Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
Anyone have an opinion on how one poor quality and one very high quality truman signed baseball, that went through two different auctions a few months apart can look one way at one auction, and presto chango, now it is a pristine Truman signed ball when it was once a poor quality signature?
|
Clearly, something shady going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
How can this happen? Isn't this the type of stuff the hobby should be investigating, or because it has a certain groups name on it, we shall give it a pass?
|
Um, I believe it HAS been investigated, as the article quotes from the book "Collecting Signatures of the Presidents of the United States on Baseballs" in which this fraud was pointed out. Doesn't sound like a pass to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
november 2004, low grade signature, coa john reznikoff psa/dna and rr auction coa.
Feb. 2005, now it's at EAC Gallery, with "Provenance" John Reznikoff.
|
David explained the wording of EAC Gallery's write-ups and their use of the term "provenance." The R&R Auction write-up reads:
"Official Reach American League (William Harridge) baseball signed in fountain pen on a side panel, 'Harry S. Truman, 4-12-56.' In good condition, with several strokes of signature light, but legible, date a bit harder to see, a light shade of toning to ball and a small application of shellac over signature. COA John Reznikoff/PSA/DNA and RRAuction COA."
http://rrauction.com/past_auction_item.cfm?ID=3091931
It does not state whether it is a full-photo LOA or not, so without seeing the original "pre-enhancement" LOA, we don't know if it could have been passed along with the ball "post-enhancement" or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
Isn't this something the hobby watchdogs should dig into and figure out how this can happen to our beloved autograph collecting hobby? Even if it is to clear the authenticators name or auction house of any wrongdoing, especially to do that if they didn't have anything to do with it? And to find out just who did have something to do with it?
What's the authenticators role in this? Was it a fake letter of provenance foisted upon the public without the authenticators knowledge, or did the authenticator give a coa to the "before" ball, and also a letter of provenance to the "after" ball? Let's find out what happened.
|
Again, referring to David's comment on EAC's typical use of the word "provenance," I think the situation is far more easily explained by this take on the situation: The ball was examined and an LOA issued for it when it came to R&R in 2004. I don't know if that was a full-photo LOA, or one which described but did not picture the actual ball. As it appears that the letter continued on with the ball when it came to EAC in 2005, I would assume the latter. It's clear from the photos shown that the signature was somehow "enhanced," whether by physical or chemical processes applied to the ball itself, or by enhancing the digital photo of the ball.
Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty
Are some things off limits? This is a huge deal, and something tells me if it were up on ebay with Mew Drax coa people would be all over it like jackals?
Where's the emails sent, the rhetorical questions from the hotseat with flashlight shining in eyes, the dragnet interrogation
Oh, that's right, it's the guys with the free pass so forget it. The person who paid good money and ended up with this gem doesn't deserve our help? I think he does.
|
Nobody said anything about free passes or whether the buyer deserves help. You consistently make comments like this in your opening post, before anyone even has a chance to make the arguments that you are defending against. If you had been shouting about this for the last 7 years and nobody said anything in response, then you would have a point in screaming "cover-up."
I think the thing to remember is that there are a LOT of auctions with a LOT of signed items in them every year, and tons of items being flipped between them. Thousands and thousands of signatures at all different price levels. There is a reasonable expectation that SOME "enhancements" like this will be caught by someone whose memory is triggered when they see it the second time, but to imply that EVERY such enhancement is spied at the time it is reintroduced to the market and somehow allowed to pass based on the authenticator is a bit far-fetched, don't you think? To me, it screams more of massive "didn't notice" than of massive "cover-up."
Frankly, I find it a bit insulting for you to imply that autograph enthusiasts as a whole just "gave a pass" on something like this, when you yourself didn't mention it either for 7 years, and only brought it up after it appeared in a haulsofshame article.
Besides, you didn't use the term "sacred cow" once in your post, so how do we know it's really you posting this? Now THERE'S a conspiracy theory I'd like to explore
