Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Little Red Riding Hood & Her Babe Ruth Signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=167490)

thetruthisoutthere 04-21-2013 09:53 AM

Little Red Riding Hood & Her Babe Ruth Signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket
 
3 Attachment(s)
This is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Babe Ruth 700th Homerun Day (July 13, 1934) autographed ticket.

Little Red Riding Hood is the name of the 5-12 year old (she was in her 70's according to the consignor in 1992) girl who went to the Tiger-Yankees game at Navin Field on July 13, 1934.

Why Little Red Riding Hood? Why not?

The consignor couldn’t remember her name (but did remember the story of the ticket in detail), so I’m giving her the name of Little Red Riding Hood.

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father went to the Detroit Tigers baseball game on July 13. 1934. They were seated in the upper deck of Navin Field holding a rain check ticket stamped July 13, 1934.

By the way, where are all of the other tickets from that day (July 13, 1934)? I have read there might be one other ticket from that day that has surfaced (but you would think such an historic baseball occasion would have had other tickets surface).

They watch the game (careful not to crease her ticket...geez, she probably kept it in a rigid toploader) and the ballgame finishes about two hours twelve minutes later.

Little Red Riding Hood and her father departs Navin Field and navigate approximately four miles to The Fisher Building.

But wait. What made Little Red Riding Hood and her father traverse to The Fisher Building immediately after the game? Was the radio interview with The Babe advertised somewhere? Where? Did the radio station invite the public into the interview?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father have been holding on to their tickets for a few hours now. Was it their plan to have The Bambino autograph her ticket that day?

They arrive at the Fisher Building and find their way up to the radio station. And, of course, the radio station lets any member of the public right into the show, as I am sure they always did.

Little Red Riding Hood instantly recognizes Mrs. Ruth and sits down right next her?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father walk into the radio station unabated?

No one else in that room recognized Mrs. Ruth? No one else in that room requested an autograph from Babe Ruth?

Wow, it was certainly a strange day for Little Red Riding Hood.


The Babe Ruth signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket sold for $12,000.00 over at Huggins & Scott.

Only $12,000 for a true 1/1 Babe Ruth item?

The Babe autographed thousands of baseballs, but that ticket is a true 1/1, is it not?

Where are all of the other tickets from that ballgame? Look at the ticket that Huggins & Scott sold. Not only did it survive in great condition, but it is signed by Babe Ruth?

The winner of that Babe Ruth signed ticket thinks they got a real bargain paying only $12,000.00 for a true 1/1.

It will surface again in the near future.




Here's the Babe Ruth signed ticket that sold over at Huggins & Scott:



Attachment 96750


Here's an Eddie Gaedel signature penned by the same person who penned the Babe Ruth signed ticket sold over at Huggins & Scott:



Attachment 96753


Here's an authentic Eddie Gaedel signature.



Attachment 96754

mr2686 04-21-2013 10:20 AM

Chris, thanks for the helpful info. Nice use of comparisons and interesting take on the "story". I think there are a few parts of the story that are more believable than others, but taken as a whole leads to more than a few concerns.

mighty bombjack 04-21-2013 10:23 AM

I have to ask: why do you keep asking about the other tickets to this game? You seem to be implying that there is a conspiracy to hide the other tickets. What does the general lack of tickets to this game have to do with this particular ticket? I don't understand.

Runscott 04-21-2013 10:24 AM

Chris, is this what you've been doing for the last several weeks? :confused:
  • Stories change over the years, facts get forgotten or modified. A bad 79-yr old story means little. A good story wouldn't have meant much either.
  • The two Gaedel signatures aren't even remotely similar. The Ruth looks at least close to a real Ruth. The example you have given isn't even credible.

slidekellyslide 04-21-2013 10:26 AM

Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

7nohitter 04-21-2013 10:34 AM

Oh boy...and I thought I was in a for a non-eventful day...

mighty bombjack 04-21-2013 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1120904)
Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

I agree on all counts. Most of the OP is pretty meaningless. The part about the actual sig might end up being relevant...

travrosty 04-21-2013 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1120904)
Is it against the rules to ask you how you know the ticket and Gaedel forgery are signed by the same person? That's the only pertinent question in regards to this post

None of the fluff you wrote about the ticket and how it was reportedly signed even matters here. The provenance is hearsay, we know that. The consignor says the lady was in her 70's...she could have been older, do you know how old a lady is by looking at her? Ticket stubs can be rare as most people didn't keep them in the 1930s, even from historic games. The condition of the ticket stub is irrelevant.

this is exactly right, i will translate chris' post.

fluff,

here is a gaedel i believe to be signed by the same hand.

fluff.

i agree with slidekellyslide, is it illegal to ask how the ruth and gaedel are signed by the same person? that's all that matters. you dragged an auction house and two authentication companies into a mud pit because of ?

so you don't believe the backstory, so what? the backstory doesn't make the ticket real nor does it make it fake. you are short on facts and hard evidence so you belittle the backstory. the backstory means nothing to me, but evidence does. do you have any? When someone spends that much time making fun of the backstory, means they got what? for proof? If you had some, you wouldn't even bother mentioning the backstory, as PROOF trumps all.

ss 04-21-2013 10:48 AM

Look at the "a" in Babe, and the "g" in Gaedel. Also, look at the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. They do look very close. Is that enough?

Big Dave 04-21-2013 10:52 AM

If this is your "proof", it is not convincing in the least.

David Atkatz 04-21-2013 10:57 AM

Every single occurrence, when looked at individually, is highly unlikely.

Consider the chain of events that had to occur in order to bring your parents together. One improbability after another.

And yet, we're all here.

(One of us, though, as my father used to say, is ''not all there.")

HRBAKER 04-21-2013 11:12 AM

We still have assertions presented as fact (Ruth = Gaedel). Absent supporting proof we're really still @ he said/she said IMO.

travrosty 04-21-2013 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRBAKER (Post 1120935)
We still have assertions presented as fact (Ruth = Gaedel). Absent supporting proof we're really still @ he said/she said IMO.

why doesnt chris prove that the ruth signed ticket and the gaedel and the other ruth he showed are by the same hand. can you elaborate, mr. chris?

D. Bergin 04-21-2013 11:29 AM

Aside from the autograph, I think Chris is expressing doubt here, that this ticket is even from the correct game, because the only thing signifying the game is a date stamp.

There's also a Ted Williams 500 HR Rain Check Stub in the same auction with a hand-applied date stamp.

Maybe the ticket guys can chime in here, but I handled a large collection of baseball and other sports tickets a couple years ago and did not find a single rain check stub that was hand date-stamped.

There aren't press photos, I don't think it was common practice to hand-stamp the dates of this portion of the ticket at games. Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

shelly 04-21-2013 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. Bergin (Post 1120942)
Aside from the autograph, I think Chris is expressing doubt here, that this ticket is even from the correct game, because the only thing signifying the game is a date stamp.

There's also a Ted Williams 500 HR Rain Check Stub in the same auction with a hand-applied date stamp.

Maybe the ticket guys can chime in here, but I handled a large collection of baseball and other sports tickets a couple years ago and did not find a single rain check stub that was hand date-stamped.

There aren't press photos, I don't think it was common practice to hand-stamp the dates of this portion of the ticket at games. Somebody feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I also have a question. Did the Tigers change there rain check tickets every year. Or did they just stamp the same kind of ticket?

earlywynnfan 04-21-2013 11:57 AM

Regarding the radio show, many shows had a live audience (often behind glass, so you couldn't hear them over the air.) Tickets to these would be given out beforehand, usually for free.

So a family is going to the big city to see a radio show, because they have tickets. While there, why not take in a baseball game? While at the station, who do we see, but Babe Ruth! And he's signing autographs for the crowd afterwards!! "Daddy, can I get his autograph? Sure, honey, but I don't have anything -- wait, have him sign my ticket stub."

Chris, I make no assertions about the whole of your post, but I think the scenario I just posted is extremely plausible. Once again, you have made a post with lots of sizzle and no steak. I look forward to you coming on again two weeks from now to clear this up a little.

Ken

Scott Garner 04-21-2013 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelly (Post 1120948)
I also have a question. Did the Tigers change there rain check tickets every year. Or did they just stamp the same kind of ticket?

Shelly,
The "Babe Ruth signed 700 HR ticket" most likely had the year 1934 printed (not stamped) in the disclaimer text at the bottom of the stub, which was the way Tigers tickets were printed in the mid-late 1930's. The auction of similar 1934 tickets that Lance Fittro posted in the original thread clearly showed this.

As I stated before, it was unusual for Detroit to stamp the date of games on Emergency tickets in the earlier years, FWIW.

shelly 04-21-2013 12:20 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Scott, I dont think it did. I think this was a generic ticket with no year or date. It was then stamped. I could be wrong but when I looked there was no year on the ticket that I could see.Attachment 96765

Frozen in Time 04-21-2013 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ss (Post 1120921)
Look at the "a" in Babe, and the "g" in Gaedel. Also, look at the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. They do look very close. Is that enough?

I agree with those that have posted regarding the relative weight of the story. Details of what a "70" year old person recounts as well as the consignor's recollection of what she said should not be taken as foolproof and by themselves, do little one way or the other in determining authenticity of either the ticket or the auto.

In addition, I see little, if any, similarities in letter formation or pressure points between the "a" in Babe and the "g" in Gaedel. The same goes for the "u" in Ruth and the first "w" in Edward. Certainly nothing strong enough to lead me to think they were both done by the same hand.

So, I go back to what I said in the original "Ruth" thread and that is what exactly is the purpose of these "cryptic" posts? Where is the new information/evidence?

slidekellyslide 04-21-2013 12:55 PM

Once again we have a thread started with no proof of anything and a thread starter who is unwilling to give whatever "proof" he may have. Throwing all of that irrelevant stuff into his post makes me believe he has nothing. Chris has lost a ton of credibility over this ticket.

cardinalcollector 04-21-2013 02:01 PM

Mr. Williams,

This is what you said:


I am disappointed that Spence certed that.

If I recall correctly, PSA rejected that Babe Ruth awhile back.

It's not authentic.


And this is your proof?

This is the story of Little Red Riding Hood and the Babe Ruth 700th Homerun Day (July 13, 1934) autographed ticket.

Little Red Riding Hood is the name of the 5-12 year old (she was in her 70's according to the consignor in 1992) girl who went to the Tiger-Yankees game at Navin Field on July 13, 1934.

Why Little Red Riding Hood? Why not?

The consignor couldn’t remember her name (but did remember the story of the ticket in detail), so I’m giving her the name of Little Red Riding Hood.

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father went to the Detroit Tigers baseball game on July 13. 1934. They were seated in the upper deck of Navin Field holding a rain check ticket stamped July 13, 1934.

By the way, where are all of the other tickets from that day (July 13, 1934)? I have read there might be one other ticket from that day that has surfaced (but you would think such an historic baseball occasion would have had other tickets surface).

They watch the game (careful not to crease her ticket...geez, she probably kept it in a rigid toploader) and the ballgame finishes about two hours twelve minutes later.

Little Red Riding Hood and her father departs Navin Field and navigate approximately four miles to The Fisher Building.

But wait. What made Little Red Riding Hood and her father traverse to The Fisher Building immediately after the game? Was the radio interview with The Babe advertised somewhere? Where? Did the radio station invite the public into the interview?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father have been holding on to their tickets for a few hours now. Was it their plan to have The Bambino autograph her ticket that day?

They arrive at the Fisher Building and find their way up to the radio station. And, of course, the radio station lets any member of the public right into the show, as I am sure they always did.

Little Red Riding Hood instantly recognizes Mrs. Ruth and sits down right next her?

So Little Red Riding Hood and her father walk into the radio station unabated?

No one else in that room recognized Mrs. Ruth? No one else in that room requested an autograph from Babe Ruth?

Wow, it was certainly a strange day for Little Red Riding Hood.


The Babe Ruth signed 700th Homerun Day Ticket sold for $12,000.00 over at Huggins & Scott.

Only $12,000 for a true 1/1 Babe Ruth item?

The Babe autographed thousands of baseballs, but that ticket is a true 1/1, is it not?

Where are all of the other tickets from that ballgame? Look at the ticket that Huggins & Scott sold. Not only did it survive in great condition, but it is signed by Babe Ruth?

The winner of that Babe Ruth signed ticket thinks they got a real bargain paying only $12,000.00 for a true 1/1.

It will surface again in the near future.



I am not an autograph collector but I have followed this thread with interest. I was really hoping you would come back with something credible. The above story is ....a story. Smoke, mirrors and deflection. Anyone can see that. I mean, you called out an Auction House, and an Authenticator, and now the consignor with a story about little red riding hood. Again, that's all you got?

Not that it matters, but why should I, and others, believe anything you say from now on?

I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't know H&S or anyone else in this thread. Just one guys opinion.

thetruthisoutthere 04-21-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide (Post 1120985)
Once again we have a thread started with no proof of anything and a thread starter who is unwilling to give whatever "proof" he may have. Throwing all of that irrelevant stuff into his post makes me believe he has nothing. Chris has lost a ton of credibility over this ticket.

Dan, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

To get back to your first post.

First, Dan, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

I knew I'd be criticized, trashed and called names (none of you disappointed me).

I've been accumulating information for years, Dan. It's what I do. I know the forger's work. I possess numerous other Babe Ruth penned items from the same forger. I know his work.

Dan, aren’t there collectors on the card side who can look at a card and immediately know whether it’s been altered, trimmed, etc?

Many of you here make fun of my "autograph eye."

I didn't see anyone here make fun of David's "autograph eye" when he called that autograph book good.

But yet, many of you seem to get a kick out of making fun of me.

Again, Dan, I will ask you, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

David Atkatz 04-21-2013 02:46 PM

Attention.

thetruthisoutthere 04-21-2013 02:48 PM

Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

Scott Garner 04-21-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelly (Post 1120960)
Scott, I dont think it did. I think this was a generic ticket with no year or date. It was then stamped. I could be wrong but when I looked there was no year on the ticket that I could see.Attachment 96765

Shelly,
Thanks for the close up scan.
The stub's tear is conveniently just above where the year 1934 would have appeared on the stub. To see an example of what I am talking about please refer to the Tigers 1934 eBay auction lot in the 1st Babe Ruth ticket thread.

shelly 04-21-2013 02:55 PM

That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

travrosty 04-21-2013 02:56 PM

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

OMG. How humble.

David Atkatz 04-21-2013 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere (Post 1121042)
I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I'll tell you. Once again.

Attention.

travrosty 04-21-2013 03:00 PM

He overplayed his hand on what he thought his name was worth in the "trust me" dept. and don't ask me any questions because I am better than 98% of you.

slidekellyslide 04-21-2013 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere (Post 1121032)
Dan, coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.

To get back to your first post.

First, Dan, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

I knew I'd be criticized, trashed and called names (none of you disappointed me).

I've been accumulating information for years, Dan. It's what I do. I know the forger's work. I possess numerous other Babe Ruth penned items from the same forger. I know his work.

Dan, aren’t there collectors on the card side who can look at a card and immediately know whether it’s been altered, trimmed, etc?

Many of you here make fun of my "autograph eye."

I didn't see anyone here make fun of David's "autograph eye" when he called that autograph book good.

But yet, many of you seem to get a kick out of making fun of me.

Again, Dan, I will ask you, what did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth Ticket thread?

You want all of us to bow down to your "autograph eye" I guess...I don't know. You've still not shared one single bit of proof. NOT ONE. You don't even answer direct questions. You ran and hid for nearly two weeks when the heat was on....I think it's pretty obvious that you've damaged your reputation.

thetruthisoutthere 04-21-2013 03:03 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Ticket stub again.


Attachment 96772

thenavarro 04-21-2013 03:04 PM

Usually when I read threads that are "battling" over disputed autographs, I usually fall on Chris's side of the ledger. I have no opinion on this particular ticket, as I have zero experience in dealing with ticket stubs from that era, nor do I profess to know that particular style of Ruth's (or a forgers) signature. However, I do get quite disgusted with people continuing to rub David's face into the mistake he made over his forged '27 Yankees baseball. I find it to be contemptable, unprofessional, disconcerting, malicious, heartless, demeaning, and otherwise uncalled for. When trying to justify or prove themselves, one should tout their own resume, rather than belittling someone elses. It doesn't really matter who has the biggest penis amongst competitors, what matters is if it's big enough or swung well enough to get the job done.

Scott Garner 04-21-2013 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelly (Post 1121044)
That is why I wonder if this ticket that you see can be from other years or was this generic ticket used for only 1934?

Shelly,
What I am trying to say is the ticket (that is deemed to be Ruth's 700th HR game) WOULD HAVE a year printed on it had the tear conveniently not been applied on the stub where it was.

Ironic? Yes.
Does this absolutely prove anything? Nope.

travrosty 04-21-2013 03:12 PM

I know boxing autographs quite well, but I would never put a % on the people I felt I knew boxing autographs better than. that's arrogance.

And when I do notice an auction item that isn't right, and wish to call it out. I show all the proof I have, every bit, totally transparent. I don't just say that I am Travis R. so that should be good enough for you 98% that don't know jack about it. (that's not my attitude about it but some here have that attitude.)

I asked for his hobby resume on vintage baseball before on a thread and never got a response. If he is top 2% on Ruth, it should be fantasic hobby resume on vintage baseball. I will be happy to provide my resume on boxing to anyone that asks so I can't be called a hypocrite.

Scott Garner 04-21-2013 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere (Post 1121051)
Ticket stub again.


Attachment 96772

What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.

shelly 04-21-2013 03:25 PM

That is why I asked if this type of ticket was used just for the 34 season or could it have been used in other years.

travrosty 04-21-2013 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott Garner (Post 1121062)
What Chris is trying to point out is that the ticket itself is not conclusively a ticket from 7/13/34. The inference is that because "Babe's" sig has been applied, it must be from his 700th career HR even though there is no year present.

FWIW, as I have stated from the beginning, I am not 100% comfortable that this ticket is from 7/13/34. The ticket in of itself does not stand on its own. It all boils down to the credibility of the actual Babe Ruth sig. Here is where people don't appear to agree.

I too would love to see the proof that refutes the authenticity of the Ruth sig.



but it's not conclusively NOT a ticket from 1934 either, so likw you said, that doesnt make the signature good or bad.


I did ask chris once for his opinion on a joe dimaggio autographed baseball that an antique shop had for sale in my area once, and for the record, he said no good. i didnt buy it because i dont know dimaggio. chris knows dimaggio, and ruth and cy young, and all the rest.

my favorite story on a thread about cy young.

baseball expert comes on and says that cy young couldnt have possibly signed the ball, because the ball was manufactured after young had died.

soon after, mr. chris comes on and says 'look at that horrible piece of junk'. This thread is getting to be a parody of itself. Why start it if no evidence is shown and just to stir up a hornets you know what nest?

Scott Garner 04-21-2013 03:30 PM

[QUOTE=travrosty;1121067]but it's not conclusively NOT a ticket from 1934 either, so likw you said, that doesnt make the signature good or bad.


Travis,
That is correct.

slidekellyslide 04-21-2013 03:39 PM

And here we still are with no evidence of fraud....NONE. All we have is an autograph eye that claims to be better than 98% of us. So I guess we should all just shut up unless we're in the 2%.

Frozen in Time 04-21-2013 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere (Post 1121042)
Yes, I am disappointed that Spence certed that Ruth.

He should know better.

I went back a long way on Net54 and I was reading the praises of David's original "1927 Yankees" baseball. None of you even hinted it was bad. I know it wasn't authentic as soon as I received David's photographs.

All of have every right to criticize, question and call me names (if that makes you feel better).

98% of you don't have a clue about The Babe's autograph. It shows.

Some of you enjoy making fun of my autograph eye. Well, if that makes you feel better, too, then continue on.

As far as losing my credibility here on Net54; well, wow. Now I'm going to lose sleep, too.

I will ask all of you once again, "What did I have to gain by posting my original Babe Ruth thread and this one?"

Tell me.

I'm clearly not part of the long debate between Chris and other members of this forum. Nor am I by any means an authority on any autograph. But having followed the original Ruth thread and this one, I believe a much more relevant question would be " What did we gain by your posting of the original Babe Ruth thread and this one?" To date, in my humble opinion, not much.

D. Bergin 04-21-2013 03:48 PM

A confirmed 700 HR Ruth ticket I imagine would bring a couple grand on it's own, so I think that's a bit relevant in this situation in what is being offered here. Authenticity of signature aside, It's more then just a Babe Ruth signature on the back of any random ticket.

Same issue with the Un-Autographed Ted Williams 500HR ticket offered right next to it in the same auction. Even if the ticket style matches up with the right year it's still a quite a stretch to assume they are from the correct game.

Who date-stamped these tickets and when?

Big Dave 04-21-2013 03:48 PM

Should just go back to posting videos about Coach's Corner. At least there the things were obvious to us 98 percenters.

As for the rest of his posts....reminds me of that old song from the 70s........Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me.

travrosty 04-21-2013 03:52 PM

The thing about it is, all we got is attitude from the original poster, and all have asked from day 1 is some proof. that's what it boils down to.

PhilNap 04-21-2013 03:53 PM

Chis, less than a year ago you posted this in another thread. Has something since changed?

Quote:

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere (Post 1017320)
Mike, thank you for the nice comment, but I would never call myself an expert.


shelly 04-21-2013 04:01 PM

What I find truly amazing is that the so called TPA's haters are now defending them. What made this happen?

thetruthisoutthere 04-21-2013 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilNap (Post 1121088)
Chis, less than a year ago you posted this in another thread. Has something since changed?

No, Phil, nothing has changed. I have never claimed to be an expert. I have claimed to be very knowledeable about autographs.

Who on this board would you consider an expert?

travrosty 04-21-2013 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shelly (Post 1121092)
What I find truly amazing is that the so called TPA's haters are now defending them. What made this happen?

no one is defending the tpa's . i said i didnt know if it was good or bad, or if spence screwed up or not, just that if you are going to call out spence, have some proof. chris might end up being right, but not just because his name is christopher williams.

Big Dave 04-21-2013 04:15 PM

Shelly,

Nobody is defending the TPAs. What seems to be the general thing here is for Chris to either put up or shut up. It has been over three weeks and still nothing.

shelly 04-21-2013 04:41 PM

Thanks, that is an honest reply.:)

travrosty 04-21-2013 04:42 PM

1 Attachment(s)
here is a couple of emergency stamped tickets from 1934 july12, that went with this lot.

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedi...b#.UXRqAkbfjU4


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:23 PM.