticated these just because they came from a certain individual or group.

It appears he truly believes these items are consistent with the individual's handwriting and/or autograph.

Perhaps it is not dishonesty on the part of Mr. Frangipani, but his honest opinion.

Just like the opinion's of the other four individuals / companies that failed this test, but were not exposed or named on a national broadcast. I truly wonder why their names were not exposed. Doesn't seem very fair or unbiased to me.

Let the discussion begin.

[geoff]

When was this on tv.I want to see if i can find it online or a repeat if any one knows.Thanks Geoff

[apujols04]

Well, you have to admit, he is consistent in his opinion, right or wrong.

The items he reviewed again were "alleged" to be items he reviewed 5+ years ago.

Being as these were from totally different and new "clients", you cannot factually state he authenticated these just because they came from a certain individual or group.

It appears he truly believes these items are consistent with the individual's handwriting and/or autograph.

Perhaps it is not dishonesty on the part of Mr. Frangipani, but his honest opinion.

Just like the opinion's of the other four individuals / companies that failed this test, but were not exposed or named on a national broadcast. I truly wonder why their names were not exposed. Doesn't seem very fair or unbiased to me.

Let the discussion begin.

An honest attempt at playing the other side. I guess we will never know unless the people involved write a book or something.