Quote:
Originally Posted by prewarsports
You guys misunderstood me.
100% you should scrutinize EVERY autograph, all the time and you CAN NOT over scrutinize.
I was just stating that on this forum, we dont simply pull out random autographs and get opinions. People ask about the ones with at least one small red flag which is what I meant by "questionable" (too bold, ball too white, too nice, etc.) So the assumption is always "Its Bad". Sometimes though (like the Hilton Smith autograph I went against the grain on a few weeks ago) they are fine. It is just hard to get someone willing to say "I think its fine" when the presumptive opinion in THESE CASES is that its bad even before the discussion begins.
I hope you understand me because I agree completely with what Scott and others have said, Question ALL signatures until you cant question them anymore and ONLY buy what you are comfortable with. I am only saying, that the reason that sometimes you hear crickets when help is asked is because you can absolutely tell when someone is really just asking for help and when people are fishing for an opinion when they already know the answer or are just looking for someone to take the bait and get a heated discussion going (usually on Ruth or Gehrig).
Just my opinion, but I 100% agree with you Scott, you just misunderstood me as I was ONLY talking about a few instances on this forum is all.
Rhys
|
Rhys, I got off on a tangent with my last response to you. I know that you aren't saying to let fakes slide - I just feel that fakes WILL get by if we don't continue to question autographs the way we do. I also completely agree with your statement about "fishing". Autographs are a messy business - no getting around it.