[travrosty]

because everything tta certs is assumed bad, and everything the big 2 certs is assumed good, you can have nearly identical, interchangeable autographs being certed by both and one is obviously bad and one is obviously good just by looking at who certed it? it's the cart before the horse. we aren't certing autographs anymore, the autographs are certing the companies?

it should be about the autographs. what makes the psa one good and the TTA one bad? they look the same. people who can't tell will say that the track record of the companies makes one good and one bad, but that's not being honest about what the autographs look like. they look the same. they are interchangeable.

if psa certed the tta one, and tta certed the psa one, opinions about these autograph would flip around and the good one would now be bad, and the bad good, but it's about the autographs and not the authenticators. You can't say this is bad because of who certed it and this is good because of who certed it. if you do, then you have an opinion about the authenticators and not the autographs.

the autographs should be able to pass or fail a blind test, and in this case, a blind test of these two ruth autographs would confuse and stymie people, because they look the same, and people wouldnt know what to think about these because they don't have a preconceived idea of how they should feel because they don't know if psa certed it or tta did.

but its easy to say fake or real by working backwards and look at who authenticated it first then coming to that conclusion instead of looking at the autograph first and coming to the conclusion. that works sometimes but not all the time and by doing it that way, it's an opinion of the authenticators, but not the autographs themselves.