A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

[mvandor]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

I certainly understand Sammy's point, however, he clearly implies in his opinion third party authenticators should be held liable for the full amount of the sale when they charged a relatively small amount for their service in the case. If this was done, obviously, all such services would cease to operate as going businesses. One or two large ticket items would put them into bankrupty.

Which I surmise would be just fine with Sammy and autographalert.com, but wouldn't be in the best interests of the overall autograph collecting community.

BTW, I'm interested in the one comment that the HOF'er might have spelled his name that way intentionally in his lifetime. Would love some further info on that.

[aeneas01]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

first, the notion that criticism lodged by autographalert lacks credibility because the author(s) have chosen not to reveal their identities is patently absurd imo - what they point out is what it is, presented to readers for their consideration. further, what can be found in the pages of autographalert, the examples they cite, can be found elsewhere as well. i suppose anonymous tip hotlines should be deemed worthless too? good grief.

secondly i don't buy this "innocent bystander" nonsense authenticators try to peddle nor do i feel they should be absolved of financial liability given the way they see fit to package their products. when looking at psa/dna letters, lampson letters and the like, i think it becomes pretty obvious why a novice collector would believe that the letter guarantees an item's authenticity. holograms, a host of signatures, reference numbers, shiny little decals, it goes on and on - heck, some of these things look as official as the declaration of independence. by design. and therein lies the rub.

what is clearly missing from all of these letters, in crystal clear language, is that they represent nothing more than an opinion, an opinion that can change, and are therefore furnished without warranty, guarantee or protection. in fact if psa/dna, lampson or anyone else out there writing these letters was really interested in honestly presenting their product, they would on each and every letter, in bold letters, state what seems to only be available by digging through their websites. especially considering that these services have this type of thing in their closet:

"Take James Spence, one of the country's foremost sports-autograph experts. When a Fox-television news affiliate in Philadelphia asked him to verify the signatures on six baseballs signed by sports greats, he gave a firm thumbs-up to one apparently signed by former Phillies third-baseman Mike Schmidt. "Very, very typical of the way he would sign," he told the station's reporter. "Good speed, good letter formation, and reflects authority and spontaneity." Informed that the station's resident graphic artist had forged Schmidt's signature the day before, Spence could only reply: "He did a fine job."

That awkward episode unfolded a few years ago, when Spence headed up an autograph-authentication unit of Collectors Universe, a big player in collectibles whose stock is traded on Nasdaq (ticker: CLCT). Though Spence has since moved on, forming his own firm, the credibility of the unit, PSA/DNA, has increasingly drawn scrutiny. It is now battling two lawsuits challenging the integrity of certain authentications it made. And the company has taken an unusual flogging in the publications of two prestigious collectors' organizations."

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/1125439/site_id/1#import

...

[trsent]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

first, the notion that criticism lodged by autographalert lacks credibility because the author(s) have chosen not to reveal their identities is patently absurd imo - what they point out is what it is, presented to readers for their consideration. further, what can be found in the pages of autographalert, the examples they cite, can be found elsewhere as well. i suppose anonymous tip hotlines should be deemed worthless too? good grief.

secondly i don't buy this "innocent bystander" nonsense authenticators try to peddle nor do i feel they should be absolved of financial liability given the way they see fit to package their products. when looking at psa/dna letters, lampson letters and the like, i think it becomes pretty obvious why a novice collector would believe that the letter guarantees an item's authenticity. holograms, a host of signatures, reference numbers, shiny little decals, it goes on and on - heck, some of these things look as official as the declaration of independence. by design. and therein lies the rub.

what is clearly missing from all of these letters, in crystal clear language, is that they represent nothing more than an opinion, an opinion that can change, and are therefore furnished without warranty, guarantee or protection. in fact if psa/dna, lampson or anyone else out there writing these letters was really interested in honestly presenting their product, they would on each and every letter, in bold letters, state what seems to only be available by digging through their websites. especially considering that these services have this type of thing in their closet:

"Take James Spence, one of the country's foremost sports-autograph experts. When a Fox-television news affiliate in Philadelphia asked him to verify the signatures on six baseballs signed by sports greats, he gave a firm thumbs-up to one apparently signed by former Phillies third-baseman Mike Schmidt. "Very, very typical of the way he would sign," he told the station's reporter. "Good speed, good letter formation, and reflects authority and spontaneity." Informed that the station's resident graphic artist had forged Schmidt's signature the day before, Spence could only reply: "He did a fine job."

That awkward episode unfolded a few years ago, when Spence headed up an autograph-authentication unit of Collectors Universe, a big player in collectibles whose stock is traded on Nasdaq (ticker: CLCT). Though Spence has since moved on, forming his own firm, the credibility of the unit, PSA/DNA, has increasingly drawn scrutiny. It is now battling two lawsuits challenging the integrity of certain authentications it made. And the company has taken an unusual flogging in the publications of two prestigious collectors' organizations."

http://boards.collectors-society.com...te_id/1#import

...

If they can't be critized for hiding without admitting they own an autograph authentication company (maybe because it was a statement from me) then please explain this to me:

"The other autograph expert is Steve Koschal who has studied autographs since the 1960's. He has maintained one of the largest autograph reference libraries in the world and his article on autograph reference books won him a first place award by an autograph organization. He is also the author of several books as well as over 200 articles that have been published on autograph collecting. Koschal also represented the United States of America and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as their autograph expert in Federal Court for “Operation Bullpen.”"


Funny, the guy who is the registered owner of the site is the other autograph expert they mention.


They don't mention that he owns the site posting the article, they don't mention that he may have written the article. It is like me someone writing an article about themselves.

That is called an autobiography and should be attitude to the author, unless he has a hidden agenda to hide, which Chris Nerat previously discovered but the communist nation often feels if they are right with one article, they are ok in their book.

So, once again, we see support for a mysterious company attacking their competition and not signing their work. It would be as if an auction house had a private web site that picked on all the other auction houses errors, but no one knew who posted the information.

[sammy]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

Joel,

If they were to sign their names for you, would it make any difference in regard to the items they expose?

A fake is a fake, and a forgery is a forgery.

[trsent]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

[quote=sammy;138974]Joel,

If they were to sign their names for you, would it make any difference in regard to the items they expose?

A fake is a fake, and a forgery is a forgery.

quote]

They expose items that others have already supposedly exposed. They have no credibility and from contact I have received their past is suspect in the autograph industry.

They are scumbags with a hidden agenda I am here to reveal an honest case of bad apples playing games with their competition.

- The Truth Hurts.

[mvandor]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

Sir, I do not understand - They expose items that others have already supposedly exposed. They have no credibility and from contact I have received their past is suspect in the autograph industry.



Get over it - The Truth Hurts.

We've had our differences, Joel, but in this case we agree. I won't refute the mistakes they publish, but to ignore their motivation and agenda is simply being blind.

[aeneas01]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

so let's see if i've got this straight - all credibility is lost if the one pointing out issues not only chooses to post anonymously but also happens to be engaged in the same sort of business as the accused? is that right? can pretty much toss out anything such a person has to say? in fact, such folks are "scumbags"? is that what i'm hearing?

if i removed my name from my sig and began to deal in vintage football helmets, would everything i subsequently posted at the forum regarding bunk helmets appearing at auction be meaningless, lacking in credibility and merit? if i decided to write my own letters of opinion on the vintage helmets i sold, yet at the forum continued to point out issues i found with other letters of opinion that accompanied bunk helmets, would those posts represent nothing more than a transparent, hidden agenda?

lots of dealers/sellers on this very forum, guf members, who post regularly about issues they've found with game used items sold at auction. extremely informative posts detailing why they consider the items bunk - and many of these members choose not to share their identities. do they all have hidden agendas? is what they share meaningless, lacking in credibility? are they "scumbags"?

hey, i don't know the people from autographalert any more than i know vince lombardi, but like most adults i feel that i'm capable of deciding what to believe and what not to believe when it comes to items i read. further, i would imagine if autographalert was the baseless hit job some think it to be, it would have been shut down long ago instead of pumping out pieces as recently as this month. speaking of baseless hit jobs, joel had me rolling when he punctuated his condemnation of autographalert by offering the following: "They can keep selling opinions on eBay for $7.00 each..." - of course psa/dna sells opinions for $10 on their site...

...

[trsent]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

so let's see if i've got this straight - all credibility is lost if the one pointing out issues not only chooses to post anonymously but also happens to be engaged in the same sort of business as the accused? is that right? can pretty much toss out anything such a person has to say? in fact, such folks are "scumbags"? is that what i'm hearing?

if i removed my name from my sig and began to deal in vintage football helmets, would everything i subsequently posted at the forum regarding bunk helmets appearing at auction be meaningless, lacking in credibility and merit? if i decided to write my own letters of opinion on the vintage helmets i sold, yet at the forum continued to point out issues i found with other letters of opinion that accompanied bunk helmets, would those posts represent nothing more than a transparent, hidden agenda?

lots of dealers/sellers on this very forum, guf members, who post regularly about issues they've found with game used items sold at auction. extremely informative posts detailing why they consider the items bunk - and many of these members choose not to share their identities. do they all have hidden agendas? is what they share meaningless, lacking in credibility? are they "scumbags"?

hey, i don't know the people from autographalert any more than i know vince lombardi, but like most adults i feel that i'm capable of deciding what to believe and what not to believe when it comes to items i read. further, i would imagine if autographalert was the baseless hit job some think it to be, it would have been shut down long ago instead of pumping out pieces as recently as this month. speaking of baseless hit jobs, joel had me rolling when he punctuated his condemnation of autographalert by offering the following: "They can keep selling opinions on eBay for $7.00 each..." - of course psa/dna sells opinions for $10 on their site...

...

Robert, your work on helmets is amazing, but don't give credit or praise anyone with a hidden agenda of attacking their competition and say everything they post is correct.

They post so many twists and lies it is unbelievable. Give them praise for attacking their competition.

eBay choose PSA/DNA to offer a quick opinion. I believe the charge is $7.99, but who cares? PSA/DNA doesn't have a hidden web site attacking other authenticators errors.

They all make errors in judgment, every one of them. While some people admit to their mistakes, I do not see Steve Korshal's name mentioned for his errors on this web site.

Odd, he has made so many mistakes over the years I figured he would be mentioned for his mistakes on this web site.

Oh wait - He owns the web site - Why should he reveal his errors - Just any other he can find.

you want to clean up the hobby but then you attack those who have been linked to more questionable dealings in the industry because you think their hidden agenda web site is credible.

Robert, keep up the great work you offer because it is really revolutionary, but think twice before you praise common criminals.

[mvandor]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

Robert, have you Googled "Steve Koschal"? Have you ever heard the saying "consider the source?"

[trsent]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

Robert, have you Googled "Steve Koschal"? Have you ever heard the saying "consider the source?"

http://www.autographdealernews.com/Articles.aspx?article=20

I do not know who Autograph Dealer News is (a Las Vegas company) but I see they have a few stories on this link about Steve Koschal.

I do not mind if people bring attention to authentication issues in the industry if they are doing it honestly without an extra agenda.

For instance, I praise Robert and Rudy for work they have done on this site time and time again. I do not believe they can be looking to profit off their work like the folks at Autograph Alert can be accused of doing.

I am often confused why items from online auction catalogs from 3-5 years ago are now being read and old questionable items are being show up years and years after the original sale. This may lead us to see the online archives of some of these auction houses to disappear from their web site which doesn't help anyone.

[sammy]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

In regard to the site you mention above, I will use your quotes.

"They post so many twists and lies it is unbelievable."



" Ok, so they should have a mysterious site, attacking their competition, not signing their post or their site and hiding as if they are honest, reputable people when they are not willing to even put their name on their web site."

"If you want to expose anyone in this industry - Be a man and sign your name to your findings. Otherwise, without attributing, their findings are WORTHLESS because they do not have the balls to take credit for their work because they are hiding a hidden agenda."

"So, once again, we see support for a mysterious company attacking their competition and not signing their work."

---------------------------------------------------------------------

[jdr3]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

You would never find a business owner/representative like Barry Meisel, Mark Hayne or Josh Wulkan coming on to this forum and using terms such as "------" and engaging in the bevy of insults and petty arguements . All should learn from their example and deport in a manner of class and professionalism.

[fromcooperstowntohollywood]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

[quote=jdr3;139127]You would never find ----------quote]

Whether you like his argument or not, Joel is correct on this one. Perhaps you should ask Steve Koschal about the Babe Ruth autograph authentication opinion that was sent to him last month concerning a Babe Ruth autographed ball that is currently listed on ebay (STAT authenticated.) If you know STAT, then you know where it came from. If you know where it came from, you know it is no good. Yet Mr. Koschal deemed the ball authentic. I guess Mr. Koschal did not realize he lived in a glass house.
His website slams every authenticator because HE wants that business. He hides behind the website, attempting to drive PSA and JSA out of business.
As for DelEhanty, there are several KNOWN autographs out there that MIRROR the one that was in the REA auction (no-I don't own it, have nothing to do with it.)
RK principle

[jdr3]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

It's got nothing to do with being right or wrong. It has to do with professionalism.

[aeneas01]

Re: A 29.900.00 Worthless Piece Of Paper

Have you ever heard the saying "consider the source?"

great adage, love it, words to live by. on the other hand "dismiss the source" doesn't quite have the same ring, doesn't quite impart the same sage advice - probably the reason it hasn't enjoyed similar success.

if i stumbled across an anonymously authored blog filled with accusations concerning those that deal in vintage football helmets, those that authenticate vintage football helmets, i wouldn't immediately backspace and move on. i would, as always, "consider the source" and read on. and what i read would have merit or it wouldn't. if i later discovered that the author was the one responsible for doctoring many of the vintage helmets currently in circulation, it would most likely have little impact on what i had read at his site. why? because i had already "considered the source" - i had not taken what he had written as gospel, i had independently verified or rejected his claims and had already drawn my own conclusions.

...