Interesting Story

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Do you want to go back in time and buy from him 12 years ago?
I am recommending dealers for the here and now.

Go back in time? That's just silly. You clearly have strong opinions. I'm just curious about the evolution of such opinions.

[RichardSimon]

Like I said my recommendations are for the here and now.

[PhilNap]

Predictable

[David Atkatz]

Quite.

[travrosty]

Speaking for myself only, if you can earn your way on someone's list, you can earn your way off.

If Spence was on anybody's list back then, but wouldn't be on the list now, so what? He would earn that distinction. There's no messenger to blame.

Don't blame anyone for holding an authenticator responsible for their authentications. Only the authenticator deserves to be held accountable.

[MacDice]

It is amazing what technology has done to the autograph hobby. I know a lot of people on this board are not into autographs but I thought that I would share with you a new trend. For autograph collectors it is very difficult to prepare for any chance encounter with an athlete or celebrity. It is impossible to always have a photo or a card of a specific person in case you get a chance to get a signature. You never know who you will bump into but technology that is no longer an issue.

Using a certain type of photo paper, a blue sharpie and a photo printer anything is possible. Once an athlete / celebrity has signed the photo paper in a blue sharpie the collector or dealer can then go and print a photo on the paper and the signature comes out perfect (assuming that it is not on a dark are of the photo that is being printed). The ink in the printer does not effect the ink of the blue sharpie. I did not believe this until I saw it done first hand.

Imagine this scenario, someone gets Willie Mays to sign the proper photo paper in blue sharpie, they could later print his obituary (when he passes away) onto the paper and you would have an authentic signed obituary. Weird to think that could happen.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by MacDice

It is amazing what technology has done to the autograph hobby. I know a lot of people on this board are not into autographs but I thought that I would share with you a new trend. For autograph collectors it is very difficult to prepare for any chance encounter with an athlete or celebrity. It is impossible to always have a photo or a card of a specific person in case you get a chance to get a signature. You never know who you will bump into but technology that is no longer an issue.

Using a certain type of photo paper, a blue sharpie and a photo printer anything is possible. Once an athlete / celebrity has signed the photo paper in a blue sharpie the collector or dealer can then go and print a photo on the paper and the signature comes out perfect (assuming that it is not on a dark are of the photo that is being printed). The ink in the printer does not effect the ink of the blue sharpie. I did not believe this until I saw it done first hand. Imagine this scenario, someone gets Willie Mays to sign the proper photo paper in blue sharpie, they could later print his obituary (when he passes away) onto the paper and you would have an authentic signed obituary. Weird to think that could happen.

I am not sure you are going to find a lot of celebrities that will sign a "blank" sheet of paper with such technology available. I can think of a few untoward applications of that scenario. I guess if it clearly photo paper, maybe. I can tell you that at Spring Training I used to like to get blank sided 3x5s signed for years, you might as well leave them at home now. I got tired oh hearing, "we've been instructed by the Players Union not to sign those."

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

I am not sure you are going to find a lot of celebrities that will sign a "blank" sheet of paper with such technology available. I can think of a few untoward applications of that scenario. I guess if it clearly photo paper, maybe. I can tell you that at Spring Training I used to like to get blank sided 3x5s signed for years, you might as well leave them at home now. I got tired oh hearing, "we've been instructed by the Players Union not to sign those."

What?? That is absurd. What does the union have against signed 3x5s?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by MacDice

It is amazing what technology has done to the autograph hobby. I know a lot of people on this board are not into autographs but I thought that I would share with you a new trend. For autograph collectors it is very difficult to prepare for any chance encounter with an athlete or celebrity. It is impossible to always have a photo or a card of a specific person in case you get a chance to get a signature. You never know who you will bump into but technology that is no longer an issue.

Using a certain type of photo paper, a blue sharpie and a photo printer anything is possible. Once an athlete / celebrity has signed the photo paper in a blue sharpie the collector or dealer can then go and print a photo on the paper and the signature comes out perfect (assuming that it is not on a dark are of the photo that is being printed). The ink in the printer does not effect the ink of the blue sharpie. I did not believe this until I saw it done first hand.

Imagine this scenario, someone gets Willie Mays to sign the proper photo paper in blue sharpie, they could later print his obituary (when he passes away) onto the paper and you would have an authentic signed obituary. Weird to think that could happen.

Where did you see this? And can you explain how the ink in the photo does not totally cover up the sharpie ink of the autograph?
I can see this coming to card shows. The promoters and players charge more for "premium" items,, how much will they now charge for signing this special photo paper?

[novakjr]

Richard. I could be wrong here, but I believe printers don't actually print white. So if you were to play around finding the right photo for the placement of your signature it could technically work. I'm not thinking that it would be all that appealing to have ink cover any of the signature at all though.

Another option would be a temporary cover for the signature, to be removed after printing. It would create a natural frame for the signature within the photo.

[MacDice]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Where did you see this? And can you explain how the ink in the photo does not totally cover up the sharpie ink of the autograph?
I can see this coming to card shows. The promoters and players charge more for "premium" items,, how much will they now charge for signing this special photo paper?

I saw a buddy of mine who runs a sports memorabilia place do it. He goes to a lot of celebrity golf tournaments and this is what he does. He does not know why it works, it just does if you have the right set up. Not all printers will work on this process and for some reason it only works with blue sharpie. It totally sounds BS I know. Maybe someone with a printing background can explain. It could be that the chemicals in the sharpie does not allow the ink from the cartridge to stick onto the paper. I will see if I can get a video of him doing it.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by MacDice

It is amazing what technology has done to the autograph hobby. I know a lot of people on this board are not into autographs but I thought that I would share with you a new trend. For autograph collectors it is very difficult to prepare for any chance encounter with an athlete or celebrity. It is impossible to always have a photo or a card of a specific person in case you get a chance to get a signature. You never know who you will bump into but technology that is no longer an issue.

Using a certain type of photo paper, a blue sharpie and a photo printer anything is possible. Once an athlete / celebrity has signed the photo paper in a blue sharpie the collector or dealer can then go and print a photo on the paper and the signature comes out perfect (assuming that it is not on a dark are of the photo that is being printed). The ink in the printer does not effect the ink of the blue sharpie. I did not believe this until I saw it done first hand.

Imagine this scenario, someone gets Willie Mays to sign the proper photo paper in blue sharpie, they could later print his obituary (when he passes away) onto the paper and you would have an authentic signed obituary. Weird to think that could happen.

A little bit removed from technology and autographs but there have been instances with Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon where Ford signed a blank piece of paper and then the collector typed in "I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone" (Ford was a member of the Warren Commission) and Nixon signing blank pages and then collectors typing his presidential resignation above his signature.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Predictable

I noticed how active you have been in all these threads Phil.
You have not posted in almost a month and most of your posts are for the purposes of selling autographs.
Get active, tell us what you think.
Nobody here knows your opinions Phil, be they 12 years old or 1 day old.
At least I posted a list of dealers I think are trustworthy. How about you posting one.
You have bought from me,, who would you recommend?

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I believe Richard answered your question twice. Why the hassle?

Chris

Richard responded twice. However . . . stating that he elects not to answer the question is not in fact answering it. I wasn't aware that asking a question constitutes a "hassle". Richard's a big boy. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But thanks for your input.

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I noticed how active you have been in all these threads Phil.
You have not posted in almost a month and most of your posts are for the purposes of selling autographs.
Get active, tell us what you think.
Nobody here knows your opinions Phil, be they 12 years old or 1 day old.
At least I posted a list of dealers I think are trustworthy. How about you posting one.
You have bought from me,, who would you recommend?

You are correct, I am not real active on here. Like the large majority, I mostly just lurk. I try to post only when I think I have something productive to add. Voicing opinions and piling on in a public forum really isn't my style. I simply had a legitimate question which for some reason you choose not to answer. That's your choice and to be quite honest I wasn't surprised.

I have bought from everyone you mentioned and I'm pretty sure you are aware that I have bought from you as well (multiple times in fact). My question had nothing to do with disparaging you or questioning whether you are a trustworthy dealer. Rich, I don't have a dog in this fight. Its just that if you are going to put yourself out there as much as you do, you are bound to elicit questions. I simply had a question. A question I'm sure others would like to hear the answer to as well.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Chris

Richard responded twice. However . . . stating that he elects not to answer the question is not in fact answering it. I wasn't aware that asking a question constitutes a "hassle". Richard's a big boy. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But thanks for your input.




You are correct, I am not real active on here. Like the large majority, I mostly just lurk. I try to post only when I think I have something productive to add. Voicing opinions and piling on in a public forum really isn't my style. I simply had a legitimate question which for some reason you choose not to answer. That's your choice and to be quite honest I wasn't surprised.

I have bought from everyone you mentioned and I'm pretty sure you are aware that I have bought from you as well (multiple times in fact). My question had nothing to do with disparaging you or questioning whether you are a trustworthy dealer. Rich, I don't have a dog in this fight. Its just that if you are going to put yourself out there as much as you do, you are bound to elicit questions. I simply had a question. A question I'm sure others would like to hear the answer to as well.

Well, if there are several active posters who would like an answer , post that guys, and I will answer.
I don't usually respond to lurkers who use the board to sell and write nothing of value.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Well, if there are several active posters who would like an answer , post that guys, and I will answer.
I don't usually respond to lurkers who use the board to sell and write nothing of value.

I have posted a couple of times in the BST. Is that a crime? Remove all of your redundant, piling on, inuendo filled posts and your BSTs will probably out number your posts of value.

Several active posters? Maybe you should start a poll. You seem to be into them lately.

If you don't want to answer, dont answer. Don't use the excuse that the source of the question isn't active enough for you. I don't claim to be important here but maybe you should check your ego with a condescending response like that.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Chris

Richard responded twice. However . . . stating that he elects not to answer the question is not in fact answering it. I wasn't aware that asking a question constitutes a "hassle". Richard's a big boy. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But thanks for your input.




You are correct, I am not real active on here. Like the large majority, I mostly just lurk. I try to post only when I think I have something productive to add. Voicing opinions and piling on in a public forum really isn't my style. I simply had a legitimate question which for some reason you choose not to answer. That's your choice and to be quite honest I wasn't surprised.

I have bought from everyone you mentioned and I'm pretty sure you are aware that I have bought from you as well (multiple times in fact). My question had nothing to do with disparaging you or questioning whether you are a trustworthy dealer. Rich, I don't have a dog in this fight. Its just that if you are going to put yourself out there as much as you do, you are bound to elicit questions. I simply had a question. A question I'm sure others would like to hear the answer to as well.

Richard answered the question.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Richard answered the question.

Ok Chris maybe its me. It was a Yes or No question so perhaps you can interpret the answer that he gave. "Yes" Spence would have been on his list 12 years ago or "NO" he would not have been? I will hold my follow up question pending your answer.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Chris

Richard responded twice. However . . . stating that he elects not to answer the question is not in fact answering it. I wasn't aware that asking a question constitutes a "hassle". Richard's a big boy. I'm sure he can speak for himself. But thanks for your input.

What's with the inquisition here? Richard gave an answer, and just because it wasn't one of the one-word choices you want to pigeonhole him with, you get all pissy? This isn't a courtroom here and Richard isn't on the witness stand, so he can choose to answer you (or not) any way he sees fit. To me, your question sounds like more like a set-up for a follow-up slam than a question borne solely out of curiosity. Maybe I'm wrong, but your continued baiting of Richard isn't helping to change that.

[David Atkatz]

It's not an inquisition, Lance. It's someone who's noticed that Richard plays his cards very close to his vest. He'll titillate you with hints of his vast knowledge, but when directly questioned on it, will always have some excuse as to why he'd rather not say.

(And then, of course, his little lap dog will start nipping at the questioner's heels.)

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

What's with the inquisition here? Richard gave an answer, and just because it wasn't one of the one-word choices you want to pigeonhole him with, you get all pissy? This isn't a courtroom here and Richard isn't on the witness stand, so he can choose to answer you (or not) any way he sees fit. To me, your question sounds like more like a set-up for a follow-up slam than a question borne solely out of curiosity. Maybe I'm wrong, but your continued baiting of Richard isn't helping to change that.

If asking a simple yes or no question is pigeonholing then fine. Call it what you will. Either way the question wasn't out of line, it wasn't a "set-up" and it was hardly an inquisition.

I just think if you are going to use a public forum as your soap box then you should be open to some discussion. If he didn't want to answer publicly he could have done so privately. Instead he chose to respond with a sarcastic non-answer thereby prompting my response of, "Predictable". That's not "pissy" thats a proportionate response to sarcasm. Rather than leave it at that Richard decided to engage me further, with more sarcasm and rudeness. That's when I got pissy. Again a proportionate response. So really, who is baiting who? I commend the man for his passion to clean things up. His social skills are clearly another story. It's certainly his prerogative not to answer the question but no matter how many times Chris wants to tell me he did, I will be happy to point out that he did not.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Predictable

I believe Richard answered your question twice. Why the hassle?