Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If an eBay seller's requirement for refund is letters from PSA, SGC, GAI, Bill Mastro, James Spence, a sitting US Supreme Court justice and an Oscar winner, I'll probably not bid. I wouldn't even know how to get hold of Robert DeNiro.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

There is no need for a lab test. There is no need for anything more to happen here. CSA promised a refund if a reputable grading service would not authenticate the card. That has happened -- PSA wrote a letter to the buyer saying the card is not authentic. Point, game, set, match. The rest is irrelevant, legally speaking anyhow.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I agree that since some top experts have already gave it a thumbs down, it's very lame CSA is still doing this. However, since there was some persistent talk about paper testing, I thought I would bring up the basic print identification check.

[Archive]

Posted By: Luc Mitchell

Getting back to the issue of SGC, here are the possibilities I see:
1) Clean Sweep obtains the card and sends it into SGC where it fails. It is auctioned off regardless. I'm unclear on the timeline, so this one might not be a possibility.
2) The card is sold in the first auction and consigned again (buyer's son dies etc.) CSA sends it to SGC and it fails to pass authentication. Reauctioned.
3) The card is sold in the first auction, whereupon the buyer sends it in to SGC where it fails. The buyer consigns it with a fallacious story of his son's death.
4) Same as 3, save after the failed authentication the buyer notifies Clean Sweep in search of a refund. The card finds its way back to auction.

The only way that CSA did not know about the failed test, then, is if the first buyer did not disclose it. One has to wonder how probable this situation would be; wouldn't it be safer to invoke a guarantee than to BS a story? Moreover, where authentication of such a potentially historically significant card could have a great impact on its value, it is logical to assume that Clean Sweep would have pursued that option. In my opinion, the only reason not to due so is if its authenticity was questionable in the first place.

Does anyone have a rough timeline?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

what now?...we have already smegmanatted the fragistature...so do we wait for the commanistation on this one?....there is only so much fuelsalage you you can commanistate when you are bragafraturing. This is not in regard to the last post , but all that is left is either one of the parties to chime in to tell us what is gonna be the next step, I think we have all come to the conclusion that something is wrong somewhere. Ilove redundancy. is that even a word, Barry ?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

An 18,000 dollar hit is subtantial, but anyone care to guess how much Mr.Verkman will lose over the long term due to the extensive damage this has done to his credibility?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- "redundancy" might be the only word there that really is a word. What language is that written in?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

not to be morbid or anything , but if the initial consignor's son died that can cert ainly be checked through obituary records if anyone knows the persons name. Personally, I don't buy the son dying story. I've seen to many slickly presented auctions to believe otherwise these days. I even suspect that the card was auctioned with full knowledge of it's lack of credibilty. This also might have been a case of CSA wanting to "pass the buck". They may have hoped the next buyer would never know the card was not genuine....thus washing their hands of the item.
As for the hit CSA will take on this one....I guess it depends on word of mouth advertising. I've told everyone I know who collects about this incident, and have directed many newbies to the forum the last week to read about this. I know my brother and I will never participate in another CSA event. This is one of those episodes that makes people who don't collect cards really laugh at us for wasting our time and money. I don't know about everyone else on this board, but $18,000 is a lot of money, and if this was me, CSA'a ass would be in every court I could drag it in to

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I have been away all weekend and this is the first I have seen of this. My understanding with Leon was that this was going to be locked as there is not much more to say about this and this thread was degenerating (as many of the board have pointed out).

It is also a matter of public record now that I am willing to put the money in escrow with the winning bidder's lawyer. Mr Wonka, the first to post on this thread, hints at the salient point. The winning bidder likely never wanted the card after he probably could not sell it right away. His real objection to testing the card is that if it is proven real, he then has to keep the card. Why else oppose a fully independent paid for test? We also know he was extremely manipulative (at a minimum) with his first post on this blog. It troubles me deeply that he gets a pass on this.

THE SGC ISSUE. As I told Leon, the first I heard that this was submitted to SGC was from the President of PSA last December. Since many of you are so tight with SGC, why not ask them if I submitted the card for grading? I will be happy to waive any potential confidentiality issue with SGC. I have not submitted a single card to SGC in four years and this would not have been first one. Further, if I was going to submit the card it would have gone to PSA as we do with many of our best cards. I did not submit this to PSA as I did not think they would slab it as a one-of-a-kind card. Had the winning bidder (or anyone) asked me if I thought this would get graded, I would say it is possible but far from certain.

It appears that the winning bidder the first time submitted this to SGC and never told me about this. I discussed with this consignor only this month and did not get a firm response.

Look, we are working to get a fully independent third party to resolve this as soon as possible; even Leon posted on this blog that this was "more than fair." The winning bidder is not (and was never) going to be left out to dry. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, he was offered this same testing proposal before going on this blog.

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve f

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

This mess helps me visualize folks in this hobby in different groups. Some folks attempt to collect baseball cards. Some folks attempt to invest in baseball cards. And some folks are, to varying degrees, torn in between the two.


Baseball card collectors generally have a greater respect for the game itself, and learn a bit about the game's history, and about the cards. Generally, but not absolutely, the investors aren't as concerned about baseball, focus more on the dollar, and are more likely to pursue graded cards.

It is starting to seem that this card was won at auction by someone who is skewed toward the investor type. And one thing that troubles me is that the investors tend to turn toward the collectors for help and information when they're in need. Their fellow investors aren't much help at all. Maybe the collectors should consider letting some investors sink or swim on their own....

[Archive]

Posted By: Jerry

Evidently, The seller doesn't believe this board holds much weight in the hobby. Otherwise the buyer would have had his money back by now.
He's probally hoping that this problem never gets out into the public per say and stays confined to this board.
Makes me wonder if this board is a drop in the bucket to the Vintage collecting world or a major player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I guess Mr. Verkman is just smarter than the rest of us: (1) the lawyers who have opined that the clear contractual guaranty would be dispositive in litigation; (2) the overwhelming consensus of experts on and off this board who have opined that the item is not authentic (and that the further proposed "testing" in any event would not be meaningful); and (3) the overwhelming consensus of well-meaning people who have advised him he that he is hurting his reputation and credibility by prolonging this melodrama.

One wonders who he WOULD listen to?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

I for one am thrilled that the thread on this topic is unlocked if for no other reason than it gives Steve Verkman the continued opportunity to comment, which by itself is worth the price of admission and snacks to a Fourth of July doubleheader.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric Pugh

Steve, by reading this as an outsider, I have come to the conclusion that you are either one of 2 things:

1 - a thief
2 - the worst business person in the world

GIVE HIM HIS FRICKING MONEY BACK - UN FRICKING BELIVEVABLE.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Eric,

You should have a third choice of All of the Above.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

Barry- the language was written by me in the 2nd grade , couldnt you tell? . Thanks for the props on the one sole word !

2-I will buy from Steve ,I just wouldnt have bought that goofy looking card real or not. If a few opt out ,better deals for the Dannerooskie. I wish well for everyone including those involved in the card. I sip fancy "red wines" to forget the problems in society, I dont need a buzz kill.

If I were spending thousands on a card ,you can bet I would use the phone a friend, this is why we have commrades here on the board. There is alot of knowledge here, when in doubt...use it.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

"Look, we are working to get a fully independent third party to resolve this as soon as possible"

Um Steve - what are SGC, PSA, Bill Mastro, etc. if not fully independent third parties.

By the way, since you seem to acknowledge that SGC refused to authenticate the card, that must mean that both psa and sgc are not reputable.

Count me in as one who will not bid in CSA's future auctions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

One of the many great lines from a terrific movie. I think Stevie will be able to relate to it.

"Say this one time with me: 'Would you like that in a pump or a loafer?'... Good. Now memorize it, because starting tomorrow, the only job that you're going to be able to get is selling SHOES!"

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

So even though the card has been deemed counterfeit by PSA, SGC, Mastro, etc, etc, the buyer cant get his money back until a paper test is done, which at best just shows the counterfeiter may have used paper from the 1930's era. If that happens then what? The buyer is stuck with a card he NEVER can sell anywhere. Money in escrow? How about money in buyers account? Mr.Verkman you made a mistake by taking this card in at your auction, fess up, move on, and try and salvage some of your reputation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I keep looking at this thread, because it is like watching cars wreck. But now I think we should let it go and move on...


At this point I feel sorry for neither the auctioneer nor the buyer. From the buyer's standpoint, NONE of us would have bought that card. I wouldn't have paid shipping on it to get it free... not even if it was graded. From the auctioneer's standpoint, none of us would have tried to sell that card because it is obviously fabricated. It seems that the auctioneer must have known that something was up with the card coming back through again... and it seems the buyer was buying it to resell or as an investment. I'm interested in card collecting, and baseball, these two parties evidently are interested in money... let us forget them, and move on.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

With all due respect I disagree. The buyer and I have spoken several times. He is a collector not an investor (not that there's anything wrong with either, imo). He happens to collect Ruth cards and was really excited to win this one...as I would have been too, at first glance. For Steve to say that he was buying it to resell is pure fabrication based on nothing. Had I won the card I would have had the same issue as Mark H. is having now. I wasn't bidding to win it for resale...again, even if I was, I see no great harm. I am not an investor but it's nice the cards I collect have gone up in value. I love the history of the game, the comoraderie in the hobby, and the beautiful little works of art that the cards represent. The fact they have gone up in value, and I am glad, doesn't make me a bad person.....I also enjoy helping folks in the hobby with little bits of trivia I have learned. Just last night I sent a board member some info about the provenance of one of his best cards...I know he would do the same for me too.....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

You're not interested in money Frank? Can I have yours?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

My money? No, sir, my wife and kids are interested in it. My cards? You can have my cards one day, if you're interested in them for cards' sake, and not for monetary value, after I grow weary of baseball... I've bought 2 cards anticipating that they would appreciate so I could sell them. Sold both at about half what the market would have paid, to happy buyers, the cards have since gone down, considerably. I don't have a card in my collection that I bought because of the card's value. Sincerely.

And if the "buyer" is a collector, then I have misjudged him. But what collector with 18k would buy that card??? Again, I'd not pay $5 for it. Still, I stand by what I said up there, when a seller and a buyer come to this board because of a fouled up deal, and both are merely in it for the money, why should we waste our time with them? I'm all for mentoring someone who wants to learn about the history of the game, or the cards. But I'm not inclined to help folks who are merely in it for the money.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Again, I am responding for sake of debate and the fact I believe you are mistaking. The buyer didn't buy the card to resell. You asked who would pay 18k for that card? I would if it was real.....This issue has nothing to do with reselling a card it has to do with an auctioneer standing behind his word.....and a collector (not an investor) being out 18k on a bad card. For the record the 3rd underbidder, right below my bid, is also a 30 yr veteran of collecting.....so he would have paid 15k, or so, for the card too....He has one of the best 1930's collections around......I wouldn't call the winning bidder, myself, or the 3rd underbidder, investors....but I have been called much worse.....Quite honestly when I first started collecting I didn't give a rats patoot about the monetary side of the hobby...but as I started putting more money into it I did become more aware of it...as most of us recent collectors have....All anyone has to do is go to my site, look at the for sale stuff, then the personal collection, and know what I do it for....I love the hobby as much as anyone....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

What about the people who love baseball, it's rich history, the old cardboard that represents heroes long gone AND who also enjoy the increasing monetary value of their collection, plus making a buck now and then by selling something off? Would you help them?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

What difference does it make whether the buyer was a collector, an investor, or a rat's patoot? If a guaranty was breached, end of story. In any event, I see no evidence the buyer was "in it for the money." Frank you wrongly assume the rest of us inferior beings can spot a fake from a scan as easily as you apparently can.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Peter, its obvious you care about money. Therefore your opinion is mute or moot or not applicable -- something like that.

Frank, please let me know when you are having your next 50% off sale.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

This being a collector's chatboard, I can understand you having more sympathy with collectors than investors (although with that said I'm not sure how you conclude the Ruth buyer is an investor). I do think though that the distinction between collector and investor is not black and white, and many people who rightly regard themselves as collectors also care about the potential appreciation of their cards; therefore, they to some degree also exhibit investor characteristics. Leon, the underbidder on the card (twice), in my view a dedicated collector, expresses it very well in his recent posts.

Also, and as important, I hardly think that Clean Sweep's handling of this matter is dependant on its perception of the buyer as being a collector or investor, or something in between. Accordingly, couldn't it be said that the buyer is doing the collectors out there a favor by exposing this situation and thereby putting them on notice of the perils of dealing with Clean Sweep?

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

I never said investors are inferior.

Didn't say collectors are superior.

But you guys can post taking the position that I did, then jump on me for it.


And I still think anyone bidding at all for that card is nuts. Even you, Leon, if you were 3rd underbidder. When this all settles out, if whoever ends up with it mails it to me as a gift, I'd not keep it. I'd trash it... or destroy it publicly, or maybe sell it to Mr. Mint with hopes that he could never resell it. Just maybe the card is authentic... I'm incapable of ever believing that, nothwithstanding testing and grading. It is an 18k bookmark.



I do wish the card prices weren't going up... I've sold a few cards. Sold them because the monetary value had gotten so exponentially beyond what I paid for them that I couldn't justify keeping them. And I wish the prices had stayed low so I'd have kept the cards. Seller's remorse, not because the cards are worth even more, but because I no longer have the cards.

For all I know the investors out there may well be superior to my naive way of thinking... They're making money in my hobby. Good for them. Bad for me.

And I didn't say that the auctioneer wasn't liable to the buyer... I just don't think that's a problem for collectors to fool with IF the two are in it just for the money.

And I perceive Leon to be a top rate collector. Even if he occasionally sells a piece of cardboard or two.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Well good for you Frank that you new the item was no good before everyone else did. That doesnt mean that the people that didnt are idiots. They assumed they were buying an item with a guarantee of authenticity, and if it wasnt, a refund would follow. This from a reputable(past tense) auction house.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Hey guys, cut Frank some slack. He doesn't think it is a real card and thinks it could be an expensive bookmark. That's his opinion. Personally I wouldn't have wanted to buy it because it didn't appear to be a "card" I would be interested in, no matter its cost, that's my opinion. Let's all agree to disagree.
I think I'd rather spend time talking cards with a guy like Frank than with some of the investocrats on this board who care only how sharp the edges are on that PSA8 card.
I agree with the poster who said the lines between collecting and investing are blurred and getting blurrier all the time, but even if the bottom falls out tomorrow, I've had a great time collecting and meeting new people and it has been a wonderful hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I agree completely. Mr.Wakefield (hi Frank) is still one of my favorite folks on the board. We can all agree to disagree occasionally however, as long as we remain professional, no one gets their panties in a wad. I know I hate it when mine get in a wad....that and bad panty hose really annoy me.... For the record I also don't think it matters whether the buyer was an investor or collector, with repsect to this purchase. The card hasn't gone from being bad to good due to the motive of the buyer....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

"Even if he occasionally sells a piece of cardboard or two."

edit to add:
Yaaawwwwwn.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, what's so bad about selling some of your cards and making money? Yes I know nobody is "saying" that it's bad, but the tone of some of these posts are dripping with insincerity.

I sell cards, I try to sell alot of cards, in order to fund my own purchases for my collection. And you know what else? I hope the cards that I buy, and even slab (gasp!), go up in value. You know why? because I put alot of time and effort in my collection. I love my cards, but I also like the idea of having the possibility to turn my cards into cash if need be. Heaven forbid I needed money to help my family, I wouldn't hesistate to sell my cards for them. And you know what else? I would hope that I would get more than I paid for them.
Does that make me any less of a colletor? Maybe in the eyes of a few people stuck on their high horses, but guess what? That doesn't really matter all that much to me. I know I enjoy collecting, I've made some pretty great friends, and also made a couple bucks on the side.
But enough of this holier than though nonsense.

Josh

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I've sold a few cards. Sold them because the monetary value had gotten so exponentially beyond what I paid for them that I couldn't justify keeping them.

With all due respect.
Just like a true investor would do.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

"The rules of hypocrisy do not apply to Frank" is no. 64 on the list of 101 Interesting Things About Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve f

Why ya hassling Frank for speaking his mind?.. He's passionate about our hobby and despises the dilusional Tin Men that have migrated to it. I don't entirely agree with him (I buy/sell), but I share his frustration. Instead of chastising the guy, he should be praised for his conviction and openness.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

So let me see if I follow:

1. Frank, a "true collector," knew right from the start that the Ruth card in question is a fake (and that he wouldn't pay $5 for it.)

2. Mark H. didn't know the card is a fake and bought it.

3. So the logical conclusion? Mark H. must not be a true collector but rather an investor.

Got it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I think it may have something to do with the incessant, repeated, neverending, relentless, day-in-and-day-out criticism of anyone with different collecting methods or motivation, coupled with the continuous implications that those people are somehow less knowledgeable, passionate or RELEVANT.

Maybe.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

When Frank chastises others who collect differently to himself, he should be praised for his conviction and openness, but those who feel constantly smeared and their gravitas diminished by those same posts should feel unable to speak their minds???
This is a Jim the backbone scenario as I see it. Anything that comes Frank's way in relation to his consistent condescension is well deserved for all the stabs he takes at sections of the collecting community. He's bright enough to win the argument if there's enough truth on his side, and if not, then his comments more likely are merely petty and unenlightened.
All appreciate his knowledge, smarts, and colorful character - but his scarcely hidden contempt that airs itself in posts all too regularly is not going to make him everyone's cup of tea....



Daniel



Edited to replace the word 'brightness' with smarts.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

As someone not skilled in the art, I would be interested to hear from Frank how he could so easily tell the card was a fake. That would be enlightening, since apparently it fooled even some fairly knowledgeable folks (e.g., moderator dude and the other underbidder who reportedly is a veteran collector). Frank was it the scan, or the nature of the item, or both that raised red flags for you?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Frank also recently sold at least one graded card on the BST. I believe we all know how he feel about graded cards, though he has not yet reminded us on this particular thread - strangely enough.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Respectfully, Steve, an investor buys to sell.

I bought the cards to collect, not to sell. So I don't think I've become an investor if I sell a few.

I'm selling a few T210s, not because I invested in them so I could sell them at a profit... but because I spent just over $1000 to get one card in a lot of a couple of dozen. So I'm not selling the T210s as a true investor would. Nor did I sell the N172s as a true investor would. Investors would have bought them planning to sell them. I'm sitting here hoping I have a kid or a grandkid one day who gives half a tinker's damn as much about the cards as I do...

But since folks have stayed after me, it has occurred to me that the solution sought was to send that card of to some slabbing companies... for those that think they know me, just guess what I think of turning to professional graders for a solution to anything!

I can tell you a good investment for around where I live... find about 20 rough acres out in the country, buy it, then plant seedling cherry trees and walnut trees. Tend to them for a few years so the rabbits and deer don't eat them. Then wait 3 dozen years or so... die, and leave that land to some kids or grandkids. That is one fine investment. Trouble is that it is so long term it takes another generation to reap the benefits. I invest in a few stocks, 5 mutual funds, my kids' education... not baseball cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

Frank sold cards?! He sent them in for grading?!

Wow, I'll never look at the same 1000+ anti-grading posts the same way again. Deep down, Frank's a slab-head like the rest of us! Welcome to the dark side Frank!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

Sign of the apocalypse?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

C'mon guys Frank is used to his opinions being the last word.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Hello Peter,

If you were being cynical about me being able to tell the card was a fake, then good jest, and good post. Jump on, with them!

If you're sincere as to wanting to know, I'll be glad to exchange half a dozen emails with you, explaining what all it was. First, read Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink. Then email me and I'll go through it with you. Seriously. And I'm patient, I'll be glad to discuss it in a week or month. Just read Gladwell's book first, as a cornerstone of how it can be done.

Frank.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

You see, Frank? That's the thing.

You CONSTANTLY criticize people on this board. You criticize people for collecting graded cards, you criticize people for having an investor mentality, you criticize people for not trying to get to know their cards, and you criticize people for using the board to talk about issues that you don't feel are relevant to the hobby.

Then you make a statement - MULTIPLE times - like "I wouldn't pay $5 for that card", and when someone asks you how you could tell it was a fake, and what do you do?

You tell him to buy a book.

Here's an opportunity amidst this crappy thread about this horrible issue for something good to come out of it - for a hobby expert to impart some knowledge in a public forum, and initiate the very type of discussion that he's always complaining never happens, and what do we get?

Go out and learn something, and then if you still want to talk, email me privately.

Peter, I wouldn't have known the card was a fake unless I took the time to realize - which I didn't until well after these threads began - that Big League Chewing Gum didn't exist during the time frame the card was allegedly made. In hindsight, the design doesn't look period, and the quality of the workmanship isn't consistent with the other artwork produced by Goudey in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Those issues would have given me pause, had I been interested in the card in any serious way.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Hey there, Al...

Peter and I have exchanged 3 emails. Could you mark down in your calendar to email Peter early in May? By then he'll have read the book. (The first few chapters are enough, but once Peter starts I just know he'll read the whole book.) Email him in May, and ask him if I did enlighten him as to how that Ruth card isn't authentic. Ask him if he feels like he learned anything from me, and the book.

If, after reading the book and exchanging emails with me, then if Peter thinks my response up there was crap circumlocution, then I'll apologize right here, to both you and Peter. I'll even bump it every few hours. But if Peter tells you that he's now a bit better able to discern cards for himself, then either read the book and join us, or hush up, please sir.

I recall when I was in graduate school, and decided to quit on the masters and go to law school instead. I told Dad what I was doing. He asked me how old I'd be when I graduated law school, I thought and told him, 32. He said nothing, as if his point was made that I was too old to go to law school. I then told Dad I'd be 32 then whether I went to law school or not. Later in life he told me that was the first sensible thing I'd said to him in years. A fellow's never to old to learn. If only he's willing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Edited. Never mind.

-Al