Quote:
Originally Posted by slidekellyslide
The most frustrating thing about this thread is that Chris keeps going back to the provenance and is not dealing with what he thinks is wrong with the autograph itself. And showing a comparison to an Eddie Gaedel signature without saying a word about either one is not addressing anything. He's very open about discussing the provenance, but tight lipped about the signature. Why?
|
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.