Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robin Banks on October 8, 2014 at 6:13pm

Not good, the "Ripken" is not proportioned to his usual autos.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richie on October 8, 2014 at 6:32pm

Thanks for your reply.   Sadly, I completely agree with you.  I especially don't like the 'k' in Ripken.  I know the "Ripken" in his early signatures is different from his modern autograph, but again, I agree with you on it.  It's better used for batting practice than displaying.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dom Vito Castiglione on October 8, 2014 at 6:35pm

Get a QO for $10 and see what they might say.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richie on October 8, 2014 at 8:29pm

It was just recently rejected by JSA, so I was considering getting PSA's opinion but I don't wanna spend anymore money on it at the moment.  And thanks for the QO suggestion; I didn't realize PSA offered that.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dom Vito Castiglione on October 8, 2014 at 8:34pm

I would lay off it if JSA rejected it. Or you can send it to Steve Sipe at Global and they will put their sticker on it for $6

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Richie on October 8, 2014 at 8:42pm

Yeah I think I'll let my dog use it as a chew toy; she'll rip the cover right off in no time.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bear on October 9, 2014 at 4:50am

First thing is if you do a QO by PSA/DNA that is a joke because there has been times when they say it is good then when you send it in they take your money then say it is bad. Let's not forget that then had many Babe Ruth auto's sent to them and they said they where good when they where not so i would NOT spend a penny with them. I ask you this why do they not use them in the courts for telling if a autographed item is good or bad? Read on what the courts have to say about PSA

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Edward Siebert on October 9, 2014 at 10:40pm

Not real, sorry. The Ripken and Jr are way off.

• ▶ Reply