Why our autograph experts are often silent

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

I sent Kevin the link, but he's in Phoenix and away from his Net54 password so he won't be able to respond until next week. He said he did authenticate a number of items in the collection of the former major league player who is selling this ball on eBay, but didn't remember this ball specifically.

Speaking for myself, I actually find the title of this thread to be bordering on libelous. Unless Scott has proof that this ball is a forgery, (and assuming that Kevin did write a letter for it), it's just his opinion against Kevin's. Needless to say, under those circumstances I would take Kevin's word for it a thousand times out of a thousand over Scott's or anyone else's for that matter.

Seriously? "Unless Scott has proof that this ball is a forgery"?

Hank, this isn't about me against Keating - it's about an ebay seller trying to sell an autograph that I feel is a forgery, and who I assumed was throwing out Keating's name erroneously. He hasn't shown any proof that Kevin Keating even authenticated it; however, ANY LOA offered on a Ruth autograph is ALSO just a matter of opinion, whether it's PSA, JSA, Keating or anyone else. We render opinions here every week on certified autographs that we feel are forgeries. Does that make our posts libelous?

I don't get the personal attack on me for rendering my own opinion in a discussion forum, but if you feel it necessary to get behind Keating on an autograph that you don't even have the ability to give your own opinion about, then I guess we can at least respect your loyalty.

I, like others who have NOT participated in this thread, have absolutely nothing to gain by bringing up a baseball like this. I did it purely to educate and it did serve its purpose, if nothing else, through the absence of the only opinions on this ball that really have any validity.