National autograph authentication contest
dgbaseball
Posts: 825 ✭
Just read about the authentication contest at the National.
Authentication Contest
So, the winner got only 23 of 30 correct, and most everyone got less than 18 of 30 correct. Joe O comments that "It was interesting because several very experienced people took the test, and even if you flipped a coin to have a 50-50 chance to get the answer correct, most of the scores hovered right around 50 percent"
What I think is "interesting" is how the results of the contest somewhat dispute the reliability and reputation of after-the-fact-authentication like PSA/DNA Authentication... Many of the so called experts are barely better than flipping a coin, and we are to just accept that PSA authenticators are that much better than everybody else? I think the contest just exposes the larger problem with the industry in general - it's very easy to fake an autograph, and even the best of the best experts are wrong a lot more often than we think.
Admittedly, certain people study certain autographs, and can more likely identify fakes better than most people. And I'm sure PSA has the best people around. Not to mention the contest was a random sampling of autos, and I'm sure none of the "experts" consider themselves experts in all the autographs tested.
But still, I wonder what the test results would be if the PSA expert authenticators took the same test.. I have a hard time believing they would do that much better.
Authentication Contest
So, the winner got only 23 of 30 correct, and most everyone got less than 18 of 30 correct. Joe O comments that "It was interesting because several very experienced people took the test, and even if you flipped a coin to have a 50-50 chance to get the answer correct, most of the scores hovered right around 50 percent"
What I think is "interesting" is how the results of the contest somewhat dispute the reliability and reputation of after-the-fact-authentication like PSA/DNA Authentication... Many of the so called experts are barely better than flipping a coin, and we are to just accept that PSA authenticators are that much better than everybody else? I think the contest just exposes the larger problem with the industry in general - it's very easy to fake an autograph, and even the best of the best experts are wrong a lot more often than we think.
Admittedly, certain people study certain autographs, and can more likely identify fakes better than most people. And I'm sure PSA has the best people around. Not to mention the contest was a random sampling of autos, and I'm sure none of the "experts" consider themselves experts in all the autographs tested.
But still, I wonder what the test results would be if the PSA expert authenticators took the same test.. I have a hard time believing they would do that much better.
0
Comments
Minnie Minoso Master and Basic
1967 Topps PSA 8+
1960's Topps run Mega Set
"For me, playing baseball has been like a war and I was defending the uniform I wore, Every time I put on the uniform I respected it like the American flag. I wore it like I was representing every Latin country."--Minnie Minoso
IMO, 23 of 30 is darn good considering the test scenario.
They were viewing them on a computer screen, with very little time (30 in 10 mins) and no exemplars that they would usually have at their disposal.
Plus, I don't know who the total 30 were?
They threw in some early exemplars which only an expert could tell - e.g. an early Micky Mantle from a document along with a Mark McGwire like none I have ever seen - both authentic.
They had a Lou Gehrig that was off the chart nice but was actually a fake. The Babe Ruth didn't look good to me.
And as we have said here many times - this area of judgement is Mt. Everest compared to grading - a lot of things have to be considered before making a judgement on a signature:
1. Letter slant, angle and/or pitch
2. Indication that it has been drawn slowly - tell tale start/stop marks
3. Ink characteristics with naturally aged ink
4. Irregular letter shape and/or formation
5. Irregular overlapping of strokes
6. Irregular spacing between letters
7. Sizing of letters disporportionate/exaggereated/undersized
8. Supportive writing abnormal (i.e. salutation, grammar, date)
Many of these would not be as evident on a computer screen and may even take more time to think about it and converse with a colleague (possibly).
mike
But I just have a thread running through me that all this autograph authentication stuff is just a big waste of money, and when I see results like this, it only enforces that belief. In the end, the only way to be 100% sure is to have attained the auto yourself, of course. It just amazes me what people pay to be 99% (or potentially less) certain. I guess it surprises me that people accept the fact that that's "close enough". The $800 Mantle 16x20 professionally framed hanging in your den might've been signed by a club house kid, not the Mick, and no one, including PSA, can assuredly say otherwise. But you can pay someone to give you the piece of mind, and then convince yourself that that's good enough, to say that it is real.
I guess I just don't understand the appeal of collecting autographs and the ridiculous value of autographs. Kids collect autographs because it's fun to get up close and get a memento and remember the moment. Adults spend a lot of money on autographs because they cost a lot of money. I just don't see the point, and I guess if I did, then test results like this would concern me. When we started my company, we tried dealing in some autos, mostly Steiner products. Then GAI told me my Williams/(Dom) DiMaggio/Pesky signed 8x10 was not authentic, when I got the autos myself. At that point we made a decision the autos would ultimately be more frustrating than anything, since you can't sell anything worth anything w/out a reputable COA, and those obviously cannot be attained 100% of the time.
Crazy industry, and honestly it is nice to see great companies like PSA trying to get their arms around it all, to at least provide that 99% level of assurance. Me, I'll stick to cardboard.
<< <i>But I just have a thread running through me that all this autograph authentication stuff is just a big waste of money >>
dg
I value your opinion but for the collectors, this is at least a better method of purchasing and selling the items.
For that matter, a card in a holder could be a fake, altered/trimmed etc. but the holder gives it more validity.
A lot of this hobby is based on trust/faith.
<< <i>the only way to be 100% sure is to have attained the auto yourself, of course. It just amazes me what people pay to be 99% (or potentially less) certain. I guess it surprises me that people accept the fact that that's "close enough". >>
1. It would be tough to get Mantle's auto yourself at this point.
2. 99% would be nice - and again better than buying it yourself without the benefit of someone who will know a heck of a lot more than I do.
3. I'm feeling that you are bringing your own values on auto collecting that make any discussion of this type difficult since it appears you have no interest in this part of the hobby.
For those, like my myself, who enjoy autos - these experts - with their mistakes/flaws etc. - offer a better situation than nothing at all IMO.
mike
The contest was very, very tough. 30 Autographs in 10 minutes with nothing to go by (already said).
So I guess what you are saying is that autograph authentication is merely an opinion, just like the authentication or grading of a card.
Lucky for you there are still plenty of unauthenticated cards and autographs availbale to you. Good Luck.
canttakeitnomore
Believe me, I've got plenty of interest in the autograph hobby, it's the autograph business that I just don't understand...
Another thing that astounds me is the inherant (not very subtle IMO) conflict of interest completely ignored by PSA, GAI etc dealing in the autograph business. For instance - PSA sets the price for a particular autograph. They then have a financial interest to reject as many submissions as possible, since they charge to reject an autograph, and each rejection theoretically increases the price and demand and submissions as it illustrates a small supply - i.e. 90% of all Mantles submitted are fake, so keep sending them in, and keep paying for the quick opinions, and as more are rejected, the market price will increase, so keep sending them in, and on it goes.
All that said, I am not saying I believe there is anything fishy or dishonest going on at all... It's the set-up of the industry that seems strange and would concern me if I were in the business. That's all.
And I guess you could argue there's a similar situation with cards, although I'd say it's not nearly the same thing. Sure, the card grader publishes prices and population reports for cards with different grades, which encourages us to submit cards to achieve those grades, but there's a big difference between judging the condition of a card and ruling on the authenticity of an autograph. The first can be realistically debated, judged, and personally understood before sending to the grader. If mistakes are made, they can be proven correct. The second cannot. If the authenticator says an autograph is fake, nothing can be done to change that. It's fake and worthless.