The Memorabilia Market's Memorable Controversy

Sponsored Post

‍

This is the latest edition of a multi-part,sponsored blog series produced in partnership with The Realest on the key events and factors shaping the entertainment memorabilia market. The Realest is the first dedicated authentication standard and marketplace for entertainment memorabilia.

‍

Much is made of the power of authentication and the relative merit of its various forms, and market observers often share their concerns about the authenticity of certain auction lots without hesitation. While spirited debates ensue, their participants rarely arrive at a conclusive verdict, with the definitive answer ultimately lost to time. That uncertainty can hamper values realized, but it seldom reduces them to zero or the equivalent.

But what about when the determination of conclusive inauthenticity or fraudulent activity arrives? The economic impact can be significant. 

In 2022, fractional shareholders learned about the perils of memorabilia fraud first hand. Rally had bought a baseball signed by Babe Ruth at auction in 2020. It was accompanied by multiple letters of authenticity attesting to its provenance and the credibility of the signature. However, a couple years later, an FBI investigation and subsequent raid of a sophisticated forgery ring raised reason to believe that the ball was a product of the ring’s work. Rally refunded shareholders at the ball’s last traded market cap, amounting to a $60,600 loss. It was a costly finding, and one which numerous collectors nationwide would have sympathized with, as the forgery ring’s faked artwork also successfully fooled top experts. 

It was only earlier this year that a Travis Kelce Chiefs jersey purported to be dual signed by Kelce and Taylor Swift raised suspicions at a charity auction. The jersey sold for $21,000, but when the winning bidder heeded the suspicions raised online and enlisted Beckett to examine the signature, she was greeted with the unfortunate news that the company could not verify the signature as authentic. The buyer was ultimately refunded, but someone bears the cost, and when it’s a charity auction, the optics are beyond poor. 

This kind of anecdote transpires multiple times every year, and there are likely several instances - unaided by the power of Taylor Swift Reddit - that go undetected. 

Even the mere accusation of foul play can be extremely time-consuming and costly. Take for example the years-long litigation in which sports memorabilia collectors filed suit against Eli Manning, the Giants, Steiner Sports, and additional parties, alleging that they had been provided memorabilia marketed as game-used that was actually bogus. That matter began in 2014 and wasn’t settled in 2018, effectively on the eve of the scheduled trial. While the settlement did not support any allegations, claims, or defenses, one can imagine it was both a costly matter and a mentally taxing burden over that time, particularly with the media firestorm that accompanied it. 

On occasion, the foul play is caught before it’s too late. In late 2023, a fraudster allegedly created a fake foundation of a late sports photographer and doctored photos in order to secure an ill-gained photomatch for a Michael Jordan jersey purported to be game-worn in multiple games in the 1996 Eastern Conference Finals. After the collecting community began to raise suspicions and expose the scheme, MeiGray ultimately rescinded its photomatch authentication. Fortunately, the jersey was never able to make it to the auction block before the ruse was revealed, but if it had, it would’ve been a high six or even low-seven-figure outcome. 

In some instances, it’s the players themselves who are at the center of controversy. In 2017, Beckett Grading flagged Panini Prizm cards signed by one star NFL quarterback after suspicions rose that the cards had been signed not by the QB, but by a machine. “Signed” Dak Prescott cards that had been sent to more than 100 customers were recalled by Panini after it became clear the signatures were too consistent. In an interview with ESPN, Beckett’s lead authenticator Steve Grad noted, “You could see the starts and stops. I immediately knew they were autopen, and I’ve never heard of a modern athlete doing this.”  

Whether or not Dak was involved in the fraudulent signing or not remains a mystery. For those unfamiliar with the process, sports cards and memorabilia that are contracted to be signed are usually sent to an athlete’s marketing agent. The agent or representative then facilitates the signing and is responsible for returning the cards to the manufacturer. With a middleman in the process, Dak and his team released a vague public statement that claimed “no knowledge” of how the autographs could have been faked. There is a chance Dak himself never saw the cards. 

If you’re surprised by the lack of control and supervision in the bulk card-signing process, it’s worth noting that the Dak incident is far from the only controversy. One year later, the 2017 Panini release claimed headlines for the wrong reasons. Panini was once again forced to initiate a recall after it was found that Takkarist “Takk” McKinley, the Atlanta Falcons’ first-round pick in the 2017 draft, was not the real signatory of his Elite Draft Pick and Contenders Draft Pick cards. While an official investigation was never launched, some speculate that someone in McKinley’s camp had signed the cards for the first-round defensive end after McKinley had surgery for a torn labrum. 

Cards for Dak and Takk have never fetched million-dollar prices, but autograph controversy also surrounded an NBA star who once held the record for most expensive basketball card. In 2021, reports heralded the $4.6 million private sale of a 1-of-1 Luka Doncic National Treasures Logoman card. The sale was immediately met with skepticism, not only regarding the validity of the transaction, but also the validity of Luka’s signature. 

The Slovenia superstar is known for signing his name in loopy cursive format that looks to spell out “Lulu”. The Logoman auto differed from the majority of authenticated Luka signatures with a more defined “U” and noticeably less letter slanting. The message board community speculated that Doncic’s mother was responsible for signing her son’s name, which raised enough eyebrows to warrant a New York Times article. There has been no definitive conclusion to the matter of who signed the card, but the card returned to the public eye in late 2022 and received what seemed to be a vote of confidence when it sold for $3.1 million at auction, despite the decline in value from the reported private sale valuation. This time, the card was authenticated and graded by Beckett but for what it’s worth, the seller had opted out of an autograph grade from BGS.

Many of these scandals or controversies share a common theme: mystery. Credible third parties weren’t in the room to witness signings or at the arena to witness game-use. In some cases, collectors are left to rely on the benefit of the doubt, and given how expensive some collectibles have become, that’s not good enough. The chain of custody from the card manufacturer to the player and back is murky, or the chain from on-field use to auction lacks links.  

There are authentication methods that can reduce that mystery. For instance, The Realest offers authentication via on-site witness verification - meaning, a professional is physically there to witness a signing or witness use. That item is then marked with covert and overt technology to ensure it’s identifiable as the one that was witnessed, and it’s securely transported before its sale at auction, eschewing those “middleman” concerns.  

The benefit of the doubt or letters of dubious credibility no longer suffice.

‍

Enjoyed this article? Don't forget to subscribe to our newsletter to receive more like it in your inbox weekly!

Disclaimer: You understand that by reading Altan Insights, you are not receiving financial advice. No content published here constitutes a recommendation that any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy is suitable for any specific person. You further understand that the author(s) are not advising you personally concerning the nature, potential, value or suitability of any particular security, transaction, or investment strategy. You alone are solely responsible for determining whether an investment, security or strategy, or any other product or service, is appropriate or suitable for you based on your investment objectives and personal financial situation. Please speak with a financial advisor to understand if the risks inherent in trading are appropriate for you. Trade at your own risk.