Why our autograph experts are often silent

[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.

[Runscott]

Adam, good questions. In the seller's defense, he apparently only uses Keating - he also has a Greenberg card and a Spalding book for sale, both with Keating letters. I didn't look closely at Greenberg, but the Spalding looks good and it's a rather expensive autograph. I suspect that the Ruth autograph either has already failed PSA and/or JSA, or would if presented to them; hence, inappropriate for sale by any auction house.

As a sidenote, without the benefit of Mark's knowledge of the seller, I initially responded to him as I would anyone on ebay selling such a signature. After Mark posted that the seller was reputable, respecting Mark's opinion, I immediately contacted the seller with an apology. I know - unbelievable. All I will say is that any time someone refuses to accept a sincere apology, I write them off and at that point have zero respect for them until proven otherwise. So that was one-half of my research.

After reading Hank's response regarding Keating, who I only knew through a couple of interactions at the National and the autographs he was selling at his table, I googled him and learned everything additional I needed to know. Research completed and I have nothing else to say about either of the two people associated with this ball.

Regarding the ball itself - I ask again: $3,500 ebay price for a single-signed Ruth ball with a respected LOA? Why is it still available at such a steal?

[Econteachert205]

Unfortunately I think the ball is one which will engender no unanimity among experts.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

Unfortunately I think the ball is one which will engender no unanimity among experts.

It might, actually, but the results are not going to show up here.

[packs]

I feel like for $3,500 you could get a way nicer Ruth signature if you're looking to fill a void in your collection. Even if authentic it doesn't present well for that price.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

I feel like for $3,500 you could get a way nicer Ruth signature if you're looking to fill a void in your collection. Even if authentic it doesn't present well for that price.

I was factoring in the 'ebay offer' final price, but you might be correct.

[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.