Guess Frank was 'CONFLICTED'

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

Guess everyone saying it was a counterfeit just wasn't enough. Not sure? Hmm..............

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1583955531

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Sometimes I wonder how many ebayers I alienate by sending "you are a jackass" emails. But this guy knows he's selling a modern reproduction, so in my opinion he's a loser for trying to screw some unsuspecting fool.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian C Daniels

Your too funny!

Look at his "provenance" it is akin to the modern day version of GRAMPA'S ATTIC !

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

"We don't like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out." -- Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962.

"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." -- Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University, 1929.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899.

"I think it may be real because I've seen no others like it...." -- Frank, Memory Lane, 2002.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Other than what has been posted here, I have no knowledge about this item, fake or original. However, in instances like this where the owner does not know if the item is old or new or somewhere inbetween, someone experienced in the area of prints should, or at least can, be consulted. It is a simple and painless task to determinine if an item like this was made in the 1880s or modern times.

If this Kelly is modern, as some here claim, the printing would no doubt have a dot pattern throughout the entire image. This saturated dot patterm would not exist if it was from 1880s-- whether it was a handcolored photograph or a lithograph ala Allen & Ginter. Even someone only vaguely familiar with printing should be able to use a maginfying glass to see if it's made up of dots, like a magazine picture.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

For the benifit of the lurkers who walk amongst us, the 'dot scenario' was, in this instance, being applied to this item only, and not to all prints or all cards. In other words, there are some 1880s prints that can have an extensive dot pattern-- just not this kind.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank

I made the Old Judge Ad that listed (briefly) on ebay on my auction software last week (before Jay Miller and others told me it was a fake item) and had scheduled it to post last night.

After Jay said on this board that it was fake I thought for sure I had deleted the ad and that it wouldn't post. Then this morning I got an email from Scott questioning why I would try to sell an obvious fake.

The answer is I wouldn't and I immediately cancelled the auction. It was not my intention to list the item once I learned that it was a fake.

I feel kind of stupid but I can assure you guys that I am honest and that I wouldn't try to take advantage of someone by selling an item I know to be fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

He sent me an email and said he had forgotten to cancel it, but wasn't trying to pull a fast one. It wasn't the typical "backwoods grammar" email and he sounded sincere. (Tom, I purposely left out references to Kentucky )

Sending emails to these folks is always a tough call, since on the one hand it's none of my business, but on the other, new vintage collectors can get a bad taste in their mouth for the hobby.

About a year ago I almost bought some of the "Old Judge Proofs" that were created by the leach who bought the original plates in an auction several years ago. He was a master of deceit, putting them on the market one at a time at ridiculous reserves, saying he found a few in an estate sale in Pennsylvania - boy, did they look convincing!. Hee then offered them to the high bidder for just above their high bid (around $1,000 each if I remember correctly). Fortunately I didn't have enough money to buy any of them! A board member (Jay or Tom) later gave me and my potential accomplish (a man of dubious reputation) the story on these items, which kept me from bidding on more of them.

The point is, I was looking for a great "find" and willing to take a gamble even though I was out of my territory and hadn't done the research necessary before forking out bucks like that. Did I deserve to get hosed? Greed is certainly not commendable, either on the part of the seller or the buyer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank

Scott mentioned some reluctance to contact ebay sellers about obviously erroneous or fraudulent items.

In this case I am grateful that he did since that auction may have run for a while until I even noticed that it was there.

As you know there are a lot of sellers on ebay who misrepresent items. I try to be as honest as I can in my listings and - based on the additional info that I received from Jay Miller and others - the listing for the Old Judge was no longer accurate.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

At appears that Frank honestly doesn't know whether the item is new or old (though suspects it's old), and his eBay description reflect this. It doesn't appear that the description is bad.

However, I would think it would be prudent and good for business, to find out what something is for sure, before auctioning it-- unless it is a truely esoteric item,

As a seller, my practice is to pick from the piles or stacks of stuff (literally) items for the day's sale. Sometimes I pick out an attractive item that would look good in a sale, but I'm not certain of its origin/true identity ('Is this an original 1920 or later generation') or have a seed of doubt about its authenticity ('I know this came as part of a group lot from PSA/DNA, but I heard that Red Faber signed for a lot of his autograph requests'). In these cases I either make a determination at the moment ('Let's get out that article Jimmy Spence wrote on Faber and his signatrue'), or I simply put the item aside for another day when I have the time and knowledge to make a determination. I will say to myself, "Put this item aside, and pick up another one for today."

Naturally, when selling an item, there will often be minor details in question or even for healthy debate ('This T206 likely was a printer's scrap, but I can't be certain,' or 'This is a later generation wirephoto, but I can't tell you exactly when it was made. Probably the 1960s'), but where I'm not certain if an item is from 1880 or 1980, or if it's authenticy is not resonably certain (Faber versus wife) I'm certainly not going to put it on eBay, even if I say I don't know if it's Faber or his wife.

I understand that others may do it differently, and that can be perfectly okay, but I don't see any benefit for me as a seller to put up item where I say "It's from either 1880 or 1980, but I can't tell which one."

[Archive]

Posted By: David

To clarify the omission of word, Red Faber's wife used to sign for a lot of her husband's requests-- so if you have a Red Faber autograph, it's prudent to see if it's his wife's. Luckly, the two are different from each other. And, yes, Spence did write an article on the subject, which should be archived at CU/PSA.

I also wish to note that my description above was applied to me only. I'm sure that there are people who buy out a garage sale or clean out the attic (for real this time), and put the varied stuff on eBay. They don't have the time or desire to research all the stuff, and resonably are offering the $2 and $5 items 'as is' or 'I have no clue what it is.'

In my auctions I offer things as 'Guaranteed Authentic,' and I'm the first to realize how bad it would look if I sold a forged Joe DiMaggio autograph or counterfeit 1933 Goudey. This is why, as Orson Wells taught me, "I sell no memorabilia before it's time."

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank

I agree with you completely. It is not a good idea to put an item out for auction with such a degree of uncertainty about what it really is.

Actually, when I wrote the ad a week ago I kind of realized this and started making inquiries as to what the Old Judge item I had really was. I did this not only because I felt uncomfortable with the confusion in the ad but also (and really more importantly to me) to determine if what I had was really authentic - in which case ebay would probably not be the venue to realize it's actual worth.

Had no one responded I probably would have (knowingly) run the auction as originally written. As it turns out, though, a lot of folks were very helpful and in their opinion the item is not authentic.

At that point I decided not to list the auction but, as I've stated above, through a mix-up the original auction listing was posted last night.

This may seem like much ado about nothing but there are some lessons to be learned, not the least of which is how one's reputation (for what it's worth) can be injured through a stupid mistake.

[Archive]

Posted By: David

Frank, just to clairify the original intent of my posts-- it was intended to be a sentence or two, but, typical to me, ended up being several posts, with me rebutting and re-rebutting and re-re-rebutting my earlier posts--, was that your eBay listing, if premature, did not appear deceptive to me.

As I said, if there is legitimate question about its age, I know someone who can make a determination (I hear he has a cute dog too).

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

In this case it wasn't a matter of how many pixels,etc. - sometimes you can determine authenticity of an item by other means. In this case, it was pointed out that painting were made in the '80s and prints were made from the paintings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank

I agree with Scott as to the authenticity of my Old Judge Items.

That's why I came here - to get the opinions of people who are experts in these matters.

It's good enough for me if Jay Miller says they are fakes. Of course, a part of me wants to believe otherwise but then I had trouble giving up on the Santa Claus thing too...

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I don't buy the "I don't know so here it is" school of salesmanship. I don't know if this seller is honest or not; I don't really care. I for one am sick and tired of sellers posting stuff that they have no idea about then bailing out when the s***storm hits. Where is the integrity and the diligence to make sure that the things you are selling are what they seem to be? To do otherwise risks your reputation, and for so little. . .

Kinison said it best (albeit in reference to engaging in intercourse with strangers): If you don't trust that ____, don't ____ that ____ (Fill in your own scatologial verb and nouns; sort of a Mad Libs for adults).

[Archive]

Posted By: David

But Scott, I don't make my hourly rate when people figure out things on their own. Whoever invented the 'by your own bootstraps' was bad for business. My business slogan is "pay me big bucks and you won't have to worry your pretty little heads with thoughts."

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

His humor cut through all the political correctness b.s. like a hot scalpel. It was a welcome (although granted profane) change of pace.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

but George Carlin is still with us, and he is still the best at cutting thru PC crap.

Jay