T206 Museum is back up! - Page 2

calvindog · #51 06-03-2009, 05:13 PM

Joann, really eloquently stated.

Jim VB · #52 06-03-2009, 05:14 PM

I think Mr. Chan is extremely fortunate. Had he sold one of his fake cards to me, I would not have been so responsive to the offer of restitution in exchange for a free skate.

I suspect many others would feel the same way.

Edited to add- Joann, you're going to make a terrific lawyer, but a "hanging" judge! LOL!

jmk59 · #53 06-03-2009, 05:15 PM

Thank you, Jeff. To be honest, your post upthread where you said he is a criminal plain and simple is what really got me thinking this way. You are right. He is a criminal. It's that simple.

J

ETA: haha JVB. The truth is that I am one of the biggest suckers in the world for a hard luck story or apology. I would be far from a hanging judge. If anything, I lean in the opposite direction. It just seems so bizarre to me that he is on here posting about cards.

danmckee · #54 06-03-2009, 05:43 PM

The problem with banning him and ignoring him is that his site is still up and newbes will find it and get suckered. Look at how many were suckered here at first. Treating that site as the gospel. I made my first post questioning who ran it about a year ago and the thread didn't get many responses and Jim and I were way in the minority of questioning it. New people will find it and think the info is good.

If we keep him here, it will remind some of us to every now and again go check that corrupt site.

I liked my idea of him turning the site over to the board and letting someone here run it but he never entertained that offer.

He kills himself every time he writes something stupid about those bogus packs. That he claims he opened.

If I found a pack like that and decided to open it, I would have a card party, have several people see the pack untouched, then film the actual opening. What a great event that would be!!

And I would then pull out a flag card.

Jim VB · #55 06-03-2009, 06:23 PM

Joann,

OK so the petty thieves, pimps, murderers, bankers, and Fortune 500 accountants will get off with a wrist slap.

Ebay scammers and guys selling fake cards will wonder why they are all in jail serving 25 to life.

V117collector · #56 06-03-2009, 06:35 PM

Banning people because of criminal activity is wrong!!!? There seems to be a few members on this board who have been convicted of much worse crimes (in my book). So banning an individual would only be hypocritical on management, unless all criminals are dismissed.. “LET THEM TALK” so other collectors can be more informed regarded crimes within our community.

I believe banning an individual should be made in a healthy and formed democratic decision ~ Public vote.

What’s the point of being a "Member" if you don’t have a voice?

Rob D. · #57 06-03-2009, 07:05 PM

Then again, if it was put to a vote on the board, how could we be sure that high-end collectors wouldn't hack into the system and corrupt the entire process?

calvindog · #58 06-03-2009, 07:09 PM

Brad, I'm a criminal defense lawyer and no doubt spend more time than everyone else on this board -- combined -- championing the rights of the accused. And no one is suggesting that those convicted of crimes should be barred from posting here. The concern has to do with allowing the proverbial fox into the henhouse here: preventing Chan access to this board so that he can't continue his criminal predator ways on the members of Net 54. Someone convicted of a drug crime 20 years ago is much less likely to prey on collectors here than someone like Chan, wouldn't you agree?

Posting here is a privilege, not a right, and Net 54 is not a classic democracy and certainly isn't required to be. Why should Chan be permitted to be a part of his community when he's already sh@t on this community -- and expresses little or no remorse as evidenced in his email?

Bridwell · #59 06-03-2009, 07:16 PM

Regarding the 1917 Piedmont pack which was sold in the 2008 REA auction, it looks to me it would be fairly easy for someone to fake that type of pack. They could probably steam open the wax paper wrapper and then steam off half of the tax stamp. That type of pack did not have the thin paper edge seal that earlier packs had, because it was replaced by the wax paper covering starting in the 1915 era. Someone could have carefully opened the pack and inserted a common T206. GAI was mis-identifying many packs as 1909-11 T206 packs which had tax stamps from 1917 or later on them. Apparently GAI did not have much knowledge of T206 packs at that time. I have seen at least 10 different GAI packs on ebay and I don't believe any of them could have had a T206 in them legitimately. Whoever faked the REA pack was hoping to sell other similar fakes at huge prices after the REA pack was opened and made public. REA fell for a hoax, it seems to me. If someone owned 3 or 4 other 1917 packs, they would have a motive to fake one of them and take a loss on it, in order to profit on the others.

V117collector · #60 06-03-2009, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Then again, if it was put to a vote on the board, how could we be sure that high-end collectors wouldn't hack into the system and corrupt the entire process?

The only word that comes to mind is "Reform". Maybe voting should be held by a non-biased participant which is not connected to management or net54baseball members. This is the only way to insure a safe voting results

calvindog · #61 06-03-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by V117collector

The only word that comes to mind is "Reform". Maybe voting should be held by a non-biased participant which is not connected to management or net54baseball members. This is the only way to insure a safe voting results

Yes, but who will vet the non-biased participant? Perhaps we could get an accounting firm to tally the votes like they do with the Academy Award voting?

Jim VB · #62 06-03-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Yes, but who will vet the non-biased participant? Perhaps we could get an accounting firm to tally the votes like they do with the Academy Award voting?

The venerable firm of Dewey, Cheatum & Howe has offered their services... for a nominal fee.

V117collector · #63 06-03-2009, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Yes, but who will vet the non-biased participant? Perhaps we could get an accounting firm to tally the votes like they do with the Academy Award voting?

Exactly Perhaps

Peter_Spaeth · #64 06-03-2009, 07:49 PM

I would let him stay, he hasn't violated any rules of the board as far as his posts go, and it's a good vehicle to confront him if he puts things on his website that are questionable.

egbeachley · #65 06-03-2009, 09:45 PM

I'll probably get crushed saying this, but.........until there is an alternative, it's the best T206 site out there.

rdwyer · #66 06-03-2009, 10:03 PM

According to Robert Forbes book: "American Tobacco Cards" Fish, Military, & Bird cards were issued during the years 1910-1911 only. I've been through the book completely many times, and can't remember any cards of any type being issued after 1917.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

WarHoundR69 · #67 06-03-2009, 10:45 PM

I've read this thread with extreme interest and just wanted to add the mentioned Law Firm's phone number:

1 - 800 - GET - EVEN

dennis · #68 06-04-2009, 02:49 PM

chan starting up the t206 museum.com again, is kind of like madoff reopening his investment firm.

canjond · #69 06-04-2009, 03:02 PM

Dan - I think you and I are in complete agreement here. I don't believe the packs could have held cards. My statement about of the tax stamps may have been misleading. between 1912 and 1917, the style of tax stamp didn't change, so it is very hard to narrow down the exact year a pack was produced during that time period, unless, of course, there is an overprint.

slidekellyslide · #70 06-04-2009, 04:08 PM

The guy made fake OM variations which could have done much more damage to the hobby had he not been caught...does anyone think he did not also fake the pulling of a T206 from one of those packs??? It's a real shame that the FBI didn't go further with this dude than just making him give restitution because we may never know the extent of the scams he has pulled.

cfc1909 · #71 06-04-2009, 07:49 PM

I agree with Dan B.-I doubt it was only the bar Old Mills. Only thing on that site that is legit is the auction results.
The site was created for his creations and solely for his gain.

"The scarcity back checklist got edited a few times with the help of many collectors over the years. I took every input into consideration and no one disagree those Old Mill bar backs aren't the rarest backs"

These just happen to be his creations and "no one disagree those Old Mill bar backs aren't the rarest backs" and they belong at the top of the list.

This is what we know and I am sure we don't know all.

rdwyer · #72 06-04-2009, 09:00 PM

Clarification:

The only piedmont series of cards to appear in 1917 packs are T119's. (World Scenes and Portraits) And that's questionable according to Robert Forbes book on American Tobacco Cards. He states that they were issued between 1912-1917. The following are the only series ever issued by Piedmont cigarettes:

Non Sports:

T42 Fish 1910-1911
T58 Birds 1910
T119 World Scenes and Portraits 1912-1917

Sports:

T205 Gold Border 1911
T206 White Border 1909-1911
T 330-2 Art Stamps 1914

If anything, you would find a T119 in a 1917 Piedmont Pack (Factory 25, 2nd District, VA) What baffles me, is how no one else ever found a piedmont card in the millions and millions of packs sold after 1917. Pat Chan made up the story about a card being pulled from this pack.

the 'stache · #73 09-04-2013, 04:04 AM

I have to ask you guys if the owner of the t206museum.com as it currently exists on the web is the same person that was involved in this whole criminal enterprise with the fake Old Mills backs.

To borrow from Game of Thrones, "the web is dark, and full of terrors", and it seems that like a curious child, I wandered off the reservation, and found the site without checking the vintage links page here.

Should it be avoided at all costs? I am certain there are other forum members that are interested in learning all they can about the white borders series, and invariably in a search for knowledge, they might stumble across the site. So let's get the penultimate opinion on "museum" back on page one.

Zach Wheat · #74 09-04-2013, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I have to ask you guys if the owner of the t206museum.com as it currently exists on the web is the same person that was involved in this whole criminal enterprise with the fake Old Mills backs.

To borrow from Game of Thrones, "the web is dark, and full of terrors", and it seems that like a curious child, I wandered off the reservation, and found the site without checking the vintage links page here.

Should it be avoided at all costs? I am certain there are other forum members that are interested in learning all they can about the white borders series, and invariably in a search for knowledge, they might stumble across the site. So let's get the penultimate opinion on "museum" back on page one.

Bill,

Read some of the old posts and you will understand better:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124673

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112152

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112134

Z Wheat

the 'stache · #75 09-04-2013, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

Bill,

Read some of the old posts and you will understand better:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=124673

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112152

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=112134

Z Wheat

Z-

I am reading these right now. Thank you for the links.

It is just mind boggling to me the lengths to which some people will go to defraud others in the name of profit. Just when you thought you've seen everything...

the 'stache · #76 09-04-2013, 03:43 PM

After restitution was made, I don't see how the FBI allowed this website to remain online. Chan went to extraordinary lengths to defraud the public, and yet it seems beyond the money he was forced to give back, he got off scot- free. I didn't see a mention of any jail time in the discussions I read today, so who's to say he won't try something like this again? Where's the deterrent? It took an incredible collaborative effort from John, Dan, Jim, Robert Lifson at REA, Brian Dwyer at SGC, and the FBI to uncover and provide conclusive evidence of Patrick Chan's illegal enterprise.

I know on the vintage links page we have trusted dealers, auction houses, historical & educational sites, and member pages. But should we have a list of questionable or potentially dangerous sites and sellers? A list with a simple caveat emptor would prove most helpful I would think.

atx840 · #77 09-04-2013, 04:07 PM

I have done a few recent deals with Pat and have had no issues, as always i'd caution with any transaction that you look into the seller, the card(s) and use a protected payment method.

4815162342 · #78 09-04-2013, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atx840

I have done a few recent deals with Pat...

Really? Where? eBay? I'm really shocked that he's even still in the hobby in any form.

atx840 · #79 09-04-2013, 04:37 PM

Pat sells through his site and privately...a few members on here deal with him. He still actively collects.