Babe Ruth?

[slidekellyslide]

The most frustrating thing about this thread is that Chris keeps going back to the provenance and is not dealing with what he thinks is wrong with the autograph itself. And showing a comparison to an Eddie Gaedel signature without saying a word about either one is not addressing anything. He's very open about discussing the provenance, but tight lipped about the signature. Why?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

The most frustrating thing about this thread is that Chris keeps going back to the provenance and is not dealing with what he thinks is wrong with the autograph itself. And showing a comparison to an Eddie Gaedel signature without saying a word about either one is not addressing anything. He's very open about discussing the provenance, but tight lipped about the signature. Why?

Yeah, I didn't get the Gaedel comparison.

My thinking on Ruth signatures, and it applies to this one: Any authentic Ruth-signed item has been around for 50+ years. Probably 50% (at least) of Ruth signatures on the market are forgeries, and many of those have LOAs. Everyone knows that if you want to sell a Ruth-signed item, it has to pass a TPA. So, if a Ruth-signed item shows up on the market with a new LOA, you have to ask why? At that point, all you have to go on is the provenance and the item itself. The ticket 'could' be good. The provenance is very shaky. If we manage to get over the ticket and the provenance, the autograph still has to pass.

This isn't about 'prove it is bad'. If it smells at all, and it's a 'Ruth', we generally discuss it in this forum, but...

There were much better ways for Chris to present his opinion - I won't speculate as to why he chose this route, but it was unfair to the consignor and the auction house.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yeah, I didn't get the Gaedel comparison.

My thinking on Ruth signatures, and it applies to this one: Any authentic Ruth-signed item has been around for 50+ years. Probably 50% (at least) of Ruth signatures on the market are forgeries, and many of those have LOAs. Everyone knows that if you want to sell a Ruth-signed item, it has to pass a TPA. So, if a Ruth-signed item shows up on the market with a new LOA, you have to ask why? At that point, all you have to go on is the provenance and the item itself. The ticket 'could' be good. The provenance is very shaky. If we manage to get over the ticket and the provenance, the autograph still has to pass.

This isn't about 'prove it is bad'. If it smells at all, and it's a 'Ruth', we generally discuss it in this forum, but...

There were much better ways for Chris to present his opinion - I won't speculate as to why he chose this route, but it was unfair to the consignor and the auction house.

Scott, just to give you a hint. Look at the bad Gadel, open a. Look at the good one closed. Look at the spaceing compare the bad one to the Ruth.
Just saying.

[slidekellyslide]

There are at least 4 open "a" Ruth signatures in the current REA auction.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

There are at least 4 open "a" Ruth signatures in the current REA auction.

And?

[earlywynnfan]

I'm confused; there are two long, painful threads going on right now. One is obsessing about the chain of provenance before we even want to talk about the auto.

The other doesn't have a line of provenance -- in fact, there is some serious provenance saying the piece cannot be legit -- and people are howling to disregard the provenance, just look at the auto.

Which is it??

Ken

[travrosty]

it's disfunctional threads and discussions.

snit54 instead of taking a look at autographs and provenance from a logical perspective and sharing information to get to the bottom of things.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

There are at least 4 open "a" Ruth signatures in the current REA auction.

9 Ruth signatures have been withdrawn from REA

[shelly]

I would be willing to bet there might be a few more.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, just to give you a hint. Look at the bad Gadel, open a. Look at the good one closed. Look at the spaceing compare the bad one to the Ruth.
Just saying.

I saw that. No matter - as I said when Chris first posted the Gaedel images, the two Gaedels looked nothing alike; the two Ruths looked at least similar. In my opinion - a different forger.

As David stated, tells are not ironclad - I'm sure people who normally close their a's have left a few open.

[shelly]

Scott, Chris feels that bad Gudel is from the same person that did the Ruth ticket. You can make up your own mind. He was trying to show the open a on the babe and the open a on the other.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Scott, Chris feels that bad Gudel is from the same person that did the Ruth ticket. You can make up your own mind. He was trying to show the open a on the babe and the open a on the other.

Sure, but he used a horrible example. If one autograph is a horrible forgery (Gaedel) and the other is much better (Ruth), then you have to think the open 'a' similarity was a coincidence. Chris might think it's the same person, but I think he's incorrect.

[shelly]

I will wait until Chris is able to speak for himself.