The finger prints are already there anyway. Why not find them? Signature, paper, and ink analysis aparently isn't enough for the high demands of high value autographs that go for > $1,000. They should all at least offer a finger print service.

The thing is signers wouldn't want to do that because the only reason that you would need to know if the autograph is authentic nowadays is if the signer is dead or your going to sell it.

For example, I saw a photo of Henry Winkler at a signing session where he was signing perhaps a hundred or so autographs. I noticed that he placed three of his fingers from his left hand directly on the item while signing with his right hand. I'm sure other celebs do this as anyone else would when writing. The fingerprints are likely already there! There are machines, that are not very expensive, that use different types of lighting to easily see fingerprints. With all the lawsuits and pissed off customers it would make sense to me for third party authenticators to utilize such a device while analyzing the signature, ink, and paper itself. This would add a tremendous degree of confidence to customers of third party authenticators. I know it would a difference for me! I'm surprised this is not already part of the authentication process.

I think thereoetically it's possibly a good idea, but in practice just cannot be done. Most times, celebs have a stack of mail waiting for them and they just quickly scan through everything and sign. To ask them to take out time and press their finger to the photo is really a lot. Plus, then places like PSA/DNA, Global and other certifiers would have to have a copy of the celebs real fingerprint and not only that, but purchase anaylzing softfare and training a person on how to do that sort of work or hiring a person who knows how to do that (private investigator, police officer etc) which can cost up to $300 or more an hour.

I agree, it's a good idea but rather expensive. I suppose if we're talking about very pricey autographs you could pay for the service, but in general it probably wouldn't take off.

TBH, it sounds rather expensive, excessive and far-fetched.

I wonder if we could change the autograph industry by normalizing a process whereby the signor puts his/her thumbprint in the bottom left or right of the item that's being signed. I'm not talking about using actual black ink and making a visible to the naked eye print but rather pressing the thumb against the item so that the item can be forensicly verified by a third party authentication service such a PSA/DNA. Of course PSA/DNA would need thumb print samples of all autographs they authenticate but I think the celebrities might go for it in order to combat fraud. For example, Tiger Woods refuses to sign golf balls now since there is so much fraud in the market.

I wonder why PSA/DNA doesn't look for fingerprints now???

What do ya'll think?