Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack
Agreed on both counts.
Further, what is truly hypocritical here is NOT that Heritage is now pointing to the ball itself as an argument for the signature's authenticity. That is a valid argument (though a weak and incomplete one), made most likely in response to the reasons that other baseballs were pulled down. Good for them. What IS htpocritical in this case is that they are continuing to point at the expertise of JSA and PSA/DNA, even as the other ball that was taken down because of markings on it had letters from those same people.
|
it's not a valid argument, ball dating can only rule out an autograph, never rule one in. fake autographs may or may not be on period balls, but real ones have to be on period balls, they cannot be on out of period balls. so pointing to a period ball only says it is not a definite fake based only on the ball it is signed on, that is all it can say.