Originally written on Wednesday, October 22, 2003

When I first started this page I was writing to promote PSA/DNA as one of the three best sources for authentic signed Frank Thomas material, short of meeting The Big Hurt in person. The other two being Upper Deck Authenticated (UDA) and the Chicago White Sox themselves via their popular annual 'garage sales'.

But I'm afraid to say that's changed - for the worse.

Recently, I noticed a seller on eBay offering an autographed Frank Thomas baseball certified authentic by PSA/DNA. What bothered me was that I could see, quite easily from the provided scans, that the autograph was a fake. Heck, it wasn't even close.

My first instinct: Email PSA/DNA, and their chief authenticator James Spence, to inform him that someone was selling counterfeit PSA/DNA certificates. Keep in mind that my concern at this point was not the ball itself, but whether or not this seller had decided to print up a fake certificate to go along with the fake auto. I had to allow for the possibility that this seller might have had a genuine autographed ball certified, then used PSA/DNA's real certificate as a template to print up a bunch of homemade versions to go along with the fake autographed baseballs.

Actual scan from the auction (1 of 2 images)

A day later I received an email from his associate - Steve Grad - who also expressed some concern after looking at the auction. You have to remember that his name is also on those certificates. He saw this as a serious matter and told me he would investigate further. The next day I wrote to him that I discovered that this same seller had a slew of these fakes to sell. In fact, all twelve of the baseballs carried PSA/DNA certificates. (here is where things got weird)

Mr. Grad wrote back to me explaining that after he looked closer at the scans, he had decided that the autos were in fact authentic. Even going so far as to suggest that Frank might have signed them inbetween a course of a greasy fast food meal.

To say that I was shocked would be an understatement.

No exaggeration - I was speechless.

I would've been less shocked if you told me that Charlize Theron had decided to make me her love slave. All jokes aside - I don't know what to make of Steve Grad's comments. You can believe him or not, that's your choice. I can only give you the facts as I know them.

Presented below are some of the reference exemplars contained in my collection. Frank's authentic signatures from known, established sources. Each one, from his earliest (1991) to the most recent (2005).

And at the bottom I've provided you the actual eBay auction scan I believe to be fraudulent - but given the green light approval by PSA/DNA's Steve Grad.

Please note that the selected exemplars will exhibit the wide differences that every person's signature will show over the course of time, type of writing instrument being used, physical pressure, and over a variety of writing surfaces (such as the differences of a signature over a baseball's surface vs. that of a flat card or photograph), and finally the conditions when the item is signed (happily at a charity function, angrily at a hotel lobby after losing a game, etc). I make note of these things so you know what I take into consideration when personally vetting a Thomas signature.

It's for those very reasons I chose the following from among my collection for you to view & compare.

Note the year shown, the materials used, and the passage of time as Frank's signature changes over the course of 16 years.

1991 Bleachers Hologram Certified Auto Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: silver marker pen	1992 Barry Colla Thomas Collection Auto Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen	1993 Upper Deck Authenticated '92 Home Run Heroes 2-Card Auto Set Type of surface: glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen
1993 Upper Deck Authenticated Triple Crown Contenders 2-Card Auto Set Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen	1993 Leaf Update Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen	1993 Upper Deck Authenticated Autographed Baseball (Earliest known certified baseball) Type of surface: baseball Type of instrument: ballpoint pen
1993 Upper Deck Authenticated Autographed Baseball Bat (Earliest known certified bat) Type of surface: baseball bat Type of instrument: indelible silver marker	1996 Leaf Signature Extended Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen (Note: Leaf Signature (3 seals) and Extended (Black, Blue, "Purple" & Century Mark) - all versions are the same)	1997 Donruss Elite Passing The Torch Type of surface: foilboard cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen (Note: Both versions are the same)
1997 Donruss Signature Millennium Marks & Century Marks Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen	1998 Elite Redemption Autograph Type of surface: foilboard cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen	1999 Ultra Fresh Ink Type of surface: rough, uneven foil Type of instrument: indelible marker pen
1999 Upper Deck Legends Epic Signatures Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen (Note: This is the "deep hook" variation Frank sometimes adopts. See the 2001 UD Buy Back - end of this row)	2000 Upper Deck Pros & Prospects Jersey Type of surface: semi-gloss cardstock Type of instrument: gel ink pen (Note: This is the single stroke "round" version that Frank briefly adopted around the turn of the millennium)	2001 Upper Deck Buy Back - 1993 UD SP Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen (Note: Check out the way Frank's signature changed over the course of the decade - compare it to his signature on the '93 UDA Triple Crown 2-card set, seen above)
2001 Donruss First Class Signatures Type of surface: smooth foil Type of instrument: indelible marker pen	2001 Upper Deck Sweet Spot Type of surface: baseball Type of instrument: felt tip pen (Note: Unusual use of a felt-tip as opposed to the standard ballpoint pen. For this reason you can see how broken up and "soft" the signature became)	2003 Donruss Notable Nickames Type of surface: semi-glossy cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen (Note: Both versions are the same)
2003 UD Sweet Spot Type of surface: baseball Type of instrument: ballpoint pen	2004 Fleer SweetSigs Type of surface: baseball Type of instrument: gel ink pen	2004 EX Authentics Clearly Authentic Type of surface: ultra smooth matte cardstock Type of instrument: indelible marker pen

Notice the differences, while obvious, do not stray from his basic strokes. Those primary elements are the function of his signature, present from his earliest signatures in the early 1990's, to the version he pens today some 16 years later.

The problem: Look at the signature on this ball which PSA/DNA authenticated as genuine:

Here are the differences on a side-by-side comparison:

• Figure 1. Stroke in "F" of Frank is completely different from his established signature. The PSA/DNA example 'F' is blocky, almost comically circular, with stuttered stops inbetween. Frank's 'F' has always had a smooth angle to it, a similar stroke to what many people use for a capital 'J' (note UDA Ball). It's also smooth over an uneven surface like a baseball. Note the 2001 + 2003 UD Sweet Spots, and the 2004 Fleer SweetSigs exemplars above.

• Figure 2. Stroke in the "T" in Thomas shows nearly identical problems exhibited in the "F". It appears as an almost balloon-like shape. And like the fake "F" - it shows a bizarre looped hook at the beginning of the stroke. No example - from any period of Frank's signature - showcases this weird hooked-loop oval variation.

• Figure 3. The flow in "homas" is completely different from established signature. Particularly the gradual change from his early signature to the current one. There is no exemplar in those years that shows this bizarre variation: A single curved stroke connected to a separate flowing line - making what looks like a sideways leaning capital 'T'. Frank's "h" in "homas" has always been one single flowing line. Never two separate strokes. Note: For the past five years or so Frank almost never articulates the "h" simply making a single stroke "T", not that that affects the problem with the fake ball)

• Figure 4. The "crossover" - what I call it - when Frank moves his pen from the end of his signature back over itself. On the ball PSA/DNA says is genuine - you can see it starts in the 'F' and just as suddenly ends just past the 'n' making what looks like, well, it looks like a harpoon. This is wrong, even when Frank didn't use the complete crossover (his early years - see 1991 Bleachers exemplar above). What's often misunderstood is the crossover itself. What Frank is doing is completing the middle stroke in the letter "F". Nowadays it begins at the end of the "s" of "homas" (well, where it would be if he still fully articulated his signature) and goes over the signature. The break, sometimes seen in his early sigs, between the finishing "F" stroke and end of the "s" stroke, is because Frank lifts the writing instrument away from the surface of whatever he's signing. (again see 1991 Bleachers exemplar above) That stroke never starts, then abruptly ends, inside the "F" as seen in the ball PSA/DNA's Steve Grad says is authentic. This inherent personalized flair is completely missing from the fake auto.

• Figure 5. The number "5" in "35" does not match Frank's five-stroke. People, like Frank, who do this make what accountants call "The Lazy S", since it can be difficult to use for accounting purposes. The fake auto shows that whomever did the signing did a two-stroke "5" - making one stroke to create the top of the five, then a separate loop stroke. That's not the way Frank typically makes a five. He has done this on a rare, make that an extremely rare occasion. But I've only seen two examples of that type of variation in over 15 years of studying his signature. That means two out of over a thousand signatures I've personally studied. Additionally, when people sign a lot of autographs in a given period, because their hands will tire, you will often see a slurring to their signatures. Which would make the "Lazy S" even more prominent in a genuine Thomas autograph. If, as Steve Grad suggests, that this example could have been signed during a fast food-type moment, his hands covered in grease, why is the "5" so well defined? It goes counter to what would happen when a grease covered hand clutches a ballpoint pen - less control, not more.

Try it yourself. Pick up a pen and sign something with a round surface, like a label on a jar or can. Now eat some greasy chicken, do not wipe your hands, and repeat the signature. Do you have more or less control than before?

Additionally, some have noted that many of the pre-printed autographs seen on things like Leaf and Donruss packaging which shows a two-stroke "5". Like this from the '96 Leaf Signature Promo:

I contend that somewhere, very early in the Leaf/Donruss relationship, someone in their art/marketing department added that '35'. And that's been the version seen, used, and reused for so long that many people think they're looking at Frank's actual "35" signature. But again, look at the established examples above - do you see it? Over all those years? Ever? For someone who has worked in the advertising field I know this from experience: When a signature isn't readily available - you sign it yourself. That's a fact. And I've had to do it several times for performance reviews, newsletters, and annual reports where the key individual(s) were not available to sign in time to get the artwork to press. I've even had to sign a company's CEO signature in order to get their annual report out in time. (True story: He liked my version so much that he "adopted" it as his own). No, the oft-reprinted Frank auto seen on packaging is not his - at least, not the "35" part.

Still don't believe me? Check out this scan that I pulled off the Pinnacle website soon after I heard they had announced bankruptcy.

And remember - this wasn't a single ball - but over a dozen baseballs exhibiting the exact same signature.

Now, I'm not so ignorant as to assume that a person's signature is exactly the same when signed over and over again, particularly over the course of 16 years. I made a point of showing you examples over a long period of time, more than 16 years, not just one or two autographs selectively singled out. Additionally, I'm very cognizant of the differences a person's signature will exhibit even during the same signing session. But what I'm talking about are: Clear and distinct alterations from one signature when compared to another completely different signature.

Again, I'm giving you my opinion. one based on collecting and studying Frank Thomas collectibles for more than a decade-and-a-half.
You are free to make your own decisions and make your own calls regarding what I've written.

For myself, a Frank Thomas specialist, I do not trust any item that PSA/DNA has authenticated.

Finally, there are a couple of other ways to identify a genuine Frank Auto than the five I point out above - but I'm holding that information back since I don't want to give any further advantage to the damnable forgers out there.