Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas
The reason I ask is because if the "non-malicious" statement was in the auction lot description, it is embellishment by the auction house copy writers, not something stated by JSA. If it was in the LOA as something other than a quote from the auction description, then you've got a good point.
As I said, I don't have a copy of the catalog, so I can't say which is the case. You should probably double-check before you get too deep into an argument that should probably be a separate thread anyway.
|
they specifically said that jsa determined it was a non malicious secretarial.
now if they are lying its not my fault. i cant go around getting everyone to sign notarized affidavits.
why am i deep into an argument? and who is arguing? i stated my position that jsa said (according to the auction hosue) that it was a non malicious secretarial. if jsa wants to refute that they said that, then fine.
You can always say that someone is lying. no one could report anything if we had to be there first hand. if the yankees lost 3-2- to the red sox, and the L.A. times ran the score because it came over the wire, you could say that how do we know the source is telling the truth? was the l.a. times guy who published the box score at the game in person in new york?
when the auction house says that spence said it was a non malicious secretarial. I take them at their word. spence can come on here himself and refute it if he contends it is not true.
http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/1026.html
here is says they are classic secretarials. if jsa determined they were forgeries, would the hair even make it to the auction block?
REA blogged that JSA said that. So if that is an embellishment (lie), then LIfson or his agent from REA is lying, not me. I can only take them at their word. I am not going to tap people's phones.
Also from haulsofshame.com
a blog post by REA
But in their blog post of August 7, 2007, REA revealed another reason why they decided to include Halper’s “Ruth Hair Display” in their sale:
“One positive was that it was the opinion of our autograph authenticators (James Spence Authentication) that (the) signed letter and envelope were “non-malicious classic secretarial” Ruth signatures, as opposed to malicious forgeries, suggesting that the hair was actually Ruth’s, but really, how could we or anyone know for sure?”