Babe Ruth?

[Runscott]

Now I'm lost. I thought it was 'Chris' and 'Michigan'. Now it's 'Rich' and 'Missouri'?

I hate being baffled. Going for another cup of coffee to clear my head.

[cubsfan-budman]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Now I'm lost. I thought it was 'Chris' and 'Michigan'. Now it's 'Rich' and 'Missouri'?

I hate being baffled. Going for another cup of coffee to clear my head.

Yeah, it's Michigan.

But both Chris and Richard seem to know who this "mystery forger" is, but neither are spilling the beans.

Ostensibly because they are afraid of some legal action.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by cubsfan-budman

Yeah, it's Michigan.

But both Chris and Richard seem to know who this "mystery forger" is, but neither are spilling the beans.

Ostensibly because they are afraid of some legal action.

They don't "seem to know." That would imply that they've shown some evidence. They say they know. Big difference.

And how could telling a fellow professional, "Look, if you see this characteristic (the famous "tell") in a Ruth signature, there's a pretty good chance it's bad," lead to legal action?

[JT]

It would appear that if they just disclosed this "tell" to whomever, and not mention any names, there is absolutely no chance for litigation.

Simple enough, if true,

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JT

It would appear that if they just disclosed this "tell" to whomever, and not mention any names, there is absolutely no chance for litigation.

Simple enough, if true,

I don't get why you all are so hung up on this 'tell'. First of all, 'tells' aren't 100% conclusive - if they were, then someone would have revealed a 'tell' of Ruth himself, that would allow us to identify every single legitimate Ruth autograph.

Is everyone really failing to see that the 'tell' is not the issue here?

Do you all really think that Chris is that dumb? Seriously, I don't agree with all of his opinions, but he's a smart guy and he's always been very careful.

[David Atkatz]

If one truly wants to rid the hobby of forgers--or do as much as one can towards that end--one shares information with fellow professionals.

Not to do so when one is continually bragging about his efforts to "clean up the hobby,' is nothing short of hypocritical.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

If one truly wants to rid the hobby of forgers--or do as much as one can towards that end--one shares information with fellow professionals.

Not to do so when one is continually bragging about his efforts to "clean up the hobby,' is nothing short of hypocritical.

i agree info should be shared.

if people aren't going to share a tell, then what good is a tell? If two people know and no one else is ever going to know. then any bad autographs can only be pulled on that persons word, not on the tell itself. They ain't sharing the tell, which means might as not be a tell at all (and there might not be one) and what good is the two people knowing the ' secret' tell?

people need proof, not ones word. if someone says "that's fake and only i know why", that's not good enough, people need proof.


He wasn't even telling H & S, so what good is it? In this hobby, in God we trust , the rest pay cash, either its cash on the barrellhead, show what you got, or forget it. Why even start a thread like this? looks like an ego play to be the vice president of the hobby in charge of forgeries. just dumb all the way around to do it like this. we need trasnparency and the sharing of information, not secret fraternal handshakes.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't get why you all are so hung up on this 'tell'. First of all, 'tells' aren't 100% conclusive - if they were, then someone would have revealed a 'tell' of Ruth himself, that would allow us to identify every single legitimate Ruth autograph.

Is everyone really failing to see that the 'tell' is not the issue here?

Do you all really think that Chris is that dumb? Seriously, I don't agree with all of his opinions, but he's a smart guy and he's always been very careful.

Well put Scott.
And for those urging the tell to be revealed I have already explained my reasons for not revealing it. If that is not good enough well, then I am sorry but it is Chris' decision and my decision, for obvious reasons which have been explained already, why we do not think it should be revealed.
And Leon, thank you for the option we have to block posts we do not wish to waste our time on.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Well put Scott.
And for those urging the tell to be revealed I have already explained my reasons for not revealing it. If that is not good enough well, then I am sorry but it is Chris' decision and my decision, for obvious reasons which have been explained already, why we do not think it should be revealed.

Your excuse is beginning to register on people's BS meters, Rich. It won't hold up forever.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Well put Scott.
And for those urging the tell to be revealed I have already explained my reasons for not revealing it. If that is not good enough well, then I am sorry but it is Chris' decision and my decision, for obvious reasons which have been explained already, why we do not think it should be revealed.
And Leon, thank you for the option we have to block posts we do not wish to waste our time on.

Hi Rich,
It is our s/w that has the block feature. You can block everyone except moderators. You must listen to my drivel, I command you . However, on a subject related note, I do have to agree with those (and even David) that have made the observation that, even if you and Chris won't tell what this secret mystery is to the general public, it would be nice if ya'll would tell the vested parties, H & S and the consignor...at least privately. If I knew an item was bad I couldn't live with myself letting someone get burnt. That's just me though....

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by JT

It would appear that if they just disclosed this "tell" to whomever, and not mention any names, there is absolutely no chance for litigation.

Simple enough, if true,

If I see a Babe Ruth autograph on Net54 with the tell, I will post the fact that the tell is present.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

If I see a Babe Ruth autograph on Net54 with the tell, I will post the fact that the tell is present.

Oh boy!

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

If I see a Babe Ruth autograph on Net54 with the tell, I will post the fact that the tell is present.

I may be mistaken, but didnt you state that the Babe Ruth on the ticket had this so called "tell", and that is why you and Chris don't believe it to be real?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

I may be mistaken, but didnt you state that the Babe Ruth on the ticket had this so called "tell", and that is why you and Chris don't believe it to be real?

The ticket and the picture posted by Chris (#68) do have the tell.