Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
Jon,
My gut was it was good. Because of this, I was interested and had the guy send me scans of the back. I was then confused. I sent it to Mr. David Atkatz on here for his opinion. He initially thought it was good too until I confused him and send him the back. It is pretty tough(near impossible) not to second guess yourself when the back was thought to be fact. So... I thought I would post it on here thinking it was odd. I cannot believe I didn't catch something as simple as a large crease... haha. Anyway, I have had another highly respected member(autograph expert) here PM me and tell me he thought it was good as well. Based on the feedback I have received in PM and comparing to other exemplars(a 1937 gpc on ebay for example), it appears to be authentic. I apologize again for the confusion.
Ben
|
I was the one who contacted Ben a few days ago and opined that the Gehrig was authentic.
Although I appreciate Ben calling me an
expert, I am certainly not an expert.
My first thought when I looked at that Gehrig was that it is absolutely authentic. I always trust my first look (instinct) at an autograph, and I liked that Gehrig immediately.