1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>David&nbsp; </b><p>I have not owned Sports Illustrated #1 or the recent reprints. However, my guess is that the original Magazine/cards are phototengravings and the modern reprints are lithographs. Now, if you don't know how to tell the difference between photoengraving and lithography, that's because you were too cheap to buy my book.

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>Most people poo-poo or get bored to tears by my insesent printing theory/history (I admit the insesent part), but it's in cases like this where I get the last laugh.

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>Cy</b><p>David,<BR><BR>If you are a writer, then you are an educator. As an educator myself, I am dismayed that you ridicule people who have not learned from you or haven't decided to learn from you. One of the early lessons an educator should understand is that once you humiliate a student, you have lost that student.<BR><BR>The question you must now consider is are you a writer/educator or are you just someone who likes to flaunt his knowledge. I hope you decide to become the former. You must realize that not everyone may possess the passion that you have in your particular field. However, he/she may change his/her mind in the future. And it would be refreshing to know that you will still be there, regardless of when this student decides that it is time to learn the skills you have acquired. You will be willing and eager to shower this student with your expertise, rather than ridicule because he/she has waited until then to decide to learn. Because by doing this, you will not only educate but you will also grow in your own right. And isn't this the type of result that you truly wished for when you originally wrote the article?<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Cy

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>1) I definitely like to flaunt.<BR><BR>2) The book has been for sale for 2 years, and was well advertised here, in my newsletter and elsewhere-- so, sorry if I don't shed a tear for those who were unwilling to buy the book but now complain that I won't tell them what's in it.<BR><BR>3) I gave free copies to those who supported my old newsletter.<BR><BR>4) I bet that I've given out more practical authentication information in my free newsletter than in the history of Beckett and Tuff Stuff combined.<BR><BR>5) Most people on this board still won't buy the book, and, three monthes from now, when a similar subject comes up I will say, "That was covered in my book" and we'll have to go through this again. <BR><BR>6) As I bet Bob Lemke will attest, most trading card collectors don't really want to learn how to judge the authenticity of a card-- that would be too much work. It's so much easer to depend on grading card companies. <BR><BR>7) I described how to identify photoengraving twice on this board (with pictures), once in conjunction with the Fro Joy Babe Ruth, but the information was generally dismissed as irrelevent.<BR><BR>8) Most people who deal with me personally, via email or in person, know that I'm more than helpful and accesable in these types of areas. Locally, in Seattle, I regularly give free print an photograph examinations to those who stop by my office.<BR><BR>9) I definitely like to flaunt.<BR>

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Mathewson</b><p>...I have to agree that David has been very forthcoming with his information in previous postings, especially in regards to his publication. As a fellow Seattle/Puget Sounder, I've actually met him in person and he is more than willing to talk the topic.<BR><BR>What is curious about this posting is that, well... It just seems to me that a good number of people on this board who like to consider themselves "teachers" or "educators" of others here, often do it in a very deameaning, sometimes ridiculing manner WHILE they are "teaching" or "educating".<BR><BR>At least David waits until after the dust settles, if even that is the case...frankly, I feel as if I could pick up the phone and ask him a question whenever I want, and talk with him as an equal, even though his knowledge may exceed mine. That is a rare quality.

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>For the record-- while everything I said in my earlier post was correct, I understood and understand that Cy was offering a sincere and thoughtful point of view. I also know for a fact that I can be a smart ass-- sadly, that's not likely to change any time soon, as I've been told I was one for nearly as long as I can remember.<BR><BR>And to make proper amends, I will show how to tell the difference between a photoengraving and a lithograph in the next newsletter. So get your 54 Sports Illustrateds ready.

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>If someone on this board bought one of the SI reprints or some other piece of garbage, then complained that no one on the board would share knowledge with them when they asked about printing processes, it would be a different story - to the best of my knowledge this has never happened. <BR><BR>It doesn't matter where people go to learn, as long as they do it - I've gotten great information from David any time I asked, and also from his books, and also from other sources. the people buying garbage like the SI reprints and Libertyforall stuff aren't seeking information prior to purchase.<BR><BR><br><br>

1954 SI Versus Reprint
 

Posted By: <b>David</b><p>I just went through my old newsletters, and the subjected of differentiating between lithography and photoengravings was covered at least once there-- so, I'm not going to cover it in the next newsletter. The newsletter barely got and gets any support, so I feel absolutley no guilt when people now complain that I don't diseminate information. While there were a few loyal supporters of the newsletter (from regular collectors to a few well known folks), most everyone else (including most, but not all, on this board) has never lifted a finger. This explains why I get touchy in the extreme when someone accuses me of not contributing information to the hobby, and why the newsletter goes on frequent vacations.