C'mon Leon, try two years. Ha Ha. Enjoyed our conversation.

Getting back to the point here....

Frank Garo may have the best of intentions, and may truly be an honest fellow. But what on earth makes him qualified to be an authenticator? Even if he got it right on the afroementioned Ruth Photo, he has been way off on countless others.

I have looked at hundreds of reliable Babe Ruth exemplars (team signed balls, personal checks, team/movie contracts, etc.) as have all the authenticators in question. It doesn't take a genius to identify a bad item. And as an earlier post stated, there are plenty of reliable authenticators besides Spence and PSA - Gutierrez, Jordan, Albersheim and Keating, to name just a few.

As stated earlier, I know beyond a doubt, that Garo has given his "seal of approval" to a slew of items that aren't even close to being good. Those awful Ruth/Gehrig examples posted earlier are just the tip of the iceberg. Garo is where people go after the respected authenticators have rejected their item. As a result, his LOA means nothing in the Industry. What does it tell you, that no respected/major auction house has ever featured a Frank Garo LOA, but that Coach's Corner does on numerous occasion?

Again... he may have no bad intent... he is simply an unskilled authenticator. I think that most of us (who really study these pieces) would be infinitely more scrutinizing if that's how we chose to make a living.

Thanks for the reply Jeff,

You're right, it basically boils down to doing business with people who you trust and feel comfortable with, but one shouldnt get upset when people on the board offer their opinion on an item or person in the hobby.
I consider such input to be valuable, and a large part of why this board is so great.

As far as the Ruth piece goes, the consideration of the cert needs to be thrown out the window, the seller needs to come to his own conclusion through research of both the signature and the seller of the item.

You know what perezfan? You are the problem I have with this hobby. Big on opinions and short on facts. How about you show us an example from Garo and how YOU know it's a fake and let us decide if we think you have a f*** ing clue as to what you are talking about. I am so sick of you people passing judgement on others and in my humble opinion, you are even more pathetic, because you act like you know something special and you are even dumber than most. So show me some examples or shut up. You self righteous idiots really make me sick. Uh oh Dan's gonna pound me once again. Ha Ha

So perezfan, is it a good autograph or not??????????Be specific!!!!! If not why? exactly. I don't want to hear your ambiguous stupid comments as to why you think it's fake. After all, you claim to have seen hundreds of Ruth exemplars. Be specific. Put up or shut up. Is the R? the B? you need to have some validity to your comments or you're just another loser who has ruined this hobby. Have a good night.

Oh, by the way, I had Guiterrez say that an "In person"autograph I had was a fake. I reminded him that he had just sold one in an auction from the same signing. Suddenly the fake became real. And he changed his opinion. Ha Ha That is actually funny to me.

Although I've been following this thread a little on and off to see where it's going, I thought I would finally chime in.

Personally, I think it's great seeing so many new contributors to the memorabilia side of the board (especially right now on the pin discussion, great stuff!). I remember when there were only a half dozen of us at the very beginning and I remember the few of us who were actually online when it was born.

That being said, the memorabilia side of the board has ALWAYS been a very CORDIAL PLACE for discussion and showing off our collections. I really don't have to elaborate on this, nor should there be any reason to. This should be a community of friends.

Personally, I think this thread stinks. It especially stinks when things seemed to be ironed out then parties (most specifically Jeff) goes right back into the name calling or telling people to "shut up".

I have no idea who some of you guys are or who you're talking about. You don't know who I am. Quite frankly, I don't care. If you have personal issues or attacks, please take them privately.

Sorry for stating my opinion on this Leon and Dan, but it just had to be said as a member of the community. Others may disagree, but when you collect Michael McGreevy stuff it tends to affect you :D

Nuf ced...

Greg

This board is a great place as JMc has said but do we really need name calling and vulgar remarks in this thread? The level of discourse here on this thread is at an all time low since we came to the new board.
Jeffects, are you two years older than Leon? Really? Seems like you are the 15 year old on the street corner trying to impress his friends and doing a terrible job of it too. Grow up and leave the vulgarity and name calling for your friends on the street.
And it seemed to me that perezfan thinks that the Ruth photo, that is being questioned in the original post of this thread, might be good. But I don't think Jeffects lets that fact get in the way of his blowhard opinions and his vulgarity.

agreed
 

I agree that it's great to see new faces over here on the memorabilia side and the activity level has been far increased with the new board. That being said I also agree it needs to stay civil. There were very rarely any arguments and name calling on this side on the old board.

Jeff- I know you are a decent guy but your language has to chill out on this board. Please remain civil and argue all you want to. If it continues then you won't be participating anymore and that would be a shame. "Perez" has been on the board a long time and to go after him, in a disrespectful manner, is not acceptable. Disagree with him, argue with him, all is good.....act unprofessional and/or name call.....not so good. Thanks for your understanding. IF you have too difficult of a time arguing and staying civil then maybe this isn't a good board for you to be on, again that would be a shame but it is what it is.....kindest regards (you can always shoot me an email if you want to explain anything privately).....

***I just re-read the above statements....as I only skimmed over them at first. Jeff is banned for 7 days from today for foul language

Sorry you feel that way, Jeffects. I never condemned the Ruth Photo... my implication was that it might well be good. The 3 pieces posted earlier by pscolgrafs speak for themselves, as being garbage. My point was that the authenticator in question gets some right and some wrong. Any average collector could do the same.

I don't have time to look for other bad Garo pieces to post here, and am done with posting on threads like this where name calling and negativity prevail. Have fun, and best of luck with those future investments.

The problem is that to much credit is given to any authenticator. An opinoin is absolutely worthless unless you are asking a friend if you sould buy something or not. Authenticators seem to go where the money is. Auction houses etc. Amazing the difference in the autographs in the same auction held by some of these top auction houses that have auto's authenticated by the same person. Like night and day. I truly believe its all a scam. Frank

.
 

.

He is a fraud. Period.

The seller of the Picasso won't accept bids from people with zero feedback, yet he has zero feedback.
What a joke that whole auction is.
Jay Leno likes to make jokes about stupid criminals,, this is one for his Monday night monologue.

-

"...Another proudly claims to have obtained 100,000 "in person" autographs in 20 year
 

It's actually less than 100 per week for 20 years, just to be accurate.

What he forgot to mention is that he works as a petition-signer-upper in front of the local Costco. :)

Vintagedegu,

A legitimate appraiser of high end art, ala million dollar Rembrandt, would/should be confident of the authenticity before giving appraisal. Either he/she would be an expert or would get the opinion of a reliable expert. The item may already come with strong documentation and provenance (ala receipt and catalog from purchase at Sotheby's). She may not be personally and financially guaranteeing the authenticity, but she would confident in it. It goes without saying that there is a value difference between original Rembrandt painting and a 1977 copy.

It's in stuff like home appraisal where they won't/can't authenticate the whole contents. A family might own T206s, autographs, lamps, tables and chairs, figurines, game used jersey, inexpensive paintings etc and no one person is an expert in all that. The appraiser just reviews the stuff, look at LOAs and receipts when deemed necessary and gives an overall value. The appraiser is basically an official documenter. Though if, in the process, he comes across something that he knows is fake or a reprint, he will value it at as a fake or a reprint. Just don't expect a home contents appraiser to sit down with a microscope and black light to authenticate each hockey card in Bobby's shoe box, before going off to authenticate mom's antique perfume bottle collection and dad's box of vintage car parts.

I make no comment on the eBay Picasso painting, other than to note is was being sold as "attributed to Picasso" and "this art piece is sold as attributed/manor of Picasso." The seller doesn't say doesn't say it is "by Picasso." It appears even the seller isn't convinced by the accompanying documentation :)