Why our autograph experts are often silent

[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.

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Speaking for myself, I actually find the title of this thread to be bordering on libelous.

I've changed the title, as I agree that Keating's name shouldn't be in the title - it's a bit misleading, since this isn't about him.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I've changed the title, as I agree that Keating's name shouldn't be in the title - it's a bit misleading, since this isn't about him.

That was my point, Scott, and I don't know what you find personal in my response. You can disagree about any autograph with any authenticator, and that's fine, we all do it. And Kevin will be the first to tell you that none of them is perfect, they all make mistakes. But to put his name in the same title with "forgery" implies that he knowingly had something to do with a forgery, and that's just not true, it's something he would never do.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

That was my point, Scott, and I don't know what you find personal in my response. You can disagree about any autograph with any authenticator, and that's fine, we all do it. And Kevin will be the first to tell you that none of them is perfect, they all make mistakes. But to put his name in the same title with "forgery" implies that he knowingly had something to do with a forgery, and that's just not true, it's something he would never do.

Thanks for the clarification. Stand-alone, the title did sound bad, but the post was clear that I thought his name was being thrown out there to sell a forgery and that I didn't believe he had authenticated it. Now I'm seeing that there is a photo of a Keating LOA in the listing. I didn't notice it before or I probably would have pursued this differently.

I'm very well aware of how collectors here respond to anyone questioning a respected hobbyist or seller (in this case, both) - the reaction is always one of support for the seller/hobbyist and antagonism toward the person doing the questioning. 100% of the time. Given that I have absolutely nothing to gain by outing a bad Babe Ruth signature, I generally avoid such situations - nothing productive will come out of the discussion, as no one is focused on the item in question. Not questioning Keating's or the seller's ethics, but he could have written 'Babe Ruth' on the ball himself, and if it had a Keating letter, I believe that collectors here would defend it, or minimally not say anything at all.

[Exhibitman]

Although I have no expertise with hence no opinion on the signature in question, I did have one thought on the matter: with all we know about forgeries and difficulties associated with Ruth signatures, why would anyone with industry knowledge and a legitimate Ruth item to sell take it to eBay and sell it 'raw'? Why not just cut a deal with a reputable auction house [oxymoron, I know] and sell it that way, or, why not have it certified by a reputable third party authenticator [another oxymoron?] first? I've gotten to the point where I assume that the item is no good unless that is how it is handled. The money left on the table as a seller of a potential collection cornerstone item is just too large to justify proceeding any other way if an item isn't dodgy.

From the selling standpoint I would prefer to use an AH or a TPA too. Just throwing an item up on eBay leaves me open to attacks over the item. I have no idea who the seller of this item is but if I read negative stuff about him here and I run across one of his listings I am like to remember 'something bad' about him and pass it by. If an AH offers it, I don't have to be dragged through the mud. If I offer it with a TPA cert, the potential buyers can either decide to trust the TPA or not, but I am not warranting jack squat about the item. I realize some people here just hate that sort of approach but short of handing the item to the signer myself and watching it signed, it is all ultimately speculation based on inductive reasoning.

[Runscott]

Adam, good questions. In the seller's defense, he apparently only uses Keating - he also has a Greenberg card and a Spalding book for sale, both with Keating letters. I didn't look closely at Greenberg, but the Spalding looks good and it's a rather expensive autograph. I suspect that the Ruth autograph either has already failed PSA and/or JSA, or would if presented to them; hence, inappropriate for sale by any auction house.

As a sidenote, without the benefit of Mark's knowledge of the seller, I initially responded to him as I would anyone on ebay selling such a signature. After Mark posted that the seller was reputable, respecting Mark's opinion, I immediately contacted the seller with an apology. I know - unbelievable. All I will say is that any time someone refuses to accept a sincere apology, I write them off and at that point have zero respect for them until proven otherwise. So that was one-half of my research.

After reading Hank's response regarding Keating, who I only knew through a couple of interactions at the National and the autographs he was selling at his table, I googled him and learned everything additional I needed to know. Research completed and I have nothing else to say about either of the two people associated with this ball.

Regarding the ball itself - I ask again: $3,500 ebay price for a single-signed Ruth ball with a respected LOA? Why is it still available at such a steal?

[Econteachert205]

Unfortunately I think the ball is one which will engender no unanimity among experts.

[Hankphenom]

Seems to me I've seen many more posts here questioning the opinions and ethics of authenticators and sellers, including Keating, than posts defending them. I just don't remember a lot of gushing defenses of TPAs.

Originally Posted by Runscott

Thanks for the clarification. Stand-alone, the title did sound bad, but the post was clear that I thought his name was being thrown out there to sell a forgery and that I didn't believe he had authenticated it. Now I'm seeing that there is a photo of a Keating LOA in the listing. I didn't notice it before or I probably would have pursued this differently.

I'm very well aware of how collectors here respond to anyone questioning a respected hobbyist or seller (in this case, both) - the reaction is always one of support for the seller/hobbyist and antagonism toward the person doing the questioning. 100% of the time. Given that I have absolutely nothing to gain by outing a bad Babe Ruth signature, I generally avoid such situations - nothing productive will come out of the discussion, as no one is focused on the item in question. Not questioning Keating's or the seller's ethics, but he could have written 'Babe Ruth' on the ball himself, and if it had a Keating letter, I believe that collectors here would defend it, or minimally not say anything at all.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Seems to me I've seen many more posts here questioning the opinions and ethics of authenticators and sellers, including Keating, than posts defending them. I just don't remember a lot of gushing defenses of TPAs.

Keating isn't generally considered a TPA. He buys and sells autographs, so there is an obvious conflict-of-interest. Autograph collectors don't generally want to get on the bad side of a legitimate autograph seller, especially a respected one.

Also, I don't recall ever seeing anyone question the ethics or opinions of Keating here on this board. I'll search and see what I can find, but I think I would remember - you and I discussed him at the National, and I don't remember anything negative as far as ethics.

[Runscott]

One of my first hits: http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...3&postcount=18

Quite frankly, if I had remembered that you set up with him, out of respect for you I would not have posted this thread at all. There are plenty of bad Ruth balls to discuss and this one really wasn't that important.

From that perspective alone, sorry about that, Hank.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Keating isn't generally considered a TPA. He buys and sells autographs, so there is an obvious conflict-of-interest. Autograph collectors don't generally want to get on the bad side of a legitimate autograph seller, especially a respected one.

Also, I don't recall ever seeing anyone question the ethics or opinions of Keating here on this board. I'll search and see what I can find, but I think I would remember - you and I discussed him at the National, and I don't remember anything negative as far as ethics.

The main problem I had with your post was the title, which you changed, and also the implication that this was without doubt a forgery, and if it had a legitimate Keating LOC he therefore must have OK'd a forgery, intentionally or not. Seems to me the premise that the ball was a forgery is far from a foregone conclusion, and in fact is no more than your opinion. As I stated, I will take his opinion over anybody's. I've seen Spence and Grad walk too many items over to Kevin at shows to ask him what he thought of them to think anything else. As for Net54 posts, I do recall a thread questioning his opinion on an Addie Joss item, and several others I remember forwarding him to see if he wanted to respond, so I assume those were negative in some way, also, maybe they were just about his prices, I can't remember. I also remember lots of Net54 threads involving apparent errors by JSA and PSA and not too many saying how great they were. I would actually encourage you to keep raising questions about possible fraudulent activity in the hobby, it needs all the vigilance it can get, but just be more careful about it. And I can assure you that NOBODY hates forgeries and frauds more than Kevin, since his entire business depends on the overall reputation of the hobby among collectors. In fact, he has devoted an enormous amount of his time in the last 15 years working with the FBI's Operation Bullpen and others to try to eliminate it.