My review of "The Card" . . . be nice ;)

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Fouch

I'm a copy editor and occasional writer for Newsday on Long Island and volunteered to write a review of "The Card." To my surprise, the book editor (who is not a sports fan at all) said yes. The review is running in this Sunday's book section but is online already. Contrary to many on the board, I enjoyed the book - though it definitely has its problems. Anyway, here's the link to the review. Don't be too hard on me. I'm praying I didn't get any of my facts wrong.


http://tinyurl.com/25zsl8

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

Nice. You nailed it in terms of the audience. I think the book is a fabulous piece of investigative journalism for a topic that would seldom get such attention.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Nothing personal and your review is much like the book was. At least you didn't make erroneous trivial errors.....I think you summed it all up in one of your last sentences...

"Nonetheless, "The Card" is a compelling tale"

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Do us a favor and put your first and last name by your post. Nothing personal....

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Now we have 3 threads on the Card. Here's a question for economists. I'm sure that some people think the book is threatening to the hobby. Let's get specific. How many people think that the next time the Gretzky T206 Wagner will sell for a higher price the next time it's sold.

My answer is yes. For celebrities and cards, it's the same rule, any news is good news.

Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

thanks for your understanding......

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Leon I love ya man, but i dont know how you can have an unbiased viewpoint on this subject. Mastronet(as far as im aware) is a paying advertiser on your site. You have also said that Mastronet was your first choice in the event of a sell off of your collection. Maybe those that have a vested interest (even if minor) in mastro's success could stay out of this one?

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Joseph,

What is your relationship with the publisher and/or authors of the book?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

MW,

No relationship with any party, so far as I know. I just think the book was quite well done and is a good introduction to the legend of the t206 Wagner for a mass audience. I'm amazed that Harper Collins would publish such a book, but I'm glad they did.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam

Does anyone above who posted in this string have a copy of "the photo?" Would they be willing to show it?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Paid advertiser or not I will voice my opinion and you can voice yours....How about that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Rob, good review.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Evans

I also like the review. Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Good review and synopsis of a poorly written and poorly researched book.
Three cheers for the 1914 Baltimore News Ruth!
The King is dead. Long live the King!

Better player, more rare, never been trimmed or counterfeited. It should be the standard bearer for the hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

"The authors seem to take pleasure in pointing out the ridiculous sums paid for questionable cards and memorabilia, which undoubtedly will raise the ire of collectors. (I must admit, I'm one of them.) It's like being told your sister's homely. You might be perfectly aware of her warts, but you don't want someone outside the family pointing them out."

Made me laugh... nice article!

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul S

I think your review is more like a nice extended summary of the book, rather than a critique, which is okay by me. And for the general public it might pave the way to their reading it were they ever mildly interested in the subject. Because it really isn't a traditional critique, there really isn't much (for myself) to agree or disagree with (stricly in terms of your review, not in terms of what I think of the book myself.) Not that this bothers me, I'm just commenting on the style.

Since you are a collector yourself you were going to have to either dig in with your own opinion or hang back and just lay out the general plot, which you did. That's cool, but for my tastes just a tad innocuous, since you have cred as both a journalist AND a collector, and I doubt we'll see too many of your brand reviewer for this book. I thinked you nailed it in your wrap-up comment about how the Wagner has transended the hobby to the point where it might not matter at all whether or not it's been altered. To me personally, that's the sad truth, the point where the hobby becomes a business that claims that no matter what I will ever do (in the hobby), it will never be as important as maintaining as others maintaining an illusion, at any cost/price. In that philosophical light, I'd say the Wagner has transended that fact that it is a card at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I just re-read the review. I think I was a little hard on it. The review is actually pretty good....The book was in fact interesting as I know a lot of the characters...As Rob correctly says though....it falls short of a smoking gun conclusion...(or something to that effect )....regards

edited to add the last part of the little enclosure thingy...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dylan

Im only 25 pages into the book but the story is an intersting read so far. We'd all have liked to see the infallible piece of evidence produced. The picture thats supposed to exist of the card in its untouched state would be extraordinary. But those of you that say its missing the smoking gun also probably think with 100% certaintly the card is hand cut. Do we need to have before photos to know that, really? I hear that the writer made some errors that had to do with trivial knowledge of baseball sets(which is unfortunate as id imagine many here wouldve proof read the dang thing), but that doesnt need reflect on the main issue of the story.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Fouch

Thanks for the feedback, guys. I expected some folks not to like the review. No biggie. I can take it.
(Though I do appreciate your giving it a second chance, Leon.)

I'm still a relative newbie when it comes to pre-war cards, so I probably wouldn't notice some of the errors you guys spotted right away. The only set I'm somewhat knowledgable about is T206, but I have tons more to learn. I also don't have firsthand knowledge of any of the major players in the book (other than what I've read on the board), so I came in with a relatively fresh eye. I typically don't have the funds to bid in the major auctions.

I still wonder who's going to actually buy the book. Just doesn't seeem like it has a big enough audience to make it worth the cost of publishing it. But what do I know? I certainly didn't write the review with the intent of trying to increase sales. Technically, a Daily News reporter would be my paper's competition. It was simply a rare opportunity to write about one of my passions. And I'll probably end up using the extra money I make to buy a T206 card. (I hit the 25 percent completion mark last week!)

Anyway, thanks again for your comments. It'll be interesting to see how well the book sells.

Rob

P.S. Just wanted to give a quick thanks to Scot Reader, who I asked to read the review (for fact-checking purposes) before it went to publication. Didn't want to make any embarrassing errors. Thanks for taking the time, Scot. There really are some great people on this board.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have stated my thoughts on the card itself many times but maybe it's worth repeating. I am sure a quick search of the board would verify it too..From everything I know today I think the card was cut from a sheet originally and possibly cut again after that. I will stop short of pointing fingers in public though, without more proof.... Nice review though...and if it helps buy another T206 GOD bless you Rob... take care



added the word "it"

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Evanov

Well written article. You present an unbiased review and that makes for a good journalist.

Frank

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

Perhaps the book provides no "smoking gun" or "proof," but what it shows a preponderance of evidence that--as most who read this forum believe--the card is cut from a sheet and possibly trimmed after that. The most exciting indictment (for this reader) is on page 83:

"Mastro has always swatted away rumors that The Card had been altered, flying into a rage at the slightest suggestion that its bright colors, clean edges, and sharp corners are the result of skillful card surgery. "There's nothing wrong with that card!" Mastro once screamed during an interview. "There's nothing wrong with that card!"


But the author concludes the book with the following lines, indicating that maybe the "problem" with the card is no big deal:

"...Does the fact that The Card tramples the rules that govern millions of other baseball cards even really matter?.....It is still a beautiful card. Even if it is trimmed."


Sounds pretty fair to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I reserve judgment until the photographic evidence (which may indeed be inconclusive, as Michael Wentz has said) is shown. Or at least until others close to the transaction choose to state what they know and/or their opinion for attribution.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Now maybe all those beautiful cards in "A" holders will get the respect they deserve.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

"Oh man, why don't you f*ckin' stop it? S*it, this is too f*ckin' big for you, you know that? Who did the trimming, who took the photos, f*ck man! It's a mystery! It's a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma! The f*ckin' trimmers don't even know! Don't you get it?"

If I were Wonkaticket this is where I would include a farked photo from the movie JFK.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Newman was a riddle wrapped in a twinkie!

[Archive]

Posted By: DMcD

Good one, Barry.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Yesterday, I finally had the opportunity to skim through The Card at Books Inc. in Palo Alto. I found the excerpts about Bruce McNall interesting. It turns out that he was cooking the books for about 10 years before the Feds caught him. Borrowed millions based upon false financial documents, appears to have gone heavily into debt to finance an extravagant lifestyle.

The $451,000 spent on his purchase of the Gretzky/McNall Wagner was approximately equal to his average monthly expenditures. Well I spend about two-thirds of my monthly budget on baseball cards...hmmm, I better start cutting back on my card purchases. Wouldn't want to end up in the same situation as Bruce McNall.

Who says the card hobby doesn't have any serious educational merit.

Peter