[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Provenance stories just cloud better judgment, all provenance stories do is push a questionable or bogus autograph over the edge to the good side. if it was dead on, no need for provenance, it only helps the so-so autographs gain legs when they shouldn't.

These companies are afraid to give 'no opinions' , or 'unable to authenticate' is what the problem is.

Halper had Ruth hair with provenance3 signed on an envelope by Ruth himself. That provenance really helped, didn't it? It probably pushed it over the edge from "who the heck can know for sure it's ruth hair', to 'well it must be good, it has ruth provenance.'

Provenance is only for the weak autographs. Only one million percent lock solid verifiable provenance helps, and that is almost zero percent of the provenance we see in these auction listings, and in those miniscule cases, the autograph stands up for itself anyway.

I would rather have a dead-on autograph with no provenance, than a shaky looking autograph with good provenance, because the provenance story will fall through way before the dead-on autograph will. Because when it comes down to it, you have to collect autographs, not stories or certs.

I have to agree with the rest provenance is a very important aspect of an item. Sometimes provenance is more important to me than Most of the experts put together. "if it was dead on" as you say dead on to who an autograph expert where it has already been proven time and time again that even the best at the game can and will continue to be fooled at the expense of the poor person who is willing to put down hard earned money on the word of a So called expert! Please as I have said time and time again unless you were there when the item was signed it is impossible to say with 100% certainty that the item was signed by the person who signed it. And that my friend is the real truth.