Quote:
Originally Posted by JT
Rhys,
Why does anything having to do with PSA or JSA, or whomever have to have an agenda or motive behind it? Are you judging my post by your own standards?
I asked about the autograph because I have never seen Ruth sign his name with an "e" as shown. Perhaps someone else had and would post about it. As for not showing the PSA certificate at the beginning, I asked what people thought of the autograph, not what they thought of the LOA. Why put that in the beginning when an honest opinion is what is asked, not one influenced by some other person's LOA, and it would have happened.
|
JT,
I think that of anyone who has posted in this thread, Rhys is probably the LEAST likely one to be looking to stir the pro/anti-TPA pot. It's called "call 'em as you see 'em," and just because he was the one to call it, doesn't mean that he is the only one thinking your post looked like a set-up, whether that was your intention or not.
Generally speaking, when asking opinions for a signature on a piece, those giving opinions are going to want to see the whole piece. That should be a given. Richard was diplomatic enough to offer his opinion AND ask for the whole ball to be shown back in post #7, but you opted to argue about whether it was a set-up or not until after someone else found the eBay listing. If you want to eliminate the TPA bias, crop it so that the LOA doesn't show, but you always should show the entire piece. Nobody likes having blinders forced on them, and when you crop the photo so tight to the signature, that's what it feels like. I guarantee that Rhys wasn't the only one expecting a big "ha HA" reveal as the camera widens out to show the whole scene. If that wasn't your intent, okay, no real harm done, but you have to be cognizant of WHY people make these comments and not just get defensive about it.