My take on Michael O'Keeffe's book, "The Card"

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

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.

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.

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.

I had originally written more but I think I'll leave it at that.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Markel

How sad that such a piece of rubbish gets published. Thank you MW for saving me $22 or whatever the book costs.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

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]

Posted By: barrysloate

I remember that episode too, David.

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.

Just out of curiosity, why is religion mentioned in the book? Doesn't seem like that would in any way apply.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Kravitz

It only took 2 people to reply before this thread got side-tracked.

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.
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!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Dan- perhaps you are generalizing a bit.

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]

Posted By: Dan Kravitz

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.
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.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That Evers looks vaguely familiar

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]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

I just got done quickly reading the book.

What a waste of a Friday night. I will never get those hours back.

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Kravitz

Harry- I will buy the book from you. email me dan@chiprop.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

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.

I take no responsibility for wasting anyone's valuable time who ends up reading my copy of the book.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

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]

Posted By: Dave Hornish

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]

Posted By: peter chao

Guys,

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.

The end result is the Wagner and our hobby will recieve more press. As entertainers say, there's no such thing as bad publicity.

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.

Have a good weekend people.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter, which part of the world thinks we have too much money and too much free time? I'd love to know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

"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."

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.

Then again, the previous owner might have known what was coming. Maybe that's why he sold.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

It's is a contraction -- it is short for it is. The possessive is spelled "its" with no apostrophe.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

"Receive" is wrong too but why belabor the point.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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]

Posted By: Zinn

"I am shocked at the abysmal response the book has gotten on this board."

Might it be because 98% of us haven't read it yet?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

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]

Posted By: Boccabella

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.

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.

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.

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]

Posted By: jay wolt

But if the book isn't made to cater to the collectors
of this hobby who else would care about the contents?
My wife (as an example) knows nothing about cards &
collectibles and therefore could care less if the Wagner
sold for $2.00 or $2 million.
So I would think the hard core collector is the intended aim
of this book.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce MacPherson

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]

Posted By: Boccabella

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

<< 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? >>

Dave,

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.

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?

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.

Does anyone else see the problem with that picture?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

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]

Posted By: davidcycleback

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]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

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]

Posted By: RIch Klein

It has to do with 2 factors:

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.

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.

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.

Regards
Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Hi Mike,

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.

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.

So why now the surprise about the author mentioning the existence of this photographic evidence?

Prior to editing your initial post you wrote this:

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.

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.

If you have this secret pic of the card what is preventing you from presenting it?

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Greg,

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.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Peter,

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.

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.

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.

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

Well my copy of the book arrived today. I'm midway through A Perfect Red, and will finish that before starting The Card.

I'd still like to see an Errata prepared.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

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]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

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]

Posted By: JimB

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.

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.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

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 .....

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Leon,

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.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

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]

Posted By: MW

A couple of points of clarification:

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Mike,
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?
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Jim,

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]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

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]

Posted By: peter chao

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.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

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]

Posted By: MW

Peter,

I would answer your question with the following:

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?

Just because something is obvious to seasoned collectors doesn't mean that it will be obvious to those "outside" of the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

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?