Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

[hblakewolf]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Eric-
Sorry for the confusion. You do a great job-I'm just tired of ***PERSONAL ATTACK REMOVED***

A previous post asked you to contact Richie Russek at Grey Flannel to make a post here. I think this is a great idea, and should be taken one step further.

How about a Q & A session with some of the various "Industry Leaders" or auction houses? We could arrange for the subject to log on at a certain time, and we could have a live Q & A. In this case, for example, Richie could possibly address questions about previous items that Forum readers have questioned. I know I would love to learn how he identified and listed a recent Phillies hat on his site that dated from 1990 as being worn by Mike Schmidt in 1980, when in fact the brand and style was not worn until 1990!

Maybe even Lou Lampson could spare a few minutes and call from his remote dwelling. We could possibly gain some amazing insight as to his method(s) of researching equipment.

Please consider taking this to the next level and arranging for a live weekly Q & A session.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


Howard-

I'm confused here. Chris and I are constantly fighting the fight to keep people from attacking others and keep the threads informational. If you're suggesting otherwise, the fact that Joel's comment was edited out quickly proves my point.

I completely agree with you on your overall concept. Every forum member- including vets like you, administrators like chris and I- or anyone should refrain from the personal attacks the make informative threads like this one take the wrong path. You did nothing wrong by bringing up this topic. It's a great question "Is authentication science or opinion?" It's one we should be debating.

I'm glad you have voiced your opinion on keeping fighitng on the board to a minimum. I'll hope to count on you to assist us to keep threads on topic and informational.
Eric[/quote]

[Eric]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Howard-

I had to remove a personal attack from your last post. I thought we just agreed not to do that and to keep the threads informational and not make things personal?

You just did what you complained about.

Eric

[hblakewolf]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Eric-
I am sorry if I made an error, however, I made no mention of any Forum reader(s) by name.

What are your thoughts on my suggestion for a live Q & A?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Howard-

I had to remove a personal attack from your last post. I thought we just agreed not to do that and to keep the threads informational and not make things personal?

You just did what you complained about.

Eric[/quote]

[Eric]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

I think it's a fantastic idea. Chris and I were talking about an idea like that when we formed our alliance.

A first step might be to get someone willing to do it. We collect questions from everyone, then submit it to the guest and get the response.

I would like to get a few of those under our belt first. What do you think?

Perhaps we should start a thread where we talk about who we as a forum would like to interview.

Thanks
Eric

[ChrisCavalier]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Howard, are you asking that the forum be run like a dictatorship where comments that are not always the way you or the forum owner/moderator sees the world to be should be edited?

That wouldn't be a forum, it would be an advertisement, a one-way street.

Debate is good, it makes the world go around.

Just for the record, and to bring some closure to the side-issue here, there is nothing wrong with differing opinions. In fact, I think we do a very good job allowing them. The point here is that this forum will not allow personal attacks in an attempt to persuade others to reject the opinion of any poster.

Here is rule #17 in our forum rules:

It is expected that all posts are to be created with a sincere attempt to benefit the hobby. Any posts which the Administrator deems as a personal attack or an attempt to unnecessarily discredit others will be subject to the administrative rules of the forum.

This rule is intended to let everyone know the spirit in which we share information on this forum. Contrary to the opinion of some, this is not a site predominated by negativity. In fact, I don't know of many other sites that are helping the game used collecting community the way we are. I also find it interesting that the ones making those claims often, in the next breath, produce comments about the forum that are, in themselves, loaded with unjustified negativity. It kind of reminds me of the proverbial person who says "I dislike people who dislike people."

As for this forum, if you care to know its intentions simply re-read the first part of rule #17 above.

Sincerely,
Chris

[trsent]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Dave Grob posted a long post over this topic on the MEARS forum...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1158684101/The+%26quot%3BScience%26quot%3B+of+Authenticating

Phillie’s Collector Howard Wolf raised an interesting issue recently with respect to an assertion that was made (not by him) that “there is very little science to authenticating in this hobby, mostly opinion.” I would tend to agree with this statement but not in the manner that you might think. My take is that, by and large, this has been a true statement and lies at the heart of many of the problems facing this segment of the hobby/industry.

From where I sit, science should be at the heart of evaluations when you consider the steps in the Scientific Method that we all had to memorize back in school and walk our way through during any number of painful “science fairs.”

To help illustrate my point, consider applying the five steps with a hobby/industry context.

1. State or Identify the Issue or the Problem. At face value, this means is the item I have been asked to offer an opinion on what it is being represented to be.

2. Form an educated guess (hypothesis) of the cause of the problem and make predictions based upon the hypothesis. Here you begin by stating that if the jersey, bat, glove,etc…is what it is being represented to be, I should expect to find the following aspects present and in a certain manner. As I have stated before, the questions you establish should be as likely to prove as they do disprove what ever your going in position is.

3. Test your hypothesis by doing an experiment or study. The word to focus is on is study. This means taking the time to go back through references and known exemplars that should serve as the basis of comparison. Here is where imagery analysis also comes into play. In the case of the Ruth bat I recently looked at, this involved using mensuration to obtain the location of where key pieces of data should appear on the bat in question. For the Clemente jersey, it involved seeing a number of things I should not have expected to see. The other thing that is scientific in nature, is that you can’t discard that information that seems to counter what you thought in your initial hypothesis.

4. Check and interpret your results. Think about this step as being a review of your notes, or in the case of MEARS, the information contained on the work-sheet.

5. Report your results to the scientific community. Substitute the word “scientific” for “collecting” and consider the report to be a Letter of Opinion.


There is a great deal of science involved as the better work done in this area is objective in nature and results are based on something tangible that can be evaluated by others. There are “real properties” involved such as size, material composition, manner of construction, the effects of outside forces (use, wear, aging), etc.

Experience is not a factor to be dismissed out of hand, but it has to be supported by something, especially when looking to explain anomalies and irregularities as they clearly exist.

I for one would like to see the industry become a bit more consistent and “scientific” if you will. The problem is there is no industry wide “forcing function” to even create a standardized vocabulary let alone standards in application. It is rather interesting that all this comes up at this time. My current article lists what I think would be valuable skills or classes that should be part of any “authenticators” school or certification program. Some of them include:

Computer Applications
Research Methods
Critical Thinking, and Reasoning
Imagery Analysis
Building a Research Library

Another thing I pointed out in the article, is that we at MEARS should take a look at the suggested classes and continue individually and collectively with our own education and professional development in these areas as well.

A bit longer than a usual Board Post, but for me… I vote for science.

Dave Grob

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

As an FYI to my family on the Game Used Forum, not everything supports my comments that I reprint. I do believe there is some confusion, I believe the debate has gone from if authentication is an opinion or a science.

There is some acts of science in everything we do every day in our lives. Research doesn't mean that an opinion make the item 100% legitimate without question. We all do our homework, but certifications and letters of authenticity and even professional coin and card grading is all, in the end, an opinion.

[ChrisCavalier]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

I think it's a fantastic idea. Chris and I were talking about an idea like that when we formed our alliance.

A first step might be to get someone willing to do it. We collect questions from everyone, then submit it to the guest and get the response.

I would like to get a few of those under our belt first. What do you think?

Perhaps we should start a thread where we talk about who we as a forum would like to interview.

I think this is a fantastic idea and agree with Eric that we will need to find someone willing to be "interviewed". Under the format Eric suggests, I don't see why someone wouldn't mind answering questions we posed to them in advance. Maybe we can start with that format and see where it can go from there.

In fact, maybe we can start a separate thread so this one can continue the question that was initially posed. To that extent, I apologize if my posts contributed to temporarily "hijacking" the thread. Ironically, I made my initial post in the hopes that I would prevent the thread from deviating from the initial question. Once again, my apologizes.

Sincerely,
Chris

[kingjammy24]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

"I believe the debate has gone from if authentication is an opinion or a science"

why is there this implication that the two are mutually exclusive? they're not. much of science is an opinion as it recognizes that it's rarely 100% certain. (why do you think doctor's often refer patients for a second opinion?) many even feel that an inherant part of science is the acknowledgment that results may be disproven. science is not a euphemism for "irrefutable".

the real issue is russek's original statement that there's "little science" in this hobby. both barry meisel and dave grob made excellent cases showing there is indeed a good deal of science.

"We all do our homework.."

if homework equates to "science", then it seems some of us do more than others. apparently, according to his own words, richie does little.

"certifications and letters of authenticity and even professional coin and card grading is all, in the end, an opinion."

again, much of science IS an opinion. when a doctor tells informs someone they have cancer, you're aware that that's an opinion? it's an opinion based heavily on science but an opinion nonetheless because at the end of the day the doctor's interpretation of all of the data may be incorrect and the person may actually not have cancer.

again, you can base your opinion on "very little science" or you can base it on a lot of science, as barry and dave grob have

[trsent]

Re: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

"I believe the debate has gone from if authentication is an opinion or a science"

why is there this implication that the two are mutually exclusive? they're not. much of science is an opinion as it recognizes that it's rarely 100% certain. (why do you think doctor's often refer patients for a second opinion?) many even feel that an inherant part of science is the acknowledgment that results may be disproven. science is not a euphemism for "irrefutable".

the real issue is russek's original statement that there's "little science" in this hobby. both barry meisel and dave grob made excellent cases showing there is indeed a good deal of science.

"We all do our homework.."

if homework equates to "science", then it seems some of us do more than others. apparently, according to his own words, richie does little.

"certifications and letters of authenticity and even professional coin and card grading is all, in the end, an opinion."

again, much of science IS an opinion. when a doctor tells informs someone they have cancer, you're aware that that's an opinion? it's an opinion based heavily on science but an opinion nonetheless because at the end of the day the doctor's interpretation of all of the data may be incorrect and the person may actually not have cancer.

again, you can base your opinion on "very little science" or you can base it on a lot of science, as barry and dave grob have

So, we can end this debate right here.

Ritchie's statement in his auction catalog makes it appear that he doesn't research his merchandise. I know he does, but I also know like all authenticators, he can miss something in the process.

Sure, MEARS has an amazing system and from my understanding Ritchie does not have such a system in place.

In the end, they both authenticate and they generally are correct. I guess the issue here is how Ritchie will address an issue when a genuine error is found after the fact. If this is the case, it is too bad Ritchie does not participate in the forum, because I bet he will stand behind his merchandise in the rare situation that an error is found after the fact.

The other point: Is Authenticating Just An Opinion?

Yes, but some opinions use more scientific work to make their opinion.