Babe Ruth - Good or Bad?

prewarsports · #1 04-11-2013, 10:54 AM

This is exactly what I was refering to in the Gehrig thread last week. People show a picture and ask for opinions and then are shocked when people dont line up to answer. WE ALL KNOW what is going to follow, a "certified" example and then people start arguing. If you ever say anything in these threads "look fine", you are setting yourself up to be blasted as either agreeing with the authentication companies and looking like a fool, or being incompetant so what is the point.

Threads like this serve no purpose, its not going to sway anyones opinion either way and just feeds that drama that is killing this autograph forum in my opinion.

The "what do you think of this" threads used to be real questions about uncertified autographs and actually be fun to try and help people out. Now they are just tools for the self serving with an agenda.

Just an opinion from someone who sees less of a reason to go on this forum each and every day.

Rhys

Runscott · #2 04-11-2013, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prewarsports

This is exactly what I was refering to in the Gehrig thread last week. People show a picture and ask for opinions and then are shocked when people dont line up to answer. WE ALL KNOW what is going to follow, a "certified" example and then people start arguing. If you ever say anything in these threads "look fine", you are setting yourself up to be blasted as either agreeing with the authentication companies and looking like a fool, or being incompetant so what is the point.

Threads like this serve no purpose, its not going to sway anyones opinion either way and just feeds that drama that is killing this autograph forum in my opinion.

The "what do you think of this" threads used to be real questions about uncertified autographs and actually be fun to try and help people out. Now they are just tools for the self serving with an agenda.

Just an opinion from someone who sees less of a reason to go on this forum each and every day.

Rhys

Rhys, no offense, but you need to get one of those 'half full' glasses. This is a discussion forum for autographs, and that's what we are doing. Sure, there are agendas, but that's always been true.

This thread, in my opinion, is a great one - it shows what is probably an atypical Ruth autograph that most of us wouldn't touch. Because of this thread we are finding out why it might be real, and why the TPA's think that it is.

We've seen a great post by someone pointing out that even if it IS real, he wouldn't want to own it. This is an aspect of collecting that many board member have completely missed - we concentrate on authenticity (which most of the time can NOT be proven), and skip 'desirability'.

I don't mind being told I can't curse, but being told I can't express a negative opinion about something that does rankle me a bit.

And in terms of where the autograph forum has gone, it used to be that you couldn't even have two dissenting opinions in the same 'room'. I think that with a few exceptions, it's come a long way. And even those 'exceptions' seem to be under control.

Just my opinion - hope to see you at the National

David Atkatz · #3 04-11-2013, 12:44 PM

Agree with all you have posted above, Scott.

However, the entire baseball, inscription and all, should have been posted from the start.

Runscott · #4 04-11-2013, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Agree with all you have posted above, Scott.

However, the entire baseball, inscription and all, should have been posted from the start.

I keep forgetting - this was a 'got ya' thread

I forgot to get got

prewarsports · #5 04-11-2013, 04:34 PM

Its not the negative opinions, its that fact that people are fishing for them with an agenda. If that was not the case he would have shown the whole image and ther certificate to begin with. Its pretty obvious to me that this is not for an "Education Opportunity" post.

I am all for any educational opportunity, but do they ALL have to be negatives with motives behind them?

JT · #6 04-11-2013, 05:10 PM

Rhys,

Why does anything having to do with PSA or JSA, or whomever have to have an agenda or motive behind it? Are you judging my post by your own standards?

I asked about the autograph because I have never seen Ruth sign his name with an "e" as shown. Perhaps someone else had and would post about it. As for not showing the PSA certificate at the beginning, I asked what people thought of the autograph, not what they thought of the LOA. Why put that in the beginning when an honest opinion is what is asked, not one influenced by some other person's LOA, and it would have happened.

thecatspajamas · #7 04-11-2013, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT

Rhys,

Why does anything having to do with PSA or JSA, or whomever have to have an agenda or motive behind it? Are you judging my post by your own standards?

I asked about the autograph because I have never seen Ruth sign his name with an "e" as shown. Perhaps someone else had and would post about it. As for not showing the PSA certificate at the beginning, I asked what people thought of the autograph, not what they thought of the LOA. Why put that in the beginning when an honest opinion is what is asked, not one influenced by some other person's LOA, and it would have happened.

JT,

I think that of anyone who has posted in this thread, Rhys is probably the LEAST likely one to be looking to stir the pro/anti-TPA pot. It's called "call 'em as you see 'em," and just because he was the one to call it, doesn't mean that he is the only one thinking your post looked like a set-up, whether that was your intention or not.

Generally speaking, when asking opinions for a signature on a piece, those giving opinions are going to want to see the whole piece. That should be a given. Richard was diplomatic enough to offer his opinion AND ask for the whole ball to be shown back in post #7, but you opted to argue about whether it was a set-up or not until after someone else found the eBay listing. If you want to eliminate the TPA bias, crop it so that the LOA doesn't show, but you always should show the entire piece. Nobody likes having blinders forced on them, and when you crop the photo so tight to the signature, that's what it feels like. I guarantee that Rhys wasn't the only one expecting a big "ha HA" reveal as the camera widens out to show the whole scene. If that wasn't your intent, okay, no real harm done, but you have to be cognizant of WHY people make these comments and not just get defensive about it.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1928 Fro-Joy Babe Ruth #1 BVG 2 Good	daves_resale_shop	1920 to 1949 Baseball cards- B/S/T	2	01-24-2013 01:58 PM
Blotters? Babe Ruth for Good Wood Boxes....	Leon	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	03-22-2012 03:55 PM
Some damn good deals on authentic Babe Ruth cards	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	12-29-2007 07:50 PM
NOW ON EBAY Babe Ruth 1923 W515-1 PSA Good 2	Archive	Pre-WWII cards (E, D, M, etc..) B/S/T	0	12-05-2005 11:05 PM