Where to go to get a good Ruth auto certed? PSA

[travrosty]

Is PSA a good place to get a Ruth autograph certed?

http://www.psacard.com/smrweb/backis...tographs.chtml

First photo, one that they call a forgery as evidenced by the link above.

Second photo, an ad of theirs in which they cert this same type of Ruth signed photo that they called a forgery, but I will let the photos speak for themselves.


So what do you think, good place to send in a Ruth autograph? The COA was signed by Steve Grad, I just don't know what to think.

instead of introducing autograph grading, maybe first they could get the authenticity part right?

[thenavarro]

Originally Posted by travrosty

but I will let the photos speak for themselves.

Hhhhmmmm, as I get older, and more wax builds up in the ear canal, it gets a little harder to hear the photos speak. However, in this case, they speak loudly enough that even my middle aged ears can hear what they are saying. Note: I"m only listening to these two sigs that Travis posted, not ANY others as they are not relevant to this particular discussion.

Perhaps I inferred too much from Travis' first post by inferring that he thinks the two Ruths are done by the same hand. If that's not what he was trying to get across, then my sincere apologies.

Let's "listen" to these photos for a few seconds:



What I hear is the following differences that to me are screaming, these two signatures are not in the same hand (for time purposes, I'm only focusing on the Ruth portion although the other portions have similar discrepancies)

1) The angle of the transition between the 1st and last names. Not even close.
2) The angle of the bottom of the R in comparison to the baseline of the rest of the UTH, not even close
3) The difference in the fatness and ovalness of the R between the 2 sigs
4) The crossstroke of the T between the two sigs. One is a relatively straight line that has a very short back to the left of the body of the T and the other one looks like a tracing of the top half of a football (in other words like the top half of an oval and has a much longer length of the back stroke to the left of the body of the T.
5) The elongation of the h. One looks like a hearty smile and the other looks like a token flattened smarting of the lips when one is feigning a smile.

Are these two signatures in the same hand?? (again, not concerned about ANY other Ruth examples, only these two that you chose to use as a comparison)

[travrosty]

you're kidding, right?

Look at the way the u in Ruth starts, with that little curl, it's the same hand, the word sincerely is desperately the same in my humbleized opinioin, babe is the same. You got to see the forest for the trees.

[travrosty]

Here is a third one by the same hand, this one also certed by James Spence back in 1999.

It is a hybrid of the first two, notice the word sincerely, exactly the same as the one psa called 'bad' and the small b in babe is exactly the same, the ly in Sincerely is exactly the same, while the other one has a slightly different connection from the l to the y, the loop in the capital R in Ruth is flat on the bottom, so that matches, plus the start of the R in Ruth in relationship to the e in babe matches too.

but on the other hand, the stem in the capital R in ruth, lines up in the baseline like the one they called 'good', and the h in Ruth has the shallow smile and longer tail that you pointed out like the so called "good' one, as well as the bottom of the capital B in Babe matches the so called "good one. the word sincerely is also on an exact straight line like the so called 'good one' while the other one dips slightly in the middle, but that one had the perfectly formed connection on the ly in sincerely that matched the hybrid but this one didn't. hmmmmmm.......

All three have the same degree of slant.

How can that be? can you explain that? It has at least four characteristics that match up on both of the other autographs?

Now don't just ignore it? answer please! Explain how this third example I am showing shows some characteristics of #1 and some of #2. Unless you want to call it by a third unknown hand? Is that what you want to do?

Out of the close up cuts, the first one shown is the one psa called a forgery, last one is the one psa showed in their ad as good, and the middle one is another hybrid one that features characteristics of both, It is the ruth/cooper as gehrig photo featured first before the three closeup cuts. that also got a cert only this time from james spence circa 1999. The ruth/cooper/gehrig photo signed by Ruth was shown on haulsofshame.com and ron k had the follow to say about it. He believed it to be a well executed forgery.

“The first tip off is they are too neat, too perfect. Ruth signed in bold up and down strokes that correlated into a signature that is large, uneven, almost whimsical. The fake Ruths are level and lack the up and down strokes. What you need to do in focus in on the bottom of the signature. The fake ones will be level as if written on a straight line.”


And he is right, the words are too perfect, the word sincerely, is almost trancelike, hypnotic, Ruth signed a little sloppier and a little more childlike and uneven than the perfect penmanship these show like done by a royal scribe or something.


So now what? Care to comment again? I did my homework here. Please come back and tell me which of the first photos that this third one matches, and why it doesnt match the other.

[thenavarro]

You wrote: you're kidding, right?

I reply: No sir, I’m deathly serious, LOL. You started this thread using 2 examples (not 3 as you’ve since brought in, like I knew you would, so I told you upfront I wasn’t interested in ANY other examples, only what you originally showed) I simply very quickly demonstrated how easy it is to draw whatever result one wants to draw.

If you are going to present what you believe is a smoking gun, then you need to present it with all your evidence up front, else, you are going to be quickly dismissed just like I did yesterday. There are far too many instances on this board of this is real, this is not real, this might be real, etc, offered without any backup or justification as to why that is believed. You actually did some analysis there in post 4, that’s what I’m looking for in these threads, and from what I’ve read on these same boards, what many appear to be looking for in these threads. Lay all the info out there in the beginning. Before I get blasted for not chastising the others the same way, this paragraph is intended for everyone that makes an opinion on these boards on an autograph, not just Travis.

You wrote: You got to see the forest for the trees.

I reply: B-i-n-g-o, b-i-n-g-o, b-i-n-g-o, and Bingo was his name-O! LOL. You seem to have such disdain for two companies in particular, that most reasonable people quickly come to the conclusion to discount the information you present in my opinion. While on some occasions, you do have valuable information, in order for that message to be received by the intended audience, the messenger needs to change the perception that many get from that messenger. You’ve got to stop hacking at the same two trees, or you are never going to see the forest, or clear it out for anyone else. Even the great “Babe” (the ox, not Ruth) would have given out and grown resentful if Paul Bunyan had continued to hack at the same two trees day in and day out. Until you change the way you deliver your message, you are going to keep having a sore forehead from banging into the same trees over and over and over.

The two companies you bash, on a whole, actually do a relatively decent job in my opinion. Do they make some glaring errors at times? Heck yeah. Do they get careless or not follow their procedures sometimes? Heck yeah. Are they perfect? Hell no. BUT, they do provide a REASONABLE service for a reasonable price in MOST circumstances. If you want to “defeat” them, then do a better job of politicking and promotion then they do. The bashing is NOT going to help toward that end though.

You wrote: How can that be? can you explain that? It has at least four characteristics that match up on both of the other autographs?

I reply: You had to bring in another signature to make your point. Again, my concern was with your smoking gun style coupled with your lack of evidence presented in the first post. Congrats that it has 4 characteristics that match amongst the three, I showed you five characteristics that don’t match, amongst the two that were presented.

You wrote: Now don't just ignore it? answer please! Explain how this third example I am showing shows some characteristics of #1 and some of #2. Unless you want to call it by a third unknown hand? Is that what you want to do?

I reply: Like I told you in my original reply, I am NOT interested in any other Ruth examples other then the two that YOU chose to use in post 1. No, I don’t want to call it a third unknown hand, I told you already the 3rd signature does not interest me.

You wrote: So now what? Care to comment again? I did my homework here.

I reply: Now you’ve presented what you should have presented in the very first post. It took me eliciting it out of you, in order for you to make a full argument. Why do you state that you have done your homework here? Do you not usually do your homework?

Note that I haven’t expressed nor do I intend to express an opinion as to the authenticity or lack thereof of any of these Ruth’s. I’ve never studied his signature in depth, and don’t plan on starting now. I’m just trying to demonstrate what a lot of us reading on the sidelines are feeling IMO, in regards to all of the, “this is a forgery”, “this is good”, “I just know”, etc. etc. etc.

[travrosty]

so you are admitting i am right and you were wrong, good.

i didnt have that third one in reserve waiting to spring it on someone, i honestly didnt think anyone would actually refute the first two as not being signed in the same hand, since they obviously are.

after you posted, i did remember that third one was out there, and went and got it to prove my case. my case was proven, yours wasn't. I cant help it if you were wrong.

of course you arent interested in any other exemples. It's devastating to your case.

my only question is now, after seeing the third one, do you still believe the first two are signed in different hands? if you can't answer yes or no, i guess we know the answer.




your quote

The two companies you bash, on a whole, actually do a relatively decent job in my opinion.


this is why you refuted the obvious, you like them, and you defend the indefensible. that's your right. it was obvious they were both in the same hand, but you couldnt deal with it because you probably have a bunch of psa or jsa items. well good for you. my observations are still true regardless. They bragged about calling one a forgery that could fool most people, and then they had previously certed that same type in an ad they used to puff out their own chest that they are so darn good.

it's embarrassing for them, not me. I did no such thing. If you like them and want to defend them, good, but don't put a technical comparison on what is an emotional issue for you. I knew they were from the same hand because I could see the obvious. I didnt have a third photo smoking gun ready to pounce, but when you challenged the obvious, it's my duty to back up my observation, which I did. I am sorry it didn't work out for you.

your quote:


Note that I haven’t expressed nor do I intend to express an opinion as to the authenticity or lack thereof of any of these Ruth’s. I’ve never studied his signature in depth, and don’t plan on starting now. I’m just trying to demonstrate what a lot of us reading on the sidelines are feeling IMO, in regards to all of the, “this is a forgery”, “this is good”, “I just know”, etc. etc. etc.


For not studying Ruth's signature in depth, you did state your opinion as to whether or not they are signed in the same hand, do you retract that opinion? If you haven't studied his signature in depth, then why all the fancy baselines, and lines here and there to try to prove they weren't signed in the same hand, or did you just think you could get away with it? It was obviously signed in the same hand, and I haven't seen anyone else try to refute it. It was a slam dunk.

You are trying to make this something against me. when it is psa and spence that did it! you are using transference to take it out a frustrating and embarrassing occurrence that you and others don't want to see the light of day and putting it on the person who brought it to light. It's called shooting the messenger.

you lost, and all i want for you do to is to give your opinion that you still believe that these three photos were not all signed by the same hand. if you still believe that, i wont comment on it anymore, and we can just leave it at that. If you can't say that, then you can't deal with what you know to be true deep down inside, because it is injurious to your position that they are good, and do a super job, and should be supported, when who can support this craziness anymore. How much more do you need to see?

bogus items of Ruth with certs sell for thousands and thousands of dollars, and how much are they really worth? And for them to brag that they know Ruth when they cert the same kind they call a forgery that would fool most (in other words they say that we are all idiots, because we are MOST, but they aren't, they know what they are doing) is insulting, arrogant, pompous, presumptious, embarrassing, inexcusable, and indefensible.

for people that defend this madness, it is anything and everything but the autographs. It's never about the autographs.

I will let you have the last word. Go ahead and smash me a good one because psa and spence can't seem to get the autographs right, which is my only concern, and the only point i am trying to make.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by thenavarro

You wrote: you're kidding, right?

I reply: No sir, I’m deathly serious, LOL. You started this thread using 2 examples (not 3 as you’ve since brought in, like I knew you would, so I told you upfront I wasn’t interested in ANY other examples, only what you originally showed) I simply very quickly demonstrated how easy it is to draw whatever result one wants to draw.

If you are going to present what you believe is a smoking gun, then you need to present it with all your evidence up front, else, you are going to be quickly dismissed just like I did yesterday. There are far too many instances on this board of this is real, this is not real, this might be real, etc, offered without any backup or justification as to why that is believed. You actually did some analysis there in post 4, that’s what I’m looking for in these threads, and from what I’ve read on these same boards, what many appear to be looking for in these threads. Lay all the info out there in the beginning. Before I get blasted for not chastising the others the same way, this paragraph is intended for everyone that makes an opinion on these boards on an autograph, not just Travis.

You wrote: You got to see the forest for the trees.

I reply: B-i-n-g-o, b-i-n-g-o, b-i-n-g-o, and Bingo was his name-O! LOL. You seem to have such disdain for two companies in particular, that most reasonable people quickly come to the conclusion to discount the information you present in my opinion. While on some occasions, you do have valuable information, in order for that message to be received by the intended audience, the messenger needs to change the perception that many get from that messenger. You’ve got to stop hacking at the same two trees, or you are never going to see the forest, or clear it out for anyone else. Even the great “Babe” (the ox, not Ruth) would have given out and grown resentful if Paul Bunyan had continued to hack at the same two trees day in and day out. Until you change the way you deliver your message, you are going to keep having a sore forehead from banging into the same trees over and over and over.

The two companies you bash, on a whole, actually do a relatively decent job in my opinion. Do they make some glaring errors at times? Heck yeah. Do they get careless or not follow their procedures sometimes? Heck yeah. Are they perfect? Hell no. BUT, they do provide a REASONABLE service for a reasonable price in MOST circumstances. If you want to “defeat” them, then do a better job of politicking and promotion then they do. The bashing is NOT going to help toward that end though.

You wrote: How can that be? can you explain that? It has at least four characteristics that match up on both of the other autographs?

I reply: You had to bring in another signature to make your point. Again, my concern was with your smoking gun style coupled with your lack of evidence presented in the first post. Congrats that it has 4 characteristics that match amongst the three, I showed you five characteristics that don’t match, amongst the two that were presented.

You wrote: Now don't just ignore it? answer please! Explain how this third example I am showing shows some characteristics of #1 and some of #2. Unless you want to call it by a third unknown hand? Is that what you want to do?

I reply: Like I told you in my original reply, I am NOT interested in any other Ruth examples other then the two that YOU chose to use in post 1. No, I don’t want to call it a third unknown hand, I told you already the 3rd signature does not interest me.

You wrote: So now what? Care to comment again? I did my homework here.

I reply: Now you’ve presented what you should have presented in the very first post. It took me eliciting it out of you, in order for you to make a full argument. Why do you state that you have done your homework here? Do you not usually do your homework?

Note that I haven’t expressed nor do I intend to express an opinion as to the authenticity or lack thereof of any of these Ruth’s. I’ve never studied his signature in depth, and don’t plan on starting now. I’m just trying to demonstrate what a lot of us reading on the sidelines are feeling IMO, in regards to all of the, “this is a forgery”, “this is good”, “I just know”, etc. etc. etc.

THIS RESPONSE WAS PERFECT!!!!

This is why when Travrosty posts I take a deep breath and count to 10. A knowledgeable guy maybe, but so damn one dimensional that his BLINDERS are on so tight it hurts his critical thinking and especially his credibility, which is starting to go below ZERO. NEVER have I seen such a bone up one's ass so far and it is so tiresome the minute anyone calls him out. I don't even care to learn about autographs anymore just because of this guy and other one trick ponies like him. He will never comment on Autographs in general when someone posts an Ali or other boxing guy he may have information about. He has ONE AGENDA...TO DISCREDIT JSA & PSA. IT IS PATHETIC.

If he were against forgeries in the industry like everyone here, I'd be all for him, but as these diatribes keep coming, just a little more throw-up fills my mouth. He is with out a doubt a festering boil on the ass of any internet blog.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

THIS RESPONSE WAS PERFECT!!!!

This is why when Travrosty posts I take a deep breath and count to 10. A knowledgeable guy maybe, but so damn one dimensional that his BLINDERS are on so tight it hurts his critical thinking and especially his credibility, which is starting to go below ZERO. NEVER have I seen such a bone up one's ass so far and it is so tiresome the minute anyone calls him out. I don't even care to learn about autographs anymore just because of this guy and other one trick ponies like him. He will never comment on Autographs in general when someone posts an Ali or other boxing guy he may have information about. He has ONE AGENDA...TO DISCREDIT JSA & PSA. IT IS PATHETIC.

If he were against forgeries in the industry like everyone here, I'd be all for him, but as these diatribes keep coming, just a little more throw-up fills my mouth. He is with out a doubt a festering boil on the ass of any internet blog.

Well written, Chuck.

His agenda was revealed when Travis and his buddies ganged up on John Reznikoff for making a mistake on a Al Ruddy signature on the Pawn Stars show. The mistake that John made was a mis-identification of the Al Ruddy signature. The signature wasn't a forgery. It was simply Al Ruddy's signature and not Al Pacino's. Then John went out of his way to admit his mistake and made a $1,000.00 to the charity organization that sold the Al Ruddy signature.

But did Travis and his buddies jump all over Drew Max, Forensic Document Examiner, when Drew called the Franklin Delano Roosevelt signature on the "Letter To Clergy" letter "authentic" when it was an obvious reproduction? No, they didn't. Did Travis and his buddies jump all over Drew Max when he called that pathetic Bram Stoker forgery on a Dracula book "authentic." No they didn't. But guess what Travis and his buddies did. They heaped praise on Drew Max when he called the Joe Louis signature "not authentic."

I think that says it all.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Speaking of Drew Max, Forensic Document Examiner:

500HR-AAU.jpg

[thenavarro]

You wrote: so you are admitting i am right and you were wrong, good.

I reply: Laughing heartily, no, no, no, no, no. I stand by my first reply in the thread, that if the only two signatures I have to go on are the two you posted in the first post, then they call out to me that they are in different hands as indicated by the 5 differences I pointed out in about the 7 minutes it took me to put that reply together and draw it up. Perhaps if I use or consider other examples or exemplars, I might reach a different conclusion, who knows, that’s not the point of this discourse. The point is that the evidence you presented in the FIRST initial post did NOT prove conclusively that those two signatures are in the same hand, PERIOD. Might they be? Perhaps they might, but you didn’t give any of us enough info in that post to make that determination.

You wrote: i honestly didnt think

I reply: No, really? I would have never figured that out

You wrote: since they obviously are

I reply: Obviously, as you can easily tell by the 5 differences I pointed out in 4 letters, that they are obviously the same.

You wrote: after you posted, i did remember that third one was out there, and went and got it to prove my case. my case was proven, yours wasn't. I cant help it if you were wrong.

I reply: I’m not trying to make ANY case, except for that your first post that you felt was a major blockbuster, wasn’t. Your first post PROVED NOTHING. I’m simply imploring you to do a better job when you drop these blockbusters Not all of us are talented enough to be able to easily discern from the examples that you post what you want all of us to discern.

You wrote: of course you arent interested in any other exemples. It's devastating to your case.

I reply: No, I’m not interested because they weren’t included in the initial argument which is the one I chose to analyze. Subsequent examples are not devastating to my case, they only help to make the point that your post was incomplete and needed to include them in the first place so we could all see what you want us to see.

You wrote: this is why you refuted the obvious, you like them, and you defend the indefensible. that's your right. it was obvious they were both in the same hand, but you couldnt deal with it because you probably have a bunch of psa or jsa items.well good for you.

I reply: I didn’t refute the obvious. Again, from the two examples you posted in the initial post, it was NOT obvious. Sherlock, if forgers are going to attempt to pass off their work, most of the time, they are going to try and replicate traits of known signatures, thus, I would FULLY” EXPECT the two signatures to bear some resemblance. I very quickly pointed out that it’s not so obvious. Yes, I do have a bunch of PSA and JSA items in my collection, as well as Todd Mueller pieces, Koschal pieces, Richard Simon pieces (quick disclaimer, Richard, no slight intended by placing your name next to Koschal's), general ebay pieces, stuff I’ve gotten myself, and a whole host of others. Might even have a couple that have passed through your illustrious hands, who knows?

You wrote: If you like them and want to defend them, good, but don't put a technical comparison on what is an emotional issue for you.

I reply: Pot meet kettle. Don’t’ let technicalities get in the way of your crusade which is such an emotional issue for YOU. I’m not the one that types post after post after post after post after post after post (sorry, the keyboard must have been stuck for a moment, LOL) disparaging two companies that I don’t like.

You wrote: I am sorry it didn't work out for you.

I reply: I appreciate your sincere thoughts, but it’s working out just fine for me. This thread is going EXACTLY like how I anticipated it going. I was wrong on one thing though, I thought you’d be in to defend yourself a lot quicker than you were.

You wrote: For not studying Ruth's signature in depth, you did state your opinion as to whether or not they are signed in the same hand, do you retract that opinion?

I reply: You don’t have to study Ruth’s signature at all to be able to spot the 5 differences I pointed out quickly. There is no in depth analysis necessary to know that you didn’t present enough information in your first post, plain and simple. I do NOT retract my opinion that in your first post you did nothing to convince me that those two signatures are in the same hand, whether it be the hand of Babe Ruth, or the hand of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Did you do that later? Perhaps, perhaps not, that’s not the objective of my posts.

You wrote: If you haven't studied his signature in depth, then why all the fancy baselines, and lines here and there to try to prove they weren't signed in the same hand

I reply: Fancy? Seriously? It’s something I sketched up in a matter of a few minutes to show how ANYONE can quickly derive a different conclusion then the one offered by your premise.

You wrote: did you just think you could get away with it? It was obviously signed in the same hand, and I haven't seen anyone else try to refute it. I was a slam dunk.

I reply: Didn’t realize I was trying to get away with anything. I don’t own a Ruth and it doesn’t matter to me one iota if either one of those are authentic or not, whether they were signed by Ruth’s hands, Ruth’s feet, or Ruth’s mouth while his feet were in his hands. Be careful and don’t clang that dunk off the back rim, and don’t hit your head on that rim as it’s probably still sore from those two big trees.

Seriously, ALL I WANT IS THAT WHEN PEOPLE EXPRESS AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER SOMETHING IS GOOD, BAD, OR INDIFFERENT, STATE YOUR REASONS LIKE YOU DID IN THE FOLLOWUP POSTS, DON’T JUST POST TWO SIGS UP AND PRETEND IT’S OBVIOUS,

Help TEACH the rest of us.

If my little exercise here of wasting my time, does nothing more than get posters to use a different posting style to show us stuff, then it has been fruitful and time well spent

[thenavarro]

Originally Posted by travrosty

my only question is now, after seeing the third one, do you still believe the first two are signed in different hands? if you can't answer yes or no, i guess we know the answer.

Travis,

I'm man enough to answer your question. Yes, after seeing subsequent examples, I do feel that there is a high probability that all three are done in the same hand, however, that has really not been the point of my posts.


Take care,

Mike

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Speaking of Drew Max, Forensic Document Examiner:

Attachment 56740

Quite possibly the worst forgeries ever! I'm going to take some time and practice and see if I can come up with an auto sheet that looks better than this. It'll be hard, since I have been accused of having "doctor handwriting," but I think I can do it!

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[thetruthisoutthere]

Another masterpiece certed by Drew Max. This pathetic Mickey Mantle forgery. Ebay seller broke2manyboxes writes "CERT AUTHENTIC AUTOGRAPHS UNLIMITED PAWN STARS EXPERT!!"

By the way, this is Greg Marino produced Mickey Mantle forgery.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/MICKEY-MANTL...item3371cbffa4

broke-3.jpg

broke-2.jpg

broke-4.jpg

broke-5.jpg

[RichardSimon]

1- their time will come
2- what goes around comes around
3- KARMA catches up to you
4- Greg Marino might have forged more Yankee caps with a Mantle signature than Mantle ever actually signed .

[travrosty]

In case anyone thinks it was an isolated incident, some guy evidently paid over 8300 dollars for this same type of ruth signature that psa calls a forgery that would fool you and others that arent the worlds experts.

Same signature they said will fool you, and you and you, but they know better, until they put one in their ad with their LOA and cert this one that some guy pays a fortune for, has it hanging on their wall, and what did he get for his certificate from the worlds experts?

Certing these are bad enough, but to lecture that most would be fooled, when they themselves cert the same autograph on multiple occasions is arrogant, and the height of hypocrisy.

to the guy that bought it

"whats in your wallet?"

evidently minus 8300 dollars.

LOA from James Spence and Steve Grad - PSA/DNA

http://www.legendaryauctions.com/Lot...px?lotid=39697