Re-reading my second post in this thread, my response sounds kind of wimpy. If anyone cares, here's my reason: we had a thread a while back that involved a questionable 'Cy Young' autograph. I posted the EXACT reasons I thought it was bad (very detailed stuff), and I thought I had done a good thing, providing information for potential victims on this board, which, to my way of thinking, is composed of a bunch of Net 54 hobby buddies who should want to help each other.
Result: I was ignored by the authentication experts and got my wrist slapped by one or two board members. Quite a surprise. Apparently it's a no-no to give such detail, as it will help forgers hone their skills. I personally feel that by learning such detail, we help the collector and the authenticator, much like the detail Mark provides regarding photo identification has helped collectors avoid ridiculous assertions made by sellers. I also feel that such detail (at least the kind I provided) provides almost ZERO help to a forger, as most of it can NOT be applied to their forgeries. I won't bore you by explaining why, but I'm sure the autograph authenticators here understand.
It is frustrating when someone asks for an autograph opinion here, and board members state that it is authentic, and I am certain that it is not, but I cannot give the detailed reason why, because the experts will get upset.
So...that's why I'm not posting my detailed reasons here. Carry on.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|