Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
CBCS Comics
Not a CBCS member yet? Join now »
CBCS Signature VSP

VSP and Dynamic Forces signed comics6398

Collector 3JJr private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuffsaid111
@Eikkichi
Conan 1 9.0: Barry smith and Roy Thomas
Hulk 181 9.6: herb trimpe
Spiderman 300 9.6 : McFarlane
Kamandi 1 7.5: Kirby
Defenders 1 8.5: Englehart
DC presents 47 9.4: Kupperberg
Star wars 1 9.2: chaykin
GOTG Prelude 1 9.6: Karen Gillan
Dark knight 1 9.4: miller and Jansen

Sending in silver surfer 4 signed by John buscema, Stan Lee, Sal Buscemi
Sending in SHIELD 1 signed by steranko and Sinnott


A fantastic group!
Post 26 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3JJr
Quote:
Originally Posted by poka
Quote:
Originally Posted by eee91
The thought had crossed my mind, but since 2 of 3 isn't a big sample size, I wanted to ask and see what everyone else's experience has been.

At the end of the day, I doubt complaining will help - CBCS will stand by its experts and DF will stand by its reputation/certificates...


I would still let them know and make it right. Cannot be in their interest that their sigs are being questioned as being legit.


I've studied the site of the authenticators behind VSP. They're very specific about the authentication system they've devised so for an "autograph hound" and keen student of handwriting analysis, it's easy to understand their metrics.

In short, this coordinate of key points they use for each signature is like identifying our solar system by a set position of the planets. But as we all know, the planets move. They change position. To each other, and to the sun. And the sun itself moves through space. So if you were an observer of the solar system in 2010 and construed an identifying pattern at that that time, the same solar system by 2016 may be unidentifiable using that same template!

From what I gather studying their site, their signature identification is base on the premise that everybody signs the same way every time, at the same speed, the same pressure, with the same pen, in the same writing position, on the same surface, and in the same frame of mind. Like a machine. The same, each and every time. One set pattern. One template. Set distances, angles, trajectories, heights, lengths; this letter should be positioned at this precise point and this next one at 3 to 5 degrees tilt to the left, etc., etc., this is the nature of their graph that a signature must precisely fit or it is turned down.

Now, with this type of system, you will eventually pass a signature that fits your precise formula, but if there's any slight differences due to elan or writing position, or even mood, many will fail that might have been authentic if looked upon with a different manner of assessment.

While every individual's writing mechanics remain fairly consistent, for the most part, the starting point, the proportions, the lift points, etc., etc., tendencies that repeat over and over again, the architecture of the signatures can change drastically, even on consecutively done autographs! Like the planets in motion in the example cited.

Their system seems to be based on one set pattern for every signor and if that narrow tolerance pattern is not present, the autograph is turned down.


That's a very detailed analysis. You must have a background in autograph analysis, or at least a vested interest in it. ๐Ÿ‘
Post 27 IP   flag post
Collector 3JJr private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveRicketts
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3JJr
Quote:
Originally Posted by poka
Quote:
Originally Posted by eee91
The thought had crossed my mind, but since 2 of 3 isn't a big sample size, I wanted to ask and see what everyone else's experience has been.

At the end of the day, I doubt complaining will help - CBCS will stand by its experts and DF will stand by its reputation/certificates...


I would still let them know and make it right. Cannot be in their interest that their sigs are being questioned as being legit.


I've studied the site of the authenticators behind VSP. They're very specific about the authentication system they've devised so for an "autograph hound" and keen student of handwriting analysis, it's easy to understand their metrics.

In short, this coordinate of key points they use for each signature is like identifying our solar system by a set position of the planets. But as we all know, the planets move. They change position. To each other, and to the sun. And the sun itself moves through space. So if you were an observer of the solar system in 2010 and construed an identifying pattern at that that time, the same solar system by 2016 may be unidentifiable using that same template!

From what I gather studying their site, their signature identification is base on the premise that everybody signs the same way every time, at the same speed, the same pressure, with the same pen, in the same writing position, on the same surface, and in the same frame of mind. Like a machine. The same, each and every time. One set pattern. One template. Set distances, angles, trajectories, heights, lengths; this letter should be positioned at this precise point and this next one at 3 to 5 degrees tilt to the left, etc., etc., this is the nature of their graph that a signature must precisely fit or it is turned down.

Now, with this type of system, you will eventually pass a signature that fits your precise formula, but if there's any slight differences due to elan or writing position, or even mood, many will fail that might have been authentic if looked upon with a different manner of assessment.

While every individual's writing mechanics remain fairly consistent, for the most part, the starting point, the proportions, the lift points, etc., etc., tendencies that repeat over and over again, the architecture of the signatures can change drastically, even on consecutively done autographs! Like the planets in motion in the example cited.

Their system seems to be based on one set pattern for every signor and if that narrow tolerance pattern is not present, the autograph is turned down.


That's a very detailed analysis. You must have a background in autograph analysis, or at least a vested interest in it. ๐Ÿ‘


Extensive autograph collecting background. Very varied interests too. Sports, movie, comic hobby, etc. Autograph collecting was my initial hobby. Mother, grandmother, great grand-uncle, all autograph hounds.

I started out with an instant autograph collection put together for me by the family before I could even read the written names!
Post 28 IP   flag post
CBCS Pressing SteveRicketts private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3JJr
Extensive autograph collecting background. Very varied interests too. Sports, movie, comic hobby, etc. Autograph collecting was my initial hobby. Mother, grandmother, great grand-uncle, all autograph hounds.

I started out with an instant autograph collection put together for me by the family before I could even read the written names!


Very cool. I assume you still have the collection. How far back does it go? Who are your oldest and rarest signatures?
Post 29 IP   flag post
Collector IronMan private msg quote post Address this user
3Jjr does a lot of great detail. Maybe I shouldn't bother commenting. But that wouldn't be me....


I've yet to see a signature rejected as a forgery. What I've seen are signatures that "could not be verified". Obviously there is a difference.

Some authentic signatures are probably getting rejected. That's better than lots of forgeries getting passed.
Post 30 IP   flag post


Collector teacha777 private msg quote post Address this user
I have had 2 jim lee signatures i obtained when x-men#1 was released in the 90's for verification and it passed. I'd assume original posters sigs are fake ๐Ÿค”
Post 31 IP   flag post
Collector 3JJr private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan
3Jjr does a lot of great detail. Maybe I shouldn't bother commenting. But that wouldn't be me....


I've yet to see a signature rejected as a forgery. What I've seen are signatures that "could not be verified". Obviously there is a difference.

Some authentic signatures are probably getting rejected. That's better than lots of forgeries getting passed.


I'm giving very little technical detail about the signature. Just that the top half of the 'S' and the terminus of the signature could have possibly been penned by Lee, if Stan were sitting or standing a certain way.

Our signatures, the varying degrees of the trajectories, angles, pressures, and slants that occur during the act of signing are subject to the position of our entire body. Like a anything else, the body works harmoniously. Synergistically. Links in a chain. Our writing mechanism isn't just our hand at the point we're holding the implement. It's the hand, wrist, arm, shoulder, etc., the subtle motion of each that works as a whole that gives our signatures their individuality, therefore us ability to identify fake or real.

It's unwise to go into great detail as to why everything went wrong for this forger between 3% in and 3% out. While it may be helpful to some to go into detail helping hobbyists spot the tells in the forgeries, it would definitely help the forger to improve his efforts.

Most autograph experts do not have the same level of expertise in all signatures. This is where many false positives and negatives occur, when authenticators have to review exemplars for comparison. The best authenticating is done by someone with expert level in identifying a/or certain signatures.

This is someone who has probably seen as many of that signor's signature as his own. Authenticating is a visual, subjective art. When authenticators try to invent a system using a mold for signatures, and reject those outside of that parameter that they have created by borrowing the coordinates from a number of other signatures, things get dicey and go wrong.

Of course, there are elements like chronology, a signor having a certain style at a certain time, and the viability of the materials, but the real experts can gauge the authenticity of a certain signature without having to resort to exemplars or templates.
Post 32 IP   flag post
Collector BabaLament private msg quote post Address this user
So what about change over time? Stan Lee is probably the best example, or William Shatner as a close second; two guys who have been signing autographs since the dawn of time. As theyโ€™ve aged, their signatures have changed; so can you tell by analysis not only if their signatures are legitimate, but around what period of their work the signature was signed (based on samples from the different periods)?
Post 33 IP   flag post
Collector 3JJr private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by BabaLament
so can you tell by analysis not only if their signatures are legitimate, but around what period of their work the signature was signed (based on samples from the different periods)?


Yes. And again, samples are typically a mediocre substitute for knowing on sight. This is why there's no substitute for real specialists. A jack of all trades type expert relies on exemplars. He has a basic knowledge of many autographs and uses exemplars to assist his decisions. The specialist is extremely adept in a limited number of signatures. To someone like this, recognizing the ink of a Stan Lee, or the Beatles, or Elvis, etc., is akin to their recognizing their faces.

If you want the definitive word on any particular auto, there is a specialist out there to consult on it who has the visual recognition of that particular signor's handwriting down cold. The ink "speaks" to this type of expert.
Post 34 IP   flag post
CBCS Jake_Fleming private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMan
3Jjr does a lot of great detail. Maybe I shouldn't bother commenting. But that wouldn't be me....


I've yet to see a signature rejected as a forgery. What I've seen are signatures that "could not be verified". Obviously there is a difference.

Some authentic signatures are probably getting rejected. That's better than lots of forgeries getting passed.


IronMan is correct. You have not, nor will you see us say something is a forgery as it isn't a judgment call we make. We only ever verify something that we are confident in saying is the real deal, and if there is doubt of it's authenticity, we would not give it that seal of approval.

IronMan is probably correct in assuming that some real signatures will fail from time to time. I hear it on the phone occasionally "I got that myself! How could it fail?!". I believe them, and understand the frustration, but the signature fails regardless.
Post 35 IP   flag post
Collector Nuffsaid111 private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake_Fleming
IronMan is correct. You have not, nor will you see us say something is a forgery as it isn't a judgment call we make. We only ever verify something that we are confident in saying is the real deal, and if there is doubt of it's authenticity, we would not give it that seal of approval.

IronMan is probably correct in assuming that some real signatures will fail from time to time. I hear it on the phone occasionally "I got that myself! How could it fail?!". I believe them, and understand the frustration, but the signature fails regardless.



I am very very happy to hear there is such stringency in the signature verification process; even if some fail that are real. It gives me peace of mind and hopefully the red label will be seen as just as desireable as the yellow label over time.
Post 36 IP   flag post
193998 36 11
destitute