Meh. You win dude. I don't really have a dog in this fight and didn't really intend to get dragged this far into it.

I will say that I agree with the general sentiment of other folks on this site that holds that more transparency is better. I think one of the main issues with the autograph side is the perceived need for so much secrecy.

Just my opinion.

Some have valid reasons for hiding their secrets, but some simply don't know anything. I think that if we ever had a thread about validating Ruth autographs, where EVERYONE here participated, we'd come up with basically nothing. I know one respected person here who could only provide confusing garbage, even if he really tried, and another non-respected one who would provide similar, or worse. And there's everything in-between.

So why even bother?

i agree, more transparency the better, secrecy=something to hide, but he is part of team east coast, so that's all you need to know about transparency. i will call out all the boxing fakes i see, and you can publicize my name. a fake is a fake. but sometimes the fake out comes from the authenticators or experts that have no name, because no name = no accountability. That's why abc authentication company and xyz authentication company won't tell you just exactly who looked at and authenticated your autograph.

Nobody cares who the em's are. they care about emr's getting their title and responsibility through expertise, not who they know. Some of the most experienced and expert autograph people wouldn't be allowed to be an emr, while some real dodos have been let in.

collectors also want the online auction site and doing the right thing and pulling ALL fake autographs, which they wont do.

there is a nascar guy who is an emr and can get other nascar signed items pulled by his word, and he also sells a LOT of nascar signed photos himself on the same auction site with the tagline "beware of other sellers who sell nothing but fakes"

this is outrageous he is allowed to do that and be an emr. he also promises for a fact that if you buy from him, all of the items you buy will pass a certain authentication company. of course he is also the authenticator for that company.

it's all a big game people. from a to z and will be until the day these people are exposed, and their records searched and they are outed for gaming the system. anonymity=license to do what you want unfettered by any checks and balances. These companie are issuing coa's with no exemplars, we have seen it, the online auction houses protect any coa's from these companies, scratch back here and reciprocate!


SGC card grading company has been doing autographs a couple of months now and everytime i email them asking them who their authenticators are and if they will put up a webpage saying who their authenticators are, i get no response. it's been two months, they can't put up an authenticators bio page????? people are sending in autographs to them, they have no idea who is authenticating them. it's unbelievable and bizzaro world but most collectors don't care from what i have gathered. unbox, sort, tag, enter into database, authenticate, slab, double check accuracy and throw into box for 8 dollars per autograph, that's all the collector wants, the slab and the cert number.

So you are saying the guys are pulling down good stuff so they can sell there own. So I guess what you are saying is that people on this site that are helping Ebay are crooks?:confused:

I remember when Spence opened up an ebay account and started selling stuff on there. This was a strict violation of ebay's policy which stated the ebay recommended authenticators would not sell on ebay as that was a conflict. After this was reported and shown to be against their own policy, his account was terminated.

I think that was Joe Orlando and he had to sell his whole collection. That was for gradeing cards.

What does that have to do with the question.:confused:

No, it was Spence right after he left PSA and started on his own. He didn't last long on ebay.

Ok. What does that I have to do with guys that try and get rid of bad stuff on Ebay. They dont get paid. Should they be told you cant sell if you help us. Then nothing will ever come down.:confused:

I'm pretty sure he's still on there...I inquired about a 1959 set for a friend of mine and the response came from someone named Don Spence. This was just yesterday.

nothing is coming down the way it is. i cant get a psa or jsa fake boxing item down, even if i run it through an emr, which i have, so whats the difference?

selling is one thing, but being an authenticator who promises the items he sells with pass the company he works foris wrong. and also, putting in a disclaimer paraphrasing "beware other sellers who sell nothing but fakes" it's just totally wrong. he is using his titles to his advantage and also an emr for ebay. conflicts of interest?

Don Spence is a fellow Texan with an absolutely phenomenal collection. Jimmy ain't Don.

Mike

Doh! I knew that.

Well written, Mr. Zipper.

It's easy for these Message Board Know-It-Alls to criticize us because they know that good guys like us, who are pro-active, won't resort to smear campaigns, etc., to go after those that criticize us. It's part of the territory that we deal in.


And those same Message Board Know-It-Alls start whing and crying when information that we've worked to acquire and possess to fight the bad guys, isn't shared by us with them. Well that's too bad. I have reasons for not sharing certain information. Some information I share with my friends in the hobby. Other information, I don't share with anyone.

Richard, Shelly, Steve Zarelli and myself have all been smeared at one time or another and more. But we continue on. And then we have to hear from Atkatz about our "patting ourselves on the back." This coming from someone who is ZERO pro-active. Wow.

So, Atkatz, if it makes you feel good to make fun of me, or call me names, then please feel free to do so. Because the truth is, that's all you have.

And as for some of the rest you, if it makes you feel good to make fun of me, then please continue to do so, because I will post what I want, not what you want. Do you you want what I know? Then go out and get it the same way I did.

And what right do any of you have to demand that EMRs reveal who they are? They do a job that is thankless without compensation.

Thanks, Chris! Don't mind if I do!

You make it so easy--such a self-righteous little man. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough in the "Babe Ruth?" thread?
(Embarrassed enough to stay away for eleven days. Did you think we'd all forget in only eleven days what a fool you made of yourself?)

And, of course, you had absolutely nothing to do with my genuine Ruth/Gehrig ball being removed by Richard's all-powerful nameless-one.

I just don't buy that secrecy is the way to clean up the hobby. Sorry. The "Michigan forger" has been allowed to forge for decades while you guys sit back and keep his secret for him. Call me cynical, but it seems the only people who get to know your secrets are people who make money in this hobby.

Some of you knew for a long time that David's 1927 ball was a forgery and you kept it a secret.

Thanks...I guess.

Aside from reporting him to the FBI, which was done, what do you suggest should be done about the Michigan forger Dan??
We allowed him to forge for decades?? Really?? Is that what you think??
We allowed him?? Can anyone make a dumber statement on this board than that one??

Wow, this coming from a guy who admittedly knows ZERO about autographs.

This is the same guy who was defending the Huggins & Scott Babe Ruth signed ticket, but yet knows ZERO about autographs.

Geez, Dan, would you have defended that Huggins & Scott Babe Ruth signed ticket if Huggins & Scott wasn't a Net54 advertiser?

And by the way, Dan, I was the one who infomed Atkatz that his "1927 Yankees" baseball was not authentic after his avatar caught my eye. Before that, I had never seen David's "1927 Yankees" baseball. Then later on Atkatz would claim that he sent it to a friend of his, who told him his ball was not authentic. Atkatz will never admit that it was me who informed him first that it was not authentic. As a matter of fact, at the time David and I were still cordial towards each other, I sent him a message that read "nice ball." I didn't have the heart to tell him it was not authentic.

Richard wrote "Aside from reporting him to the FBI, which was done, what do you suggest should be done about the Michigan forger Dan??
We allowed him to forge for decades?? Really?? Is that what you think??
We allowed him?? Can anyone make a dumber statement on this board than that one??"

We do what we can and we (the pro-active collectors against forgers and sellers of forgeries) hope for the best.

I agree with Richard when he wrote "Can anyone make a dumber statement on this board than that one??"

What a guy!

You could tell us what the tell is, you could tell us exactly where this guy lives without giving us his name. You could tell all kinds of things without fear of legal action against you. But you won't because you make money giving your opinion on good or bad and the bad guys keep you in business.

No Chris, it was Richard. And not out of the kindness of his heart, or the desire to protect the integrity of the hobby, either. It was a pure act of spite.

On Halloween two years ago Richard posted another of his typical cryptic threads--this one concerning a forger he called "Johnny F." I criticized him for once again (and again, and again, and again) posting just enough to show us how much he himself knows, but not enough to be useful to anyone. He could, for the board's enlightenment, have posted examples of this forger's work, but, to quote the late, great, John Belushi, "Nooooooo."

Throwing a little tantrum at my audacity in criticizing the master, Richard told me that I should be very familiar with Johnny F's work, since I was so "close to it." On further questioning, he revealed his long-held secret--the ball was fake--and informed me that another on the board agreed. (Ain't that Richard all the way? Always backing up his statements by referring to unnamed board members.) At that point, Chris posted that the unnamed person was him.

Sometimes--when Chris or Richard post something priest-like--I say to myself 'Let it be. Don't bother posting a response--it ain't worth another argument.' In this case, however, I'm extremely glad I pissed Richard off--it led to the removal from my collection of a significant forgery.

That might never have happened had I stayed in Richard's good graces.

Chris - Dan, myself and others, defended the process for calling out a forgery, not the signed ticket itself. You know this, so stop deflecting. If you have something to say either say it, or go back into hiding. This has gotten old.

+1

agreed.


we were concerned about the PROCESS of calling it a fake and impugning an auction house, and two authentication firms without showing any proof.

it might be fake, it might be real, that wasn't the point. and of course everyone else knows ZERO about autographs, but the guy who knows 100 won't say what he knows about the ruth?

Dan,
You really are thoughtless, how did you become a Mod?
For a guy who knows nothing about autographs, what are you doing in this forum? You are the CNN of this forum.
The guy lives in Michigan, if I knew his address which I don't, what good would it do you? You gonna go out and get 'em?
And I make most of my money buying and selling, authentication is not a big part of my business at all. It is minimal. I don't advertise it, except for my website, which mostly advertises my buying and selling, I have not spent a huge sum of money like PSA. My advertising budget for authentication is $0.
What activity have you ever undertaken for the good of the hobby Dan?
Tell us, we are all waiting.
The accusation that I won't tell you about the guy because I make money from bad guy activities is ludicrous and something that I would have thought would be beneath you. I guess it is not.
I did not think someone on this board could make the posts that you do, you are special Dan.

I have no idea if the autograph is real or not...the provenance is not good enough for me to buy it, but I wouldn't spend that much on a leap of faith in anything. The process of calling it out when it was already certed by JSA and showing ZERO proof is what irks me. Using Net54 for an unknown agenda irks me, and Chris seems to be doing a lot of that.

edited to add: I also do not have an reins put on me when it comes to advertisers. Ask Heritage what they think of me....I was also critical of Huggins and Scott buying from their own auction and later selling on ebay.

Dan,
Did you criticize them on Net54 or did you just e mail them with your concerns?
Have you been critical of Heritage on Net54?
Just askin' I really don't know what your answers will be but I am curious.

Criticize Richard, and this is what you get.

No one on this board--no one--is more sharing of his collection--and his enthusiasm for collecting--than is Dan. No one here is more generous.

Were anyone here to compare Richard with Dan, who do you suppose would be found wanting?

I have been critical of both right here on the forum for all to see...I don't have time to search for the links to the threads right now because I'm headed to a hockey game, but I'll do so later tonight or tomorrow morning.

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

I guess nothing gets by that "autograph eye" of yours. LOL!

You may have spoken to Richard, but you were not the first to tell me. (I guess I just didn't piss you off soon enough.)

Don't worry, though, Chris. I consider both yours and Richard's behavior here equally hypocritical, duplicitous, and inexcusable.

To the people that I have a lot of respect for stop acting like third graders.:mad:
To the rest.
I was thinking of something to say but its not worth it. You will never change:(

By the way, David, you have no one to blame but yourself about your first "1927 Yankees" baseball.

You're the self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert.

You're the one that attempted to start-up a Quick Opinion service on Net54.

You held that "1927 Yankees" ball for over decade and during that time you never knew about the person who penned that baseball? Why?

Self-proclaimed experts like yourself are suppose to be keeping up with the Joneses.

Chris is 100% correct.

Thank you for the compliment, David.

That's true. And I never said otherwise. I bought the ball because I was fooled by it. My mistake, and mine alone.

Not sharing with me the fact that you thought the ball a forgery as soon as you had suspicions is, though, as I stated before, hypocritical, and inexcusable.

But, you just go on publicly congratulating yourself for whatever you do.

We're all used to it.

David, you're unbelievable.

If you remember correctly, it was August 2011 when I first saw full images of your "1927 Yankees" ball. I requested photos from you after your avatar made me suspicious of the autographs.

Before that, I had never seen your first "1927 Yankees" ball.

When I first wanted to tell you the autographs were forgeries, I didn't have the heart to do it. I have written that more than a few times here on Net54.

It was approximately two weeks later that I finally informed you all of the autographs were forgeries.

And you didn't believe me, did you, David?

No you didn't.

You went to your friend Jodi, didn't you, David? Then you told the Net54 members here that your friend relayed that the autographs were forgeries.

You give the impression that I knew for months or years that your "1927 Yankees" ball were all forgeries and that I held that information from you. That's a 100% lie.

That isn't the case. You know it and I know it.

That's what you do, David. You spin and deflect. Then you'll start calling me names. Why? Because that's what you do.

I've posted what happened above. As usual, you present a totally self-serving, BS version.

What part of "In a fit of pique, Richard told me the ball was a 'Johnny F' original" don't you understand?

Richard told me, Chris. Richard. (Only to get back at me, but, what the hell. It was still Richard.)

I know you're his little lap-dog, Chris. But you still are two different people.

You can't even keep your story straight from one post to the next within the same thread!

"Oh what tangled webs we weave... "

Seriously kids.....who gives a sh**?

Here is the "nice ball" email you refer to Chris:

REDACTED BY LEON

It is dated 22 August 2011.

Richard informed me the ball was fake on 31 October 2011, and you then chimed in.

Two months later.

By your own admission above, when you sent the "nice ball" email, you knew the ball was a forgery. You said nothing until two months later--and then only when Richard publicly referred to "another board member" who agreed with him. You then identified yourself as that member.

Yet you just explicitly stated above that the idea that you withheld that information from me "for months" is a "100% lie."

Check your pants, Chris They're on fire.

Agreed. Guys who have so much to give to help with the fight against forgeries, and they engage in this needless crap. sad.

Those statements are accurate.

What's the tangled web?

You know as well as I do, that after I got your full images of the ball, and I found my suspicions to be correct, I didn't have the heart to tell you they were bad. And I emailed you "Nice ball."

That is absolutely correct. At the time I didn't want to break your heart about the ball. It was two weeks after that I sent you a Net54 email that read "Do you know who Johnny Fang is?"

You have Dan and everyone else here thinking that I was holding back that information for years.

Tell me, David, how does a Tom Tresh collector know that your ball was bad, but a self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert not know?

David, write what you want and believe what you want.

I guess they do. :D

Chriis, when you told what you thought. Did he think you where correct?

You're right, David. I got my timeframe wrong.

And Richard has already confirmed that I sent him the photos of your "1927 Yankees" ball after my initial suspicions.

And you're point, David?

Are you blaming us because you owned a $10,000 forgery for over a decade?

Or are you using me getting my timeframe wrong as a way to deflect and spin?

Yep, I got the timeframe wrong. And yep, I didn't have the heart to tell you that you owned a set of forgeries.

You got me, David.

Sorry to disappoint you, David. I guess I'm not as perfect as you thought I was. My apologies for breaking your heart.

I appreciate your admitting your mistake, Chris.

And, as I have said before, while I was initially heartbroken, the end result was the removal of a serious forgery from my collection. For that I'm grateful--grateful that I pissed Richard off.

No he didn't, Shelly. He went to his friend Jodi, who confirmed that his "1927 Yankees" autographs were not authentic.

Why would David believe me? I'm just a lowly Tom Tresh collector who hasn't (according to David) spent more than a ten-spot on memorabilia.

After all, Shelly, David is the self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert.

Why isn't this self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert keeping up with the Joneses

Why doesn't this expert know of the various forgers that have been around? Isn't that part of being an expert; keeping up with the Joneses?

Tomorrow is a new day.

If you saw this ball and Richard saw the ball and Jodi was on the net at that time. Why did he not say anything. He was the one that was trusted.:confused:When was the ball purchased and why did he not show it to Jodi in the first place. Why are you being blamed for his mistake. If I am correct without your help he would have never had any idea it was bad no matter what the timeing was.
If you had a really good friend that you thought was an expert on autographs. Why would you not ask him before you bought an item that cost in the high teens. I am now really confused.

You're confused? Why are you getting involved? You clearly have no idea what went on, when the ball was purchased, from whom the ball was purchased, etc. You--as usual--are totally ignorant. Yet you feel you have to comment, 'cause it involves your two buddies.

Jodi was the one that was trusted? You bet. For many, many, reasons.

Not the least of which is that he's not a self-serving blowhard, like your bandmates. (Are you three joined at the hip?)