View Single Post
  #2  
Old 03-29-2013, 12:05 AM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

But if the blarney ruth was already certified by the other firm, why would they want to get it off the market, i don't get it???????

You know why an unable to render decision was given?, probably because they were familiar with that auto, knew that the other company has certed it , and didnt want to go on record as opposing the other certification, fearful that the other company might do the same to them in the future, and then we have authentication wars, so they did the diplomatic thing and said "unable to render" (unwritten policy not to cross the other authentication company). That is my theory.

why unable to render??? Don't they know Ruth autographs??? They give opinions on hundreds of other Ruth's, why not this one? Is it that ambiguous? How many other exemplars do they have that come somewhat close to this one that they can't figure it out? Of course the answer is none, so the honest answer of "likely not authentic" on a quick opinion is missing because they can't cross Mister Big on the other side.

That's why it is all a big scram!!! My opinion of what I believe is going on because all the big items get double certed, even if they are no good, and maybe this one was just a bridge too far for Mr. West Coast to double cert without getting laughed out of the hobby, but they couldn't say no good either. If I had certed it instead of Mr. Big on the East Coast, Then West Coast would have given it a quick opinion of "likely not authentic", but I didn't so they equivocated. (Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself.)

If Mr. West Coast doesn't agree with my assessment, please come on here, tell us the name of the boy who gave the quick opinion, the exemplars they used to come to the unable to render decision, along with a point by point assessment of the autograph comparing to their exemplars that justifies the unable to render decision. Along with a notarized affidavit stating that they had absolutely no prior knowledge that this Blarney Ruth had been previously certed by Mr. Big of the East Coast. Think they will do it? If they do, I will abandon my theory and give them credit.

Last edited by travrosty; 03-29-2013 at 12:28 AM.
Reply With Quote