quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
The card was returned to the seller, with the note that they were "unable to confirm authenticity."

Right...that's why I said "Saying it can't be authenticated is not necessarily saying it is fake."

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I agree that it is good that companies don't just take the manufacturer's word for autographs, I guess I just didn't realize the authentication program was going that far. If that is the case then they should publish a list of autographs that they are going to reject to save people time, money and frustration.

I also think it is problematic if they are allowing listings on cards they know they are going to reject, that seems like a jerk move, and I still think it is problematic that they will allow most Ian Holm Alien autographs -- even duals/triples selling for over $200 -- but once you hit $250 you can no longer sell it.

I don't disagree but that is the current system. I'm not defending it...just stating what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
Also -- people are talking about ways to circumvent eBay's system. . . For example, apparently if you sold the Weaver/Holm in a lot -- i.e. a Weaver/Holm dual with a Holm solo autograph they won't authenticate it because it is in a lot. . . So the fact that they will only block the sale of this card in specific circumstances is bizarre to me -- either it is a good card, or it's not.

Ok....nothing new there. Already said I disagreed with blocking the sale as long as the sale was listed honestly. My point is are you comfortable with the signature you are seeing with the ALIEN set as compared to most of his other signatures? In the end it is your call to buy it or not.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
What don't you like about your Ellen Page autograph? I have an Ellen Page autograph from Leaf Limited Inscriptions, never really wondered about it's authenticity, but my guess was that was signed at a random even or something given the nature of that release.

My concern is I can't seem to find examples that look like the RA signature, especially authenticated ones.....why shouldn't I find that as a concern? Again...I didn't say it was fake but I have seen no evidence they are real.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I had to pull out my copy for the full wording: "This autograph was signed in the presence of a company representative or sent from, and certified as to its authenticity by, Ian Holm". So that's just what I said, UD will throw back any question of authenticity on Ian Holm himself, who unfortunately is in no position to answer for anything.

And yet they still use wording that (as you say) went by the wayside a long time ago. I guess I am the eternal skeptic and never really bought into the logistics of a company representative running to every autograph signing.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
I also have an on-card Holm's autograph from LotR Chrome and the signature doesn't match the UD sticker, especially on the capital I and H. I will agree that it isn't a shaky signature, but the last part of both names could resemble each other. They are different. The early ones are better. I'm not prepared to label them fake without evidence though. That's a dangerous judgement to make if you are wrong. Better to just say it's not a good display item, pass on it and let the experts decide.

Dangerous??? Ok, I guess. The I to the a to the n don't flow properly. The H to the o to the l are all off compared to his known signature. There needs to be some evidence that his autograph changed so dramatically during the last 5 years of his life.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven
Speaking of which, what are Beckett and PSA doing with UD Holm's autograph cards? If eBay is rejecting them, doesn't that mean that the grading services must also be rejecting them? Or has that issue not come up yet? It should.

That's the question now isn't it? Blowout forums so far can only find a graded card......not an authenticated one.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven
And by the way, "unable to confirm authenticity" on a personally signed item is one thing to say, but saying it on a pack pulled certified card is a whole different thing. That's calling into question the card maker's process of guaranteeing their product and the card maker should respond one way or another. Not that UD ever responds, but it should.

Yes, I call into question the card makers process of guaranteeing their product. Especially when they are being viewed as a "trusted" source.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
So this being Ian Holm, maybe it's not such a big deal. Change that with someone more expensive and desired like maybe a Ben Affleck, who can't sign the same way twice in a row, and see if eBay does the same thing.

Ben Affleck has shown he can't sign the same way long before he was 88 years old. Ian on the other hand has been consistent for quite some time. Once again you have to follow the signature habits of the celebrity. All I am looking for is an authenticated habit that he signed the way he did for the ALIEN set.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
What don't you like about your Ellen Page autograph? I have an Ellen Page autograph from Leaf Limited Inscriptions, never really wondered about it's authenticity, but my guess was that was signed at a random even or something given the nature of that release.

My concern is I can't seem to find examples that look like the RA signature, especially authenticated ones.....why shouldn't I find that as a concern? Again...I didn't say it was fake but I have seen no evidence they are real.

'

Sounds like a valid concern to me . . . I was just wondering -- I've never really paid attention to that particular card, and hadn't heard anyone else talk about it so I was wondering.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Yes, I call into question the card makers process of guaranteeing their product. Especially when they are being viewed as a "trusted" source.

Ben Affleck has shown he can't sign the same way long before he was 88 years old. Ian on the other hand has been consistent for quite some time. Once again you have to follow the signature habits of the celebrity. All I am looking for is an authenticated habit that he signed the way he did for the ALIEN set.

I like your point-by-point response format mykdude. It's easier to follow. I'll just respond to the last two observations since I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that the UD Holm's stickers have deviated from previous examples. They have. The speculation is in the "why" and, unless some admission is forthcoming, we may never know.

Certified autograph cards are an imperfect guarantee of authenticity, but it's the best we have for autographs. Card makers can't send representatives around the world to ensure that paid signers are living up to their contracted promises. Occasionally a "ghost" is sniffed out or an autopen pops up and that is unacceptable. But these are also rare occurrences out of the thousands and thousands of certified cards that are now commonplace out on the market. It's fine to be skeptical, I'm a skeptic myself. But if you look too hard and too long at anything, you will see "ghosts" everywhere and drive yourself right out of the autograph hobby. One of the things I dislike about Blowout is that some posters are determined to be whistle blowers, whether they have something to blow about or not.

The other thing is that habits are habits, until someone changes. Why should a Ben Affleck get a free pass on what are mainly fake autographs, just because he has no consistent signature, and no one can tell what he did or didn't sign? You have to buy a certified Affleck card or photo or get it authenticated by someone who is probably guessing too. Like you, I have also seen third-party authenticated autographs where I don't know how they passed.

Now with a consistent signer, we expect to see the same markers, until we don't. Then we have a new variation and a new example. Sometimes it's because they got old, or sick, or rushed, or unpaid, or don't care, or are just plain lazy. How many times are names shortened over the years? How many people suddenly become sloppy? But that's still all genuine as long as we have the examples to follow. Maybe Holm was starting a new example and he died. I'm joking, I don't know that and it's probably what it looks like, but we don't know that for sure either. You can't undermine the faith in the whole process for the few bad apples that slip through, and you especially can't do that when you have nothing better to replace it with for the money that card makers can expense out.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Yes, I call into question the card makers process of guaranteeing their product. Especially when they are being viewed as a "trusted" source.

Ben Affleck has shown he can't sign the same way long before he was 88 years old. Ian on the other hand has been consistent for quite some time. Once again you have to follow the signature habits of the celebrity. All I am looking for is an authenticated habit that he signed the way he did for the ALIEN set.

I like your point-by-point response format mykdude. It's easier to follow. I'll just respond to the last two observations since I'm not disagreeing with your assertion that the UD Holm's stickers have deviated from previous examples. They have. The speculation is in the "why" and, unless some admission is forthcoming, we may never know.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Certified autograph cards are an imperfect guarantee of authenticity, but it's the best we have for autographs. Card makers can't send representatives around the world to ensure that paid signers are living up to their contracted promises. Occasionally a "ghost" is sniffed out or an autopen pops up and that is unacceptable. But these are also rare occurrences out of the thousands and thousands of certified cards that are now commonplace out on the market. It's fine to be skeptical, I'm a skeptic myself. But if you look too hard and too long at anything, you will see "ghosts" everywhere and drive yourself right out of the autograph hobby. One of the things I dislike about Blowout is that some posters are determined to be whistle blowers, whether they have something to blow about or not.

Absolutely! I never implied that certified autograph cards are not a strong standard for collecting real signatures. The problem I have is when an obvious fake surfaces how does the manufacture respond? I also wonder that if I can search dozens of authenticated signatures within a few minutes and decide if there are any red flags or not why can't the manufacture do the same before inserting the cards into packs? In many cases assemble the card with stickers before inserting them into packs. Unlike sports, most non-sports sets really don't have that many signatures to run some quality assurance on. RA for example has no excuse not to conduct a "is there any reason to believe this is a fake signature?" check.

Just for an exercise run an ebay search "Ellen Page BAS, PSA or JSA" and then ask yourself how any of these look remotely close to the RA card? In contrast Cate Blanchett's signature has seemed to deteriorate much over the years but I can still find good examples of how she signed for Topps LOTR.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
The other thing is that habits are habits, until someone changes. Why should a Ben Affleck get a free pass on what are mainly fake autographs, just because he has no consistent signature, and no one can tell what he did or didn't sign? You have to buy a certified Affleck card or photo or get it authenticated by someone who is probably guessing too. Like you, I have also seen third-party authenticated autographs where I don't know how they passed.

Not sure what he is getting a free pass on, Mickey Rourke does the same thing as Affleck. Thing with Ben is he also does public signings where authenticators are taking in live examples into their database. My concern is more with people like John Cusack....how do you determine his wavy line from someone else's?

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
You can't undermine the faith in the whole process for the few bad apples that slip through, and you especially can't do that when you have nothing better to replace it with for the money that card makers can expense out.

As we are discussing a money making venture I would say trust is a better word. As a process it is a good one and at this point in time it is mostly reliable. My trust does not develop when a company delivers what they promise 99% of the time but in how they represent themselves during the other 1%. If only a few people are complaining about a legitimate problem it is much easier to sweep it under the rug.

When I have no reason or evidence to think a signature is real, trying to speculate why it might be just because it came from a card company is not the collection I am looking for.

In another post I mentioned I saw an authenticated Steven Seagal pop century card, but I was wrong. Recently I have been going over pop reports for graded cards and the whole thing feels more like a shell game. I mean correct me if I am wrong.

A graded card is not an authenticated card
An authenticated card is not a graded card
A graded signature card is not an authenticated signature card

How can you have a GEM mint 10 autograph card with a fake autograph? Totally possible and totally deceptive. If I post a graded card with a graded signature it is still not authenticated but very confusing.

Which all brings me back to the idea that if Ebay authenticity is going to call it the way they see it then I appreciate that. But until someone cries about it either here or blowout I'm not sure how this information is tracked for collector awareness.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mykdude,

So with signed cards do we need to go back to the days when you got photographic evidence of when the card was signed? In recent years I have seen Topps provide on social media images of Premier League or Europa League Footballers signing their cards (I apologise for it being regarded as sport but it does provide the context) so should these non sport card manufacturers do the same? If so it could ultimately mean the end of signed cards.

regards

John

quote:

Originally posted by JOHN LEVITT:
So with signed cards do we need to go back to the days when you got photographic evidence of when the card was signed? In recent years I have seen Topps provide on social media images of Premier League or Europa League Footballers signing their cards (I apologise for it being regarded as sport but it does provide the context) so should these non sport card manufacturers do the same? If so it could ultimately mean the end of signed cards.

regards

John

I wouldn't say so but then again, is it really that difficult to record a couple of minutes of your signature session these days? Showing what the autographs are looking like?

Pretty much a simple video file the celebrity can email to the card company. Really a little surprised that has not become a basic part of the contract.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
Absolutely! I never implied that certified autograph cards are not a strong standard for collecting real signatures. The problem I have is when an obvious fake surfaces how does the manufacture respond? I also wonder that if I can search dozens of authenticated signatures within a few minutes and decide if there are any red flags or not why can't the manufacture do the same before inserting the cards into packs? In many cases assemble the card with stickers before inserting them into packs.

Not sure what he is getting a free pass on, Mickey Rourke does the same thing as Affleck. Thing with Ben is he also does public signings where authenticators are taking in live examples into their database. My concern is more with people like John Cusack....how do you determine his wavy line from someone else's?

In another post I mentioned I saw an authenticated Steven Seagal pop century card, but I was wrong. Recently I have been going over pop reports for graded cards and the whole thing feels more like a shell game. I mean correct me if I am wrong.

A graded card is not an authenticated card
An authenticated card is not a graded card
A graded signature card is not an authenticated signature card

How can you have a GEM mint 10 autograph card with a fake autograph? Totally possible and totally deceptive.

Oh Good Lord, now you're talking! If you are disappointed with how card manufacturers handle their certified cards, triple that for my distrust of the third-party authentication system that is pretty much the same no matter which major service is used.

You are correct that a card with a fake autograph on it can be graded and slabbed. Why? Because they weren't asked to authenticate the signature or, more importantly, PAID to authenticate it. But beyond that, I just don't believe that these "experts" do the job any better than a seasoned card collector can do it. I have seen so many autographs with accompanying certification from major grading services that I wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole. I know that the certification may be the single reason why some buyers are picking up that item. However no COA from anybody makes a fake autograph genuine. It just makes the fake sellable.

Third party authentication can be a very difficult thing to do and since it is my money I would trust my judgement over any grading service's expert. Of course that's not how the market has evolved and many people will swear by grades and authentication. That's their business.

As far as Affleck and his other friends who can't be bothered to write their illegible signatures the same way twice, they do have a free pass. No one can identify their genuine autographs. Any scribble laid down could be real, even though chances are any bigger names are 95% fake. How can anyone tell without a paid witness? I can't and neither can the "experts". That doesn't stop them from being third-party authenticated though, does it?

Finally, I agree with you 100% about better quality control by card manufacturers when it comes to examining the signed cards and stickers before releasing the product. The autograph hits are the main reason why collectors are buying that product. Its where all the money lies. That you can pack something up without having an experienced person really look at it is stupid. If something is obviously off, it should be pulled for further inspection.

There is no way in hell that those autopenned Seth MacFarlane Orville cards should have gotten out. No one looked at them, that's the bottom line. Yes, RA made good on replacement, but the whole thing was just plain stupid. If they or any other maker couldn't find something so obvious, what are their chances of picking up "ghosts".

But on the other hand, people do change their signatures. So all of those Pop Century stickers that are being flagged by posters on Blowout because they look different from 10 years ago may not be problems at all. Like I said, some people will trust a piece of paper from an "expert" they don't know and some people will see counterfeits everywhere. Do the research and trust your own judgment. If you have doubts, leave it. Certified autograph cards are still the safest thing you can buy, but know which ones have had questions and act accordingly if you do require further authentication. That's just my opinion anyway.

I actually don't think asking for photographic proof -- or video proof is asking too much. . . It's 2022, this isn't hard to do. That said there are a lot of things that could be done that aren't being done -- like scanning every sketch/autograph released in a set, etc.

I think the most important thing is how a manufacturer responds to an issue -- i.e. with the Holm autograph Upper Deck is basically just saying 'we have a contract!!!!'

The Panini Country autographs with autopenned Brian Kelley and Tyler Hubbard signatures were basically ignored. . .

It seems like if the problem is caught immediately it may get corrected, but if not one noticed for a while it is unlikely the manufacturer will do anything. They aren't exactly standing behind their products/guarantees in those cases.

The Country Music one is kinda tough as I don't think anyone noticed the signatures were autopenned for a long time after release. . .

One the other hand the Ian Holm autograph is still able to be pulled from packs bought direct from Upper Deck on ePack. It is concerning that Upper Deck isn't really willing to stand behind a product that they are still selling.

quote:

Originally posted by webjon:
I actually don't think asking for photographic proof -- or video proof is asking too much. . . It's 2022, this isn't hard to do. That said there are a lot of things that could be done that aren't being done -- like scanning every sketch/autograph released in a set, etc.

I think the most important thing is how a manufacturer responds to an issue -- i.e. with the Holm autograph Upper Deck is basically just saying 'we have a contract!!!!'

The Panini Country autographs with autopenned Brian Kelley and Tyler Hubbard signatures were basically ignored. . .

Right...the difference between being reliable and being trusted.

I have ignored this thread for awhile because I shelled out a few bucks to have my Ian Holm and Ellen Page authenticated.....will report when I get the results.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I have ignored this thread for awhile because I shelled out a few bucks to have my Ian Holm and Ellen Page authenticated.....will report when I get the results.

Did you ask for grading too? I rather think whoever you sent them to should get suspicious. Most people wouldn't pay to authenticate an already certified autograph, so what's up with that?

I wouldn't be surprised if they decline to guarantee the Holm, but I'd be very surprised if they decline on the Page. I say that without even seeing the cards.

So that turned out to be more interesting than I anticipated.

I submitted Ian Holm and Ellen Page for authentication through AutographCOA (ACOA). Both came back authenticated but deemed "atypical". As of right now if I submit the cards to them they will be given a certificate. As they do not slab this would mean a sticker on my cards.

Then I resubmitted to Beckett (BAS) for an online pre-cert. Both came back as unlikely to pass authentication. Beckett is one of the authenticators that UD suggested concerning the Ian card.

Honestly, I thought that if I were to get mixed results it would have been the opposite.

Lots of people use ACOA, never heard about the "atypical" bit. I thought it just passed or it didn't.

Not surprised about Beckett rejecting the Holm, there has been enough talk about it, but Page is a surprise. That's RA and it's going to be problem if Beckett is going on record as "unlikely to pass" one of their big autograph cards. See how long it takes before a question hits the RA forum about it, if it hasn't already.

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Lots of people use ACOA, never heard about the "atypical" bit. I thought it just passed or it didn't.

Not surprised about Beckett rejecting the Holm, there has been enough talk about it, but Page is a surprise. That's RA and it's going to be problem if Beckett is going on record as "unlikely to pass" one of their big autograph cards. See how long it takes before a question hits the RA forum about it, if it hasn't already.

The "atypical" part came out during my communication with one of the authenticators. It is not actually on the certificate.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by Raven:
Lots of people use ACOA, never heard about the "atypical" bit. I thought it just passed or it didn't.

Not surprised about Beckett rejecting the Holm, there has been enough talk about it, but Page is a surprise. That's RA and it's going to be problem if Beckett is going on record as "unlikely to pass" one of their big autograph cards. See how long it takes before a question hits the RA forum about it, if it hasn't already.

The "atypical" part came out during my communication with one of the authenticators. It is not actually on the certificate.

He must have just been being honest with you. "Atypical" probably means there was no other good matching sample, but being a certified card, he's not going to reject it either. It's really not unusual for signers to start to change their autographs and they have to start somewhere, so an "atypical" could just be the start of a new variance. Or not, it could just be bad. But the bottom line is that ACOA would have passed it with a certificate and Beckett seems to have a different idea.

Third party autograph authentication is a guessing game, whether you are a seasoned collector or a professional expert. It involves more than just the autograph's look, but the story and the documentation behind it, if there is any. Genuine in-person autographs can look worse than the fakes, but just because they are real doesn't make them worth anything when they look terrible. The same way that a great looking fake doesn't become real because some expert passes it with a certificate. There are no guarantees, just better odds and safer choices.

If eBay wants to run this program, they should allow the sellers to opt out and that leaves it up to the buyers to decide if they will take the item without the authentication or look elsewhere for it.

I think my position on it is that the burden of proof should fall on the card company.

In this horrific and wonderful world of technology it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult.

Yes, you just assign a monitor to be there during the signing. Maybe some celebrities opt out at that point, though. That's tough if the 2-3 most desirable autographs are out of the set which might lead to the cancellation of the set as the loss of Don Adams did to a planned "Get Smart" set years ago. The other result could be fewer autographs per celebrity - maybe just what gets knocked out in 1-2 sessions. That could mean less than 100.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I think my position on it is that the burden of proof should fall on the card company.

In this horrific and wonderful world of technology it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
Yes, you just assign a monitor to be there during the signing. Maybe some celebrities opt out at that point, though. That's tough if the 2-3 most desirable autographs are out of the set which might lead to the cancellation of the set as the loss of Don Adams did to a planned "Get Smart" set years ago. The other result could be fewer autographs per celebrity - maybe just what gets knocked out in 1-2 sessions. That could mean less than 100.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I think my position on it is that the burden of proof should fall on the card company.

In this horrific and wonderful world of technology it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult.

A monitor doesn't have to be there though...a simple recorded SKYPE session for a few minutes with the celebrity signing should be fine.

If Ellen Page actually did sign her Umbrella Academy cards I don't need to see the whole session to believe that the same person signed all of those cards.

It sounds simple to do, but some of these signers act up when asked to do more than the minimum. The ones that consider themselves stars are often the most difficult, but sometimes even the lesser names have their demands.

I think card makers know that they need these big and small celebrities to do their products more than the celebrities need the money they get, so of course they bend over backwards to get these cards back without asking for further evidence. If the star/stars of the series get mad and cancel the commitment, that may kill the whole product before it starts.

Card makers don't have the leverage over the main cast members, and they know it. The makers are begging the agents to get their clients on board. They aren't going to lay down any more rules besides just sign it at your convenance and return.

If they say they want a SKYPE session and the signer walks away, what then? They're not going to risk it, even if it's a better guarantee.

If all you want is to have a small fraction of the autographs recorded, then maybe that could be done without much negotiation. You just make it known that autopens/forgeries are popping up so the process has to be more transparent because autograph collecting is a big hobby. However, if it is such a fraction, then maybe a photograph of the celebrity signing and the monitor sitting there would be a compromise if a celebrity has a problem with even a short recording. It always looks good when an online seller shows a photo of that along with shots of the item.

It might help if the monitor points out that each autograph is a prize that fans are hoping to get, and when they get one, they need it to be real and a clean example like others they've seen. Nice cards help promote the project which might help encourage another season/sequel.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:

quote:

Originally posted by catskilleagle:
Yes, you just assign a monitor to be there during the signing. Maybe some celebrities opt out at that point, though. That's tough if the 2-3 most desirable autographs are out of the set which might lead to the cancellation of the set as the loss of Don Adams did to a planned "Get Smart" set years ago. The other result could be fewer autographs per celebrity - maybe just what gets knocked out in 1-2 sessions. That could mean less than 100.

quote:

Originally posted by mykdude:
I think my position on it is that the burden of proof should fall on the card company.

In this horrific and wonderful world of technology it doesn't seem like it should be all that difficult.

A monitor doesn't have to be there though...a simple recorded SKYPE session for a few minutes with the celebrity signing should be fine.

If Ellen Page actually did sign her Umbrella Academy cards I don't need to see the whole session to believe that the same person signed all of those cards.