Why our autograph experts are often silent

[djson1]

Thanks for the pics, Scott. I still think the signed ball in the original pic looks very close, IMO. I see that the "R" is slightly different (ie- the loop part doesn't touch top to bottom like the samples you show), but it's still seems like the same flow. Maybe I just don't have a very good eye for those things. I have a hard time with Ted Williams, Joe D, and Mantle's even.

[perezfan]

Does Kevin Keating ever frequent this board? Would be nice to hear his perspective, and interested to know whether or not his name/LOA was really implicated without consent.

[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.

[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 djson1

I see that the "R" is slightly different (ie- the loop part doesn't touch top to bottom like the samples you show), but it's still seems like the same flow.

I don't have a response to this other than thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It's you, Mark and Keating's proxy: 3 for, and me 1 against.

I guess that makes it real. Having said that, and given what Babe Ruth signed balls go for in such condition, it is clearly a steal. I recommend offering the seller about $500 less and becoming the proud possessor of a single-signed Babe Ruth baseball.

Good luck.

[RelicSports]

I will chime in and say that I too have doubts about the signature being Ruth's. I cannot say that it is not authentic, but personally I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing based on what I have seen/heard. Kudos to Scott for changing the title of the thread as I think it was misleading. Until Kevin can chime in and give his position, I think that was a responsible thing to do.

[djson1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't have a response to this other than thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It's you, Mark and Keating's proxy: 3 for, and me 1 against.

I guess that makes it real. Having said that, and given what Babe Ruth signed balls go for in such condition, it is clearly a steal. I recommend offering the seller about $500 less and becoming the proud possessor of a single-signed Babe Ruth baseball.

Good luck.

Scott, I usually value your opinions and comments on here, but your comment above is pretty snide. I was asking as you didn't provide any reason for why you thought it was not authentic and I was genuinely asking because I like to learn the "why"s from others on here. It's not about you, me, versus them. And who said that just because it's 3 vs 1 that "makes it real"?

It's funny when we see some people on here getting so sensitive when people ask them questions of their opinions. We're all on here trying to learn from each other on here and not all of us are as sharp when it comes to spotting the fakes.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by djson1

Scott, I usually value your opinions and comments on here, but your comment above is pretty snide. I was asking as you didn't provide any reason for why you thought it was not authentic and I was genuinely asking because I like to learn the "why"s from others on here. It's not about you, me, versus them. And who said that just because it's 2 vs 1 that "makes it real"?

It's funny when we see some people on here getting so sensitive when people ask them questions of their opinions. We're all on here trying to learn from each other on here and not all of us are as sharp when it comes to spotting the fakes.

You're sounding pretty sensitive yourself.

My comment was not meant at all to be snide, but as I clearly stated, I couldn't really respond to such a comment. I did that to NOT insult you, as I am fully aware that you are trying to learn.

But given that you feel no need to avoid insulting me, here you go: I provided examples which you didn't appear to spend much time looking at. As regards flow, there isn't any - it flows like a dammed-up river. The 'R's are not even vaguely similar, the 'u' is even more ridiculously off, and the entire signature is printed on a crescent.

I hope that helps, but I'm guessing it won't.

Edited to add: I'm done with this thread, so you might as well be hurt silently. I stated my opinion, I learned a little from Hank regarding Keating, and I also had my thoughts reinforced regarding autograph collectors on this forum. As far as actually adding any new knowledge to the forum, this thread did NOT do so, other than to possibly convince a few collectors that Keating should be added to their 'always trust' list, along with PSA and JSA. I'll be sure to take a much more selfish attitude about sharing autograph knowledge in the future. Adios.

[djson1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You're sounding pretty sensitive yourself.

My comment was not meant at all to be snide, but as I clearly stated, I couldn't really respond to such a comment. I did that to NOT insult you, as I am fully aware that you are trying to learn.

But given that you feel no need to avoid insulting me, here you go: I provided examples which you didn't appear to spend much time looking at. As regards flow, there isn't any - it flows like a dammed-up river. The 'R's are not even vaguely similar, the 'u' is even more ridiculously off, and the entire signature is printed on a crescent.

I hope that helps, but I'm guessing it won't.

You weren't meaning to be snide, but your last comment sure was. Should I feel the need to "avoid" insulting you? I didn't even realize I DID insult you, but if I did, that's your issue. As I stated, I did appreciate the pics, but was asking for clarification.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by djson1

You weren't meaning to be snide, but your last comment sure was. Should I feel the need to "avoid" insulting you? I didn't even realize I DID insult you, but if I did, that's your issue. As I stated, I did appreciate the pics, but was asking for clarification.

Well, see there - if you are being honest, then we both took things the wrong way. In any event, sit back and wait - you should have some support soon from the usual suspects, via PM if not publicly. That should make you feel better.

Adios #2