Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 16, 2011 at 12:33pm

Little research for all of you doubters (no charge): "The Lowell [Mass.] Sun" reported on page 4 in the December 16, 1939 issue: "Ronald Reagan now on a personal appearance tour in the east..." According to the stamping on verso of the photograph, it was stamp dated by New York collector Saul Goldman on December 16, 1939.

 

DB: If you believe it's a forgery, then you also believe that Saul Goodman did not get it in person and that the forger stamped the date on verso just like the other dates are stamped on versos of other signed photographs in Goodman's in-person collection. That's going to alot of trouble; the forger could simply have penned the date on verso when he forged the signature. DB, it's authentic; get over it and move on.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 16, 2011 at 12:55pm

Herman, I never said it was real or a forgery.  However the studies being pointed too don't support nor mitigate this variation.   Thus, people get to ask questions and based on responses there can be more questions.  That doesn't mean someone needs to move on cause Herman says so.  Quite the contrary.  Once there is empircal evidence to support an opinion then people either believe it or they don't.

 

There is nothing concrete or definitive as to whether this item was actually obtain in person.  The stamp would be in fact antecdotal evidence.  That doesn't mean it is inaccurate and the supporting evidence you present free of charge would lend some support.    Just like a picture of Colbert does not mean that Saul Goldman obtained Reagan in the same way nor does applying a stamp mean "in-person" either.

 

Oh, and I will move on when I am damn good and ready to move on.   Forgers as we saw in Mr. Bill's 1999 letter one fooled several people are very clever and secretarials as we found in Heston can be illusive.

 

Your opinion it is authentic.  Thus, for those who buy into that then they ought to be satisfied.  For others there apparently needs to be further discussion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 16, 2011 at 11:52am

Mr. Bill... Moi!  I think it was a great move going to the press and would be made even better especially with naming the forger as who knows how many might be out there roaming around - seems to me when a forger confesses they ought to get the press they deserve.  Hopefully, That piece is off the market or should be in the destroy'd basket....

 

the point however was  that someone thought it was real but I know how sensitive you are.    In your case for some odd reason a forger got "religion" of all a sudden but that is quite unusual.

 

It could also be like this one but there seems to be a a simple  slight variation so far if I am reading this correctly.   The majority appears to be purely speculation.      I'll leave it to you perceived "experts" to duke it out but if it is in the grey area and your name ain't Saul - then pass although I suspect that won't be the case.  

 

although if it really isn't real there ought to be other telltale non speculative signs, would there not?

 

well back into the bat cave ~ should I convey your best wishes to your pals  ;-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 16, 2011 at 12:14pm

[I removed this comment so it wouldn't be taken wrong.]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on May 16, 2011 at 1:18pm

Herman- We'll just have to disagree, and that's that. I hate the inscription, as so should you, even if the item IS authentic. That's all I'm saying.

 

Steve - Pot calls the kettle black?

Seems like you either insult, ban or or delete anything or anyone who doesn't "toe the company line" around here. And we know what companies we're talking about, right?

When you set this site up, I was hoping for a site with a moderator who was impartial, open-minded, and kept on the sidelines while the public spoke its mind. To wit:

 

Moderator:

1. One that moderates, as:

a. One that arbitrates or mediates.

b. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

(Emphasis mine)

We discussed this with Jake...remember?

I don't see any of that. I see a manipulated infomercial, regardless of the good intentions behind it.

At least Autograph Alert isn't so obvious about it.

Sing Along with Mitch:

"Saint Stephen with a rose, in and out of the garden he goes,
Country garden in the wind and the rain,
Wherever he goes the people all complain.

Stephen prospered in his time, well he may and he may decline.
Did it matter, does it now? Stephen would answer if he only knew how..."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill Panagopulos on May 16, 2011 at 1:25pm

And DB - reason I didn't "out" the forger was because he was a long-time acquaintance, had a serious medication dependency at the time, and had no history prior (nor since) of any kind of forgery. He offered a sem-plausible explanation, which I decided to accept.

No harm was done so I saw no reason to ruin his life. He now works in a prominent position in a related industry, and his record is spotless.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 16, 2011 at 1:30pm

I hope it is not in Homeland Security lol.... and it is your call.  You wouldn't be ruining anything as you weren't the one who was passing forgeries.  On the other hand when someone turns around something there is also a good story in that as well.

 

We also shouldn't be so hard on cyrkin as it's a fine line from being involved to being a pure "moderator" that most places don't have and I almost choked on my barcardi with the A/Alert notation. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on May 17, 2011 at 10:33am

Bill,

After many requests to behave better, I suspended one legit member because he was being highly disruptive and ridiculing people. I told him he could come back if he didn't continue the same behavior and to call me to talk about it--it wasn't what he talked about but how he behaved here. He wouldn't call me or agree to behave as I asked, so I didn't remove his suspension. Everyone else removed from the site was malicious; mostly fake members acting as jerks, or spam.

I rarely delete things, no matter what you read elsewhere. However, if someone quits the site or is removed, their content generally goes with them unless they choose for it not to. That's how this system is set up and I don't control that. So if you quit this site like you told me you were going to do, everything you've posted will disappear with you unless you select for it to stay. That sometimes but doesn't always work. And any member can delete their blogs, discussions, posts, etc., at any time as far as I know. 

You want to accuse me of being in people's pockets, go ahead...do it all you want. I think my actions have easily shown otherwise. As for my role as a moderator, this is my site and I'll moderate as I think I need to. I could set rules that say no this, no that...nothing but flowers and puppy dogs about autographs and dealers. But I don't and because of it I spend a lot of time making judgment calls and commenting when I think people are unfairly out of line.

Honestly, I just don't get what's wrong with the Reagan photo. It's an in-person, from a documented in-person collector, and even to me has lots of Reagan characteristics. You say he would have signed much larger, I can see him signing smaller from resting the side of his hand on the photo to stabilize it. Look at a number of in-person modern Hollywood photos from good signers and compare them to their signatures at desks. If someone started ripping you up and I strongly disagreed with their statements, I'd respond with how I felt, too.

I have no hidden agenda here, or any agenda except to help collectors collect as well and safely as possible. That includes working to expose the fake autograph industry so collectors know and hopefully the bad guys go away, one way or another, for good.

You are a friend, a good friend, and I feel badly that you're so upset with me about how I'm handling things. But I work really hard to do the best I can to make this site a valuable and fair resource to the hobby. I have no ulterior motive, and I certainly am not doing it for the money.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 17, 2011 at 11:56am

Herman...

Are you talking about the 2010 RR Auction Reagan that is inscribed to Mom & PoP

or the Saul Goodman Reagan SP

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Herman Darvick on May 17, 2011 at 12:09pm

The 2010 RR Auction Reagan is the one inscribed to Mom & Pop.

The 2011 RR Auction Reagan is the one currently for sale, inscribed to Saul.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Shinn on May 17, 2011 at 12:30pm

The 2011 RR Auction Reagan inscribed to Saul, does not match any of the Authentic Reagan Exemplars that are in the published studies of Bill White @ RR, John Reznikoffs University Archive Video on Authenticating Reagan or your published study on Reagan in the Pen & Quill.

It Doesn't match in the " To" based on the above studies and it Definately does not match in the Signature of Ronald Reagan based again on the above studies.

How can 3 very extensive studies not show the " To" variant as you like to call it, as well as show how the Reagan Signature on the Goodman  does not match an Authentic Reagan Signature.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DB on May 17, 2011 at 2:29pm

well, if you don't want to take a chance on an R&R there is the following baseball with an ACE...

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page