|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
they specifically said that jsa determined it was a non malicious secretarial. now if they are lying its not my fault. i cant go around getting everyone to sign notarized affidavits. why am i deep into an argument? and who is arguing? i stated my position that jsa said (according to the auction hosue) that it was a non malicious secretarial. if jsa wants to refute that they said that, then fine. You can always say that someone is lying. no one could report anything if we had to be there first hand. if the yankees lost 3-2- to the red sox, and the L.A. times ran the score because it came over the wire, you could say that how do we know the source is telling the truth? was the l.a. times guy who published the box score at the game in person in new york? when the auction house says that spence said it was a non malicious secretarial. I take them at their word. spence can come on here himself and refute it if he contends it is not true. http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/1026.html here is says they are classic secretarials. if jsa determined they were forgeries, would the hair even make it to the auction block? REA blogged that JSA said that. So if that is an embellishment (lie), then LIfson or his agent from REA is lying, not me. I can only take them at their word. I am not going to tap people's phones. Also from haulsofshame.com a blog post by REA But in their blog post of August 7, 2007, REA revealed another reason why they decided to include Halper’s “Ruth Hair Display” in their sale: “One positive was that it was the opinion of our autograph authenticators (James Spence Authentication) that (the) signed letter and envelope were “non-malicious classic secretarial” Ruth signatures, as opposed to malicious forgeries, suggesting that the hair was actually Ruth’s, but really, how could we or anyone know for sure?” Last edited by travrosty; 04-14-2012 at 08:43 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're not. I specifically said before you get deep into an argument. I really don't understand your hostility over a simple request for clarification. There's no reason for you to get your panties in a bunch simply because I or anyone else asks a question to get a clear idea of what you're I'm not attacking you, the OP, JSA, REA, or anyone else. You've answered my question, so please get back to whatever statement you were trying to make without getting so defensive over my question. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
What a shock, that this thread would go in this direction. This is getting so tiring. It's a clubhouse signature, as was a common occurrance for the period. They have properly disclosed this, so please save the splitting of hairs for another thread.
Why does EVERY autograph thread in this forum have to de-volve into this self-serving agenda garbage? Originally, I was against the idea of a separate section for autograph bashing, but now I definititely wish it would be split apart from other memorabilia. Just my opinion... not that it will change anything |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The original question that someone asked is how they know it is a clubhouse signature on that ball vs. forgery, and if anyone knew of any exemplars from that time period to determine if it was a clubhouse.
I gave background that when someone says clubhouse, or secretarial, you have to take it with a grain of salt, because the halper babe ruth signature, which JSA claimed was non malicious secretarial, does not seem to be the case. The JSA defenders then jumped on my case about it, but I proved to them that my assertation was correct by providing a blog post by REA themselves that said that JSA had determined it to be a non malicious secretarial, and I am happy to defend myself. Last edited by travrosty; 04-15-2012 at 12:57 PM. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So far in this thread, it looks to me like you're having an argument with yourself, presenting yourself with imagined attacks, and then defending yourself from those attacks. After first saying "I don't know," you then answered my question early in the next post (thank you for that) before proceeding to go off on me or whoever else you imagined was hurling attacks at you. To my mind, defending your "assertations" from imaginary attackers and giving responses to challenges that were never made is at best a waste of time, but if it makes you feel better to do so, please start a new thread for it. At this point, I'm sorry I ever asked for the original clarification, as that seems to have set you off for some uknown reason. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
sorry i mentioned jsa, which is taboo to do. if i would have said GAI/global authentics, no one would have given a rats behind except maybe to join in.
that't why there are sacred cows that can never be questioned and that's a big problem in the hobby and we can't move forward until ALL can be questioned and held accountable for their authentications. Last edited by travrosty; 04-15-2012 at 03:24 PM. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Yawn...
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I give Chris props on this thread; I'm happy he hasn't come on to reply to you with all the mistakes Mueller or someone else made, which just makes the cycle continue. Ken earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The reason JSA came up is that they certed this ball. It's fair game to discuss them just as it is REA since it is an REA auction and a JSA certed item and someone asked how they knew it was a classic secretarial. I never said that so and so screwed up. Someone else jumped on me unfairly when I gave the Halper example and backed it up. I never said they screwed up, i said that you have to take a clubhouse or secretarial autograph designation with a grain of salt because of their past history. That's all I said and you would think I had told little timmy that santa claus doesn't exist. Someone else first asked the question that how did they know it was a classic clubhouse. I gave the information that I had that says they have a shaky history when it comes to clubhouses and secretarials and I gave the Halper example. Why is this out of bounds or taboo? OTHER PEOPLE want to make it into a fight. They do this because I happen to mention jsa or psa. if i was mentioning GA nobody would care. They have a problem with anyone mentioning psa or jsa. this is where the sacred cows come in. I an not going to quiet down because someone else has a bunch of psa or jsa certs and doesnt want any criticism of them ever. I never criticized the ball. I never said any of the autographs were fake. I post plenty of comments on many other threads in memorabilia and cards and never mention psa or jsa. so there. I guess you dont have to read them if you don't want to. So in recap, please people out there, don't ever ciritcize psa or jsa, you will catch heck for it. go to a morales/cc thread and tell them they are redundant and that we "GOT IT BY NOW". I don't care if Chris posts anybody's mistakes. I never told him he couldn't or shouldn't. Last edited by travrosty; 04-16-2012 at 08:33 AM. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
1940s - 1960s PM10 Baseball Player Pins/Buttons/Coins | weedene | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 0 | 03-23-2012 10:09 AM |
FS: Vintage Baseball HOF Card Collection T206-1970s | vintagegem2 | 1950 to 1959 Baseball cards- B/S/T | 12 | 04-21-2011 08:52 PM |
Vintage Baseball Experts: A Red/Blue Lace Cronin Ball? | Rawlings | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 5 | 07-22-2010 10:14 AM |
Vintage Baseball Books for Sale- Prices Reduced | Archive | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 3 | 01-07-2009 07:48 AM |
Group of Vintage Sports Sheet Music for Sale - Baseball, Tennis, Golf etc. | Archive | Everything Else, Football, Non-Sports etc.. B/S/T | 0 | 11-06-2008 02:45 PM |