R E Question

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Shelly receives far more praise on here than bashing.

I'd say you're right if you count all yours and Chris's praise of him, otherwise it looks to be to be about 50/50

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I'd say you're right if you count all yours and Chris's praise of him, otherwise it looks to be to be about 50/50

Excluding assumed comments by one particular member it probably comes out to 80/20.

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Excluding assumed comments by one particular member it probably comes out to 80/20.

You crack me up Richard.

[mark evans]

It occurs to me that much of the contention reflected in this and similar threads is due to the 800-lb. gorilla that sits at the heart of vintage autograph collection and that receives only passing comment -- uncertainty. While one can be virtually certain of authenticity in certain cases due to circumstances and provenance, as to the majority of items collectors must rely on the opinions of experts, or become experts themselves. But, and this is key, experts frequently disagree with one another and at times make mistakes. So, it is inevitable that there will always be debates and arguments over conclusions.

What bothers me, though, are the personal attacks. I should think that collectors and experts both could engage in spirited discussion without resort to such tactics. While such threads at times make for entertaining reading, at the end of the day I find them to be destructive to both the Board and the hobby.

Mark

[chaddurbin]

yes all opinions, nothing is factual . signatures are scary, mine can change on a daily basis. lately it's harder get a consensus on a ruth than scholars attributing paintings to titian or giorgione.

[jetsticks]

Amen Mark! Amen!

[collectbaseball]

There's a baseball sitting around here somewhere, a Harridge ball, that has a Jimmie Foxx signature on it, among others.

My grandfather got it at Fenway Park way back when, everybody in my family has always lived in Massachusetts, and between all of us we've been to hundreds of Red Sox games.

This baseball has been carefully passed down from generation to generation, with the story about how my grandfather got it at Fenway on the day Foxx hit his 50th home run in 1938.

The Foxx is a clubhouse signature. But if I didn't know that, and was tempted to sell this beloved heirloom, I'd probably send it to a premier auction house, and maybe on the day their third party of choice reviews it somebody has a toothache or heartache or something and it slips through the cracks and gets the go-ahead. And then a bunch of people start bitching about it on a forum.

I'd probably be mad and exclaim: "This has been in my family for 60-odd years and are you calling my grandfather a liar!?"

And I would not be lying. And the autograph would not be any more real.

Obviously something different is going on with the photos in question, but I think it's a similar overall mindset.

I'm the first to admit that I do not know Ruth signatures well enough to confidently call one real or not real, if I'm looking at them in a vacuum—but there is enough 'off' about this group that I wouldn't spend ten dollars on any one of them. The group of 11 signed photos and their general characteristics—that is, looking at the signatures, inscriptions, inks, photo types, and story behind them......something feels like it doesn't quite add up. I am not accusing any person or company of being unscrupulous. Something just seems fishy.

I think maybe a lot of people are used to seeing Marino forgeries or Coach's Corner specials. Compared to good forgeries those signatures look like they were drawn by a demented puppy with a hurt paw.

All that said, I would very much like for these photos to be real. They are absolutely beautiful. But, I would not buy them.

[BigJJ]

D,
My grandfather kept his t206s, my dad his 50s cards, and since age 6, now over 30 years ago, all I have collected/dealt is pre-war autos and game used and mostly of Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Lajoie, Cobb, and Wagner plus Mantle. 7 players. Mostly game used today. but for about 10 years it was autos. I have reviewed thousands of Ruths. Your Ruths did, and do, look good to me. and though I much respect other opinions, I always review myself. I had bid on one.
What threw me was the withdrawal. and from REA. Rob is very smart and I know the due diligence he performs. I could not understand withdrawal but for concerns regarding either authenticity or ownership. and JSA does a good job too. we all make errors but they do a good job.
So I was a little thrown by a withdrawal on items REA, JSA and I had already signed off on.
Emotion as a reason for withdrawal - was this in the contract ?! I did not account for. After thousands of auctions and 30 years, I had never heard of items being withdrawn from an auction due to emotions.
But they did look good to me. ideally need name of the original owner ! and PSA.
and now you have removed your anonymity with regard to the items, people know you owned them, not an anonymous consignor, this is a plus.
My best.

[jetsticks]

Thanks BigJJ....I may have been too emotional when I had Rob remove them. We have spoken since and all is good between us. Rob was very apologetic as there was a miscommunication between ourselves. I guess I pulled them more because I was pissed at him at the time. Like I said earlier, he upset my mother and my family is now privy of what I was trying to do. I am fine with my name being out there but do not want my mother to be bothered by all this. She gets upset easily and doesn't need the emotional pain in her life right now. I am sorry I pulled them off if you were interested in one or more of them. When all this dies down, if you're still interested we can talk. I would like nothing more than to have a true collector possess these.

[David Atkatz]

As I said before, they look good to me, as well. I have been collecting for more than fifty years, and obtained my first Ruth autograph in 1965.

But, like BigJJ, I'm not a member of the elite "Net54 2%."

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

As I said before, they look good to me, as well. I have been collecting for more than fifty years, and obtained my first Ruth autograph in 1965.

But, like BigJJ, I'm not a member of the elite "Net54 2%."

with bigJJ perspective maybe it debunks the myth somewhat that buyers would blindly throw thousands of dollars at a ruth simply because it has a JSA or PSA/DNA cert. they could be collectors themselves who has a background and also do their own research on the piece.