1933 goudey babe ruth card

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=86847&item=5183009598&rd=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=86847&item=5183009598&rd=1</a> this must be the "rare" black print back!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>I have this card and I believe it is a mid-1970s reprint.<br />No 1933 Goudeys' backs were never printed with black ink.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>joe</b><p>Yes, looks like one of Charlie Brooks reprints. Printed a lot of these with no reprint designation in the 1970's<br /><br />Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>Hooray for powersellers!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I have this card and it is a reprint!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>This seller has a number of reprints for sale and I've emailed him several times about them, but have received no response from him.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>My question is who has driven the price over $200? What is obviously a reprint to most of us must not be quite as obvious to others. I am not acquitting the seller for being misleading, but the real responsibility rests upon the potential buyers. I have handled a few reprints that only upon close inspection could be identified as such. There is no question about this one; I didn't even need to see the scan of the back. I wouldn't touch a Ruth, Gehrig, or any other high dollar Goudey on ebay unless they were graded. Too many good fakes out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Forrest</b><p>Most fakes can still be spotted with scans, and there are plenty of trustworthy sellers with ungraded Ruths. I understand why some people only buy graded cards, but it's not necessary.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>I see the seller has now added the qualifier that he has been told this is a reprint, but I don't think the previous bidders should (or will) be stuck with their bids. Why should the "real responsibility" lie with the bidders? The bidder and seller are entering into a contract according to which the high bidder agrees to pay the amount of the winning bid, plus the listed shipping charge ($1) plus the required insurance ($2); and the seller agrees, upon receiving payment, to send the item described (i.e., "Big League Goudy Gum Card number 181...a real goudy, not a repro."). I'm not familiar with Goudy, but since the scan of the reverse clearly shows the name as "Goudey," it appears that the seller's intention was to convince people that this was an orignial Goudey. Neither does it matter how many people cannot discern the posted images from those of a true 1933 Goudey Ruth #181; the seller could have posted a picture of a 1988 Topps Carney Lansford, or a picture of his nephew's Little League Team, or a picture of Strom Thurmond -- he is still required to send the item he described.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>The main problem, high bidder wise, is that the card in the auction doesn't even look like an original. If the bidder never owned a Goudey but simply liked to look at MastroNet's auctions pictures or PSA/SGC graded examples on eBay, he'd see something strange about this card.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>Blatant shill, all bogus ID's are bidding. If someone took the time to turn the ID's in to ebay as a shill, he should get booted.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Glenn,<br /><br />In an ideal world, I would have to agree with you. But unless an individual has $100 bills burning in the fireplace, it is the buyers responsibility to be as certain as possible that what they are bidding on is the real thing. It is also the buyer's responsibility to research the background of the seller (which includes contacting that person) as thouroughly as possible. Bottom line, if you are willing to spend a large sum of money on an item, be accountable to yourself and take the time to ensure that what you might be purchasing is worth the investment. Shame on the buyer that does not famaliarize themselves with the nuances of a particular issue, including the potential for counterfeits. Any person that bid on that Ruth card and was naive enough to believe that all sellers on ebay are looking out for the best interest of the buyer deserves whatever they get.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Glenn</b><p>John,<br /><br />I think we're basically in agreement; I would give exactly the same advice to new bidders. I don't think you were suggesting otherwise, but the fact that only an ignorant bidder would fall prey to poorly orchestrated fraud is no reason to let the seller off the hook. I'm not the first one to raise this point here, but it's an important one and bears repeating -- there are plenty of people who aren't experts in baseball cards but know who Babe Ruth was and would like to buy a card such as this one as a Father's Day gift, birthday present, or whatever. And there are plenty of people looking to make a dishonest buck from them.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>My feeling is that collectors' have the responsibility to educate themselves, and self education is good thing if they don't want to buy fakes and forgeries. However, that collectors are ignorant (and sometimes stupid) does not give anyone a justification to scam them. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Don't get me wrong...scumbag sellers on ebay like the one referenced in this thread are no better than common thieves. They attempt to prey upon the ignorant and naive. Just browse the pre-war material on ebay. It makes my stomach turn to see just how much garbage is being advertised as real, or worse yet, advertised as real with offered disclaimers. These people are out there and probably will continue to operate. Hopefully, if anyone is willing to spend money on anything they will take the time to do the appropriate research.