Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott
I'm only learning this stuff through googling I did today, and I could certainly have made errors. According to Heritage, it is a 1927 model. I have no reason to believe they are incorrect. Whoops - misread your post. The '1 in 3' I mentioned is the odds of a forger choosing the correct ball from the limited information he would have had pre-1999. I don't necessarily agree with Heritage that a forger wouldn't have been able to narrow his odds down to 1 in 1. We really don't know.
No, it's great that they posted the information. I don't see it as hypocritical - I just see it as unintentionally using fallacious logic. It's human and not intentionally misleading (in my opinion).
|
Cool. I also think that the '1 in 3' thing isn't really relevent, because I see no reason to believe, even given a 1927 rosters of signers, that a 1927 ball would have a greater chance of being authentic than a 1926 ball.
I read this latest posting from them not as THE argument that the ball is authentic, but as them attempting to cover their butts. Whoops, we didn't do this with those other balls, but look at this! We have (now, after the fact) done it with this one!
They are still coupling the appropriacy of the ball with the TPAs to make an argument of authenticity, which is the more problematic issue given that the Gehrig ball had those letters as well.