Disgraceful lier

[GrayGhost]

The auction is OVER> I messaged this guy and told him it was NOT a real ball, no matter what his BS story is, and he should refund the money, if someone got it, after his lies below where he says how he got it.

Can ebay do anything after the fact?

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&autorefresh=true&hash=item53ed1d68be&item=360460413118&nma=true&pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&rt=nc&si=YnUfZ4UOH1atcNNDJt6iFTTgRfA%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc

Or, Richard, or someone, am I wrong/ ? I can't be THAT blind.

[GrayGhost]

Just got this back. Hopefully someone can tell me if Im wrong?

Thank you for your critism, however as I stated, I obtained the signatures in person so I fail to understand your comment that the ball is stamped! I have a 100% positive feedback rating and pride myself on selling authentic quality items. Please refrain from contacting me again and please don't bid on anything I sell in the future. Thank you for your cooperation.

[thecatspajamas]

Can ebay do anything after the fact?

Yes, ebay can pull the listing even after the item has ended. If they do so, they will send an e-mail to the buyer advising them not to complete the transaction. If they have already sent their money, eBay won't automatically refund it, but if they paid with Paypal it should be relatively easy for the buyer to get their money back.

I've had this happen to me before, not for authenticity concerns, but because the buyer's (or seller's, if I was the one buying) Paypal account was compromised, so they just cancelled out all of their transactions. In one case, I had already received the item I paid for (so several days later) and was satisfied, so I just e-mailed the seller, found out what had happened, and let it slide.

[travrosty]

besides the stamped look, no signatures touch each other, and that's quite a trick with that many sigs on the ball if it wasn't stamped.

[GrayGhost]

besides the stamped look, no signatures touch each other, and that's quite a trick with that many sigs on the ball if it wasn't stamped.

EXACTLY what I thought too. plus they r just too "neat" and all going in similar directions per panel, etc . He says he has great feedback and INSISTS he got it in person ? Yeah,

righto:rolleyes:

Scott Rob.erts

[mr2686]

Looks like a facsimilie ball to me.

[mr2686]

...also says he can't make out the last two names, yet he got it in person?

[howard38]

.

[springpin]

I think the two "unreadable" names may be Dave Cash (on top, going one way) and Ramon Hernandez (on bottom, going the other).

[GrayGhost]

Why wouldn't Roberto Clemente have been included if the ball was stamped?

What if its a 73 ? I don't know if the year is right anyways.

[bobw]

It's a 1973 ball, Maxvill got traded to Pittsburgh in July 73

[GrayGhost]

It's a 1973 ball, Maxvill got traded to Pittsburgh in July 73

GREAT Detective work. This explains no Clemente and does NOT explain the fake. I tried reporting it, but couldn't find a description that matched close enough for a reason.

I don't want someone getting gypped, damn.

[prewarsports]

Easiest formula and the closest thing to a SURE thing in Autograph collecting;

No ball manufacturer + Signatuers = Stamped Stadium Ball

End of story.

Rhys Yeakley

[RichardSimon]

100% facsimile ball.

[barrysloate]

One further thought: in order for him to have gotten this ball signed in person, he would have had to interact with each of the 26 different players. Wouldn't that have been incredibly difficult to do? How would a fan get every last player to be available and to cooperate?

[GrayGhost]

The man is just an out and out lier. I got listing not available. He prob had trouble already. HOPE SO. I know some items remain up, and I checked completed listings too. So, hopefully its gone gone gonnnnnnnnnnne

Scott Rob.erts

[vegasangler]

Scott - Sharing your opinion is one thing, but making slanderous and defaming comments over the internet for the world to see by calling a reputable businessman a “disgraceful liar” and interfering with a private financial transaction that you are not a party to is going too far, inexcusable, and will not go unpunished. You are entitled to your opinion like everyone else. It doesn’t matter at this point what your opinion is. You simply cannot make slanderous and defaming public comments about anyone’s character with the intent to cause harm and that is exactly what you have done. If you knew as much about the law as you do the history of this baseball you would have known that. Let this be a lesson to you. See you in court.

P.S. Thanks to all of you that sent emails tipping me off to this post.

Jeff Fitz.gerald

[barrysloate]

vegasangler needs to put his name out or shouldn't be allowed to post.

[Leon]

vegasangler needs to put his name out or shouldn't be allowed to post.

taken care of.

[GrayGhost]

Scott - Sharing your opinion is one thing, but making slanderous and defaming comments over the internet for the world to see by calling a reputable businessman a “disgraceful liar” and interfering with a private financial transaction that you are not a party to is going too far, inexcusable, and will not go unpunished. You are entitled to your opinion like everyone else. It doesn’t matter at this point what your opinion is. You simply cannot make slanderous and defaming public comments about anyone’s character with the intent to cause harm and that is exactly what you have done. If you knew as much about the law as you do the history of this baseball you would have known that. Let this be a lesson to you. See you in court.

P.S. Thanks to all of you that sent emails tipping me off to this post.

Jeff Fitz.gerald

Are you serious? I apologize. I don't want issues with court. I overreacted based on what you had sent me privately and such. You were VERY negative towards me on your reply. PLEASE I don't want any court issues, but the ball was an obvious stamp, and I got a bit uptight bout that.

[RichardSimon]

Scott - Sharing your opinion is one thing, but making slanderous and defaming comments over the internet for the world to see by calling a reputable businessman a “disgraceful liar” and interfering with a private financial transaction that you are not a party to is going too far, inexcusable, and will not go unpunished. You are entitled to your opinion like everyone else. It doesn’t matter at this point what your opinion is. You simply cannot make slanderous and defaming public comments about anyone’s character with the intent to cause harm and that is exactly what you have done. If you knew as much about the law as you do the history of this baseball you would have known that. Let this be a lesson to you. See you in court.

P.S. Thanks to all of you that sent emails tipping me off to this post.

Jeff Fitz.gerald

Jeff - what is the history of that baseball? You got that ebay pictured ball signed? Seemingly that is what it stated originally in your ad but I only saw pictures and no real info about the ball.
Word of advice to you - your case is pretty flimsy considering the ball is a facsimile baseball. You really want to spend thousands of dollars to retain a lawyer over a facsimile printed ball that you said was real?? (if that is what you said, I did not see that wording in your ad)

[barrysloate]

As I stated in my earlier post, I would like to know how the seller got this signed in person. How did he get access to 26 different players? I'm sure that information would go a long way towards providing the necessary provenance collectors always want. Therefore, I have no doubt Jeff will tell us the story behind it.

[Wymers Auction]

Vegas if you knew the law you would know that it cannot be slander if he is telling the truth. Since the ball is a facsimile and not signed as you stated everything he said is the truth. Pretty clear cut.

[scooter729]

One further thought: in order for him to have gotten this ball signed in person, he would have had to interact with each of the 26 different players. Wouldn't that have been incredibly difficult to do? How would a fan get every last player to be available and to cooperate?

Barry, speaking to your question (and only your question), getting a ball signed by an entire team, esp. 40 years ago, wouldn't be all that tough.

Even during the 1980s, I would wait outside Fenway Park or at visiting teams' hotels and wait for the players to arrive at the park or leave from the hotel. Times were different, players were more accommodating to signing; I even had players sign a ball and hand it off to their waiting teammate to sign before they got in a cab. I have many balls from the mid 1980s signed by entire teams (25+ players) which I had done in person, so that part of the story is entirely plausible.

Scott

[barrysloate]

Thanks Scott. Today it would be very difficult. Didn't know the players were that accommodating back then.

[vegasangler]

This is my final post regarding this matter.

Scott - You are free to share your opinion regarding the balls authenticity to anyone you choose, but there is a fine line between an opinion and an assault on someone’s character (as well as interfering in a business transaction) and you have crossed the line. Just because you didn’t like the tone of my response gave you no right to interfere in a private transaction that you are not a party to. You not only defamed me personally, but you have contacted eBay and the winning bidder and it’s costing me money to have my attorney set the record straight. You need to be accountable for your actions or it becomes precedence for others to engage in such malicious and illicit behavior.

Barry Sloate: Unfortunately, I no longer can defend the authenticity of the ball in a court of public opinion since this has become a legal matter. I will say that although I appreciate your opinion, it’s just an opinion. It’s incredibly bold of you or anyone else to take such a staunch position in absence of establishing your credentials, examination of the ball, review of the facts, or interviews with any of the witnesses. Perhaps I could have done a better job of explaining that more clearly in the listing, but it doesn’t warrant Scott’s actions.

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.

I mean no disrespect to anyone’s opinion or expertise on this site. Blogs like this serve a useful purpose when participants perform in a responsible manner.

[RichardSimon]

Jeff,
An $80 sale of a ball that everyone here believes to be a facsimile and you are bringing in your attorney????
I am speechless.
Six people on Net54 have expressed an opinion on this ball. All believe it to be a facsimile ball and to establish my credentials as you seem to need,, I have been an autograph dealer for 20+ years.


ps. considering the selling price of the ball, what do you think the ebay buyers believe?

[perezfan]

It's liar, with an "a" (not an "e"). Just correcting some spelling ;)

[barrysloate]

Jeff- when it comes to autographs I have virtually no credentials, nor did I offer any kind of bold opinion. I only asked a question, and that was how you had access to the entire team.

But I too I am shocked that this has become a legal matter since your attorney's fees will far surpass the value of the ball. But it's a free country....

[barrysloate]

It's liar, with an "a" (not an "e"). Just correcting some spelling ;)

I'm glad somebody other than me pointed it out....:)

[perezfan]

I'm glad somebody other than me pointed it out....:)

It just eats away at you after reading it over and over...

[barrysloate]

It's like somebody scratching a piece of chalk across a blackboard....

[perezfan]

Especially when it resides in the title, and is meant to convey a powerful statement!

It's so jarring, that I have to give it shocked, angry, sad, and embarrassed faces. Impossible to pick just one... :eek: :mad: :( :o

[thetruthisoutthere]

Jeff,
An $80 sale of a ball that everyone here believes to be a facsimile and you are bringing in your attorney????
I am speechless.
Six people on Net54 have expressed an opinion on this ball. All believe it to be a facsimile ball.


ps. considering the selling price of the ball, what do you think the ebay buyers believe?

I, too, looked at that ball and in my opinion, is a facsimile.

Maybe Vegasangler can post a photograph of that baseball here. I remember that ball quite clearly and thinking immediately "that's an obvious facsimile."

If Vegasangler is 100% certain that his Pirates team-signed baseball is originally signed by the members of the Pirates, then he shouldn't have any problem posting a photograph of it here.

What I find very interesting is that Vegasangler got his legal team right on the case this (May 29, 2012) morning.

And if Vegasangler is serious about this issue, I want to remind Scott, that he can probably have Ebay retrieve the original listing.

[sports-rings]

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.


I am not sure about that statement. If the ball is a facsimile than it has been misrepresented. If Scott did not break any laws in acquiring the party's contact information I would imagine he is allowed to contact them and express his opinion. Then the buyer can determine, if he should go through with the transaction or cancel the sale based upon the item being misrepresented.

[RichardSimon]

The ball sold for $80, ebay buyers knew it was a facsimile.
Seven people on Net54, most of them experienced autograph people, expressed the opinion that it is a facsimile baseball.
Case closed.
Verdict for the defendant.
Full attorney fees awarded to the defendant.
Jeff that means you are out about $30K. all for an $80 ebay sale.

[buymycards]

Hi guys, Did you ever notice that when someone makes an honest mistake and they are made aware of it, they come on the board and admit it, but when they get caught with their fingers in the till they deny, threaten, and try to intimidate?

Rick

[jgmp123]

Scott - Sharing your opinion is one thing, but making slanderous and defaming comments over the internet for the world to see by calling a reputable businessman a “disgraceful liar” and interfering with a private financial transaction that you are not a party to is going too far, inexcusable, and will not go unpunished. You are entitled to your opinion like everyone else. It doesn’t matter at this point what your opinion is. You simply cannot make slanderous and defaming public comments about anyone’s character with the intent to cause harm and that is exactly what you have done. If you knew as much about the law as you do the history of this baseball you would have known that. Let this be a lesson to you. See you in court.

P.S. Thanks to all of you that sent emails tipping me off to this post.

Jeff Fitz.gerald

This guy is a douche..The ball is not real. case closed. Doubt we see this guy here again...Anxious to see if Ebay does anything about his misrepresentation.

[chaddurbin]

http://crockettlives.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/judge-judy.jpeg

[thetruthisoutthere]

I have a fairly good memory, and if my memory serves me correctly, one of the statements in the auction description read "This ball has 26 authentic player signatures in blue ink...."

[RichardSimon]

The guys selling history consists of $20-$40 fishing gear.
Guess a sale of $80 got him all excited.

[Wymers Auction]

I am not sure about that statement. If the ball is a facsimile than it has been misrepresented. If Scott did not break any laws in acquiring the party's contact information I would imagine he is allowed to contact them and express his opinion. Then the buyer can determine, if he should go through with the transaction or cancel the sale based upon the item being misrepresented.

The discussion and the threat involved slander. Slander is never about a truthful statement.

[mr2686]

Isn't slander verbal? I think libel is what we would be talking about here.

[Wymers Auction]

Isn't slander verbal? I think libel is what we would be talking about here.

Either way it still involves untruths and not truthful statements.

[thecatspajamas]

Either way, I really don't think Scott has anything to worry about.

[mr2686]

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

[Wymers Auction]

Are you serious? I apologize. I don't want issues with court. I overreacted based on what you had sent me privately and such. You were VERY negative towards me on your reply. PLEASE I don't want any court issues, but the ball was an obvious stamp, and I got a bit uptight bout that.
Isn't this enough? The man apologized!!! Do you really need a pound of flesh for such a little offense?

[Wymers Auction]

In general, there are four defenses to libel or slander: truth, consent, accident, and privilege. The fact that the allegedly defamatory communication is essentially true is usually an absolute defense. I think Lance is correct in his last statement.

I think the time and trouble to be right is the problem. I agree Scott has nothing to fear in a short day in court, but I find it hard to believe that Jeff would be so anxious to jump in the fire over misguided principles that will cost him a lot of money. I am not an autograph expert as others on the board, but the neat arrangement of signatures is something I have only seen on facsimile balls. Signatures should overrun each other and go in all sorts of directions. In my opinion.

[thecatspajamas]

James, I was thinking more of the old saying "a barking dog rarely bites," rather than evaluating Scott's chances in court (which, as others have said, seem even less cause for concern).

I might also add that it was eBay and not Scott who pulled the listing. Ebay has a system in place for reporting suspected fraud, and can choose to act on those reports or not, with or without supporting evidence (in fact, in many of the report forms, there is no way to add supporting evidence, hence the confusion with which checkbox option was appropriate to this situation). We will never know if it was Scott's report or someone else's that tipped them off, as they don't even reveal that information to the person making the report.

[Wymers Auction]

Great point Lance and with that said I am out!!!

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Getting into this a little late, I actually have to laugh out loud regarding how weak this potential lawsuit is.

First off, when I read this thread at lunch time, the eBay link was gone, so I didn't even know who the accusations were referring to. Then checking later I noticed the seller comes on this forum threatening a lawsuit. So now by his own voluntary actions, we now know who it is. If he had done nothing, very few people would have known who this person was.

Also, if the seller had a chance of winning a defamation lawsuit, he greatly diminished any chance of winning it by coming on and defending himself. The legal doctrine for this is a "limited-purpose public figure". The significance of this is that the seller voluntarily choose to thrust himself into a public controversy and now he has to prove the publisher acted with malice (deliberately making a false statement with the intent to inflict unjust harm). The burden of proof is now set to a very high level of difficulty for the potential plaintiff.


In addition, hypothetically, if the seller who came on this public forum and essentially accused the publisher of committing several torts, (or being a "tortfeasor"), the seller may be subject to a defamation suit himself if the publisher's accusations are true.

Over the years, I've observed a number of people who filed defamation/libel lawsuits and all have walked away spending a ton of money with no judgment in their favor. First off, their personal life and financial records get scrutinized down to the last detail. This becomes very embarrassing for people who committed some kind of illegal act, have issues of moral turpitude or haven't paid their income taxes, etc. Second, proving damages for libel is an arduous task since it typically requires a significant number of witnesses to testify that they were influenced by the allegedly damaging publication.

Finally, I also know for a fact that Ebay will not turn over any evidence, even when subpoenaed, regarding evidence for pulling a questionable auction or for suspending a member. Ebay can do this legally due to their privacy policy and anyone who is an Ebay member agrees to this when they sign up, so they are contractually bound by that. So if the seller is hoping for a business interference claim because of the pulled Ebay auction, he's out of luck. I also noticed someone threw out $30K as the cost of defamation lawsuit. It's been my observation that any case that goes to trial will cost at least $100K and more than likely $120K or even much higher if one parties tries to take on an "attrition warfare" strategy and drag out the litigation for years until one party is broke. Again, defamation suits are the hardest suits to prove and require a lot of litigation.

Finally, as has been stated repeatedly, truth is an absolute defense, and it's also been my observation that courts have a very low tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.

If they were taking odds in Vegas on this one, I'd load up heavy on Scott. But that's just my opinion along with everything else stated on this posting and as a disclaimer one should consult an attorney for any essential and personal legal advice.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Getting into this a little late, I actually have to laugh out loud regarding how weak this potential lawsuit is.

First off, when I read this thread at lunch time, the eBay link was gone, so I didn't even know who the accusations were referring to. Then checking later I noticed the seller comes on this forum threatening a lawsuit. So now by his own voluntary actions, we now know who it is. If he had done nothing, very few people would have known who this person was.

Also, if the seller had a chance of winning a defamation lawsuit, he greatly diminished any chance of winning it by coming on and defending himself. The legal doctrine for this is a "limited-purpose public figure". The significance of this is that the seller voluntarily choose to thrust himself into a public controversy and now he has to prove the publisher acted with malice (deliberately making a false statement with the intent to inflict unjust harm). The burden of proof is now set to a very high level of difficulty for the potential plaintiff.


In addition, hypothetically, if the seller who came on this public forum and essentially accused the publisher of committing several torts, (or being a "tortfeasor"), the seller may be subject to a defamation suit himself if the publisher's accusations are true.

Over the years, I've observed a number of people who filed defamation/libel lawsuits and all have walked away spending a ton of money with no judgment in their favor. First off, their personal life and financial records get scrutinized down to the last detail. This becomes very embarrassing for people who committed some kind of illegal act, have issues of moral turpitude or haven't paid their income taxes, etc. Second, proving damages for libel is an arduous task since it typically requires a significant number of witnesses to testify that they were influenced by the allegedly damaging publication.

Finally, I also know for a fact that Ebay will not turn over any evidence, even when subpoenaed, regarding evidence for pulling a questionable auction or for suspending a member. Ebay can do this legally due to their privacy policy and anyone who is an Ebay member agrees to this when they sign up, so they are contractually bound by that. So if the seller is hoping for a business interference claim because of the pulled Ebay auction, he's out of luck. I also noticed someone threw out $30K as the cost of defamation lawsuit. It's been my observation that any case that goes to trial will cost at least $100K and more than likely $120K or even much higher if one parties tries to take on an "attrition warfare" strategy and drag out the litigation for years until one party is broke. Again, defamation suits are the hardest suits to prove and require a lot of litigation.

Finally, as has been stated repeatedly, truth is an absolute defense, and it's also been my observation that courts have a very low tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.

If they were taking odds in Vegas on this one, I'd load up heavy on Scott. But that's just my opinion along with everything else stated on this posting and as a disclaimer one should consult an attorney for any essential and personal legal advice.


Dan, well written!!!!

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Dan, well written!!!!

Thank you Christopher!

[Leon]

Thank you Christopher!


Dan- (in my best redneck voice) "for not being a lawyer you sure talk some fancy lawyer talk." Nicely written.

[RichardSimon]

I was using the $30K figure based on personal experiences, though both times I was sued for libel the lawsuits were dismissed, well before a trial.

[HOF Auto Rookies]

Thanks for the clarification Dan, as I am a potential law student, that's something I look forward to learning about further.

[GrayGhost]

This is my final post regarding this matter.

Scott - You are free to share your opinion regarding the balls authenticity to anyone you choose, but there is a fine line between an opinion and an assault on someone’s character (as well as interfering in a business transaction) and you have crossed the line. Just because you didn’t like the tone of my response gave you no right to interfere in a private transaction that you are not a party to. You not only defamed me personally, but you have contacted eBay and the winning bidder and it’s costing me money to have my attorney set the record straight. You need to be accountable for your actions or it becomes precedence for others to engage in such malicious and illicit behavior.

Barry Sloate: Unfortunately, I no longer can defend the authenticity of the ball in a court of public opinion since this has become a legal matter. I will say that although I appreciate your opinion, it’s just an opinion. It’s incredibly bold of you or anyone else to take such a staunch position in absence of establishing your credentials, examination of the ball, review of the facts, or interviews with any of the witnesses. Perhaps I could have done a better job of explaining that more clearly in the listing, but it doesn’t warrant Scott’s actions.

James Wymer: The fact that Scott interfered in a private business transaction that he wasn’t a party to is grounds for legal action regardless of the truth. Defamation and/or slander is a separate allegation.

I mean no disrespect to anyone’s opinion or expertise on this site. Blogs like this serve a useful purpose when participants perform in a responsible manner.

NOTE WHAT I HIGHLIGHTED in BOLD . I TRIED To contact ebay, but couldn't find the proper category to actually send a complaint in its entirety. That too is my right. But, ONE THOUSAND PCT I NEVER EVER contacted the winning bidder. THAT IS A TOTAL LIE .

Your slander issues have just gone the other way, as you are telling lies about what I did .

[Rob D.]

Long live the autograph threads.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Vegasangler, there is no way Scott could have contacted the winning bidder because bidder IDs are not revealed. The only two people who know won the auction are the seller and the buyer (and Ebay, of course).

Vegasangler, I would love to know how your attorney is setting the record straight? Are you telling us, Vegasangler, that you spent about $250.00 for an attorney for a $80.00 item?

Vegasangler, how do you know it was Scott who contacted Ebay about that item? It's very possible that dozens of people contacted Ebay about your baseball. Everyone here that commented on that baseball opined that it is a facsimile, including myself. Why don't you post a photo of that baseball here on Net54, Vegasangler. I'm betting you won't.

[docpatlv]

It's liar, with an "a" (not an "e"). Just correcting some spelling ;)

I think this is the technicality that's going to get Scott off the hook. He wasn't calling Jeff a disgraceful "liar", he was calling him a disgraceful "lier". Perhaps Scott heard a rumor that Jeff has a physical disability that does not allow him to lie down properly in the horizontal position. Or maybe when Jeff sleeps at night he takes up more than half the bed. Maybe these sleeping qualities are disgraceful to Scott. Either way I think it's a little bit overboard to threaten to sue someone for calling you out on your sleeping habits.

But that's just my humble opinion, what the hell do I know.

Mike

[GrayGhost]

:p:p:p:p

[Wymers Auction]

I think this is the technicality that's going to get Scott off the hook. He wasn't calling Jeff a disgraceful "liar", he was calling him a disgraceful "lier". Perhaps Scott heard a rumor that Jeff has a physical disability that does not allow him to lie down properly in the horizontal position. Or maybe when Jeff sleeps at night he takes up more than half the bed. Maybe these sleeping qualities are disgraceful to Scott. Either way I think it's a little bit overboard to threaten to sue someone for calling you out on your sleeping habits.

But that's just my humble opinion, what the hell do I know.

Mike
Better be careful he will turn this into a class action suit. I am sorry I could not help myself.

[drc]

I agree. I interpreted it to mean someone liked to take naps on the couch.

[Splinte1941]

As a resident asshole on this board, I'd like to weigh in on this issue from the potential legal angle that was addressed earlier.

If the glove doesnt fit, you must acquit.

[jgmp123]

I think this is the technicality that's going to get Scott off the hook. He wasn't calling Jeff a disgraceful "liar", he was calling him a disgraceful "lier". Perhaps Scott heard a rumor that Jeff has a physical disability that does not allow him to lie down properly in the horizontal position. Or maybe when Jeff sleeps at night he takes up more than half the bed. Maybe these sleeping qualities are disgraceful to Scott. Either way I think it's a little bit overboard to threaten to sue someone for calling you out on your sleeping habits.

But that's just my humble opinion, what the hell do I know.

Mike

+1! Bravo Bravo!!

[perezfan]

Agree - Brilliant post!

[RichardSimon]

Scott - never sweat the small sh--. And this threat is really small sh--.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Scott, I will defend you if you get sued...I am not an attorney but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. :D


Jeff

[Runscott]

Agree - Brilliant post!

+1.

The obvious fact is that when a "lier" says he's going to sue, he's really going to do nothing other than to provide us with entertainment.

[BigJJ]

Scott, this guy wrote you act with "malicious" and "illicit" "behavior". You had NO self interest in your doing what you did, it was selfless. Nothing is remotely "malicious" or "illicit"!!?? I am an attorney. Truth is a defense to slander. You have a defense. And authenticators on this board could sum up that ball for you in a succinct letter with clear picture references - that any person not in the business would understand in a second. Even better, can find you another such ball! Not difficult.
What is his defense for his statements?
"illicit" - if he actually brought a suit, and you were found to not have committed something "illicit", and he has written "illicit", he is not in good territory.
Surprised since he contacted his attorney so quick, wink wink, that his attorney would have let him make such posts damaging to his 'case'.

[BrandonG]

Wow! I go on vacation for 3 days and look what I missed! lol :D

[CW]

I don't think you to apologize for anything, Scott. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, as we need to keep junk like this off of eBay.

In my opinion, that ball contained facsimile signatures. I'm not even an expert, but it was very obvious to me.

In my opinion, the seller is an idiot, and his sue-happy nature and inability to be a trustworthy seller are a big part of what is wrong in America today.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

[Bilko G]

Yes, ebay can pull the listing even after the item has ended. If they do so, they will send an e-mail to the buyer advising them not to complete the transaction. If they have already sent their money, eBay won't automatically refund it, but if they paid with Paypal it should be relatively easy for the buyer to get their money back.

I've had this happen to me before, not for authenticity concerns, but because the buyer's (or seller's, if I was the one buying) Paypal account was compromised, so they just cancelled out all of their transactions. In one case, I had already received the item I paid for (so several days later) and was satisfied, so I just e-mailed the seller, found out what had happened, and let it slide.


ive had this happen a few times as well.

[Bilko G]

Thanks Scott. Today it would be very difficult. Didn't know the players were that accommodating back then.


I know with NHL teams, its not even that hard nowadays. I know several people who go to the airport or the team hotel here in Calgary and get numerous items like jerseys, 16x20's etc. signed by the entire team. When i was younger, in the 90's, i would go to the hotels and get autos as well. A couple hours before the game the players leave the hotel on a team bus and they usually always leave the hotel with one or two other teammates over 20-30 minutes, so it is quiet easy to get everyone on a team. I also have a friend on another site that lives in Miami and he gets entire NFL teams (or very close to the entire team) signed on full sized helmets almost everytime he goes to get autograph at the team Hotels.

Nowadays (and even back then) there are 'autograph hounds' they call them that will spend 14 hours a day getting autographs at Hotels, practices, airports, outside the stadium etc. I don't think its outside the realm of impossibility to have a team signed item from any league from a team in the last 40+ years or so.

[Bilko G]

Are you serious? I apologize. I don't want issues with court. I overreacted based on what you had sent me privately and such. You were VERY negative towards me on your reply. PLEASE I don't want any court issues, but the ball was an obvious stamp, and I got a bit uptight bout that.


I wouldn't have appoligized, you did nothing wrong, don't let people walk all over you with this "im taking you to court crap".

[teetwoohsix]

I wouldn't have appoligized, you did nothing wrong, don't let people walk all over you with this "im taking you to court crap".

+1

[BigJJ]

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, as we need to keep junk like this off of eBay.

€hû¢k Wölƒƒ

Another odd looking piece on the bay, I contacted the seller regarding to no avail - no seams on the back - and unlike his other listings, he only provides a small snapshot of this piece, anyone else want to write this guy, looks like someone already made an offer on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-Ty-Cobb-A-Fan-for-A-Fan-/310403433563?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item48457c845b

[perezfan]

Another odd looking piece on the bay, I contacted the seller regarding to no avail - no seams on the back - and unlike his other listings, he only provides a small snapshot of this piece, anyone else want to write this guy, looks like someone already made an offer on it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1910-Ty-Cobb-A-Fan-for-A-Fan-/310403433563?pt=Vintage_Sports_Memorabilia&hash=item48457c845b

No question- a bogus Fan for a Fan. The fakes all make the same mistake with regard to the way the stick is attached. Plus the back side is lacking the proper graphics. Hope someone didn't get burned too badly on this... it's a really obvious fake.

[buymycards]

I have to agree. All of his other listings have large scans with the zoom option, but not this one.