Why our autograph experts are often silent

[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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

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.

The positive things about Keating that you posted are all good to hear.

As you say, it's no more than my opinion and it's no more than his opinion. Everyone makes mistakes and I think Keating made one here. I am very limited in the autographs that I know, which is both a strength and a weakness - the strength is that I spend a lot of time on the ones I'm interested in because I never want to purchase a forgery, even if I can re-sell it and make money. I don't view autographs as commodities.

I do not know how Keating goes about authenticating Ruth signatures, so making excuses for him would be a waste of time - he might have reasons for his mistakes that are every bit as valid (and honest) as the ones that PSA and JSA have (lack of time to spend on each, my lackey did it, etc.,etc). But just as you would take his opinion over mine any day of the week, any day of the week I couldn't care less who believes my opinion or who doesn't (other than a select few autograph experts, which does not include Keating, Spence or Grad).

No offense to you, or anyone else, but I have no skin in the game as far as my opinion about autographs, as #1 - I'm not making a living authenticating them;i.e-there is no conflict of interest, and #2 - almost any autograph I sell does actually come with a PSA or JSA's 'opinion', so to a collector who doesn't know me, my opinion is irrelevant.

As it probably is here - so carry on.