i dont know why having them reauthenticated would do anything for this consignor. they have jsa, people blindly accept jsa. i dont know why but they do. the only other option is to have psa cert them? we have seen others that have opted to destroy a piece rather than it remain intact (see ty cobb laser index card), where it has been surmised by some that maybe the reason the cobb guy wanted to do that is so there isnt anything to look at in the future should anyone in any capacity want to study it. (he said it was because he didnt want anyone else to own it thinking it's real) not saying this consignor is thinking about doing that because evidently this consignor still believes it to be good? but we will see if it pops up at auction again.

There was a disagreement between Rob Lifson and myself (Which I will not go into) and I felt it best if I had the 11 photo’s with autograph’s removed. He was very professional and apologetic for this misunderstanding. The photo’s with signatures are real as I can personally attest that they were in my family’s possession for over 30 years. I will attempt to either sell or auction them off again after I have them re-authenticated. If more than one authenticator deems them legit, then what will you skeptics say? How many people have to authenticate them before they are deemed 100% legit. I guess the answer is "infinite" as there will always be doubters out there. Evidently someone must think they are real as I have been contacted by others still wanting them. Is it so hard to believe that there may be legitimate autographs out there? Think about it.

never mind - I went for the bait :(

If you had owned them for fifty years how would you know they are real. Your not in the business and some one gave them to your mom. I am not being mean I am only asking a simple question. I understand that spence said they are authentic. I am looking forward to anyone other than him to say the same thing.

But Lifson says he uses spence and trusts spence, and these have spence lola's, so what can the disagreement be? if you know they are real and they got certed by spence, whom lifson uses and trusts, why aren't they still up for auction at REA?

Betcha they show up for sale again, but one at a time and without a story (and without 're-authentication' from any other third party that matters...i.e. PSA).

Rob did the right thing.

Whatever the additional information Rob asked for, and perhaps wanted to make public, was the correct way to go to resolve this firmly one way or the other.

If the autographs and backstory are real, why on earth would you not provide all the info in the world, to prevent the items from being withdrawn from a major auction?

Does the owner think everyone will forget? Or that each auction house has a totally different set of buyers? And that other houses will want to touch what was withdrawn from REA?

Even if someone is concerned about making provenance public because chain of title issues, deathbed gifts, etc., the only way to make certain you lose a good amount, or all, your value is to withdraw items from an auction.

To lose value (by withdrawing) because you are concerned that you may lose value (via legal claim) is really dumb.

The question is, is the owner's backstory true and he is foolish, or is the owner's backstory not true.

JJ,
The photos were certified by JSA...it had the same clout that the Babe Ruth ticket did...The Consignor could have left the items in the auction and they would have sold for a pretty penny. REA would have left them in if the Consignor would not have requested to pull them.

The only thing that was a "good thing" that was done was that they contacted the Consignor for more provenance at the urge of someone here, but they didn't pull the items. Only After the Consignor told them to pull the items, did they pull them.

The Consignor of the Gary Cooper photo has not requested it be pulled, which is the only reason it's still up.

If they are doing the right thing, then why is that Cooper photo still up?

Jim,

Fair question. I do not know the particulars.

My Rabbi once gave a sermon, and I am not outwardly religious, I go to Temple about three times a year, but he gave a sermon that I always keep in mind. He said that humanity's difficult position stems from our outcast from the Garden of Eden. That as a result of our being placed in an imperfect world, that no matter how hard we try to make everything right and perfect, we cannot. Now obviously the existence of an actual Garden of Eden is up for debate. But the idea that it is impossible to act perfectly in an imperfect world is interesting. Man cannot create a Garden of Eden, cannot create a perfect result. And therefore, what distinguishes good from bad, is intent, as we only have full control over intent and not result.

J, I re-read the statement. Based on the statement, it appears that REA would not have left them in without the consignor agreeing to make available additional information. REA was not allowing these items to continue, without additional information provided, or made available to the public. As a result, the consignor withdrew them. That is my read of the statement.

I understand that everyone will read things a little different I guess I don't get the same translation out of the statement:

This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor due to REA’s efforts to provide additional information regarding provenance being excessive (which they may have been). We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

The items are gone and until they appear again, it's a moot point. So until REA comes on, I guess we will never really know what happened.

It is worded unclearly, but I think the translation would be:
This lot has been withdrawn at the request of our consignor because the consignor felt REA’s efforts to obtain additional information regarding provenance were excessive. We are honoring the consignor’s request and apologize for any inconvenience to the consignor and to bidders.

I'll stand corrected if my interpretation is inaccurate.

Steve,

I agree with that 100%. I just don't have the notion that others do that REA would have pulled the photo's if the Consignor had no issues with their "excessive" nature. I believe that if they would still be active if the consignor wouldn't have requested they be pulled.

Bigjj,

Not true at all. REA would have left my photos in the auction if I did not request them to be withdrawn. I did not have them withdrawn because of the authenticity issue but more of a personal issue that Rob and I had. That is all. I could have left them up there and they still would have sold for a fair amount but I did not like the way things transpired with Rob and had him pull them. Again, it has nothing to do with him trying to get more information, but rather the way he was trying to acquire it which I felt betrayed myself and my family.

J,

Understand other interpretations.

It may be worth noting, even if we disagree over the statement, that we can agree -

REA was continuing to conduct due diligence on the items - even after full JSA.

They were not just sitting on information provided to them. They could have. but they did not, even though the auction was already afoot.

They had full JSA. But apparently continued to comb the provenance to make certain what they were presenting was accurate.

How were the items acquired? Were they a deathbed gift? Is there a concern about chain of title?

And by the way, I was trying to discern the meaning of REA's statement. along with many here.

Not stating what the facts on the ground were. I have no idea whether they would have been pulled or not.

You say they would not have been.

I do and I think the seller should tell the whole truth about what happened. By comeing on here you left your self open to comment.

And items may be pulled for many reasons. and I am not talking about these particular items per se which were not pulled. But items may be pulled for authenticity, but also pulled for questions of ownership. Even if you have a consignor signing that he has 100% ownership, if it comes to the auctioneer's attention that this may not be the case, depending on the circumstances, items may be pulled. I am not stating that this is a question here. but there are many reasons why due diligence might continue on an item after the beginning of an auction other than authenticity.

Hauls of Shame Update:

UPDATE (May 1): Experts Uncover More Ruth Fakes in Heritage and REA Auctions; Feds Building Cases Against PSA, Joe Orlando, Steve Grad, Jimmy Spence and Auctioneers

REA and Rob Lifson just withdrew ten autographed lots that Haulsofshame.com and other experts called out as fakes and the auctioneer’s disingenuous explanation that the withdrawal was at the request of its consignor is being widely ridiculed by collectors and dealers throughout the hobby. REA, however, has not removed the alleged photo signed by Babe Ruth to Gary Cooper despite expert Ron Keurajian calling it a fake and Gary Cooper’s own daughter confirming that the photo was never in the possession of her family or the “Cooper Collection” the family archive she curates. Sources indicate that Lifson does not believe that Cooper’s daughter Marie Cooper-Janis confirmed this information for Haulsofshame.com.

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=19877#more-19877

All I will say is that I asked Rob to withdraw the photos for personal reasons. Nothing more and nothing less. It has nothing to do with possession rights or authenticity as I still stand that they are legit and am still taking on ANY and ALL that feel they can authenticate these.

Jetsicks.
For a guy who has no idea about this hobbyi you go on hauls of shame and talk about operation foul ball. You did not mention one of the main reasons for the items being taken down. That once he talked with you mother the ages changed and the story changed. I also understand that a promise was broken. That might be a good reason to be mad but not to throw away money. If you mother does not want you to sell them. Please explain why your up here.
I have one more question. Did you mother get the photos from the guy in Boston or Indiana. If she was such a good friend of his why do you not know his name. She was the one who placed him in the retirement home. She was the one he called when he was dying I am 73 years old and I know I would remember someone like that.With that kind of information it would not be hard to find out who the mystery man was.
Posted so the people on here can read what you said.


After all the opinions about them, that has been put out there,I doubt very seriously that REA would want to put them back in their auction,cause they are in a world of deep shit over other forged items they have had in their auctions.After all is said and done,You are not going to find a person who is willing to put his or her reputation on the line,for something that many have said are no good.Just remember Operation Foul Ball ,is still in operation and they are nailing them left and right and if you are up on collecting, you know what I mean.

Peter Nash - yeah, he's never twisted anything to make a point :roll eyes:

Let's interpret Nash's statement:

"collectors" = 2 guys in Indiana, one of whom claims he is not a collector, and the other who hasn't had much to say in the forums other than to bring up fakes that he thought were real.

"throughout the hobby" = Net54, where Nash generally swipes most of his information, then manipulates it.

Okay, James, now I'll put you on ignore where you belong. You and Dean can continue your tap-dance alone.

Scott,

What in the world are you talking about? I've been here for over 3 years..what's my tap dance?

Is this supposed to be me? :D:D:D other who hasn't had much to say in the forums other than to bring up fakes that he thought were real.

Originally Posted by jgmp123
Hauls of Shame Update:
... is being widely ridiculed by collectors and dealers throughout the hobby.
...Would you be so kind as to list a few names other than auction houses.

Hey, your post says as much as James' !

but that's only an assumption....

Scott,

I guess I can't see what I did to offend you? but, I will say this....Man...It's too bad Scott Forrest won't be able to read my posts anymore. My 31 year old heart is officially broken.

Scott,

Do you notice a trend? Since you have showed up on the Autograph side you have picked fights with just about everyone here...I would appreciate it if you could please explain to me what I did to offend you...

I actually don't get it either...I figured I must have missed a post/thread along the line.

Shelly,

My reasons are personal. They have to do with my ailing mother and my family. That is all I am going to say about this. You can be as negative as you want but you don't offer solutions. If there is a reputable authenticator out there then why wouldn't he want to put his reputation on the table? I think that would be a big plus for him and his reputation. I am not selling these for my profit, they are going for a good cause. I will keep none of the money, that is why I have no qualms about pulling them off REA and I have no qualms about letting someone try and prove they are fake. Could you be the one who was bidding on these and thought the price was going to high so you started this rumor? Sour grapes? Don't be a hater Shelly.

AHHH I GET IT NOW...I SEE WHAT SCOTT WAS REFERRING TO...

Shelly,

I didn't say that, it was a copy/paste from the Hauls of Shame Website. If you look at the full post I made you will see that it was copied directly from Hauls of Shame. Which is why I included the link.

Citations 101 my good friend. Here is the foll line again for your reading...

Read it again. They are talking about REA not HOS.

What a total crock. Look who started this thread. It was long before the items where taken down. Not only that I did not change stories you did. You still never answered a simple question what is the guys name? Please also explain why in Gods name I would I buy something that I thought was bad in the first place. What rumor?
What the hell does dont be a hater mean?

Shelly,

You're missing my point...You asked me to name the collectors...I can't answer that because I didn't write it....Nash did. ALL I DID WAS COPIED/PASTED FROM THE WEBSITE.

LOOK AT THE SCREENSHOT. I know you know what the copy/paste feature is on the computer:D:D:D

You only listed part of the quote. It is the decision of REA that is being ridiculed

nash makes ridiculous assumptions and make huge leaps in his articles, plus he's got an axe to grind with REA...so it cheapens his message ALOT to me even if he's correct.

and it's true, when he says the "hobby" thinks 50% of tpa'd ruths are fake, he means n54. when he says "dealers and experts" agree the ruth is a bad forgery he probably means his uncle and nephew in new jersey.

Shelly, you've got me laughing my butt off in the coffee shop. Thanks :) - it beats the hell out of being pissed off, so I guess there is some value to Jan & Dean posting here.

Well-said Quan. There aren't many Nash-supporters on this forum, but apparently we've discovered two of them. You make a really great point about "the hobby thinks 50%..." being Net54. The fact that the non-Net54 part of the hobby is a different group with different opinions is critical - without the other group's state of ignorant bliss, forgers would have a much smaller market...if any.

Scott,

You are the true comedian...:D Your latest posts have had me laughing all day. You tout this "high and mighty" attitude. Please tell us more about your autograph expertise...

James - I made it very clear that I have you on 'ignore'. I did that because I'm ignoring you. Make sense?

So, sending me repeated emails is kind of desperate. I simply flagged your email address as 'junk' and they go 'poof' at the end of the day. No, I don't read them.

Goodbye James.

Peace out Cecil...Amazing how childish you are being about all this...:confused:

Edit: Keep me on Ignore, but don't mention my name again in a forum...

I feel like I'm right in the middle of something big.

Hopefully James has gotten bored with me and is back to shilling for Dean.

Quite the character you are my good friend...So me responding to Shelly about something posted here means what exactly?

Maybe you should send Leon a note and tell him that your "ignore" option isn't working that well....:rolleyes:

Scott, I hate to say this, and please take this the right way, but back away from the coffee! :eek:

Reading through this, I think you may have misinterpreted some posts and jumped the track. James seems to be neither defending nor condemning REA, just 'reporting' on an item relevant to several threads here. I have never felt that James was another Travis or Bubblebathgirl. He seems normal. :D

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Thanks Jim! I really felt like I was beginning to go crazy...just because I live in the same state as the Consignor doesn't mean I'm "shilling" for anyone...there are just a FEW people in the state of Indiana...

I agree. HOS looks a lot like a misquoted, poorly edited recap of a net54 thread.

New drinking game: Take a shot every time they repeat the same line or thought in the same article. Bonus: Two shots every time he pats himself on the back.

I thought better of it. I don't want anyone blowing a .30 before bedtime.

I was told to ignore Shelly because of who he is and what he's done. However, he accused me of going on Haulsofshame and talking about operation foul ball. I never said a word about that because until recently I didn't know anything about it. However, I'm starting to get the picture. I've never personally attacked anyone but I will defend myself when falsely accused. This includes my autographs.

As of today, neither Shelly nor has anyone else provided an alternative to this. I am putting them out there. No takers for authenticity? They must be real then because no one wants to look like a horse's ass when they are proven wrong!

eom

No offense taken. I reach a critical point every now and then, and when that happens I quit walking on eggshells;in fact, I find them and stomp them :eek:. I got bent out of shape when he posted the Rosemary's photo album, and then he complained that we weren't responding the way he wanted me to. I honestly wish I had ignored his thread altogether. But I've learned.

Some people don't realize that this isn't their Facebook page - it's a freakin discussion forum. It must really be frustrating to such people to not have the Facebook option of simply deleting unwanted responses.

Okay, I'll take your advice and avoid caffeine for a few hours. I do drink a lot of it.

if i'm the consignor and i'm legit i'd be pissed off too. had these for 30 years, had them authenticated by a recognized top TPA in the industry. consigned them to a big auction house only to be told by some anonymous website with some quotes from anonymous experts saying they're poor forgeries. he's looking for answers, but in this hobby it's unlikely he'll get an explanation...much less answers.

Well, you do seem to be in the coffee shop a lot....:D

And I figured there had to be some back story, 'cause I wasn't seeing it here. ;)

Hey Scott,

I'm not even on Facebook...not really a fan of that format...also, I never had a problem with he way you responded, just that you're a dick every time you open your mouth....and you don't know me so shut your mouth, if you have something to say, then say it to me. Quit hiding behind your keyboard and "ignore" button....

His backstory was that he was pissed because I posted a "feel good" story and he tried to turn it into another pissing contest thread...

Nailed it. Never any answers...ever....always the same "Trust me, it's bad".

This isn't Freemasonry, it's autograph collecting.

Wow, I just wonder who would email you telling you not to talk to me:eek:
My past is well know. I have no problem with you bringing it up. In fact because of my past I am a lot more leery than most. Your the one who came up here. When you do you are open to the same treatment everyone else gets.
You have people on here that I am sure can tell you who might want to authenticate them. My question is if they have already been authenticated by Spence what more do you need.
Please show me where any one acused you of anything. The only thing that I know to be a fact. Is that your story is different from your mothers. If that is not a fact please tell me and I will retract that statement.
I do find it strange that any time I get to people there defence is my past. Just saying.:rolleyes:

Who the hell are you, Shelly, to be accusing any one of any thing? You don't know anything "for a fact," whether the autographs are good or bad, or anything about the family's story. This is the second consignor you've pilloried, with no evidence at all. Thankfully, both consignors have the guts to stare you--and your vacuous accusations--down.

I'm guessing then that this isn't the feel good thread? :eek:

Not for the consignor.

According to Scott there's a feel good thread titled "Rosemary's Baby"...I recommend it...😀

Here it is Shelly. I appreciate all the good words of encouragement from some of the forum members here. My mother always told me that there is nothing you can do about stupid.

To clarify something for you Shelly, my mother's story was different but not by a lot because she has a medical condition which causes he memory to be lost. That was one of my issues I had with Rob. After I talked to my mother she didn't even remember much about it. It is a personal matter and it has nothing to do with the authenticity or LOP. What was told to me years and years ago was what I wrote in the LOP. Plain and simple.

Over on HoS jetsticks said, "I'll listen to someone who has common sense but not to anyone else."

Anybody with a lick of common sense who sees these particular photos as a group should be skeptical, at the very least—even if they lack even a cursory knowledge of Ruth's signature.

I also do not understand this comment: "As of today, neither Shelly nor has anyone else provided an alternative to this. I am putting them out there. No takers for authenticity? They must be real then because no one wants to look like a horse's ass when they are proven wrong!"

I don't even know if there's a special Ruth authenticator out there (a la Frank Caiazzo), but send them on over to PSA or Simon or Keurajian or our own cloak 'n' dagger fellow and I don't think a single one will call any of them good.

If there is really a significant number of people on here who think these are good and want to spend their hard earned money on them, well... I'm off to buy a nice inkjet printer and a Parker 51. Got student loans to pay.

sorry

I have suggested to the consignor here, through email, and over at HOS, that Richard Simon is who I would recommend sending them to.

I can only imagine who told you to ignore Shelly,, and you believed him??
So nice of that person to do it privately and not do it on the board. But why be surprised by that?
What Shelly did was many, many years ago and most of the people on this board are in a forgive and forget mode when it comes to Shelly. Shelly has been one of the most helpful members on this board and I am glad to say he is my friend. Not only helpful on the board but he has done much work to stop the proliferation of forgeries in this damned hobby.
And how do you propose to PROVE someone wrong with those autographed photos. Nobody can really prove anything. Someone can give their opinion on them but that is all you can get.
And if you really do want to ignore Shelly there is an easy way to do it. The ignore option is one of the best things about Net54. Use it.

Then perhaps they should stop attacking the consignors.

Because--and I'm sure you'll tell us, Richard--all the forgers you're aware of--whose names you dare not speak--join Net54 to defend their forgeries online.

LOL :rolleyes: :)

This isn't Freemasonry, it's autograph collecting.

Dan,
That line is an instant classic.

Richard, You just verified everything I've been saying. How can anyone prove they are fake after they were said to be authentic. If that is the case, then why has Shelly spent all this time trying to negate any findings? What in the world did I do to that man to deserve his constant criticism except defend what I know is true and accurate?

Richard, appreciated but not needed.
I said I dont like the photos my opinion. I never said they where fake. I only said that the reason they where taken down where two fold. One REA contacted his mother. I also said the other reason was that one story from the consigner did not jive with the mothers version. I have proof of that if the consigner wants me to post it. There are people that have no idea what is going but yet they jump at the chance to go after me. I have learned one thing before you say anything make sure you have and idea what you are talking about a rule that one certain peice of garbage should have learned by now. I asked a simple questionl If Spence authenticated them why do you need anyone else. He is God on this site.
You said I acused you of going on the HOF site. Did you go on the site?
You said I was the one who spread rumors because I was bidding on those items and they went to high. I started this thread long before you came on.
You can ask your friend if it is ok for me to show the emails that are not from net 54 to show what I am saying is fact.
Just to make one thing clear did I ever acuse you of selling anything that was fake.

Shelly,
Just for clarity, if you say you "don't like" an autograph - do you not think that most people interpret that to mean you doubt it's authenticity?

Did that console you?

Like everything else it is only an opinon. I never said they where fake I said I dont like them. I have looked at a lot of autographs on here. I have said no when there good and said yes where they are bad. If Jimmey say they are good why would you need someone else to authenticate them? I will ask you the question if Jimmy an autograph in his opinion is real. Does that make it real?

That's not really the question I asked but thanks for the response.

Jeff, in fairness to Shelly - autograph-collecting is a hobby where people will buy any Babe Ruth autographed item that has a PSA or JSA LOA. It doesn't matter it the autograph is authentic or not, and in most cases we'll never know with 100% certainly. So a 90%'er gets a lot more $$$ than a 50%'er, but the 50%'er still gets $1,000's. If an autograph is a 50%'er, I also "don't like" it. Doesn't mean I'm saying it's a fake - but yes, it does mean I have some doubt as to it's authenticity - 50% to be exact.

Calmed down and heading out for more caffeine, so at Deertick's suggestion, I won't be back until the next few cups wear off :)

I love you guys.

To quote George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove, "What a load of Commie bull." You don't like the autographs. You keep giving the consignor the third degree. You have--by your actions--as much as accused him of lying. But you keep falling back on the old "I never said the autographs are bad."

What kind of coward are you?

Jeff, I dont know what you want me to say. I did not like those autographs. It does not mean that they are not real. It is only an opinion. You didn't answer what I asked. Why if Spence already authenticated them as authentic would you go anywhere else? You have the best and your going to take a chance that someone else might in fact turn them down and loose everything.

The fact that JSA authenticated them means very little to me. It means they "like" them, doesn't make them real and I wouldn't base spending a dime on their opinion alone. I long ago decided the autograph hobby was a little too squishy for me. I do however like to follow the developments and all the attendant drama that goes with it.

Is this being stated as opinion, or absolute fact?

So what your saying is that you are a drama queen:D
or king

No, what I am saying is that I like to read them going back and forth. :D:D:D:D

Shelly,

I've stated time and time again that my LOP is accurate as what was told to me. If you ask a child a question will you get the same answer the next time you ask him the same question? That is where I am at. I am trying to protect my mother and her failing memory and health. Yes, her version was slightly different than mine but ask her again tomorrow and you'll get another version. That's all I'm saying. You don't have to come right out and say they are fake. Your posts and comments have indicated that. I have no reason to lie as I am not keeping any of the money. I have an ailing mother who cares for my brother who has MS and their home has been foreclosed on. There, I've said what I didn't want public. My reason to get them authenticated by someone else was to get more or less a second opinion. Not someone like you looking at a picture of a picture. I've brought a lot of embarrassment to my family because we are private people and don't think anyone needs to know our life history but that is something I will deal with. Choose your words more carefully and limit your attacks and maybe you won't be bashed so much on here.