Home› Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum

PSA/DNA got fooled?

AllenAllen Posts: 7,165 ✭✭✭
in Trading Cards & Memorabilia Forum


imageimage

I have seen a lot of Griffey autos and that one looks terrible. I know PSA/DNA has been fooled before, is that the case here?

Comments

  • DaBigHurtDaBigHurt Posts: 1,066 ✭✭
    We should keep in mind the scanner or digital picture of the card distorts the image of the autograph. I'm sure the Griffey autograph is perfectly legit. If there were any problem with it, no way PSA/DNA gives it the thumbs up. Autographs that get the PSA/DNA stamp of approval goes through a very rigorous process. The authenticators have to scrutinize slant, flow, pen pressure, letter size and other characteristics of an autograph with the exemplars they have on file. These people are trained and certified professionals with dozens of years in the field of forensic document examination.

    There are a lot of reasons an autograph may not look identical to previous examples. It is entirely possible that Griffey was tired that day the autograph on the right was obtained. If you signed a few hundred autographs, I'm sure your signature would look a little different too.

    So to answer your question, no, PSA/DNA did not get fooled. The autographs look identical to me. image
    image

    GO MARLINS! Home of the best fans in baseball!!
  • schr1stschr1st Posts: 1,677 ✭✭
    Not necessarily. Check out the following autographs:

    image

    This card was signed in my presence back in the winter of 1989, when Griffey was still doing card shows.


    image

    I have a few others like this one certified by GAI (Topps Traded, Fleer, etc.). They all appear to be from a signing he did for Classic/SAH or something like that, since they are all hand numbered the same.

    Griffey's signature has changed a great deal over time. While that one looks a bit funky, it may be one of his earlier variations.




    << <i>imageimage

    I have seen a lot of Griffey autos and that one looks terrible. I know PSA/DNA has been fooled before, is that the case here? >>

    Who is Rober Maris?
  • gregm13gregm13 Posts: 5,798 ✭✭✭


    << <i>We should keep in mind the scanner or digital picture of the card distorts the image of the autograph. I'm sure the Griffey autograph is perfectly legit. If there were any problem with it, no way PSA/DNA gives it the thumbs up. Autographs that get the PSA/DNA stamp of approval goes through a very rigorous process. The authenticators have to scrutinize slant, flow, pen pressure, letter size and other characteristics of an autograph with the exemplars they have on file. These people are trained and certified professionals with dozens of years in the field of forensic document examination.

    There are a lot of reasons an autograph may not look identical to previous examples. It is entirely possible that Griffey was tired that day the autograph on the right was obtained. If you signed a few hundred autographs, I'm sure your signature would look a little different too.

    So to answer your question, no, PSA/DNA did not get fooled. The autographs look identical to me. image >>



    So, what you're saying is that PSA/DNA NEVER makes mistakes??? Take off the cheerleading outfit for one moment and think of what a ridiculous assertion that you're making. My few dealings w/ PSA/DNA have been great but even the best make mistakes from time to time.

    Regards,

    Greg M.



    Collecting vintage auto'd fb cards and Dan Marino cards!!

    References:
    Onlychild, Ahmanfan, fabfrank, wufdude, jradke, Reese, Jasp, thenavarro
    E-Bay id: greg_n_meg
  • AllenAllen Posts: 7,165 ✭✭✭
    I know of 2 cards in PSA/DNA cases that are not legit signatures so I was just wondering what you guys thought.
  • HubcapHubcap Posts: 293
    Bad autograph.
  • larryallen73larryallen73 Posts: 6,061 ✭✭✭
    PSA Backer-
    The autographs look identical to me.

    I know you, almost for laughs, go to all ends to defend PSA which is fine. However, are you sure "identical" is the word you want to use? Maybe you want to do your usual, "PSA makes mistakes, they are human, but you would make mistakes too if you graded so many cards...." They are clearly NOT identical. I am not sure they are even similar. Just my two cents.
  • WinPitcherWinPitcher Posts: 27,726 ✭✭✭
    I agree with dabighurt

    they appear identical to me image
    Good for you.
  • smallstockssmallstocks Posts: 1,631 ✭✭✭✭
    Guys, lighten up! DBH's last comment told you just how serious he was.

    Late 60's and early to mid 70's non-sports
  • RipublicaninMassRipublicaninMass Posts: 10,051 ✭✭✭


    << <i>..... The autographs look identical to me. image >>



    And someone out there is thanking you for slabbing it! image
  • SoFLPhillyFanSoFLPhillyFan Posts: 3,931 ✭✭

    I have no opinion on the authenticity of either auto, but doesn't the right one look more like "Ken Goofy Jr?"image
  • TheThrill22TheThrill22 Posts: 976 ✭✭✭
    Have there been any confirmed cases where PSA has been wrong about an autograph not being authentic?
  • oaktownoaktown Posts: 366
    I believe there was a Stengel disc card that they were wrong about (it was a preprinted auto), but I'm sure someone on here knows for sure.
  • KnucklesKnuckles Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭
    Maybe stick a link to this thread in the autograph forum of these message boards.
    image
  • fensfanfensfan Posts: 89
    I am a little surprised to hear the suggestion of some that psa/dna is infallible. they clearly are the best in the business but they definitely do make mistakes. just think about the volume they are handling. if people accept that psa can make a mistake in card grading, then why not autographs? I recently sold a vintage signed ball through a major auction house that had been previously certified by two companies, including psa/dna. when psa took a second look at the ball for the recent auction, they decided two of the sigs (including a well-known hofer) were clubhouse. the auction house met up with psa reps at a card show and showed them the original LOA from PSA, which they then agreed was correct. they never even bothered to check to see if they had previously authenticated the item!! I was told by the auction house the latter is not unusual, given the huge amount of items PSA/DNA now handles.

  • KnucklesKnuckles Posts: 2,512 ✭✭✭
    image

    Still waiting for my custom cut auto's to come back *sniffle*
    image
  • schr1stschr1st Posts: 1,677 ✭✭
    It was Jesse Haines, not Stengel if I remember correctly.



    << <i>I believe there was a Stengel disc card that they were wrong about (it was a preprinted auto), but I'm sure someone on here knows for sure. >>

    Who is Rober Maris?
  • DS1991TOPPSCardsDS1991TOPPSCards Posts: 127
    Allen,

    Do you think both of the cards are bad?
  • DS1991TOPPSCardsDS1991TOPPSCards Posts: 127
    image

    What about this one? Would I be wasting my money sending this one in?
  • AllenAllen Posts: 7,165 ✭✭✭
    DS- I think the one on the left is likely legit but the one on the right looks very suspect to me. The one you posted looks much more legit than the ugly UD one.
  • DS1991TOPPSCardsDS1991TOPPSCards Posts: 127


    Allen,

    Yes, I agree with you when I first looked at them the one on the right stood out most. It's hard to really tell anymore. I have seen him sign a lot of items when he used to play in Arlington against the Rangers and his auto gets really wow when he is walking and trying to sign something. I would have to say the PSA guys have a heck of a job trying to figure these things out. I really believe unless a person is sitting down or standing still there auto is going to be different in some format or another.
Sign In or Register to comment.