Certified Collectibles Group to Acquire James Spence Authentication 11 11

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/21/2024 at 9:54 AM, wombat said:

Just imagine the QC nightmare when verified books are marked as witnessed. 

Not one person will call and complain 

[wombat]

Or what happens when a book has both witnessed and verified sigs. How does that get handled. 

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/21/2024 at 11:52 AM, wombat said:

Or what happens when a book has both witnessed and verified sigs. How does that get handled. 

That right there is why I think they will stick with yellow, and just have the simple, easy-to-read notes like the other guys.

And maybe the JSA logo printed on any label with verifieds.

 

Witnessed signatures: blah, blah, blah.

Verified signatures: blah, blah.

 

Edited March 21 by Sigur Ros

[Ryan.]

On 3/21/2024 at 1:02 PM, Sigur Ros said:

That right there is why I think they will stick with yellow, and just have the simple, easy-to-read notes like the other guys.

And maybe the JSA logo printed on any label with verifieds.

 

Witnessed signatures: blah, blah, blah.

Verified signatures: blah, blah.

 

I think this is exactly what they will do, except for including the JSA logo.

[wombat]

I think it will be yellow, but only because that will sell more. 

 

[DocGo]

On 3/21/2024 at 12:02 PM, Sigur Ros said:

That right there is why I think they will stick with yellow, and just have the simple, easy-to-read notes like the other guys.

And maybe the JSA logo printed on any label with verifieds.

 

Witnessed signatures: blah, blah, blah.

Verified signatures: blah, blah.

 

It will probably be similar to the SS Qualified label with a yellow background and a strip of “whatever color they choose for verified” across the top.

[Neo "The One"]

I'm actually excited about this. I feel that it is good news and overdue.

Edited March 21 by Neo "The One"

[ExNihilo]

On 3/21/2024 at 10:02 AM, Sigur Ros said:

That right there is why I think they will stick with yellow, and just have the simple, easy-to-read notes like the other guys.

And maybe the JSA logo printed on any label with verifieds.

 

Witnessed signatures: blah, blah, blah.

Verified signatures: blah, blah.

 

They already have combination labels.  Yellow/Green.  Yellow/Purple.  Just make Yellow/<insert new color> here labels for witnessed and verified books.

I hate that the other guys do one label for both witnessed and verified with tiny print indicating which it is.  If I'm looking at a book on a wall, my eyes aren't good enough to see the price, you think I can see the label?  So much easier to discern colors.

[Stefan_W]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:50 AM, Sigur Ros said:

Well maybe CGC will have a private sale for your friends.

Anyway, let me know if any of the hard to verify, but verified, Stan Lee sigs come back as failed.

That would be hilarious.

A friend stopped by a couple of hours after this exchange to drop off some books for pressing, and he was pretty excited about the new sig verification (he heard about it on Facebook last night). He is planning on submitting 4 books that he kept as raw and asked if I could crack two others from another company so he could submit them as well. 

A sample of one, but I think we should begin to wrap our heads around the possibility that this new feature will be popular with collectors and re-subbing will be a significant part of it all. 

Edited March 21 by Stefan_W

[SeniorSurfer]

[Prince Namor]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:25 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

Certainly Jack didn’t sign them. Whether it was Roz or another proxy is moot. Basically any Jack signature after 1990 is suspect. I’m sure there are a few exceptions. 

If they can't "authenticate" Jack Kirby sigs...and I AGREE that they can't...how does that not apply to every other signature applied without a chain of custody witness...?

There are a number of people who say Keya Morgan forged Stan Lee's name to memorabilia, I highly doubt they're going to even question that, as the pay off is far too high to pass up - even if the possibility of future forgery is even greater. 

[DougC]

On 3/21/2024 at 6:47 PM, Prince Namor said:

If they can't "authenticate" Jack Kirby sigs...and I AGREE that they can't...how does that not apply to every other signature applied without a chain of custody witness...?

There are a number of people who say Keya Morgan forged Stan Lee's name to memorabilia, I highly doubt they're going to even question that, as the pay off is far too high to pass up - even if the possibility of future forgery is even greater. 

I understand this is no doubt meant to be rhetorically argumentative but some in the thread seem to not fully understand that JSA giving their opinion on a signature is no different that CGC giving their opinion on a comic grade. Both have a set of parameters with examples of what a signature or 9.8 "should" look like, if those are not met it is not approved. JSA has made bad calls and authenticated dubious signatures in the same way CGC has horribly misguided books.

In the end of the day we are paying a third party for their opinion on something that a buyer and seller can agree on.

[Mr. Zipper]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:47 PM, Prince Namor said:

If they can't "authenticate" Jack Kirby sigs...and I AGREE that they can't...how does that not apply to every other signature applied without a chain of custody witness...?

There are a number of people who say Keya Morgan forged Stan Lee's name to memorabilia, I highly doubt they're going to even question that, as the pay off is far too high to pass up - even if the possibility of future forgery is even greater. 

I don’t understand what you’re saying. I think your definition of “authenticate” is different than mine. When they “authenticate” something, it passes if it’s authentic and it fails if it is not.

The fee for authentication is the same whether an item passes or fails. So there’s no monetary incentive to pass items that are not authentic.

[wombat]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:06 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

it passes if it’s authentic and it fails if it is not

Semantics maybe, but it doesn't mean it is actually authentic. It means in their opinion it is authentic. 

[Mr. Zipper]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:08 PM, wombat said:

Semantics maybe, but it doesn't mean it is actually authentic. It means in their opinion it is authentic. 

Of course. That’s common sense. Who said otherwise? 

[RockMyAmadeus]

[wombat]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:15 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

Of course. That’s common sense. Who said otherwise? 

You. 

[Prince Namor]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:06 AM, Mr. Zipper said:

I don’t understand what you’re saying. I think your definition of “authenticate” is different than mine. When they “authenticate” something, it passes if it’s authentic and it fails if it is not.

And I'm saying if they can't tell if a Kirby signature is legit or not, then they don't truly know what they're doing. I can guarantee you there are much better signature fakers out there than Roz Kirby.

On 3/22/2024 at 7:06 AM, Mr. Zipper said:

The fee for authentication is the same whether an item passes or fails.

So there’s no monetary incentive to pass items that are not authentic.

Not if they won't accept certain items in the first place.

Which they would never do with Stan's signature because the monetary gain from ACCEPTING them is greater than nearly anyone else's.

Which means the incentive for forger's to get involved (because it's Lee) or to HAVE PREVIOUSLY gotten involved (because it's Stan) increases it's chance of forgery x times more than anyone elses.

Which makes the Kirby UNacceptance a complete load of rubbish.

[Mr. Zipper]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:21 PM, wombat said:

You. 

Now who is playing semantics?

Let me restate my previous statement: "When they “authenticate” something, it passes if it’s DEEMED authentic and it fails if it is DEEMED not."

Happy now? Does my wording meet with your strict standards? Did I make it clear enough for you? 

 

Edited March 22 by Mr. Zipper

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:02 PM, DougC said:

JSA has made bad calls and authenticated dubious signatures in the same way CGC has horribly misguided books.