PDA

View Full Version : My take on Michael O'Keeffe's book, "The Card"


Archive
05-27-2007, 01:56 AM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>My apologies to Leon and the other forum members and lurkers for starting a new thread about this topic, but the previous thread appears to have been substantially sidetracked.<br /><br />I finished the book yesterday and I'm sorry that I read it. I would hope that Michael O'Keeffe didn't mean all of the things he wrote about others, particularly some of his characterizations of collectors of vintage baseball cards. Instead of concentrating on vulgar language, allegations from anonymous sources, and salacious rumors, I think he could have written a more uplifting story. I'm no longer a fan of this type of literature and I don't see how very many positives can ever come from it.<br /><br />IMO, it's not a very good book. The comments about religion and the author's statements about Cobb and Edwards are particularly disappointing. I'll likely toss it or return it to the bookseller for a full refund.<br /><br />I had originally written more but I think I'll leave it at that.

Archive
05-27-2007, 02:06 AM
Posted By: <b>Dan Markel</b><p>How sad that such a piece of rubbish gets published. Thank you MW for saving me $22 or whatever the book costs.

Archive
05-27-2007, 03:41 AM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I remember when Ned Flanders went to a Chris Rock concert thinking it was a Christian Rock concert. After returning home he said he never heard a reverend use the F word so many times.

Archive
05-27-2007, 07:10 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I remember that episode too, David.<br /><br />I was one of the many people who was interviewed by O'Keefe, and it occurred so long ago that I barely remember what he asked me. He seemed like a decent guy at the time, and sincere about getting all the facts straight, so I'm disappointed the book has been met with such disapproval.<br /><br />Just out of curiosity, why is religion mentioned in the book? Doesn't seem like that would in any way apply.

Archive
05-27-2007, 07:42 AM
Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>It only took 2 people to reply before this thread got side-tracked. <br /><br />The book will fade away and forgotten by everyone on this board and dismissed by anyone in the hobby because collectors like cards and the action that comes with acquiring them. It's really that simple. Most collectors will buy cards from ex-cons, strangers, card doctors (sometimes cards that they know have been altered but reside in holders), because it's all about the cards and the next fix. Many times we won’t ask or even care all that much about the providence. I personally don’t care who owned it before me.<br />Everyone on the board loves a new (vintage) card when it arrives in the mail or the excitement when we win an auction. It may even be a sickness, but for sure it’s an obsession that I have no interest in conquering. For me, old cardboard is like crack, and I'm duo for a fix!<br />

Archive
05-27-2007, 08:28 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- perhaps you are generalizing a bit.<br /><br />It's fair to say everyone who reads this board is interested to some degree in vintage baseball cards, but as to whether the issue of the T206 Wagner matters is a personal choice. Some people feel it's irrelevant, others want to know as much about it as they possibly can. Clearly, this book doesn't seem to be the place to find out (and I repeat I haven't even seen it yet).

Archive
05-27-2007, 08:40 AM
Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>Barry - maybe I am, but most people don't even ask where a card came from. When you buy it off of Ebay or in an auction, it's all about the card. Maybe at a show when 2 guys are talking, more info is available, but it really doesn't matter to most. <br />The t-206 Wagner card is only available to a select few and most armpit collectors kinda chuckle at the idea that "the card" is cut and someone paid huge money for it. I rarely encounter any fraud that takes place in the hobby. It seems no one wants to doctor an SGC 20 card too much. <br /><img src="http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i12/chiprop/Evers102.jpg">

Archive
05-27-2007, 09:16 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That Evers looks vaguely familiar <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I agree most people don't care that much where their cards came from, but the PSA 8 Wagner isn't just any card. It's the most famous card in the hobby, so it is natural for people to be curious about it, especially with all the controversy surrounding it. It's human nature.

Archive
05-27-2007, 09:39 AM
Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>I just got done quickly reading the book. <br /><br />What a waste of a Friday night. I will never get those hours back.<br /><br />I agree with MW's comments, but I will not even waste my time taking it back for a refund. It is already in my paper recycle bin.<br /><br />By the end of the book, it was obvious that O'Keeffe is not very fond of vintage baseball card collectors and particularly had it in for Bill Mastro. <br /><br />

Archive
05-27-2007, 10:27 AM
Posted By: <b>Dan Kravitz</b><p>Harry- I will buy the book from you. email me dan@chiprop.com

Archive
05-27-2007, 10:38 AM
Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>Dan, another board member already emailed me. I dug it out of the bin and am going to send it to him for free. Hopefully he will pass it along after he is done.<br /><br />I take no responsibility for wasting anyone's valuable time who ends up reading my copy of the book.

Archive
05-27-2007, 11:31 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I should be finished this weekend with mine and will send it to you for free .....after I check with the person who gave it to me. I am not responsible for the waste of time you invest in reading it though. The real issue, for me with the book, is I don't know what is true and what isn't (according to O'keefe) since he has so many mistakes that are blatant. As previously mentioned you will learn O'keefe thinks collecting cards is more bad than good and he has it out for Bill Mastro. I have said publicly my thoughts on the card already...all of which only come from speaking with folks in the hobby and seeing "The Card" in person...Some folks think I am protecting Mastro as they are an advertiser, and it's certainly their right to think that. Since I am not sure what happened to the card, I am not going to be one of those spreading rumors and embellishing stories for grandiosity..regards

Archive
05-27-2007, 11:36 AM
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>I'm reading it now and it is interesting, especially since I knew Bob Sevchuk (whom I believe to be deceased). My major problem with it is the authors tie lack of interest in shiny, new stuff to the vintage card market as well when they are two entirely different animals. Vintage cards certainly seem to be in a robust pricing stage right now, wouldn't you say?

Archive
05-27-2007, 03:49 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />I'm sure that the people that bought the T206 Wagner knew it's sordid history and also knew that The Card was going to be published soon. It's simply a "wake-up" call to our hobby to get it's act together.<br /><br />The end result is the Wagner and our hobby will recieve more press. As entertainers say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.<br /><br />Only in America do you have the luxury of writing an entire book about one F.....G (excuse my French) baseball card. No wonder people around the World think that we have too much money and too much free time on our hands.<br /><br />Have a good weekend people.<br /><br />Peter

Archive
05-27-2007, 03:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter, which part of the world thinks we have too much money and too much free time? I'd love to know.

Archive
05-27-2007, 03:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p><I>"I'm sure that the people that bought the T206 Wagner knew it's sordid history and also knew that The Card was going to be published soon."</I><br /><br />That's a pretty big assumption Peter. I am not so certain that the new owners forked over millions knowing that their purchase would soon be in the headlines in a negative light.<br /><br />Then again, the previous owner might have known what was coming. Maybe that's why he sold.<br><br>Frank

Archive
05-27-2007, 04:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>It's is a contraction -- it is short for it is. The possessive is spelled "its" with no apostrophe.

Archive
05-27-2007, 04:12 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>"Receive" is wrong too but why belabor the point.

Archive
05-27-2007, 04:17 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>By the way, I am shocked at the abysmal response the book has gotten on this board. While I recognize that there are factual errors that could have easily been corrected, didn't anybody find anything worthwhile in this little tome? Remember the average reader is probably not an experienced vintage card collector. Is it possible someone outside the mainstream hobby might find it interesting? It's hard to believe O'Keefe worked several years on the project and did such a poor job.

Archive
05-27-2007, 04:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Zinn</b><p><br />"I am shocked at the abysmal response the book has gotten on this board."<br /><br />Might it be because 98% of us haven't read it yet?

Archive
05-27-2007, 05:15 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I was just referring to those few who have read it. I suppose the more people who do, the more of an accurate response we will get.

Archive
05-27-2007, 06:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I think it's pretty telling that most folks are not going to bother to read it. Obviously if it had anything new to offer we would have heard that already.

Archive
05-27-2007, 07:08 PM
Posted By: <b>Boccabella</b><p>Yes, I think it's safe to say the book is not aimed at those who've heard the stories about the long-term history of the card. If it were, the print run could probably have been about 250. Most people outside of the hobby or casual collectors know nothing about it's possible origin, etc. Many don't even know what makes any Wagner so desirable.<br /><br />When the card sold earlier this year, despite a lot of publicity there was no mention of its possible background. That states quite clearly that the story is not common knowledge beyond this board or long-time T206 collectors. This is a very, very small world.<br /><br />The same goes for some well-publicized game-used items later found to not quite be what they were purported to be. The authors touch on that as well. <br /><br />The book is a bit disjointed and there are plenty of unanswered questions. The Cobb/Edwards card gets too much play. But if there is a substantial, important and glaring error with regard to the premise, maybe someone else can shed some light on what that is. Better yet, fill in the blanks.

Archive
05-27-2007, 07:18 PM
Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>But if the book isn't made to cater to the collectors<br />of this hobby who else would care about the contents?<br />My wife (as an example) knows nothing about cards & <br />collectibles and therefore could care less if the Wagner <br />sold for $2.00 or $2 million.<br />So I would think the hard core collector is the intended aim<br />of this book.

Archive
05-27-2007, 08:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Bruce MacPherson</b><p>I believe that the target audience of the book is certainly card/memoribilia collectors, but not limited to vintage card collectors. Most of us on this board probably have our own opinions about whether the card is altered or not, however there are likely many non pre-war collectors who have never heard or read any of the discussion and controversies about the card and would find this to be a good read. Anyway I am about a third of the way through the book and I don't share the negativity expressed on the board, at least thus far. But then again, I have a lot left to read including the Cobb/Edwards conterfeit which may change my view. Also, I would be happy to pass my copy along as soon as I am done to anyone that is interested.

Archive
05-27-2007, 11:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Boccabella</b><p>A card like this transcends the hobby. It's a piece of Americana--something even those with little or no knowledge of cards or the hobby have at least a passing familiarity. If it were purely a book aimed at collectors, there would be no chapters on Wagner himself, his house, the various personalities involved in ownership, etc. The card enthusiasts are a target market, but that's a small number compared to those who will actually read it. <br /><br />

Archive
05-28-2007, 02:16 AM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><i>&lt;&lt; My major problem with it is the authors tie lack of interest in shiny, new stuff to the vintage card market as well when they are two entirely different animals. Vintage cards certainly seem to be in a robust pricing stage right now, wouldn't you say? &gt;&gt;</i><br /><br />Dave,<br /><br />I found O'Keeffe's attempt to link vintage and modern cards to be similarly confusing and I don't think it was a particularly erudite association to make. Sure, there are some who collect both (vintage and modern) but to make the claim that Fleer's 2005 bankruptcy or Wal-Mart's inability to sell boxes of shiny new stuff signals the death knell of the vintage market demonstrates, in my opinion, a misunderstanding of the hobby. O'Keeffe's contention that "[t]he hobby peaked in 1991...but it has been in free fall ever since" isn't very accurate. <br /><br />There was also an interesting irony in the book. In several places, O'Keeffe mentions that there is a secret "before photo" of the T206 Wagner and yet he was never able to get his hands on it and include it in his book. But even if he had, would it have made a difference? Think about the following -- if someone cannot tell the difference between the blatantly fake T206 Honus Wagner owned by Ray Edwards and John Cobb and an authentic example of the same card, then how is that person going to make any accurate and objective judgments from an old, fuzzy photo?<br /><br />This, for me, became the most enduring theme in the book. An investigative journalist, who for all his research, was unable to determine that two scalawags from Cincinnati were trying to defraud the hobby to the tune of $1 million, was going to "blow the cover" off the hobby with his exhaustive research into the history of the hobby's most famous baseball card.<br /><br />Does anyone else see the problem with that picture?

Archive
05-28-2007, 02:25 AM
Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>The writer of the book actually said the market peaked in '91 and has been in a freefall ever since?!? I was under the impression he talked to people like Barry, Scott, and others. Even people who dont collect baseball cards know that they've become much easier to move since the internet and ebay came along. Its probably safe to say that all the popular collectables like coins, sports, comics, etc, have experienced a huge boom since ebay and the internet were established. What an assinine(spell?) comment to make!

Archive
05-28-2007, 04:47 AM
Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I haven't read the book and don't pretend to know what the author wrote, but agree that someone who can't tell whether or not the Cincinnati Wagner is a reprint shouldn't be writing a book about the T206 Wagner fakes. For the same reason that someone who doesn't know what state Chicago is in shouldn't be writing a traveler's guide to Illinois.

Archive
05-28-2007, 10:54 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>The speculation that there is "before and after" photographic evidence concerning the Wagner has always been one of the most intriguing aspects of the story, and of course it has existed long before the publication of this book. Was Alan Ray prescient enough to take pictures of the card before he sold it, for example? But aside from further speculation about who might possess such evidence, nothing seems to have come of this. <br /><br />To answer Mike's question I am not sure photos from the 80s would necessarily be "old [and] fuzzy" and I am not sure I follow what seems to be the premise of his post, namely that O'Keefe would necessarily be the one making the judgments from the photos. If they were published in the book or the internet for example wouldn't we all be able to make judgments? Perhaps I misunderstood the question.<br /><br />

Archive
05-28-2007, 10:59 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I don't really read many books, besides auction catalogues and Road and Track and Motor Trend, but finished the UNEDITED copy this morning. I might have been a little harsh on it before but the real thing is it shed no new light on The Card. It also gave way too much attention to the 2 jokers with the fake Wagner and really never discounted them....even after we all know that was a huge farce. This board was mentioned many times as well as several posters. It pretty much left the opinion of the author that our hobby is completely fraudulent and filled with scandals and deceit. While I agree there is some of that I would strongly disagree and say that overall the hobby is a good place and a lot of fun...at least it has been for me for the last 10 yrs...and I hope many more to come....regards

Archive
05-28-2007, 02:40 PM
Posted By: <b>RIch Klein</b><p>It has to do with 2 factors:<br /><br />1) New wax sales, which is one of the very few things in the business that the amount of $$$ spent on said product can be reasonably accurately gauged.<br /><br />2) The shows/shops and how many people came to them. I promise you the only time I ever feared for my life in a show was at Trade Show Night of the 1991 National. I ducked into the cafateria (sic) with a couple of dealers from Arkansas and none of us left for several hours until it calmed down.<br /><br />However, I would assume with all the big $$$ being spent on all the catalog auctions; I bet there is as much if not more $$ being spent today as in 1991; it's just spent a lot differently as everyone realizes that having 800 1990 Topps Ben McDonald cards is probably not the way to save for your child's college fund.<br /><br />Regards<br />Rich

Archive
05-28-2007, 03:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Hi Mike,<br /><br />During 2003 and 2004 we spoke many times on the telephone. In several of those calls we discussed the T206 Wagner PSA 8 and how you and your brother were in possession of photographic evidence of the Wagner in it's original state, well before it was graded by PSA. You had indicated that you were working with one of the major network news programs, like 20/20, who was going to be doing a full exposé. Since I was friends with Mike Baker you asked my opinion of how Mike would feel were this information to come out.<br /><br />In addition, during that time you were a regular member on the SGC chat boards and posted on a thread in which you were discussing the Wagner in which you, in essence, piqued readers' interest by inferring the same thing you had told me on the telephone. Of course I went back to that thread and your post was deleted along with all other posts you made that were associated with any controversy. <br /><br />So why now the surprise about the author mentioning the existence of this photographic evidence? <br /><br />Prior to editing your initial post you wrote this:<br /><br /><b>What about some of O'Keeffe's other sordid details? I can't speak for others, but I can address specific words he writes about BMW Sportscards. O'Keeffe's statement that Brian and I intended to use a secret photo of the T206 Wagner as "the centerpiece of a book or lawsuit against Mastro" is barely worth a response. There was and is no book or lawsuit. We never even considered such things. They're a total invention by the author. Apparently, O'Keeffe is the type of journalistic supersleuth who looks under every rock. Even the imaginary ones.</B><br /><br />You are a very bright guy who is very well written. You identify the author stating you and Brian are in possession of these photos and that you are going to do a book or file a suit against Mastro. In your response above that is no longer on the thread, you only state that there was and is no lawsuit or book. Well what about the photo? And again today you raise the secret photo that the author refers to. Who ever said it was old and fuzzy? Just wondering where you are going with this. <br /><br />If you have this secret pic of the card what is preventing you from presenting it? <br /><br />Greg<br />

Archive
05-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Greg,<br /><br />Are you suggesting that a picture of the Gretzky Wagner exists prior to it's being graded by PSA. Approximately when was this photo taken and by who. Also, who is in possession of the photo right now.<br /><br />Peter

Archive
05-30-2007, 01:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />I am not suggesting, rather recalling 3 telephone calls I had with Mike in which he specifically stated he had photographic evidence. I am also not the only person he told this to. <br /><br />I have, and will, not read the book, but obviously the author has the same information that I have and I was not the source of providing him with BMW's claims. <br /><br />I know nothing about the photo that is said to exist. I just know that Mike claims that he and his brother are in possession of it.<br /><br />Greg

Archive
05-30-2007, 01:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Well my copy of the book arrived today. I'm midway through A Perfect Red, and will finish that before starting The Card.<br /><br />I'd still like to see an Errata prepared.

Archive
05-30-2007, 01:45 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have been told there are 3-4 "before" pictures of The Card. All the same ones but in different hands. I believe BMW has one, another very respected board member who has been sworn to secrecy has one, and a few more folks. I am also told that the before pictures aren't that good and shed no conclusive light on the situation. The picture is poor quality. Saying The Card is a fake is ridiculous and whomever says that instantly loses credibility. Saying the card was cut from a sheet and then cut after that is probably as close to the truth as there can be right now, all in my opinion. I have no factual evidence besides seeing The Card several times under glass and encased in the PSA slab. The top left corner looks to "bat ear" up to me, otherwise it looks like a solid 8 ...Since every single person, that is knowledgable about The Card, says it was cut from a sheet it's surprising (not) that PSA would slab it........regards

Archive
05-30-2007, 02:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>You say every single person who is knowledgeable about the card says it is cut from a sheet. Who is more knowledgeable than Mr. Mastro, and he has not said that as far as I know?

Archive
05-30-2007, 02:07 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I am about halfway through the book. Ray, the guy who sold the card to Mastro, seems to have quite a resentment against him. Perhaps this is because he was bullyed into selling the card plus a bunch of others high-grade T206s including a Plank for 25k and then heard Bill turned around and sold the card for 110k to Copeland. Maybe he started a rumor about the card being trimmed out of resentment. I have no knowledge on this issue either way - just speculating. <br /><br />The idea that a pre-trimmed Wagner had a red printer's line that was trimmed away seems suspect to me since we have never seen another T206 with such a printer's line. <br />JimB

Archive
05-30-2007, 02:13 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I should have said every single person I have been in contact with, and spoken with, about The Card. I haven't ever spoken with Bill M. about it. Not sure I would want to either <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.....

Archive
05-30-2007, 02:31 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />We may hate the book because it puts the hobby in a bad light. But I'm sure that Bill M. would like to have the book burned.<br /><br />Peter

Archive
05-30-2007, 02:55 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You should never get bullied by anyone to sell anything unless you choose to do so. If that is Mr. Sevchuk's response to all this (I know someone said he may now be deceased) then that's pretty lame.

Archive
05-30-2007, 04:24 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>A couple of points of clarification:<br /><br />I think Alan Ray may have been confused by a few aspects of the card's condition. First, Ray suggests through several sources that a small red print line that existed near the top border of the card seemingly vanished between the time that he owned the card and the point at which it was auctioned by Sotheby's. This is not the case. I've seen the card in person at two different National Conventions and the small red print line is still there. This is a non-issue.<br /><br />Second, I think Ray may have been confused by the size of the card as it was displayed in the 1991 Copeland Collection catalog. Many of the images, including that of the T206 Wagner, were slightly cropped in the 1991 Sotheby's catalog. Since Ray, to the best of my knowledge, was not at the auction, his initial statement that the card was trimmed was not based on a physical inspection of the card during or after the sale, but rather, the picture that was used in the auction catalog, which does indeed make the card look smaller than its actual size.<br /><br />Michael O'Keeffe's statement that "[t]he red printer's line was gone" at the end of the seventh chapter is just plain wrong and his contention that "[t]he edges were no longer wavy" is based on Ray's subjective opinion, not factual evidence. I think that this type of journalism can easily mislead uninformed readers into believing something is true when it is not. If Michael O'Keeffe had simply gone to PSA's booth at the last National Convention (which he attended) and viewed the PSA 8 T206 Wagner he would KNOW that the red print line was still there.<br /><br />Again, I think this goes back to the same issue involving Cobb and Edwards' fake T206 Wagner that O'Keeffe seems to think is authentic. There are just too many essential and obvious facts that are either missed or excluded from the book.<br />

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:16 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Mike,<br />Thanks for clarification. I have seen the card several times and have not noticed the red print line. Does anybody have a scan that shows it clearly? Was it a stray erroneous spot of ink or does it look like a proof line?<br />JimB

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:30 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />It is a very thin, short, red line somewhat similar to what is commonly seen near the bottom of the E90-1 Cy Young, only much lighter. I am uncertain whether this line also appears on the other Piedmont Wagners.

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>This is not meant to cross-examine you but just out of interest: if the photo proves nothing, why is it that noone in possession of a copy will share it with the collecting public?

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>My guess is that there's presently too much of a furor over The Card. People don't want to show their photo because they don't want the spotlight shining on them.<br /><br />Peter

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Peter C., there is more to it than that, it has been widely rumored for many years that certain people were in possession of a "before" photo but would hot share it, for whatever reason. So this is nothing new.

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:39 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />I would answer your question with the following:<br /><br />If it is so obvious that the T206 Wagner owned by Cobb and Edwards is fake then how come so many in the media believe it may be real?<br /><br />Just because something is obvious to seasoned collectors doesn't mean that it will be obvious to those "outside" of the hobby.

Archive
05-30-2007, 05:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Michael, am I to understand then that you believe the card is not trimmed but you are fearful that less informed and experienced people might conclude from the photo that it is?

Archive
05-31-2007, 12:59 AM
Posted By: <b>RC McKenzie</b><p>I have too many books on my "need-to-read-someday" list to ever get to this o'Keefe fellow's book. It's definately behind Hemingway's 'To Have and Have Not' and B. Traven's 'The Treasure of the Sierra Madre'. If they put "The Card" in the seatback of an airplane I might choose it over the complimentary airline magazine.

Archive
05-31-2007, 01:18 PM
Posted By: <b>tfever</b><p>The following pic shows the red line (cross) on "The Card". It is pretty light and looks like the proof cross. I collect t206 oddities and have cards with such red proof cross as well.<br /><br />"The Card":<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1180545396.JPG"> <br /><br /><br />My other T206 with similar red proof cross:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1180545452.GIF">

Archive
05-31-2007, 01:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>That line is not anywhere even close to the border. This would seem to undercut Alan Ray's credibility/memory of the card, if indeed his contention is that he thinks the card is trimmed because the portion of the card with the line is missing. Even aside from the fact that the line is still there, his story could only make sense if at the time he owned it the line had been very close to the border.

Archive
05-31-2007, 01:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Joe</b><p>Well, now that Doug Allen has, ahem, straightened things out on that other post, perhaps he can talk to his boss and put "The Card" controversy to rest once and for all.

Archive
05-31-2007, 02:16 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>MW said: "It is a very thin, short, red line somewhat similar to what is commonly seen near the bottom of the E90-1 Cy Young, only much lighter."<br /><br />Sorry, but to me, that line looks nothing at all like the red printer's lines found on the e90-1 Young below:<br /><br /><img src="http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e211/jkrasner2/0e582218-5047-44e8-86b7-a3b8564f133.jpg">

Archive
05-31-2007, 02:18 PM
Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>tfever,<br /><br />Thanks for posting the enlarged image of the top of the T206 Wagner. Although light, the red line is clearly visible and should not have been missed by O'Keeffe -- especially since he uses it as a "key piece of evidence" in his book. That is not to say that there is necessarily any malevolence on his part; I just don't think he has acquired enough knowledge about vintage baseball cards, particularly T206s, to write authoritatively about the famed T206 Wagner.<br /><br />On a similar subject, I do not know why some continue to write that the card is undersized or has bat ears. I have closely examined it and it possesses <b><i>neither</i></b> of these undesirable qualities.

Archive
05-31-2007, 02:28 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It could just be me but, to me, the Wagner left top corner does go up ever so slightly.....again, could just be me but I think I see it....<br /><br />edited as I meant to say "left" top corner

Archive
05-31-2007, 03:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p><P>It's not just you Leon.. </P><P>looks batty to me.</P><br><br>martyOgelvie<br />nyyankeecards.com

Archive
05-31-2007, 04:12 PM
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I disagree on the bat-ears contention (though I agree with almost everything else you say Leon <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>). I think that top left (looking at it dead on) corner has a nick in it, and some of the under card (grey stock) has 'fluffed' out a little as happens sometimes to a nicked corner.<br /><br /><br />JMO<br /><br /><br /><br />Daniel

Archive
05-31-2007, 04:38 PM
Posted By: <b>John Basilone</b><p>edited this post....<br /><br /><br />John- I am told that this was in fact not what was said by MW. I can't allow folks to post things that others said without seeing some proof. Please provide unequivocal proof to me and you can post whatever you want. To me this is not too much different than posting a private email with respect to it being potentially manipulated before it's posted. I am not saying it was but I have been told that certain parts of this were not said......Again, show me proof and you can post.....thanks much....leon aka moderator dude....

Archive
05-31-2007, 05:25 PM
Posted By: <b>John Basilone</b><p>Leon -<br /><br />Can I post a link to the CU thread in which the post originated from? <br /><br />

Archive
05-31-2007, 05:29 PM
Posted By: <b>John Basilone</b><p>...

Archive
05-31-2007, 05:37 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Yes, you may post a link to the CU board....

Archive
05-31-2007, 05:43 PM
Posted By: <b>John Basilone</b><p><br />too much old garbage on that thread. I decided to just delete it.<br /><br />

Archive
05-31-2007, 05:56 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I guess the real question is, did the person posting on MW's behalf, post what MW asked him to post?<br /><br />Either way, I'd sure like to hear what Mike has to say on the matter.

Archive
05-31-2007, 06:00 PM
Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Interesting. I found JO's comments to be especially riveting.

Archive
05-31-2007, 06:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>In the first post on the CU board there is a link to a thread made by Dan McKee on the Net54 board....all of MW's posts were deleted by Leon two years after the thread was started. Why?

Archive
05-31-2007, 10:02 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Leon, why were you deleting MW's posts years after they were posted?

Archive
05-31-2007, 10:58 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I deleted some old posts/threads that were very provocative quite some time ago. I was trying to clean up the board....I also deleted certain other threads before Jay and I got into it and I made the general rule of not deleting threads. Live and learn...regards....<br /><br />edited spelling

Archive
06-02-2007, 10:23 AM
Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>And I thought autographs were bad,,, <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.<br />It appears to me that the most important point being made in the book, (by an author who has exposed many faults in sports memorabilia collecting (see some of his past NY Daily News stories), is that the card has been trimmed. <br />The card was noted as trimmed by PSA and by Bill Heitman. A major authentication service (which has its faults) and a leading expert on T206 cards.<br />Enough said,, this is not my field, but I thought I should get this off my chest.<br />--<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<br />Unknown author <br />--<br />We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.<br />No retreat baby, no surrender.<br />The Boss

Archive
06-02-2007, 10:31 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Thanks for chiming in this morning....quick question. You said PSA deemed the PSA8 Wagner "trimmed". I didn't see that anywhere and it's graded an 8. Where did you get that info? best regards

Archive
06-02-2007, 11:32 AM
Posted By: <b>sagard</b><p>I think he's inferring to the rumor the "card" was originally rejected, then later graded an eight.<br /><br />This thread has been very interesting. Am I mistaken or are some of the biggest critics of the recent book formerly some of the biggest critics of the card?

Archive
06-02-2007, 11:52 AM
Posted By: <b>Joseph</b><p>Leon writes to Richard S:<br /><br />Thanks for chiming in this morning....quick question. You said PSA deemed the PSA8 Wagner "trimmed". I didn't see that anywhere and it's graded an 8. Where did you get that info? best regards<br /><br /><br />One of the main premises of the book is that the card is "trimmed" or more specifically, cut from a sheet. After reading much that has been posted on these boards over the past few weeks it seems to me that the general consensus HERE is that "The Card" IS cut from a sheet.

Archive
06-02-2007, 12:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Haven't we learned ONE thing from this whole mess...<br /><br />and that is that there was only ONE Honus Wagner card on the uncut sheet of T206's that was originally found?<br /><br /><br />Wasn't there always some speculation about how the T206 sheets were printed and how perhaps the same player appeared either above or below his own card?<br /><br />I think we can safely assume that there was NOT another two or three Wagners on this Piedmont sheet... or Mastro would have done the same with them and we would see them in the hobby.<br /><br />

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:02 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>Leon - According to my reading of the book, Bill Hughes who was the grader for PSA, deemed the card to be trimmed.<br /><br />--<br /><br /><br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<br />Unknown author <br />--<br />We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.<br />No retreat baby, no surrender.<br />The Boss

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:12 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>According to the book, Bill Hughes, PSA grader at the beginning and periodic high-end card dealer graded the card for PSA. He is quoted in the book as saying,<br />"I am aware it was part of a strip. We were aware of this when the card came to PSA and I graded the card. This particular card was obviously cut, but if it had been a discusting card that was cut, of course we would have graded it 'trimmed'. This card was fresh in every way, brand new looking in every way....Because of the freshness, the great color, the white borders, you know, the card basically looked new. It looked like a card that had come out of the factory and was never packaged, no tobacco stains, nothing wrong with it whatsoever. By virtue of that, the card really warranted being graded as the best example..... THis card is so outstanding, it would have been sacrilegious to call that card trimmed and completely devalue it. Just look what it has done for the hobby." p. 195 in The Card.<br /><br />JimB

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>What kind of justification is that for slabbing a card cut from a sheet?

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:21 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If that was Bill Hughes' take on it, wouldn't it merit a qualifier of some kind? The fact that it is the best looking of the known Wagners is a valid statement, but his logic does not constitute it receiving a PSA 8. That is really bizarre. Now I'm going to have to read this thing.

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:22 PM
Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>So if the head grader for PSA said this than .......<br /><br />Does this not say that PSA will grade a card known as sheet cut IF it is the best or deemed good for the hobby by them. Them being PSA. <br /><br />How do they justify that ? Has this been done for other cards ?<br /><br />Not good imho.

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:23 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>If it was perfect "nothing wrong with it whatsoever" it should have been a 9. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />What do we know that would help us to assess Mr. Hughes' credibility on the subject?

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:23 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>JimB,<br /><br />Thanks for pulling out the Hughes quote. As far as I'm concerned it's pretty damning...he's basically saying if it's high quality trimming then it's okay. What kind of criteria is that.<br /><br />Peter

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Peter C., anybody can say anything, you as a lawyer should know that. I would prefer to learn more about Mr. Hughes before crediting his statement at face value.

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:28 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Damn, that's hilarious. The power of the slab! Woops, I mean the power of the flip IN the slab!

Archive
06-02-2007, 01:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>So Bill Hughes graded the card in 1991 and for the first time has now revealed his opinion 16 years later to Mr. O'Keefe? And by way of answering the obvious question why the hell did you grade it if it was trimmed, he comes up with that bogus explanation? I am not buying yet, sorry.

Archive
06-02-2007, 02:01 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Perhaps Hughes' reasoning is also the explanation for the numerous hi grade cards slabbed by PSA that collectors around here believe to be trimmed.<br /><br />In other words, give them a nice enough card regardless of who it is, and it will get slabbed even if trimmed. Only the mid and low grade trims will be rejected. What wonderful news for the card doctors out there.

Archive
06-02-2007, 02:01 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>I also noticed that Richard mentioned the fact that Bill Heitman also stated that the card was trimmed. For you that have doubts about Huges, I am sure you don't feel that way about Heitman. If you also read the book you find out that McNall knew as well.

Archive
06-02-2007, 02:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>What is the basis for his claim? Is it opinion based on seeing the card, or first (or second) hand knowledge?

Archive
06-02-2007, 02:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>There is no way PSA would officially support Hughes' reasoning. None.

Archive
06-02-2007, 04:57 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Number 1 Huges worked for Psa and was there number one guy at the time. Number 2 If was no secret to Gretky and McNall then I don't belive it was a sercret to Joe Orlando. If you read the book you will also see that Josh Evans from Lelands was quoted by O'Keeffe that Mastro told him it was trimed.<br /><br />Read the book.

Archive
06-02-2007, 05:11 PM
Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>Wow,<br /><br />I even got a mention in the book on page 193.<br /><br />Just finished it myself. I must say it does make for some interesting history on the card.<br />I also have a hard time ignoring the parts about Josh L. and the aformentioned Hughes regarding it being trimmed.<br /><br />Just to much kinky stuff seems to follow Bill Mastro around for me. I consider myself an honest person and think i made the right choice in avoiding his auctions with all thats been admited to on this forum. As<br />well as what many longtime trusted friends say.<br /><br />To many other place's to spend my hard earned money. I'll stay away from the ones who seem to have the stench of fraud on them.<br /><br />I never gave much thought to the whole ad thing. But the more of this stuff that comes out. The more i see the problem with a company like Mastro paying to advertise to a captive audiance like us. Can all here be objective ? I really don't see how. Human nature is what it is.

Archive
06-02-2007, 05:15 PM
Posted By: <b>jeffdrum</b><p>I've never bought a single thing in their auctions and I can say that their advertising on here won't affect my decision to either way. I see it as a non-issue.

Archive
06-02-2007, 05:45 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Now there is a damning piece of evidence O'Keefe saying Josh Evans told him that Mastro told him. Suppose Bill Mastro did trim the card, why would he tell Josh Evans? And why would Josh Evans first reveal this to O'Keefe?

Archive
06-02-2007, 05:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I think more significant of all is the fact that neither Evans nor Mastro have made any public comment about suing O'Keefe for libel.<br /><br />There's your answer.

Archive
06-02-2007, 06:06 PM
Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />If said statements were untrue. Would that mean a suite would be forthcoming ? And if so. Would we even know ?

Archive
06-02-2007, 06:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>A suite?

Archive
06-02-2007, 06:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Jeff that doesn't mean anything. Assume Mastro did not trim the card. What are his damages if someone says he did? And did O'Keefe actually say he did, or did O'Keefe report the contents of conversations he had with others who made that claim? Either way, Bill Mastro is best advised to lay low, not stir the pot any further, and let his auctions continue to prosper. This won't hurt him one iota IMHO.

Archive
06-02-2007, 06:57 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I don't think that Bill Mastro wants to be known as someone who knew the card was trimmed and kept his mouth shut for all these years. That would make him appear as if he cared more about money and his business than the good of the hobby, no? At the very least, wouldn't he make a public statement to dispute what was in the book? I hear crickets coming from the Mastro camp instead.

Archive
06-02-2007, 06:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>He has already denied it many times, Jeff, including in an old article by O'Keefe that (I think) is on t206museum.com This is not a case of silence is an admission.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_19.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_19.html</a>

Archive
06-02-2007, 07:21 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Interesting. So what is the incentive to make up such a story about Bill Mastro?

Archive
06-02-2007, 07:32 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I cannot comment directly on Mr. O'Keefe's motives, or who might have an interest in a story that puts Mr. Mastro in a negative light, etc. Michael Wentz certainly has pointed out some issues with Mr. O'Keefe's credibility earlier in this thread or perhaps it was on another thread. In any event, I have no idea if the card is trimmed or not, and it may well be, my only point is that one should be careful not to reach conclusions based on inadequate evidence. At this point, I tend to discount the he said she said stuff and find more compelling eyewitness observations of the card and the comments of people with knowledge of historical context who can make reasoned arguments based on the Piedmont back, etc.

Archive
06-02-2007, 07:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Joseph</b><p>Elsewhere on this forum, I have posted what I hoped would become a poll about the opinions of <br />the fine folks on this forum on the PSA 8 Gretzky. Please, oh forum leader, turn it into a poll.<br /><br />Anyway, so far NO ONE AMONG THE KNOWLEDGEABLE COLLECTORS here believes the card has not been cut from<br />a sheet and/or trimmed later. Read the book, if you have not, and you'll see how Mastro reacted when the <br />reporter put the question to him for the umpteenth time. <br /><br />

Archive
06-02-2007, 07:52 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Peter,<br />I agree with you. Nobody who claims or opines it was trimmed, including Bill Heitman or Bill Hughes have offered actual evidence. They just say that they knew. Either nobody can or nobody is willing to produce actual evidence of anything. <br /><br />Even Ray, the guy who sold it to Mastro won't say where he got it. The sheet story is just a rumor too. No evidence. If he cut it from a sheet, what does he have to lose by saying that now? The lawyers could chime in on his potential liablilty, but I don't think he would be on the hook for that at this point. He did not have PSA encapsulate it. He did not have Sotheby's sell it. And if the rumors are true, he told Mastro that it was cut from a sheet. He seems to be envious that Mastro made so much money off the card. Yet, he sold it to Mastro for more than anybody had ever sold a baseball card for before. If he stole it from an old lady's attic, then I guess there is still reason to be secretive about the source. If this Ray guy is still around, he would seem to be the one who could unravel this mystery. But apparently he feels he has something to lose if he does.<br />JimB

Archive
06-02-2007, 11:27 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>I can't belive what I am reading. If you get hit in the head with a bat and you where the only one there does that mean it is not true.<br />Bill Huges saw the card and graded it. He then said it was trimmed. Heitman has held the same card in his hands and said it was trimed. McNall bought the card and said it was trimmed. What in the heck am I missing here. You have to know that this is a great story. This is about a hobbie that seems to deny any thing that might make waves. A week ago you could read how many people question PSA. Now you have the same people saying it can't be true. Make up you minds. The fact is the card is trimmed. Is there anyone that is on this site denying the fact that cards have been sold without telling the customer that they have been fixed. This is like a man who goes to AA and says Im here for the girls.

Archive
06-02-2007, 11:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>So we are supposed to take the word of a guy who essentially says he fraudulently graded the card? Oh, OK, sure, why not? But the word of Bill Mastro means nothing? Has Rob Lifson put his reputation on the line to say the card was trimmed? Not to my knowledge. Kind of a risky business plan for PSA, knowingly slabbing a trimmed card to launch their business, don't you think? OH and let me add Michael Wentz's recent statement at least as I understood him to the effect that the supposed "before" photo adds nothing to the case.

Archive
06-02-2007, 11:59 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Pteter,<br />No your not supposed to take the word of one man. I have given you the names of at least four people Huges, Heitman, Evans, and McNall. I think that there names are as important to this situation as that of Mastro. I dont see Mastro comeing on this site and saying it's not true. .<br /> Peter you can name all the names you want but I am talking about the man who graded the card. I am talking about the man who bought the card. If you can get me two people that are closer to the story than they are please have them come on up.If Mastro belives that what is being said is not true where is he? I know that you don't represent him or Psa, or do you?<br />

Archive
06-03-2007, 12:22 AM
Posted By: <b>Rich Mueller</b><p>There are, apparently, 12 or 13 T206 cards graded PSA 10. I'm sure there are a few others of similar quality in SGC holders. Does anyone know the origin of any of those cards? Might some be from the infamous Wagner sheet or another? Or just freaks that survived?

Archive
06-03-2007, 02:06 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"What in the heck am I missing here."<br /><br />Actual evidence rather than rumor and innuendo. Nobody so far claims they saw it get trimmed. Nobody who saw it before and after is making that claim. The mystery photo is supposedly inconclusive according to Mike Wentz who has seen it. Bruce McNall's opinion is frankly worth nothing to me. He was not a card person. Somebody apparently told him it was trimmed and he believed them. Bill Hughes said he believed it to be trimmed, but he did not say why. Josh Evan's claim in the book about what Bill Mastro said to him is the most damning piece to the puzzle, but it is far from providing any conclusive evidence.<br />JimB

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:19 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>How do you know, other than his say-so, that Bill Hughes is the "one" who graded the card? My guess is that on something so important, and the very first card PSA graded, several people would have been involved.<br /><br />Your approach is interesting -- you take what some people say at face value, yet discount others such as Bill Mastro himself.<br /><br />IF this were a hypothetical proceeding where the presumption was that the card was not trimmed, so far I have not seen enough evidence to overcome that presumption.

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:35 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Where did I miss Bill Mastro saying it's not true. As for McNall not being in the business you are correct. The thing is he bought the card and in doing so he was told of its condition. I dont have to be a doctor to know if I have cancer.

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:37 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I don't think Mastro saying it's not true necessarily makes it true. Personally I don't know but certainly could not swear it's trimmed....Could you?

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:48 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Would a fairer statement be it's pretty clear it is not factory cut?

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:49 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>This link was provided just a few posts above in this thread. Read it and you will see Mr. Mastro's denial.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_19.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.t206museum.com/page/periodical_19.html</a>

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:52 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Leon<br />I would have to say that I truely belive that this card was trimmed.I was a close friend of Bill Huges at the time the card was graded. He was positive the card was trimmed as well as Bill Heitman. They where partners in a litho company at that time. It was not a secret as many of you out there think. When this card was graded many people in this hobbie knew what said about this card. The reason this is happenng now is because of the book.<br />

Archive
06-03-2007, 10:56 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Shelly, do you recall what Hughes told you were the reasons for his belief? In other words, was it based on his observation of the card, was it based on things people directly involved had admitted to him, etc. And do you have any thoughts on why he kept his silence until interviewed by O'Keefe? This all would shed some light on the credibility of his claim.

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:17 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Huges stated that the card size was not the same size of that of Piedmont card.It also showed under a microscope that the card was cut differently from all other Piedmonts that he had seen. I asked him why a Piedmont card? He told me that Piedmonts where different in size from Sweet Caparol and other t206 backs. He also stated that the card never saw a pack. <br />You wont belive why I think Bill never said anything but here it is. No one ever asked him about the card untill now. I don't think that anyone of you knew that he was the person who graded it. It took a book to bring out the story. I will tell you this one more time. There where many people that know the story but never said a word. Most of you know about doctoring of cards but I don,t think you tell you customers. Well if no one asked no one told.

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:18 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>In that article Bill Mastro did indeed refute it being trimmed.....So the story goes and there is still no positive proof....and it's in a PSA8 holder (which is neither here nor there)....no proof so far though....

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:20 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Shelly I have heard for years that Hughes was involved in grading the card. He also said so in something published on the web, let me see if I can find it. Edited to add, here ya go, from 2002.<br /><br /><a href="http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=921&si=127" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://scoop.diamondgalleries.com/scoop_article.asp?ai=921&si=127</a>

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:28 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Ok so you knew Bill Huges authenticated the card. What does that have to do with what he said about the card. I said most of you did no know that Bill authenticated the card. I belive that the man who graded the card knows what he saw. If Mastro says its not true then that is his side of the story. I belive what Huges and Heitman told me. What reason would these two people have to lie. They gain nothing from it. On the other hand I would say that Mastro does. Leon I stand corrected I didn't see that in the book.<br />This can go on for ever. The only way you will be convinced if the new owner has the guts to let someone else grade the card. I don't see that happening. So we have to belive what we want to belive.

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:32 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>What was Bill Hughes' incentive to knowingly slab a trimmed card for a company whose business plan was to capitalize on a perceived need for third party authentication to prevent rampant fraud in the card industry?

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:37 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p> You read his quote. He thought he was doing the right thing for the Hobbie. <br />Right or wrong that is what he belived. Why do you think he did it? Why do think that Heitman would say the same thing? Why would Mastro say its not true?

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:44 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Shelly -you say you were a good friend of Bill Hughes but you are certainly putting his head on the chopping block. Did the two of you have a falling out?

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:46 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>No. Why am I putting his head on a chopping block. Bill stated in the book what I am saying now. He is a big boy and when he was asked a question he gave an honest answer. I think that Bill did what he thought was the right thing to do at that time. He did what he belived to be the best thing for the hobbie. He said "look what has happened to that card since it was graded"<br />I am not sure if he would do the same thing today. What surprises me the most about all of this. Is that so many people are in denial.

Archive
06-03-2007, 12:02 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Sorry Shelly. I haven't read the book yet. I'm a little behind the curve.<br /><br />Shelly- you may not be able to answer this but do you think everyone who bought the card had the knowledge that it was trimmed? Do you know if the current owner is aware of it?

Archive
06-03-2007, 12:20 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>The only people that I know for sure where Gretzky and McNall. I think that Gidwitz found about it. The new owner must be aware of it by now. Like I said it seemed that a lot of people knew of this at the start and then over the years it didn't seem to matter. Now that the book is out the questions about this card are starting over.

Archive
06-03-2007, 12:32 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You touched on the point of my question. The new owner must know by now, but did he when he purchased the card? That was before the book was published.<br /><br />And while this is merely an aside, it seems to me this card has changed hands quite a few times considering it is the crown jewel of the hobby. Most artifacts of that stature usually remain with their owners for a long time.

Archive
06-03-2007, 12:50 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Money Money Money. Most people knew about this book before the last sale. Mike had been working on it for at least two years. I know that he talked to many people about this book at the Anheim National. I think that was way before the card was sold. I have to say this. Because a painting is hanging in the New York Museum Of Art it does not mean it's authentic. I think if people want to belive in something so much there is no way that they will ever belive its not what it is.

Archive
06-03-2007, 01:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>"Mike"? Are you on a first name basis with the author? Do you know him?

Archive
06-03-2007, 02:09 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>What would you call him Michael or Mr. I was interveiwed by him just like many of the other people at the nathional. Other than that I have no other dealings with him. I call Bill Mastro Bill not Willaim and I dont know him. What is your point.

Archive
06-03-2007, 02:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Just curious if you had any special insight into the book, that's all, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive.

Archive
06-03-2007, 02:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Bill Hughes was only one of four people who, as I understand, were involved in originally "grading" the Wagner. If he gave his approval to assign a grade of NM-MT 8 for a card he knew was trimmed or was able to determine so based on his expertise, then his willingness now to admit this in such a matter of fact manner really needs to be called into question. Unless his admission is now one of expressing regret or remorse and not just flippantly passing along information for the author, how are we to know if he is telling the truth now when he was willing to be so dishonest to begin with?<br /><br />If Shelly knows Bill Hughes so well then he would also know who Bill Hughes' partner was for many years during the 1990's. I knew Bill Hughes many years ago and liked him very much however I am not sure he qualifies for a merit badge in this hobby. <br /><br />I am not making a determination either way on whether the card is trimmed. Only that Bill Hughes now saying so means absolutely nothing. It carries the same weight as the denial of it being trimmed which was made the person who sold it, Bill Mastro.<br /><br />Greg

Archive
06-03-2007, 02:58 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>So the theory is that PSA knowingly launched its business, which was marketed as a counterweight to the then-prevalent fraud being perpetrated by many dealers, by grading a trimmed version of the hobby's Holy Grail. That sure seems a very high risk strategy. Assuming the card was trimmed, and everyone involved in the grading knew it, then how was David Hall to know that conclusive or at least persuasive proof of that fact would not come out? On the other hand, maybe Mr. Hall just rolled the dice as he may not have had a huge capital investment anyhow, just a license fee to Mr. Hager and a slabbing machine.<br /><br />What continues to surprise me is that NONE of the people who supposedly have the infamous "before" photo will break ranks and show it. What would Mr. Mastro's claim against them be, even if he were inclined to make one? Suppose I had the photo and started a thread with a post, "here is a picture Alan Ray sent to me that allegedly shows the Wagner in the condition it was in when he sold it." What am I liable for?

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:06 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"So we are supposed to take the word of a guy who essentially says he fraudulently graded the card? Oh, OK, sure, why not? But the word of Bill Mastro means nothing? Has Rob Lifson put his reputation on the line to say the card was trimmed? Not to my knowledge. Kind of a risky business plan for PSA, knowingly slabbing a trimmed card to launch their business, don't you think? OH and let me add Michael Wentz's recent statement at least as I understood him to the effect that the supposed "before" photo adds nothing to the case."<br /><br />If you dismiss so easily the words of Hughes, Heitman, Leland and McNall, how can you gravitate with certainly towards Mike Wentz's word? Mike's supporting comments of the PSA 8 Wagner can not be trusted, since he is an SGC supporter. <br />

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>MikeU, my only point is that there are folks on both sides of this and reasons can be found to view each and every one of them with some guarded skepticism. This is going to be settled, if at all, by proof, not hearsay or self-serving statements or innuendo or speculation.

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:12 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Peter makes a good point: a lot of people who have seen the card and are supposedly in the "know" claim it's trimmed - yet why doesn't anyone show the before photo? Wouldn't that settle this? What is the downside to them?

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Jeff, hell if I know. I cannot imagine it would be the basis for any viable lawsuit unless it were accompanied by direct accusations, and even then, where is the damage? It's a frickin' picture of a baseball card, it's not like publishing a secret nude photo of somebody.

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:29 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>imo a photo would probably prove nothing,now a b4 and after scan.or a video of the actual trimming,that would be better. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:33 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>His partner was Mervin Lee. Like I have said before the only way to make sure is if they have the card graded again by someone other than Psa. If Mastro thinks that everyone is lying about this card .. He should have no problem in trying to convince the new owner to do just that. It sure would make all those people who have said the card was trimmed look bad. I also believe it would send the price of that card further through the roof. Of course if it is true I think it would be very costly to the new owner.Until that happens I guess there will be those that say yes and those that say no. <br />As to the picture. Peter you answered your own question. You have stated that the picture allegedly is that of the Wagner. You would then have six hundred more messages say how do we know that is the card. Its not clear enough, its been doctored when was it taken a etc. I will tell you again that I believe the people that graded and bought that card. You can believe who you want. Oh he also had a partner whose last name was Applebaum. They ran a card shop in Lido Island. I hope that cover his partners beside Heitman who was in the litho business with him. Is that correct bottom of the ninth.

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Shelly, do you actually think that the owner of the card would take a chance to have SGC say it's trimmed - knowing that SGC would just love to say that and hurt PSA? The upside would be that the card would go for twenty cents more in an auction next week. The downside is that they owner loses 7 figures. Sounds like a plan!<br /><br />And furthermore: if I owned the card, why would I give a damn if a bunch of yentas said that it was trimmed? People have been saying this for years and it hasn't impacted the value of the card.

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:40 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Another way would be to buy it and then attempt to consign it to REA. Since Rob won't accept altered items, if he refuses to sell it, you would have your answer. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Shelly, to answer your point it is difficult for me to know who to believe. I would like to hear more from/about Mr. Heitman about the basis for his opinion. It is interesting that no one has commented yet about the reasons Mr. Hughes gave you for his opinion relating to the size of the card, I don't profess to be an expert but I would think there are plenty of folks on this board who could comment about the size of Piedmonts vs. Sweet Caps. I was only aware that American Beauty backs tend to be skinny.

Archive
06-03-2007, 05:52 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Jeff I agree with you 100%. I was saying that this is only way anyone can settel this arguement and that its never going to happen. In regards to the size of the card Heitman would have to come on here and explain.

Archive
06-03-2007, 06:04 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"And furthermore: if I owned the card, why would I give a damn if a bunch of yentas said that it was trimmed? People have been saying this for years and it hasn't impacted the value of the card."<br /><br />The truth regarding the trim will probably never effect the card value a great deal. However, I think that there are a few individuals that the truth would effect their credibility with a very select group of people. The fact that the card value will not go down after the truth is public, will be the silver bullet that is used when ones credibility is questioned e.g. no harm was really ever done. <br />

Archive
06-03-2007, 06:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Mike, true - but the truth will only hurt the owner of the card which is why he's not even thinking of these issues.

Archive
06-03-2007, 06:55 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>I asked this question on another link a recived no answere. Is it possible to grade a card that is slabed. I am only looking at the borders and size. Is this possible.

Archive
06-03-2007, 07:06 PM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I answered it on the other thread.

Archive
06-03-2007, 07:27 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Thanks

Archive
06-03-2007, 08:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Larry</b><p>The new owner of this card is probably saavy enough that he will be protected no matter what. PSA will have to guarantee the card and the dollars, and this "deal" was orchestrated & completed with PSA's assistance. Mr. Orlando in particular probably knows the specifics. There is NO doubt, the new owner completed his top 200 card collection as a result of this acquisition, whether trimmed or not, the value is in the history of the card, and PSA's warranty is most definately in play for this scenario.<br /><br />The new owner will do well and is very smart not to reveal his identity, it adds to the mystique.

Archive
06-03-2007, 08:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>The new owner might well be reading these posts laughing his ass off.

Archive
06-03-2007, 08:36 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Jeff if you where the new owner would you be laughing you ass off. <br />If I bought a great piece of art and now someone is telling me it might not be what be what it was stated to be. I dont think for two and a half million dollars I would be laughing. I really don't think that owner of this card is so happy at this moment. I might be wrong but i belive in the next few months you might find out that the s--t might hit the fan.

Archive
06-03-2007, 09:04 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>My understanding is that SCP is minority owner in the card now. They are a banner advertiser on this board as having an association with Sothebys.....Next time the card sells it will sell for more than it did this time. If the prevailing idea that it was handcut from a sheet is true the value of the card shouldn't take a hit, imo.....but who knows??

Archive
06-03-2007, 09:11 PM
Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>the new owner is a collector. he has heard all this stuff before,this talk is nothing new. someone who pays this kind of money is no fool. when and if he sells this card he will make his money back and a lot more.

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:00 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>The end.

Archive
06-03-2007, 11:08 PM
Posted By: <b>sagard</b><p>Well I won a copy via Ebay. So I guess I'll find out the fuss first hand. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />My opinion is that it doesn't really matter anymore how this card came about. SGC would slap an "8/88" on that thing in a heartbeat if given the chance. GAI would fire it into a comfy 8.5.<br /><br />

Archive
06-04-2007, 03:31 AM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>I finally got around to reading my copy. I will be a contrarian and say I enjoyed the book. However, I do not think it is a healthy introduction to the hobby for newcomers or the casual observer and will likely hinder, to some extent, new hobby growth. <br /><br /><br />Some more interesting quotes from the book that I have not seen posted (DANGER EXPLICT LANGUAGE):<br /><br />Pg 80 First Paragraph:<br /><br />Lifson agreed that the card wasn’t cut properly. Sevchuk had told them at the Hicksville shop that it had come from a sheet. He remembered calling Sevchuk later from his parents’ house to ask if there were more sheets where this one had come from – Sevchuk had said in the store that day there might be. “It had an odd shape,” Lifson said of The Card. “It was obvious that card had never been in a pack of cigarettes. I’ve always been adamant about that. They said it was in a sheet. Otherwise, cards don’t survive like that.”<br /><br /> Pg. 86 last paragraph and 87 1-3 Paragraphs:<br /><br />“Look, McNall was saying, what the ****? The card is trimmed? Sotheby’s was the agent – they didn’t know,” Evans said. “Copeland was the guy that bought the card from Mastro. Mastro set all this up. He had to take care of it. He had to prove it was not trimmed and get it graded,” said Evans. <br /><br />Fortunately for Mastro, one of the first graders hired by PSA was Bill Hughes. Mastro and Hughes had known each other for years. Hughes was a well-known card and memorabilia dealer with weekly ads in Sports Card Digest, a visible face on the card-show circuit. <br /><br />Evans even speculates that Mastro had a hand in picking Hughes to grade it. “I can hear him saying it now: I don’t want no ****ing talk about that card being trimmed. I want it to be ****ing authentic.” <br /><br />Pg. 112 paragraph 3 and 4. <br /><br />Still, not everyone was convinced. A few weeks after the card was graded, Mike Gutierrez, a consultant for McNall’s Superior Galleries, told the Chicago Tribune that he had some problems with the card. Regardless of PSA’s opinion, The Card had been altered, he said. Gutierrez didn’t know about the dealings between Mastro and Ray at the Hicksville store, but he knew by examining the card for McNall that it didn’t look right. “The card was definitely cut at some point,” Gutierrez said. “I don’t know when it was cut, or by whom, but it sure was. I have not doubt.” <br /><br />Pg. 137 paragraph 2<br /><br />Gidwitz may seem quirky, but he is a sophisticated collector. Gidwitz knew all the rumors about The Cards flaws and, based on his experience as a collector, suspected it had been trimmed. “It never came up,” insists Lifson, of whether Gidwitz would have even cared. “It just didn’t matter.” <br /><br />Pg. 139 paragraph 2<br /><br />“I want to make it clear,” he said. “Do you understand? It really ****ing irritates me. I want to make it perfectly clear who sold the Honus Wagner card. It was me and Rob. <br /><br />Pg. 184 paragraph 2<br /><br />Lifson is convinced that his cleanup campaign is the only way the collectibles industry can right itself and survive. There is too much graft, too much fraud, too much money being changed in too few hands to think otherwise. Lifson put what is going on in simple terms. “It’s called stealing,” he said. <br /><br />Pg. 195 and 196:<br /><br />Hughes’s confession didn’t shock hobby old-timers. Josh Evans, Bill Mastro’s long-standing rival, said Mastro told him several times that he had trimmed the card to make it the best card in the history of the hobby. “The first time he said it, was at a show after it sold for $110,000 to Copeland,” Evans remembered. “I said, how could you trim a card like that? He said, what’s wrong with that? It was oversized. I said, it doesn’t matter. You still have to tell the people who bought it. It was always an interesting topic of conversation. We also talked about it after Gretzky bought it.” <br /><br /><br />

Archive
06-04-2007, 09:42 AM
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>Either they are false quotes (in which case I would expect fervent denials from the alleged speakers followed by defamation actions) or they are accurate, in which case they present a pretty damning case against the card having been issued 100 years ago in its present form. Add to that Hughes's saying that he thought the card was trimmed when he examined it for PSA but authenticated it anyhow for the good of the hobby (aka the good of PSA) and I think it more likely than not that the card was cut from a sheet in recent times and trimmed and encapsulated with PSA knowingly included in the conspiracy to make the card the #1 card in the hobby. <br /><br />All of that of course means nothing if PSA stands behind it financially. Like stocks, the issue is less what the card is "worth" than what the perception of the card (company) is within a small group of wealthy men (institutional investors) and their advisors and confidants. I remember when Gidwitz bought it and said that the card was a better investment then (with the Gretzky-McNall cachet) than it had been when Gretzky and McNall purchased it. He was right--perception is everything.

Archive
06-04-2007, 10:16 AM
Posted By: <b>Frank Evanov</b><p>While Mastro is taking a licking here, his silence is indeed deafening. <br /><br />Rob L. comes off pretty much unscathed, even though he was present the day of the sale and he did provide the financing.<br /><br />Again, considering his falling out with Mastro, you would think Rob would say something more definitive about this mess.<br /><br />Then again, since the authors inexplicably printed several of the Lifson long-winded mass e-mails about being an honest auctioneer, I almost get the feeling that REA sponsored this book and I expected to see one of their buy ads on the back cover! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br><br>Frank

Archive
06-04-2007, 10:18 AM
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Mike,<br /><br />I am about half way through it, and last night I hit page 80 and beyond. I thought as I was reading of the things I'd like to excerpt, especially from pages 80-87. Looks like you earmarked the same areas that I thought were pretty compelling.<br /><br />My take at about halfway or so:<br /><br />I think it's pretty convincing. Although many here say it's nothing new and we've all heard it before, in this case key things have been said for the record. Having some of these guys quoted specifically for the purpose of publication is a whole lot different than hearing on boards or whatever that someone heard that so-and-so told so-and-so such-and-such. It is certainly carrying a lot more weight for me to see these statements in writing and at least appearing to have been made with knowledge of this publication.<br /><br />Also, whether this is all rehash or not it is very helpful to see all of the loose ends brought together in one place and presented as a part of a unified whole.<br /><br />All in all, I think it is adding a lot not only to my knowledge of the events but also to my opinion and perception. Maybe I'm just naive, but so far I'm buying it hook, line and sinker despite the occasaional toe stubs on not getting each fact about each vintage set exactly right. I haven't reached the part about Cobb and Edwards yet, and at that point I may decide it's all grandstanding. <br /><br />But so far it is a very light and easy read, and that's just what the doctor ordered. Plus interesting and, in my opinion, enlightening.<br /><br />(Oh, and somewhere in that page 80-87 range he addresses the existence of "before" photos, and why they don't see the light of day and aren't published. Not sure if that's all locktight in terms of accuracy, but at least it's addressed.)<br /><br />Joann

Archive
06-04-2007, 07:25 PM
Posted By: <b>Rich Mcg</b><p>Long time follower of the board and certainly in the camp of "boy prices have gotten just ridiculous". Read it this morning in a few hours. Easy ready because we all know the names, the card and the game.<br /><br />Despite a couple of missed facts on the members of certain sets, the story seems sound. Interesting to see quotes from this group. Nice job Jay. <br /><br />After the posts over the last couple of months, where do we stand on the level of 'doctoring' in this industry? If a Mantle or Ruth is worth 500 or 1,000, that may not bring the doctors out of the woodwork. If the card goes for $100,000 and no one has a clue of where it has come from. That sounds like it is ripe for grifters everywhere.<br /><br />I don't claim to have any evidence or thoughts one way or another but at some point you have to wonder where the 6-8's T206's are popping up from. And not knowing where they came from makes you wonder why authentic (but trimmed) lots are selling for a significant amount if it is such a damnation in this industry. <br /><br />Rich

Archive
06-05-2007, 08:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Page #88<br /> <br />"I sat at a table with Bill (Hughes) & Mervin (Lee) at a show in Long Beach in the early 90's, and Mervin showed me cards he doctored" said Shelly Jaffe, the veteran sports collectibles dealer who was arrested during Operation Bullpen an FBI investigation into forged autographs & counterfeit memorabilia.<br /><br />Greg<br /><br /><br />

Archive
06-05-2007, 09:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Adam</b><p>I thought the book was an enjoyable read. I find it very interesting that there seem to be 5 or so "before" pictures out there that some people appear to have. Why on earth doesn't one of those people pull one out and show it to the world? That evidence would potentially clear up a lot. <br /><br />Also, as to those two gentlemen who own a Wagner that they claim is authentic -- I always thought no grader would allow them to be present when a grader looked at it (thus why they didn't want to gave it to a grading company) . . . but based on the book there actually was a grading company that did let them be present when it was being graded and they found it not to be legit. Well I think that case is closed then.

Archive
06-06-2007, 05:15 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Markel</b><p>Reading the quotes pertaining that Bill Hughes claiming that he graded or was present for the grading of the Wagner seems to conflict with what I've known about PSA in the early days.<br /><br />I believe it is common knowledge that the Wagner was the first card graded by PSA. In this article pertaining to the 10th anniversary of PSA, the following statements are made:<br /><br />Joe Orlando (then publisher of the SMR): "What was it like at the start?"<br /><br />Steve Rocchi: "There were only three of us. Mike Baker, who is now the director if grading, Adam, and myself. We were lucky to get 400-500 cards per month. It took a few years to gain support from the dealers; resistance to grading was commonplace."<br /><br />There is no mention of Bill Hughes.<br /><br />Link to article:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=3004&universeid=314&type=1" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=3004&universeid=314&type=1</a>

Archive
06-06-2007, 05:28 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Was the wagner the first card graded by PSA? I had never heard that before. I realize that its cert no. is 0000001. However, if you type in 0000002 on psa's cert verification tool, there is no card with that cert. number. Therefore, its my guess that that number was specifically given to the wagner, but that it does not mean it was the first card graded (otherwise, there would be a 0000002, etc.).

Archive
06-06-2007, 05:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Markel</b><p>JK,<br /><br />Look at this article and read David Hall's comment:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.collectors.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=3093" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.collectors.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=3093</a>

Archive
06-06-2007, 05:37 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>It was the first card graded. I remember talking with Bill Hughes around '93 or '94 when he co-owned Executive Investments with Steve Applebaum, which ran big auctions of baseball cards, comics, and movie posters. They had an incredible inventory of cards at the time in their office in L.A. and then later storefront in Orange County. Anyway, I remember at the time Bill saying how he was one of the primary advisors to PSA in the beginning and helped establish their grading scale for them. He may have trained people like Baker. I remember going into their store one day and they had two 33 Lajoies one PSA 8, and one PSA 9, a T206 Wagner PSA 1, and many, many more incredible cards.<br />JimB

Archive
06-06-2007, 05:55 PM
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Thanks Jim - that seems to explain why Hughes was not id'd as an employee. Im still curious as to why they dont have any cards graded 00000002 etc.

Archive
06-06-2007, 06:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>They graded many cards before Mike Baker or Joe Orlando got there, including quite a number from Mr. Hall's personal collection.

Archive
06-06-2007, 06:45 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>So Hughes would sell a card to PSA and then PSA would let Hughes grade the card for PSA and then PSA would sell the card in a PSA owned auction.

Archive
06-07-2007, 12:08 PM
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>The Border's in San Jose hasn't gotten their shipment of The Card yet. However, they have finally recieved a shipment of Crazy '08. No wonder, collectors here on the West Coast seem a bit behind on obtaining hobby news. At least that's my story and I'm sticking with it. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter

Archive
06-07-2007, 12:44 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>"So Hughes would sell a card to PSA and then PSA would let Hughes grade the card for PSA and then PSA would sell the card in a PSA owned auction."<br /><br />MikeU,<br />I think you have something a bit confused. PSA was not a buyer of cards from Hughes or anybody else. For a short time, several years later, Superior Auctions was a part of Collectors Universe, but that had nothing to do with Bill Hughes. And they never auctioned the Wagner.<br />JimB

Archive
06-07-2007, 03:53 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"I think you have something a bit confused. PSA was not a buyer of cards from Hughes or anybody else."<br /><br />Exert from Dan Markel's link:<br /><br />"Condition Census for 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle Gem Mint 10. <br /><br />Fogel-Murphy Specimen. The card came from the fabulous 1952 Topps collection of Mark Murphy. It was then sold by dealer Bill Hughes to Collectors Universe CEO David Hall for $50,000 in 1993. When Hall's collection was auctioned by Superior in 1996, renowned collector Marshall Fogel purchased the card for $121,000."<br />

Archive
06-07-2007, 03:55 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Mike, what's your point?

Archive
06-07-2007, 04:03 PM
Posted By: <b>MikeU</b><p>"Mike, what's your point?"<br /><br />No specific point, just trying to understand/confirm typical PSA practice/behaviors and their acceptance by consumers.

Archive
06-07-2007, 04:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Are you suggesting the card was overgraded in order to benefit Mr. Hall and/or PSA? I must be missing what you are driving at.

Archive
06-07-2007, 09:09 PM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>David Hall was a private collector of high-grade sets before starting PSA. When people began to question a possible conflict of interest, he voluntarily sold his collection.<br />JimB

Archive
06-08-2007, 08:48 AM
Posted By: <b>Adam</b><p>I wonder why the last owner of The Card had it reholdered? Any insights?

Archive
06-08-2007, 10:58 AM
Posted By: <b>glyn parson</b><p>It was not mARK mURPHY THAT OWNED THE mANTLE IT WAS HIS FATHER mICHAEL. Sorry just noticed i had cap locks on. His (Mark) dad had the finest raw 1952 set i have ever seen and was constantly working on upgrades.<br /><br />Gee what a shock PSA has it labeled as MArk's on their website. Who would have thought PSA could make a mistake.

Archive
06-09-2007, 10:43 AM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>Bottom of the ninth.<br />It would have been nice if you had finished the rest of what was said about me. Not that it matters. If anyone on this site did not know that I was arrested by the FBI I apologize. What I don't understand is what that has to do with my statement. <br />To those who don't have the book, this is what Greg left out.Said Shelly Jaffe, the veteran sports collectibles dealer who was arrested during Operation Bullpen,an FBI investigation into forged and counterfeit Memorabilia.{Jaffe has since become and expert consultant for the FBI on forgeries and counterfeits and has worked HBO and other medias investigating forgeries}. Greg if your going to just take a small part of what is being said about someone it lacks class.<br />What I said is fact and if you have any doubt's you can ask Huges or Mervin. <br /><br /><br />

Archive
06-09-2007, 12:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Shelly,<br /><br />I don't have the book and I would not read the book. I was given the excerpt and felt it should be posted. <br /><br />He said, she said does not constitute proof. I have my opinion about the card and it is almost as irrelevant as the "book." Next time the card sells it will sell for more than the previous sale.

Archive
06-09-2007, 01:20 PM
Posted By: <b>shelly jaffe</b><p>It would have been nice if the person who read that part had read you the whole thing. As far as she said he said. I belive the people that graded the card.

Archive
06-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Joseph</b><p><img src="http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z36/1969mets_2007/t206mastro.jpg">