Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper
Some of the evidence presented is compelling no matter who the source. However, it does interest me why certain characters in particular are so hell bent on destroying the TPAs. Frankly, I don't trust their motives.
I try to keep it in perspective. While some of the mistakes are sensational and high dollar, the goof-ups stretch back a decade and account for a tiny percentage of the overall body of work of these TPAs. I understand this may be no comfort to the person who has a bogus HOF first day cover. I get it.
But for every goof up, there are probably hundreds and hundreds of accurately authenticated Mantles, Williams, Mays, DiMaggios, Ruths, Cobbs, etc., etc.
Now if the people who run these sites dedicated to bashing TPAs had their way, could we say the same? I doubt it.
|
How do you know its only a small percentage?
hundreds and hundreds of good ones for every goof?
i can give you cert numbers that you can check online at psa for 75 bad muhammad ali signed photos, all in a row, that they won't cert anymore. 75 goofs in a row.
So hundreds (200) of good ali's for every bad ones means they can't make a mistake the next 15,000 muhammad ali signatures in a row? do you really think that is going to happen?
Of course many, many of the people defending these companies say 1000 to 1 good to bad, so where is the 75,000 muhammad ali good signatures without a mistake?
and a prominent authenticator who is a consultant for them even says 10,000 to 1 good to bad, so where are the three quarter of a million good ali's without a mistake?