Vintage auto'd baseball experts, help please!

[GrayGhost]

That is one freaking awesome ball!

[travrosty]

Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.

How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.

The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.

How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.

The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?

Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).

I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.

The reason I ask is because if the "non-malicious" statement was in the auction lot description, it is embellishment by the auction house copy writers, not something stated by JSA. If it was in the LOA as something other than a quote from the auction description, then you've got a good point.

As I said, I don't have a copy of the catalog, so I can't say which is the case. You should probably double-check before you get too deep into an argument that should probably be a separate thread anyway.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

The reason I ask is because if the "non-malicious" statement was in the auction lot description, it is embellishment by the auction house copy writers, not something stated by JSA. If it was in the LOA as something other than a quote from the auction description, then you've got a good point.

As I said, I don't have a copy of the catalog, so I can't say which is the case. You should probably double-check before you get too deep into an argument that should probably be a separate thread anyway.

they specifically said that jsa determined it was a non malicious secretarial.

now if they are lying its not my fault. i cant go around getting everyone to sign notarized affidavits.

why am i deep into an argument? and who is arguing? i stated my position that jsa said (according to the auction hosue) that it was a non malicious secretarial. if jsa wants to refute that they said that, then fine.

You can always say that someone is lying. no one could report anything if we had to be there first hand. if the yankees lost 3-2- to the red sox, and the L.A. times ran the score because it came over the wire, you could say that how do we know the source is telling the truth? was the l.a. times guy who published the box score at the game in person in new york?

when the auction house says that spence said it was a non malicious secretarial. I take them at their word. spence can come on here himself and refute it if he contends it is not true.

http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/1026.html

here is says they are classic secretarials. if jsa determined they were forgeries, would the hair even make it to the auction block?

REA blogged that JSA said that. So if that is an embellishment (lie), then LIfson or his agent from REA is lying, not me. I can only take them at their word. I am not going to tap people's phones.



Also from haulsofshame.com

a blog post by REA

But in their blog post of August 7, 2007, REA revealed another reason why they decided to include Halper’s “Ruth Hair Display” in their sale:

“One positive was that it was the opinion of our autograph authenticators (James Spence Authentication) that (the) signed letter and envelope were “non-malicious classic secretarial” Ruth signatures, as opposed to malicious forgeries, suggesting that the hair was actually Ruth’s, but really, how could we or anyone know for sure?”

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

they specifically said that jsa determined it was a non malicious secretarial.

That was all I asked. It seemed like a pretty basic question, and when you say

Originally Posted by travrosty

I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.

I think it's fair to ask that you find out the answer before continuing.

Originally Posted by travrosty

now if they are lying its not my fault. i cant go around getting everyone to sign notarized affidavits.

Nobody has asked you to.

Originally Posted by travrosty

why am i deep into an argument?

You're not. I specifically said before you get deep into an argument.

I really don't understand your hostility over a simple request for clarification. There's no reason for you to get your panties in a bunch simply because I or anyone else asks a question to get a clear idea of what you're arguing, I mean, making a lengthy statement about.

I'm not attacking you, the OP, JSA, REA, or anyone else. You've answered my question, so please get back to whatever statement you were trying to make without getting so defensive over my question.