REA catalog intro

[Exhibitman]

Refreshingly honest, I'd say.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Refreshingly honest, I'd say.

+1

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Refreshingly honest, I'd say.

Agreed

[GrayGhost]

Yes it sure is. People need to just accept that there is a leap of faith in EVERY sold autograph, unless it was signed IN FRONT of you.

Got my dream book yesterday and have started looking. Wonderful job as always. GREAT stuff and catalog

[tcdyess]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Yes it sure is. People need to just accept that there is a leap of faith in EVERY sold autograph, unless it was signed IN FRONT of you.

Got my dream book yesterday and have started looking. Wonderful job as always. GREAT stuff and catalog

+1

[shelly]

I have a couple of problems. If Jim is correct no returns is one. The second is a leap of fath. You are correct if you were not there you have to show trust. I think with items over $7,000 you should have at least one more person to trust. I don't think that if someone is going to spend that kind of money you should have to pay to make sure and Item is authtentic before the auction. It should be automatic to have at least two authenticators for high priced items.
Just want to know if I did send it out to someone both of us trust and they said no or not able to authenticate. What happens to that item. Is it still up for sale. Do you say that it was not passed by so and so or not able to authenticate? Do you let the next guy go through the same thing?

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by shelly

I have a couple of problems. If Jim is correct no returns is one. The second is a leap of fath. You are correct if you where not there you have to show trust. I think with items over $7,000 you should have at least one more person to trust. If you dont want to do that then I should have right to send it to anyone that is respected on this site. If it come back good I own it if not then we have to talk.

I guess it all depends on who's doing the "LEAPING" if its Bob Beamon or Mike Powell...cool , If its Danny DeVito or Butterbean Esch..not so cool,
_______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[JimStinson]

So in defining "Leap of Faith" .....are we talking about THIS GUY or the OTHER GUY ? because both represent leaps of faith but with slightly different results.
__________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

I guess it all depends on who's doing the "LEAPING" if its Bob Beamon or Mike Powell...cool , If its Danny DeVito or Butterbean Esch..not so cool,
_______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Jim, this is a serious topic. Shelly posted a serious comment and you make light of it. Why?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Yes it sure is. People need to just accept that there is a leap of faith in EVERY sold autograph, unless it was signed IN FRONT of you.

Got my dream book yesterday and have started looking. Wonderful job as always. GREAT stuff and catalog

Scott, I have bought autographs that I am certain are real;i.e-there was no leap of faith. I understand that some autographs will be sold with a very tiny 'step' of faith, but if it requires a 'leap', it shouldn't be purchased. If more of us were unwilling to 'leap' at such autographs, we'd have fewer forgeries out there.

Not saying you are doing this, but I have seen forum members use the 'leap of faith' argument to justify their own past mistakes.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Scott, I have bought autographs that I am certain are real;i.e-there was no leap of faith. I understand that some autographs will be sold with a very tiny 'step' of faith, but if it requires a 'leap', it shouldn't be purchased. If more of us were unwilling to 'leap' at such autographs, we'd have fewer forgeries out there.

Not saying you are doing this, but I have seen forum members use the 'leap of faith' argument to justify their own past mistakes.

BINGO !!!
_______________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[GrayGhost]

I don't have the lot number handy, but there is a Babe Ruth/Bob Meusel signed ball, where the Ruth looks awful. it could have been and "on field rush job" if u read the cool provenance, just looks awful.

Thoughts?