@CardGeek said:
Sufficient to support a finding. You mean like, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think the important thing about authentication is to provide a confidence. Craig's right though... it's just an opinion and some are better than others.
@CardGeek ha... confidence as in confidence interval, not the three-card monte guy outside the show. Although I'll admit the hobby has employed a few of both.
And it's actually the opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the bar to convict. "Sufficient to support a finding" is the bar to get in the door so the jury can look at it. Which is the honest version: here's how sure we are, you decide what it's worth.
Not redefining anything, just reading the fine print. The confidence men are the ones selling certainty.
@bgr said: @craig44 fair enough on the definition, but a dictionary records how a word gets used. It doesn't settle an argument, and most words have more than one sense. You can usually find the one that fits your side... I'd rather not play that game. The hobby uses "authentication" as a term of art, the same way "Gem Mint" doesn't mean the card is perfect and "Mint" doesn't mean it came from the Mint. Courts are a better reference than Webster's anyway. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, authenticating an item means producing evidence "sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is." Sufficient to support a finding, not proof. That's exactly what PSA, JSA and Taube are selling, and every buyer knows it.
On the rest:
The Grad quote doesn't carry what you need it to. "More than half of all signed memorabilia is fake" has no qualifier, as you said yourself, and most of the junk out there is raw or riding on a mail-order COA. You can't take a number about the whole market and pin it on slabbed items. It's also a little ironic. Grad makes his living authenticating autographs, so he's the last guy who thinks his opinion is a coin flip.
And the "they're all being made now" argument is an opinion too. It's a reasonable one, but it's built on the same kind of inference you won't accept from Taube. Prices went up, attitudes about signing cards loosened, and estates and collections surface when the money's there. More supply doesn't by itself say forgery.
As for the gauntlet... nobody in this thread claimed Joe Jackson swung this bat in an MLB game. kevper asked whether anyone had Jackson's H&B order records so he could check the side writing. I already said I don't think it can be a 1921 MLB gamer, since Jackson's last big league game was September 1920. So there's nothing here to prove. The open question is whether "Sent in by Jackson, 5-31-21" lines up with an H&B record, and that's checkable.
You set the bar at photo-matching or ironclad provenance, then said photo-matching could be tampered with. A standard nothing can pass isn't a standard, it's a verdict. By that rule there's no game-used vintage anything... which is a fine position for your own wallet, but it isn't what this thread is about.
point 1: disagreed. the hobby sure does not use authentication as a term of art. go to a large card show and ask 100 collectors what a PSA "authenticated" auto means. i bet that all of them would say it means the autograph is real or genuine.
point 2: Grads quote, which is a restatement of the FBI's findings does not say that 50% of all raw autos are fake. it also does not say that 50% of all slabbed authentic autos are fake. it says 50% of ALL autos are fake.
point 3: it is most certainly not an "opinion" that fake autographed mem is being produced right now. And it has been for a very long time. remember greg marino? Brett Lemiuex's $350 MM fiasco just happened. of course there are guys filling warehouses with fake autos. its been happening since autos became valuable.
point 4: the OP's entire 3rd post is him extolling the reasons he believes this bat could be a Jackson gamer. He also mentioned in his first post that he is a GU collector.
point 5: yes, as I was thinking it through, I realized that it is possible to tamper with photo matching. Yes, that does make "authenticating" vintage GU memorabilia exceedingly difficult. very nearly impossible. that is ok. we should not lower standards because it is too difficult to achieve them. that simply lessens how very special the real items are.
remember, just because vintage GU collectors/dealers really really really want these items to get "authenticated" doesnt mean they are the genuine article. sometimes the only place to see certain items is in museums. there are certain items that even billionaires cannot acquire.
@CardGeek said:
Sufficient to support a finding. You mean like, beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think the important thing about authentication is to provide a confidence. Craig's right though... it's just an opinion and some are better than others.
confidence does not mean an item is genuine or real.
@CardGeek said:
Well, a lot of the guys on vintage sports cards have or had been signing since the mid 80s. Guys who played in the 50s are still signing today. There may even be guys from the 40s signing?
You're arguing meaning by way of words and I don't understand if you have an actual point or if this is simply sport to enforce your opinion on others. Good jousting but farewell on this topic.
You're arguing meaning by way of words and I don't understand if you have an actual point or if this is simply sport to enforce your opinion on others. Good jousting but farewell on this topic.
after all this you dont know what my point is?
let me spell it out: it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to authenticate vintage game used memorabilia.
is this not the trading card and memorabilia forum where collectors discuss issues germane to the hobby? if there are no discenting voices it would be a pretty dull place, no?
You're arguing meaning by way of words and I don't understand if you have an actual point or if this is simply sport to enforce your opinion on others. Good jousting but farewell on this topic.
after all this you dont know what my point is?
let me spell it out: it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to authenticate vintage game used memorabilia.
is this not the trading card and memorabilia forum where collectors discuss issues germane to the hobby? if there are no discenting voices it would be a pretty dull place, no?
I don't have any problem with your opinion on it, but you're starting to argue definitions and in an exchange of ideas that tends to mark the end of the road.
You're arguing meaning by way of words and I don't understand if you have an actual point or if this is simply sport to enforce your opinion on others. Good jousting but farewell on this topic.
after all this you dont know what my point is?
let me spell it out: it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to authenticate vintage game used memorabilia.
is this not the trading card and memorabilia forum where collectors discuss issues germane to the hobby? if there are no discenting voices it would be a pretty dull place, no?
I don't have any problem with your opinion on it, but you're starting to argue definitions and in an exchange of ideas that tends to mark the end of the road.
do you mean by stating what the definition of "authentication?" if that is the case, i would argue that i stated the definition and you are attempting to "re"define the word to suit your argument
I'm with you. I stopped responding yesterday to the attack on all forms of authentication. I already extolled the attributes and specs of the Jackson bat that I can personally measure/identify. I also made it clear that I am searching for more evidence that Joe is the Jackson who returned the bat to the H&B factory. Knowledgeable vintage bat collectors will easily be able to tell that this is a period bat with great use. They also know the side writing procedures that were used 100+ years ago for returning used/broken bats back to the factory for duplication. You, I expect, have seen H&B ordering records for at least one other player, so you know how that info offers strong evidence of whether or not a given professional model bat was at least ordered by the player in question. After that, use characteristics are objectively measured for comparison to known exemplars. We, as collectors, have the right to question the expert authenticators. I, for one, appreciate the access to expert opinions. Without them, our hobby would not be as advanced as it is. Any and all collectibles categories have expert authentication for at least the most expensive pieces.
So, like you, I'm done with the authentication argument. Peace to all. I'll post the results of John Taube's review once I get them.
Comments
I think the important thing about authentication is to provide a confidence. Craig's right though... it's just an opinion and some are better than others.
So you're saying these guys are confidence men?
You're redefining authenticate.
@CardGeek ha... confidence as in confidence interval, not the three-card monte guy outside the show. Although I'll admit the hobby has employed a few of both.
And it's actually the opposite of beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the bar to convict. "Sufficient to support a finding" is the bar to get in the door so the jury can look at it. Which is the honest version: here's how sure we are, you decide what it's worth.
Not redefining anything, just reading the fine print. The confidence men are the ones selling certainty.
Even the definition of authenticate in legal context requires proof.
point 1: disagreed. the hobby sure does not use authentication as a term of art. go to a large card show and ask 100 collectors what a PSA "authenticated" auto means. i bet that all of them would say it means the autograph is real or genuine.
point 2: Grads quote, which is a restatement of the FBI's findings does not say that 50% of all raw autos are fake. it also does not say that 50% of all slabbed authentic autos are fake. it says 50% of ALL autos are fake.
point 3: it is most certainly not an "opinion" that fake autographed mem is being produced right now. And it has been for a very long time. remember greg marino? Brett Lemiuex's $350 MM fiasco just happened. of course there are guys filling warehouses with fake autos. its been happening since autos became valuable.
point 4: the OP's entire 3rd post is him extolling the reasons he believes this bat could be a Jackson gamer. He also mentioned in his first post that he is a GU collector.
point 5: yes, as I was thinking it through, I realized that it is possible to tamper with photo matching. Yes, that does make "authenticating" vintage GU memorabilia exceedingly difficult. very nearly impossible. that is ok. we should not lower standards because it is too difficult to achieve them. that simply lessens how very special the real items are.
remember, just because vintage GU collectors/dealers really really really want these items to get "authenticated" doesnt mean they are the genuine article. sometimes the only place to see certain items is in museums. there are certain items that even billionaires cannot acquire.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
confidence does not mean an item is genuine or real.
you are talking about faith/belief
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
we are not in a court of law. authentication is not a measure of degrees, it is a binary. either an item is genuine or it is not.
i think you are going sideways here.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Based on the current tally in this 1952 thread;
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/978982/in-memory-of-bob-lemke-1952-topps-living-players#latest
It's probably a very tiny number and might even be 0
It's the singer not the song - Peter Townshend (1972)
Not even a minute do I buy the whole buh buh buh I'm a man-child japery - Me (2025)
@craig44
You're arguing meaning by way of words and I don't understand if you have an actual point or if this is simply sport to enforce your opinion on others. Good jousting but farewell on this topic.
after all this you dont know what my point is?
let me spell it out: it is exceedingly difficult, if not impossible to authenticate vintage game used memorabilia.
is this not the trading card and memorabilia forum where collectors discuss issues germane to the hobby? if there are no discenting voices it would be a pretty dull place, no?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I don't have any problem with your opinion on it, but you're starting to argue definitions and in an exchange of ideas that tends to mark the end of the road.
do you mean by stating what the definition of "authentication?" if that is the case, i would argue that i stated the definition and you are attempting to "re"define the word to suit your argument
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
@bgr,
I'm with you. I stopped responding yesterday to the attack on all forms of authentication. I already extolled the attributes and specs of the Jackson bat that I can personally measure/identify. I also made it clear that I am searching for more evidence that Joe is the Jackson who returned the bat to the H&B factory. Knowledgeable vintage bat collectors will easily be able to tell that this is a period bat with great use. They also know the side writing procedures that were used 100+ years ago for returning used/broken bats back to the factory for duplication. You, I expect, have seen H&B ordering records for at least one other player, so you know how that info offers strong evidence of whether or not a given professional model bat was at least ordered by the player in question. After that, use characteristics are objectively measured for comparison to known exemplars. We, as collectors, have the right to question the expert authenticators. I, for one, appreciate the access to expert opinions. Without them, our hobby would not be as advanced as it is. Any and all collectibles categories have expert authentication for at least the most expensive pieces.
So, like you, I'm done with the authentication argument. Peace to all. I'll post the results of John Taube's review once I get them.
Kevperkas@gmail.com