Non-Sport Update's Card Talk
Panini Autopens

This topic can be found at:
http://nonsportupdate.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/955604453/m/5927071786

July 07, 2017, 10:47 PM
Raven
Panini Autopens
So this is kind of breaking news and its something that should be followed if you are interested in autograph cards.

Panini is involved in a rumored scandal about at least three of their sticker autograph cards that are now being questioned as autopens. Football player Dak Prescott and Country stars Brian Kelley and Tyler Hubbard are the names popping up.

Of course we have had autopens used for on-card signatures before, but this is the first time I have heard of stickers with mechanical autographs. Its hard to believe that a whole sheet of autographs that all look exactly the same would not be noticed by the card manufacturer. Yet that's what Panini seems to be getting accused of on at least three different people.

Prescotts' Prism autograph card in particular is the one that hurts since it is so expensive. I can't really tell from the images if that one is a sticker or not. Correction - The Prescotts are on-card signatures, so this is bad for Panini both ways.

I put this in the rumor column because I only know what is out there, but this story has apparently blown up in the last week and will be a huge embarrassment if true, as it looks like. Beckett is refusing to authenticate according to reports.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Raven,
July 08, 2017, 12:07 AM
Logan
Back in 2012 Press Pass had to deal with a similar situation in one of their racing products with Brad Keselowski. Here's the Beckett.com article about it:

http://www.beckett.com/news/pr...es-in-ignite-racing/
July 08, 2017, 03:44 AM
Triple-Frog
Just shows how badly the Country Music release did that it's taken this long for it to be noticed.
July 22, 2017, 04:39 PM
<<<<ALDO_NOVA>>>>
I remember some sets in the past, where somebody other than the person did the signing, as most are just scribbles anyway!
July 22, 2017, 09:52 PM
Raven
quote:
Originally posted by <<<<ALDO_NOVA>>>>:
I remember some sets in the past, where somebody other than the person did the signing, as most are just scribbles anyway!


As long as its a genuine scribble it counts. Big Grin

Yes, there have been some certified autograph cards that were ghost signed or auto-penned before, but thankfully it is very rare and always an embarrassment to the manufacturer.

I don't believe any card maker wants to be associated with distributing a bad autograph card, so they do try to ensure the integrity, even if they do mainly throw the responsibility back on the signer.

Nothing is ever 100% and you can always find examples of ghosts and counterfeits if you look hard, but on a whole I still fully believe that certified autograph cards are the best assurance you can get of authenticity when you are not getting it signed yourself.
July 22, 2017, 10:18 PM
chesspieceface
Geez, what next, we find out the Hank Williams Sr. and Patsy Cline on-card autographs in that product aren't real either?

C'mon, guys!

____________________
Everywhere around this burg they're running out of verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. Everywhere around this town, they're running out of nouns.
July 23, 2017, 09:05 AM
<<<<ALDO_NOVA>>>>
There's lots of shady people out there, especially when there's a dollar attached to it, nothing new!
May 09, 2019, 04:04 PM
mykdude
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:

Yes, there have been some certified autograph cards that were ghost signed or auto-penned before, but thankfully it is very rare and always an embarrassment to the manufacturer.

I don't believe any card maker wants to be associated with distributing a bad autograph card, so they do try to ensure the integrity, even if they do mainly throw the responsibility back on the signer.


Been going back and looking at the history of the FGL sigs for Panini. Primarily because I bought one without doing my homework.

Raven you would think that your description would be the case but after looking into Panini a little closer, they really don't care.

Every outlet a customer can complain about them is full of rants about ignored emails, phone calls, unfulfilled redemption cards, no response to damaged product issues and of course, sending out fake autographs with their seal of authenticity. They don't even clean it off of their facebook page which is loaded with complaints.

They have a BBB grade of an F. Page is full with over 170 similar complaints. I decided to file a bad review on them and the BBB told me I had to wait several days to give Panini a chance to respond. They didn't.

Truly a company to stay away from.

I don't know if any of the hobby publications have written about this problem in print (can't find anything) but this is something they should be hammering on every time it happens.

Maybe it is just too much of a conflict of interest for them.
May 09, 2019, 04:59 PM
Raven
quote:
Originally posted by mykdude:
Raven you would think that your description would be the case but after looking into Panini a little closer, they really don't care.


Panini has been hit before on their autographs, particularly about auto penned signatures, which they throw back on the signer. It's a problem because card companies don't always have a representative to witness the actual signing. They use to, but not for a long time has this been a requirement. I think most now are really done on the word of the signer, but it's not a subject that the makers really like to publicize.

But that's exactly why the card makers take such great pains to have careful wording with the text on the back. You don't see where the manufacturer is guaranteeing the authenticity, you see where it's the signer's responsibility. So if the signer decides to use an autopen or give them to their secretary to autograph, I guess it means the collector is supposed to go sue them. Big Grin

It gets even murkier with these cut signatures that are authenticated by a third party. The card makers never say what third party. Who are you supposed to sue or just complain to when one of those comes up less than genuine?

I've been collecting autographs for a long time and there are certain inherit risks that are always involved. You can try to minimize the risks for yourself, but there are a few hard truths. One of them being that there are so many bad signatures out there because people get away with it. Certified autograph cards are your best chance of having a guarantee, but just about every major card maker has put out at least a couple that were questionable and some that were proven to be bad, either as an autopen or someone else entirely.

And here's the worst part, there is no big recourse. Hurting the card maker's reputation is the most that happens. If they are a good company they will try to give collectors another card or have the signer do it again. Unless you can somehow prove they intentional did it, it's a mistake and it probably was. If you feel that a certain maker has too many mistakes, the only thing you can do is not buy from them. And your right, they probably won't care if they don't mind making the same mistakes. Big Grin
May 09, 2019, 11:41 PM
webjon
The most unfortunate thing, in my opinion, is Panini's lack of response. They don't seem to care.

Of course it is bad that the problem happened, but I think more damage is done to Panini and to the hobby by their refusal to address it.

The Florida Georgia line cards are especially egregious -- in my opinion -- since all the autographs are identical, this should have been easily caught if anyone was looking for it when someone was looking at literal sheets of identical autographs.

It is a shame. I do enjoy these types of products, and I will continue to buy them, but I will certainly pay more attention for this type of thing in the future, and will buy with the understanding that Panini won't stand behind their product regardless of any guarantee they print on the card.
May 11, 2019, 08:40 AM
mykdude
Completely agree on most points Raven. Absolutely for autograph collectors, this is still one of the most sure methods. As far as I can tell these cards are in the very high 90 percentile for authenticity.

As we auto hounds know the only true guarantee is that good ol in person signature. Wink

Not sure about the wording thing. As an example my FGL cards states

"These Authentic Tyler Hubbard and Brian Kelley autographs are guaranteed by Panini America, Inc."

That's pretty cut n dry. It is such authenticity statements that draw collectors to a product.

I also think that if someone had the resources to sue them the evidence would most likely be against the card company seeing that these are sticker autographs. It's not like these cards were signed and ready to insert direct from FGL.

Panini had to lay all 1400 cards out and assemble them.

Panini is banking that no one will have the resources and that trade publications wont publicly stand up on the side of the collectors in such issues.

So far they are right.

Absolutely webjon, I don't expect any company to get it right every time but how they handle problems such as this is indicative of their true quality.
May 11, 2019, 07:08 PM
Raven
quote:
Originally posted by mykdude:
Not sure about the wording thing. As an example my FGL cards states

"These Authentic Tyler Hubbard and Brian Kelley autographs are guaranteed by Panini America, Inc."

That's pretty cut n dry. It is such authenticity statements that draw collectors to a product.


I've been trying to do a quick sampling of my certified autograph cards, several different makers and different years, and I think you're correct about Leaf and Panini. They specifically say "This autograph is guaranteed by Panini America, Inc." or "Leaf guarantees that the signature on this card is authentic"".

258 West Authentic has an even better one, "This card was hand signed in front of Marco Guerrero from 258 West Authentic".

Upper Deck likes to use this one, taken from Ironman 2 Leslie Bibb, "This autograph was signed in the presence of a company representative or sent from, and certified as to its authenticity by, Leslie Bibb". That wording throws any mail ins back at the signers.

RA uses "This limited edition autograph card has been personally signed by __________" and the name is printed.

CZE is similar, "This card was personally signed by ___________" or "This authentic autograph was personally signed by _________" and the name is printed.

TOPPS has used "You have received an authentic autograph of ____________".

So "authentic" and "personally signed by" appears often, but "guaranteed by" not so much". And Panini, who does use it, is the one who keeps getting hit for autopens, so go figure. Big Grin

Don't get me wrong, these are authentic signature cards, we are just talking about the various ways card makers have worded it and I'm sure there are other different examples, as I just pulled out a few. Smile
May 12, 2019, 11:33 AM
AWR
I have seen several videos posted by celebrities hand signing cards and sticker sheets. You would think that in this day and age if a company does not have the resources to have somebody available to watch somebody physically sign cards, they could at least make it mandatory that somebody take a video of them signing the cards. This could then be used to assure authenticity.

Couldn't imagine somebody saying they don't know how to set up a camera and film themselves, and then going into their back office with some sort of auto-pen system set up Smile
May 12, 2019, 03:51 PM
webjon
quote:
Originally posted by AWR:
I have seen several videos posted by celebrities hand signing cards and sticker sheets. You would think that in this day and age if a company does not have the resources to have somebody available to watch somebody physically sign cards, they could at least make it mandatory that somebody take a video of them signing the cards. This could then be used to assure authenticity.

Couldn't imagine somebody saying they don't know how to set up a camera and film themselves, and then going into their back office with some sort of auto-pen system set up Smile


While I think it would be great, I also think there are celebs who would refuse to do it -- and I'm guessing the most likely celebs to refuse would be the ones that need the money the least, and are likely the ones fans are most interested in.
May 13, 2019, 01:29 PM
mykdude
quote:
Originally posted by Raven:
I've been trying to do a quick sampling of my certified autograph cards, several different makers and different years, and I think you're correct about Leaf and Panini. They specifically say "This autograph is guaranteed by Panini America, Inc." or "Leaf guarantees that the signature on this card is authentic"".


Yeah, I know you and I have discussed this in the past, especially when it came to memorabilia and costume cards. Some really questionable stuff there. Cool

Of course the word "guarantee" is only as good as the company that uses it. Panini is obviously the mafia of card companies. Sorry Topps.....someone actually sucks worse than you.
May 31, 2019, 04:31 PM
estephano
quote:
Originally posted by mykdude:
Yeah, I know you and I have discussed this in the past, especially when it came to memorabilia and costume cards. Some really questionable stuff there. Cool

Of course the word "guarantee" is only as good as the company that uses it. Panini is obviously the mafia of card companies. Sorry Topps.....someone actually sucks worse than you.


I was actually having the same thoughts tonight regarding the 2011 Panini Americana Movie Poster Materials.

While Inkworks and CZE did a great job at actually displaying the full costume on the back of the card and sometimes also mentioning in what episode the costume was worn, I was thinking that Panini could've used any plane black shirt for their Gary Cooper/John Wayne/Bob Hope/Cary Grant/Telly Savalas/etc. material cards.

Actual worn items by any of Panini Movie Poster and Matinee Legends subsets still fetch quite some money at auction houses around the world. Still, all we can do is take Panini's word for it that the used material is of an actual worn item by named movie legend.

You say, you've discussed the authenticity problem of costume cards in the past. Would you please be so kind and share the link of the thread, so I can read what you and other users came up with? Thanks in advance for your help.
June 02, 2019, 12:19 PM
Raven
quote:
Originally posted by estephano:
quote:
Originally posted by mykdude:
Yeah, I know you and I have discussed this in the past, especially when it came to memorabilia and costume cards. Some really questionable stuff there. Cool


I was actually having the same thoughts tonight regarding the 2011 Panini Americana Movie Poster Materials.

While Inkworks and CZE did a great job at actually displaying the full costume on the back of the card and sometimes also mentioning in what episode the costume was worn, I was thinking that Panini could've used any plane black shirt for their Gary Cooper/John Wayne/Bob Hope/Cary Grant/Telly Savalas/etc. material cards.

Actual worn items by any of Panini Movie Poster and Matinee Legends subsets still fetch quite some money at auction houses around the world. Still, all we can do is take Panini's word for it that the used material is of an actual worn item by named movie legend.

You say, you've discussed the authenticity problem of costume cards in the past. Would you please be so kind and share the link of the thread, so I can read what you and other users came up with? Thanks in advance for your help.


For my part, I don't think there was a single thread, just comments about various material and "relic" cards in different products. I also can't recall anything that smacked of an authenticity problem per se, just vague card wording between things identified as generally screen worn, or specifically screen worn, or coming from costumes, or costume fabrics, or being personally owned or personally worn, with or without any details about anything at all. Big Grin

When it comes to bites and pieces of relics mounted on cards, I think you either have faith and believe the manufacturer's word or question everything and stay away from it all. If you are going to require absolute proof, you will probably fall short unless you can involve yourself in the process or know someone who was involved in the process. In the past some card makers have gone to great lengths to show where they acquired the materials/costumes/relics and shown pictures of the whole items before cutting them up. Other card makers have not, but still guarantee the swatch or prop. If it makes a difference to the buyer then they should take the strongest assertion, but absent any contradictory evidence, there is no reason to question the other, until you find a reason. Wink Once we tend to go paranoid about such things, it all starts to look no good. Roll Eyes

Plus you have the perfectly legal racket of selling sport and non-sport memorabilia, whether its done for a card maker to cut up or to be sold as a whole item. The people who make a business out of handling these things take all sorts of shortcuts to categorize them a certain way. How many jerseys sold as game worn came from the practice field? How many were replacements never worn? How many changes of hats, shirts, pants and other articles of uniforms does a player make or wear in a big game so that more can be sold as game used afterwards? Sometimes they wear multiple layers of the same clothing to get more to sell. I would imagine its no different on movie and TV sets where there are multiple costumes lying around. Or when the studios dispose of clothing to other outlets. They may supply a certificate from the studio, but who can really swear to it.

The big thing that you have to focus on is the value of the item and how much validation you need to satisfy your faith in it. When you consider that probably upwards of 90% of relic cards, what with all those generic one-color swatches, can be found in $10 and under bargain boxes, if really won't cost you much to be wrong. On the other hand, if the relic is expansive enough to care about, then you should hold the standard of proof to a higher level and be as confident in it as you can. If you spent thousands on the card of Dorothy's costume in The Wizard of Oz, it had darn well be from the costume. BTW it was, from the inside of a seam I believe. Smile

Anyway I have a hard enough time trying to ensure the authenticity of autographs. I don't have enough skepticism left over to start obsessing about my not terribly grand relic card collection. Big Grin
June 02, 2019, 07:24 PM
mykdude
Yup! What she said! Smile

As presumed, different from autographs no collector can really say with any authority if a costume piece is authentic or not. The only way something like this could come out is if the celebrity or the estate were to file some sort of fraud charges.

Or someone involved with the process blows the whistle.

Panini seems like a company that would gladly push the lines of authenticity for their own benefit.
June 03, 2019, 01:31 PM
Raven
Yes, you said it a lot shorter than I. Big Grin

I wouldn't be surprised if we got a costume/relic card scandal someday about somebody, not singling out anyone. Maybe it's just not high enough on the list for people to worry about. Stories of sports memorabilia being periodically challenged over authenticity are common. Why would it be any different for items sold to go to a shredder? Big Grin
June 27, 2019, 02:49 PM
mykdude
Hey!! Get your favorite autopen for $500!!!!!


https://www.ebay.com/itm/2014-...e:g:zV8AAOSwl9RZ~nV0

I made a $25 offer with a note to the seller. Will let you know what happens. MAN! I must be bored today. Razz