Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly
Hey, Scott I have no idea who the cowards are but you must be one of them. I see no opinion from you. Get the ball rolling give us your opinion I am sure that you will hear from others as soon as you give yours.
|
Shelly, I see your point. I do have my opinion (it looks horrible), but I really wanted the opinions of others, and the last few times I posted my opinions on autographs, I got raked over the coals for doing so. Weird that such would be the case in a 'discussion' forum, since all discussions involve the expression of opinions, but I digress....
This is actually the second thread that I've started on this ball. In the first one I brought up a few attributes of the signature that looked fishy to me. It was pointed out by a moderator that the board experts might feel that pointing out very specific attributes and then having them comment on them, might give potential forgers help for their future endeavors. I had never thought of it that way. So, it's kind of a double-edged sword. We, as autograph hunters, want clues as to what to look for, so that we don't have to rely on the opinions of others, but we can't be given clues without the forgers getting the same helpful information.
Thus, we continue to see autograph threads with answers like: "it's bad", "don't buy it", "it sucks", as opposed to, "it's bad because....", "instead, look for one with the following characteristics....". And, rather than focus on the autograph itself, we focus on the LOA's, COA's, scammers, etc., boring to death collectors of other memorabilia.
Hope that helps give insight into my reasoning for posting as I did. The "cowards" post was really not serious - just poking fun at the autograph situation. This is the first I've revisited this thread, as I simply forgot about it and I don't have the thread subscription thing turned on.