[shelly]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yeah, I didn't get the Gaedel comparison.

My thinking on Ruth signatures, and it applies to this one: Any authentic Ruth-signed item has been around for 50+ years. Probably 50% (at least) of Ruth signatures on the market are forgeries, and many of those have LOAs. Everyone knows that if you want to sell a Ruth-signed item, it has to pass a TPA. So, if a Ruth-signed item shows up on the market with a new LOA, you have to ask why? At that point, all you have to go on is the provenance and the item itself. The ticket 'could' be good. The provenance is very shaky. If we manage to get over the ticket and the provenance, the autograph still has to pass.

This isn't about 'prove it is bad'. If it smells at all, and it's a 'Ruth', we generally discuss it in this forum, but...

There were much better ways for Chris to present his opinion - I won't speculate as to why he chose this route, but it was unfair to the consignor and the auction house.

Scott, just to give you a hint. Look at the bad Gadel, open a. Look at the good one closed. Look at the spaceing compare the bad one to the Ruth.
Just saying.