Certified Collectibles Group to Acquire James Spence Authentication 11 11

[TheCollector2016]

JSA certainly could be on a label. It all gets back to how they're handling the change in ownership.

-Will everything be CGC now? e.g. those authentication letters get the CGC logo, etc. at the bottom? Everything JSA did is now as CGC? OR
-Will JSA things stay labeled as JSA, e.g. CGC keeps that stuff housed separated? OR
-Maybe they label certain things as "JSA, a CGC Company"
 

 

[Prince Namor]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:02 AM, DougC said:

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.

Exactly. Which is why my post isn't 'rhetorically argumentative', but a pretty straightforward question. 

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

It may be their 'opinion' that they can't authenticate them... but it's based on the whole principle of authentication in the first place.

[Prince Namor]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:38 AM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 

 

Looks like Roz Kirby's handwriting to me. 

[Mr. Zipper]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:35 PM, Prince Namor said:

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.

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.

Ok. Got ya. 

I am confident they can reliably authenticate Kirby. Yes, there are a lot of Kirby forgers out there... tonfulle-84, the southern California forger and someone who I believe is a member of these boards to name a few.

Signature authentication, like professional grading and restoration detection from credible experts, is highly accurate and significantly decreases your likelihood of being scammed. But of course, they are professional opinions and no one is perfect. There is an element of risk. If a collector isn't comfortable with that, stick to CGC SS Witness only. 

[Prince Namor]

On 3/22/2024 at 7:02 AM, DougC said:

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.

But...

Most people with reasonable grading experience can tell the difference between a properly graded and a horribly misguided...er, misgraded...book.

Very, very, very, very few people...including the very professional "authenticators" who have made it a CAREER to examine signatures...can say "this is a genuine, without question, signature."

I don't need to be a professional grader to tell the difference between a 9.8 and a 7.0. My MOM can tell the difference between a 9.8 and 7.0, and she has nothing to do with comics. She hates them.

But I could spend 50 years "authenticating signatures" and STILL not be sure.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/21/2024 at 5:46 PM, Mr. Zipper said:

If a collector isn't comfortable with that, stick to CGC SS Witness only. 

[Matt1982]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:02 PM, DougC said:

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.

I don't want to split hairs here, but this is not really accurate. JSA uses scientific techniques to provide an opinion within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that a signature is or is not authentic. It doesn't mean they're perfect - but they're using scientifically accepted techniques to opine that a signature is or is not valid with a certain degree of confidence. CGC, on the other hand, uses non-scientific standards that it created to ascribe an opinion of condition/rating to a book. These are totally different processes. I'm not saying JSA is perfect or has never been wrong, but they can say, for example, "we're 97.2% certain that this is X's signature."

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:35 PM, Matt1982 said:

I don't want to split hairs here, but this is not really accurate. JSA uses scientific techniques to provide an opinion within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that a signature is or is not authentic. It doesn't mean they're perfect - but they're using scientifically accepted techniques to opine that a signature is or is not valid with a certain degree of confidence. CGC, on the other hand, uses non-scientific standards that it created to ascribe an opinion of condition/rating to a book. These are totally different processes. I'm not saying JSA is perfect or has never been wrong, but they can say, for example, "we're 97.2% certain that this is X's signature."

 

On 3/21/2024 at 5:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

But...

Most people with reasonable grading experience can tell the difference between a properly graded and a horribly misguided...er, misgraded...book.

Very, very, very, very few people...including the very professional "authenticators" who have made it a CAREER to examine signatures...can say "this is a genuine, without question, signature."

I don't need to be a professional grader to tell the difference between a 9.8 and a 7.0. My MOM can tell the difference between a 9.8 and 7.0, and she has nothing to do with comics. She hates them.

But I could spend 50 years "authenticating signatures" and STILL not be sure.

 

[FatComicMafia]

For folk who have items signed on the first page, whether legit or not, would it be a good time to submit now, to get a univeral blue label "name Joe Blow"  signed on the first page on the label?

Also, if I were to write to "Paul Litch is dreamy" or "Matt Nelson heals all wounds and bends", or "dealer X over grades raw books and sucks" on the first page would CGC note exactly that?

 

Edited March 22 by FatComicMafia

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/21/2024 at 11:03 PM, FatComicMafia said:

For folk who have items signed on the first page, whether legit or not, would it be a good time to submit now, to get a univeral blue label "name Joe Blow"  signed on the first page on the label?

Also, if I were to write to "Paul Litch is dreamy" or "Matt Nelson heals all wounds and bends", or "dealer X over grades raw books and sucks" on the first page would CGC note exactly that?

 

[Chip Cataldo]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:49 PM, Prince Namor said:

...and she has nothing to do with comics. She hates them.

How could somebody hate comic books?

[Sigur Ros]

On 3/21/2024 at 8:38 PM, RockMyAmadeus said:

 

 

 

Where'd you get that last image?

"fake" is in the filename.

Same cert number. Top book from CGC site.

 

 

[comicginger1789]

On 3/21/2024 at 10:35 PM, Matt1982 said:

I don't want to split hairs here, but this is not really accurate. JSA uses scientific techniques to provide an opinion within a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that a signature is or is not authentic. It doesn't mean they're perfect - but they're using scientifically accepted techniques to opine that a signature is or is not valid with a certain degree of confidence. CGC, on the other hand, uses non-scientific standards that it created to ascribe an opinion of condition/rating to a book. These are totally different processes. I'm not saying JSA is perfect or has never been wrong, but they can say, for example, "we're 97.2% certain that this is X's signature."

This right here. Sure this whole thing opens the door to possibly having slabbed comics (with presumably a new coloured label...the VSS series label, for verified signature series) that contain an autograph that is fake or forged. This can happen with any autograph authentication company. It is the same risk people are taking when they send their stuff to the other guys. I should hope it means yellow label books hold higher value but for some signatures it may not matter depending on how badly someone wants the book.

[RockMyAmadeus]

On 3/22/2024 at 4:26 AM, Sigur Ros said:

"fake" is in the filename.

 

[wombat]

On 3/22/2024 at 8:28 AM, comicginger1789 said:

I should hope it means yellow label books hold higher

You are making a really big assumption here. 

[Neo "The One"]

I guess when money is on the line, some people will fake anything.  I like the idea of CGC signature authentication (yes I went there) because I have several books that I had signed in the 80's as a kid.  I hate the green label and comments like, "there is writing on this cover in pen" or some like that.  At least I can get my own books that I personally had signed authenticated to a reasonable amout of certainty (for others).  I'm not looking to 'flip' these books as I've had them for well over 30 years.  I do have more recent books like 2nd Print Batman 608 signed by Jim Lee at my LCS.  Now, I can understand how others are looking at this from a monetary POV, as of course money and in some cases a lot of money can be at stake.  I don't have a ton of interest in buying non-witnessed signed books that are encapsulated, especially if the signature is on the first page / interior of the book.  Others may feel differently.  I'm just happy I can have them slabbed and possibly displayed without a green "sub-standard" label.  I have spoken.  (lol!)

[Neo "The One"]

I know it is the Jade Giant, or Ole Green Skin, but I still rather it was YELLOW...

[wombat]

On 3/22/2024 at 12:30 PM, Neo "The One" said:

I hate the green label

What if its just another color (something other than yellow)? Does that make it better?

[comicginger1789]

On 3/22/2024 at 1:15 PM, wombat said:

What if its just another color (something other than yellow)? Does that make it better?

I think it would have to be a different colour label. There is no way CGC uses the green or the yellow (or any other existing color) for these new verified signature books they will be doing. If they do, its a mistake on their part

Sure maybe Yellow with a border or yellow with some clear indicator on the label itself differentiating it makes sense. 

[comicginger1789]

On 3/22/2024 at 12:19 PM, wombat said:

You are making a really big assumption here. 

It may not at all. Take a current artist with LOTS of signing opportunities and stuff out there like McFarlane. Perhaps his books, whether they are yellow or this new colour that has been verified to be his signature, perhaps the two have the same value.

I would be interested what it would mean for creators who passed that signed less stuff during the lifespan of CGC, like say Frank Frazetta. I wonder how an early, witnessed sig in a yellow would compare to one someone sends in for this new verification? Time will have the answer.

Also I am curious what the cost would be? I am guessing similar to the other guys current cost for such a verification.