Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack
I have no idea and almost refuse to think about too much unless I was considering buying the ball. I know I would never be 100 percent certain, but I was trying to say in my last post that if I had to be that, I would own half of the autographs that I do, because that is impossible for me if I didn't see it signed.
Let me ask you, do you think you COULD ever own a Brouthers autograph? What would it take, a legal document? Because it seems to me that the scant evidence we have of his auto (and Rochard's seemingly rhetorical question of who actually has any expertise on Brouthers) that the writing itself cannot make us 100 percent.
|
My thoughts and yours are completely in line.
No, unfortunately I could never own a Brouthers unless it was a handwritten letter that had what I considered unquestionable provenance (not even sure what that would take).
Also unfortunately, I might never own a Ruth. I don't like signed checks or most legal documents, wouldn't trust a single-signed ball, most signed photos or any Ruth cuts. That only leaves hand-written letters and certain balls and photos, all of which would cost a fortune. But you have to ask: why would these latter items cost a fortune? Because we feel much more certain they are real. So why would you buy a Ruth that is on the other end of the 'certainty scale'?