Posted By:
hankronFirst, I will admit that Henry looks a tad like a rat. No argument or offense there.
Before the auction, Nick contacted me to ask for me about the proofs. I said quite specifically that it was my opinion that American Memorabilia should not have them in auction. I said that I had long been familiar with these types of Old Judge proofs and had examined some before for MastroNet ... As I found out later, the American Memorabilia proofs were the exact ones that I examined for MastroNet and that both MastroNet and I agreed were fake.
I don't have a hidden agenda. All I have been doing all along is refuting the accuracy of AM's description (I dare to find anyone here who closely reads the auction descriptions and sincerely states that the description should not have been rewritten in some shape or form so as to better inform the bidders. Beyond Bob and Nick's opinions, is there really anything controversal or radical about that statement?). I don't own any 19th century baseball photos or Old Judge cards, I am not an employee of any auction house or grader or rich collector, I don't get paid by anyone to give my opinions on or examine photos. In fact I don't work for anyone, even part time, not even mowing the neighbor's yard. I do volunteer part time for a local art museum, but I haven't noticed any Old Judge baseball cards on he walls or in the back rooms. Check out my ebay auctions (i.d. = drcycleback) to see the type of stuff I sell and you will see that I don't have a sellers conflict of interest. I don't think Shalom Harlow puts me in coflict.
Anyone who reads this board, knows that I have criticized about every auction house and grader under the sun (Remember the brewhaha with Rob Lifson over the DiMaggio photo?). Ask Doug Allen or Bill Mastro, and they said that I am not shy to voice my opinion when I feel a MastroNet photo is misdiscribed. Beleive me, Nick, that I have complained about photos in an American Memorabilia auction doesn't make AM special.
I have sold items before to Nick, on and off eBay. Before this auction, Nick would have readily said that I was an honerable and honest seller. To his credit, I also found Nick to be honerable and friendly. I didn't know Nick worked for AM until he contacted me to ask for my opinion. He said he contacted me because he trusted my insight of photos, and said he recommended me to AM's President as an expert on baseball photographs.
In short, I have examined the proofs that were auctioned, I was contacted before the auction by Nick for an opinion and I offered my opinion. MastroNet rejected these same photos, and Leland's has also stated they beleive them fake. Beyond Bob and Nick, there is not a person on this board who doesn't beleive that, at least, the auction description should have been rewritten. I have no hidden agenda or financial motive, and, again, it was Nick who contacted me before the auction even started as he felt my opinion was worthwile and trustworthy.
... P.s. Jay, the curling of the albumen prints is caused if the were never mounted in the first place (meaning albumen prints almost always have to have been affixed to a mount originally, and if a albumen is on a modern mount this means the albumen had to have been removed form the original mount at some time.). If they were mounted flat like on a N172, and pealed off many years later (inevitably with mount residue stuck to the back) that is a different scenario.
(