View Full Version : Is this Tom's mystery Ruth card?
Archive
05-13-2004, 02:54 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31719&item=4130787615&rd=1" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=31719&item=4130787615&rd=1</a>
Archive
05-13-2004, 06:55 AM
Posted By: <b>HalleyGator</b><p>You have to believe that it is ... because it sounds just like the one he described.<BR><BR>Apparently he found someone to identify it and explain to him that it was NOT a "1914 Ruth Rookie card" like he thought it was.
Archive
05-13-2004, 06:59 AM
Posted By: <b>Kevin O</b><p>The description (apart from the assurances of authenticity and the newly numbered find) is taken from David Rudd's site. At first glance, it appears the image is as well.
Archive
05-13-2004, 07:18 AM
Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>David knew about this card - darn. Now we have to wait a month until Tom's next amazing discovery.<BR><BR>Bill<BR><BR>
Archive
05-13-2004, 07:33 AM
Posted By: <b>Julie Vognar</b><p>and claims to be selling a different one. The "card" "photo" or whatever, is someone off-putting. Maybe it's that seller's feedback is small, wobbly and few and far between. WAIT--I see what's wrong. The comments in ink look like they've been added later (still within the photo, though), and Ruth's designation has been changed to N.Y. from Boston. Ot did someone else write Babe Ruth, N.Y. and Frederick Foto on the card? I dunno.<BR><BR>Anywyay, if the card was PRINTED with the "N.Y." on it, it's certainly no rookie.
Archive
05-13-2004, 08:26 AM
Posted By: <b>Halleygator</b><p>How funny.
Archive
05-13-2004, 08:38 AM
Posted By: <b>JC</b><p>Wonder what the Ebay listing fees are for this item? Do they cap it at a high limit?
Archive
05-13-2004, 09:06 AM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>It almost tempts you to bid the minimum (since it doesn't meet the reserve). It would be my first million dollar bid on anything... probably my last...
Archive
05-13-2004, 09:09 AM
Posted By: <b>Halleygator</b><p>This is a PERFECT example of where a seller is getting killed by running a "reserve" auction.<BR><BR>I would gladly pay $999,000 for that card ... but I just can't place my bid. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
05-13-2004, 11:19 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Got to be careful with doing that. I've seen a few sellers have a monster minimum with a reserve, with the reserve being the minimum bid, thus trapping you into a huge bid.<BR><BR>Jay
Archive
05-13-2004, 11:46 AM
Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>As already suggested, the auction has a stolen scan. If he had half a brain to use a reasonable minimum bid, he might have gotten a bid or two.
Archive
05-13-2004, 02:56 PM
Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>I was just looking at this auction description. One thing I don't understand is how the the web link the seller references is of relevance to the auction. Perhaps I'm just missing something.<BR><BR><a href="http://www.cycleback.com/rarerthanhonus.htm" target=_new>http://www.cycleback.com/rarerthanhonus.htm</a>
Archive
05-13-2004, 03:14 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>The seller must be on crack...<BR><BR>David, any comments on this??
Archive
05-13-2004, 03:20 PM
Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>My comment is that scammers should not use a page from my website as reference, as it takes me about 5 minutes to change the content of a webpage.<BR><BR>I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to shy away from buying $1-2 million baseball cards from sellers use use a Travis Bickle-quoting dog as proof of authenticity.
Archive
05-13-2004, 03:32 PM
Posted By: <b>steve k</b><p>Asking 2 million for the card but didn't want to spend 15 cents for a scan of the back. Maybe it's once you pay, it's another 2 million for the back.
Archive
05-13-2004, 06:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Julie</b><p><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>