Poll: Is this Cobb legit, or is it a "rotten peach"?

[smotan_02]

completely serious

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by smotan_02

completely serious

So you actually thought that I might die with that cut????
That I was going to keep it for many years???
When I specifically said I wanted it for a short time you thought it could be robbed from me or that I would die with it????????
Wow!!!
What reason would I have had to keep it???

[GrayGhost]

This whole thing is ridiculous. Its a fake, PSA messed up, it should just be dropped. But, to not trust someone like Richard or the mail is being a bit too paranoid mail wise, and just mistrusting of someone w a good rep.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

This whole thing is ridiculous. Its a fake, PSA messed up, it should just be dropped. But, to not trust someone like Richard or the mail is being a bit too paranoid mail wise, and just mistrusting of someone w a good rep.

I think it would have been dropped if PSA would have just said they messed up and certed an "autograph" that was made by a computer printer.

We just can't believe it since it is an exact, exact copy of Ron's Cobb signature so we would like to look for ourselves.

I think the 'lost in the mail' reasoning is ridiculous too, but it's just a way to make sure no one else sees it and can disagree with psa's assessment.

[perezfan]

Any logical person would come to the conclusion that it's a photocopy of the original. There's no way that every nuance of the original signature could be perfectly replicated in that fashion.

Any disagreement here lies within the semantics of the "Master Forger" statement. Does "master forger" imply it was actually drawn by hand? Or that the forger possesses state of the art technology to replicate the signature onto another piece of paper (and make it look like ink from a pen?)

Any claim that it was hand-drawn is preposterous, as this is simply an impossibility. So for me, it comes down to a semantics issue (or an interpretation of PSA's wording).

[RichardSimon]

That is why I practically begged Don to send it to me.
I offered to pay out of my own pocket, so Don does not suffer any further loss, just for the sake of studying this item to see how it looked so if I ever ran across the "Hewlett Packard master forger" again, it would be easily identifiable.
Also a word to the wise - anyone finding old baseball cards at an estate sale, be careful if there is a cut HOF autograph in the group of cards, it will be the master forger at work again.

[chaddurbin]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Any logical person would come to the conclusion that it's a photocopy of the original. There's no way that every nuance of the original signature could be perfectly replicated in that fashion.

So for me, it comes down to a semantics issue (or an interpretation of PSA's wording).

this! it's a xerox, but psa can't really say so because it would hurt their rep and open themselves up for more xerox'ed submissions in the future (that they might deem authentic).

you guys trying every which way to reason so donavon would send out the cut is pretty funny. it's not a great loss to the hobby if destroyed. we will not gain any more knowledge by examining the piece. you guys just want to catch psa so bad in what you perceive is some conspiracy and deception, but like perezfan said it's just a game of semantics. let it go, there's been no big cover-up like you guys have hinted all thread.

[David Atkatz]

It is certainly not a "game of semantics." Their "explanation" is out-and-out bullsh$t. They certed and slabbed a print. The "experts" (without whose imprimatur no autograph can be trusted) can't tell an inkjet print from the real McCoy. And they don't have the integrity to admit they f%#ked up.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

this! it's a xerox, but psa can't really say so because it would hurt their rep

Originally Posted by chaddurbin

let it go, there's been no big cover-up

Huh? You say that it's a xerox, but then say PSA really can't admit that or it would hurt their rep. Then you say there's no cover up. Ummm, isn't denying you were wrong when you know that you were the same as covering something up? It is where I come from.