Brown?
 

I agree with you, Tim. But I still want to see the line-up.

What if we are all missing a Brown-Black variation that is similar to the Brown Lenox coloring? The card is certainly not a Brown Old Mill, but it's very interesting to me, and maybe to other collectors.

Ron

I'm certainly not trying to stifle anyone from looking at this card more closely and seeing if in fact it is a new color variation, after all the "Apple Green" Sovereigns are a relatively new classification. With that said this card is not what we call a Brown Old Mill so calling it that because it is close to a shade of brown is misleading. If it's thought to be a new variation present it to the numerous experts on this board and see what the consensus is. If the consensus is that it's a new color variation call it something but don't call it a Brown Old Mill.

Clearly covered in the prior thread not a darker brown such as Lenox....

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthr...hlight=goodwin

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...e/lenoxblk.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...lfCA0WQ8UT.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ot98b_lg_1.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...t460b_lg_1.jpg

Scans of the exact card in question next to real brown Lenox an Brown Old Mill.

Non-cropped auction scans...

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn.../Lot98b_lg.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...Lot460b_lg.jpg

Levy's Stark and Brown Old Mill from prior Goodwin auction using Goodwins scanner..

This is a bit deeper than SGC making good on a card somebody bought.
Scott came on here and called SGC out for bad dealings…and laid out his facts. He left out some pretty big details of which are disappointing to say the least for many reasons.
Given the circumstances I really think the last thing that Scott should be doing is calling into question SGC's integrity and take a good long look at their role in this card to market.

Cheers,

John

Also we have been asking Scott for a scan of this card for some time I know Jim R has.

The Levy's are good pals or communicate with some of the top T206 collectors in the hobby Dan McKee, Jim R, Brian W, Art M, Scott M, Mike Sarno, Ted Z heck for purely self promoting reasons I'll even say I know a bit about T206's.

They often travel to trade shows with stacks of cards for show & tell. Yet in the years of hearing about a factory cut brown Old Mill and asking to see it has never been presented. That seems very odd to me, heck we have even had lunch at the Levy's where we all have brought our collections for show & tell. What better time to have round table discussion on this new discovery and get behind it. We as collectors debunked the over prints to SGC & PSA we could easily get them to add this real new color OM card to the list. They even sent me the Hart card to review and inspect during the FBI investigation, why not this?

In fact such an important card I would be hard pressed to imagine anyone let alone the Levy's sell such a rare item as a factory cut new color brown Old Mill.

They also deal with some of the largest auction houses in the biz. In fact REA wouldn't even place the card in the auction. That seems very short sided of Rob if in fact it is a new type of T206 again makes no sense.
Also the story on the acquisition of the card has changed a bit, again odd.

I'm not saying the Levy's are nefarious folks who were out to screw anyone on purpose. But I think while they may have thought this card to be a bit different in color. They didn't have the confidence to put it to the folks who could help, as those would be the same folks who would most likely not agree and devalue a labeled card and the return on that said card.

Of all the folks with the ability to really have a card checked well beyond a TPG opinion the Levy’s have those assets at their disposal. Between the other collector friends, auction houses and their own vast library of a collection, if this was a real new card they could have presented SGC or PSA with a stack of details from multiple sources and pioneered a new hobby discovery even.

Yet they made no attempt? Even from a pure point of cash return doing the above would certainly even perhaps raise the cards value prior to sale!
However they quietly list the card with Goodwin to mark down a balance owed and appear to have hid behind the label and let SGC and the auction house answer the question as to if it is in fact a new color variation of Brown Old Mill.

That just seems so very odd coming from such advanced collectors with vast resources at their fingertips.

This is the last I will chime in on this, but this is what many of us are wrestling with on this card.

Cheers,

John

Good. Enough has been said, IMO.

Todd, thanks for your support on my decision above it means a lot to me...

Perhaps enough has been said, but i would still like to know the nature of the negotiations with SGC, in order to assess the claim that started this thread that SGC acted inappropriately. And I would still like to know why the owners were comfortable representing this card as BROWN, even if it was perhaps slightly different in appearance than the typical black back.

I have had very good dealings with the Levy's but everything John just posted is what troubles me.

With so many experts at their disposal why were they so reluctant to send Jim R a scan?

Why submit the card to a second auction house after being rejected by REA?

Even if one can't remember the exact details of the purchase you would think they would vaguely remember some details concerning such a high profile card, about what it cost, was it graded, etc.

They know the Brown Old Mill parameters and had to know that his card did not fit that criteria and this should have either given them pause at the time of purchase or at least when REA rejected it prior to submission to Goodwin.

SGC simply agreed in their email statement that from their research that they knew this situation was calling the Levy's integrity into question.

I believe if a less well know collector had taken the same steps Net54 would have been much harsher in their response and have given less of a benefit of the doubt.

Leon, I appreciate the humor in that video, i wouldn't have thought to ever look for that video... T.O. said it best, "get your popcorn ready!"

Don't mention it. And thanks for chiming in again.

Hey you too Todd.

I'm just glad our discussion of this topic didn't get in the way of you first post (#85) and your two cents/opinion of enough being said on the subject, way to add to the thread very solid.

Again no problem. While I believe that I have heard enough on the subject, I'm even more certain I have heard enough from you. Most of all though, I'm glad to see you're chiming in again.

Yawn, the thread is about the discussion of the Levy's Brown Old Mill and why they felt SGC was doing them wrong. If you have heard enough pick another thread..just a thought. Or perhaps we should drop it when you decide it’s enough?

As for chiming in I’m done chiming in on the Levy’s and the card that I stand by. However my chiming in applied to the topic at hand not your dinky input, that I can chime in on.

Once again thanks for adding to the discussion Todd and sharing with us all that you’ve heard enough from me.

http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...s/qmfiplhs.gif

Jeez, John always glad to hear from you. Particularly warming when you give the prefatory two or three lines about how you like and respect the poster and go way back and yaddy yaddy and then follow that with four or five excoriating shots at him anyway. All for the good of the hobby right? Just gettin' to the facts Anderson Cooper Wonka. Certainly not the kind of thing you could handle off line, right? Glad you're here for us. God bless America. Where would we be without you?

Todd, at least now you actually post something relative to the thread.

If it was your disgust with my method of bringing this up perhaps you could have posted your thoughts the first time (or offline me LOL) vs. #85 posts in you deciding to act like the boards floor manager regurgitating my own post stating I shouldn’t post on any more on this and making your snide comment.

Speaking of snide comments I think that is what this whole thread started about SGC making snide comments to Hank and Scott calling them out. Scott then proceeded to state some facts of which he conveniently left out some major details. Did I bring them up sure did could I have brought them up offline yes, just as Scott could have handled this offline with SGC.

Sorry I stand by my confusion on this whole thing and am very disappointed in what appears to be simply the Levy’s passing off a questionable card behind a slip. Especially when these guys of all folks should know the sting of a bogus card in a holder, and have all the knowledge to avoid any doubt on a card such as this.

If my outline of events and details is wrong I welcome the correction and will admit and apologize if I’m wrong.

Also if I’m the only person on here who is confused by the whole list of details provided, and I’m the only one left scratching their head over why collectors as advanced as the Levy’s would represent this card as they did. Then I stand alone and I’m ok with that.

It’s board where we can post on topics and post opinions, Scott had no problem brining up the subject on a public forum and listing his side hoping for support or a rally against SGC. Why should I not list my thoughts or details in the same public manner? If you think I’m doing Scott & Hank dirty that’s cool I respect your views. However I'm on topic, I welcome discussion, I presented details and welcomed correction from Scott and I’ve not been vulgar or disruptive in any way nor am I anonymous.

I will add for the record I’ve also done right by Hank & Scott too for the record so I think this is bit deeper than me taking cheap shots at them for kicks.

Cheers,

John

Todd what gives? I must have missed your post in the T206 museum Chan thread that you heard enough about that thread.

If you think the facts are off base here then that is ok as you have a solid right to your opinion.

But facts shouldn't be hidden because of who the parties involved are.

You are a good guy Todd, I have always had great dealings with you but I do not understand why you would take this stance in this thread.

Dan

WOW!

When someone once said a little information could be a dangerous thing he was on to something. I usually do not prefer to comment on matters I'm invovled with until they are either resolved or unresolvable. Clearly I feel there is a need for some factual commentary here.

When I first purchased this card I did so only because it was certified by SGC as a 1909-11 Old Mill Cigarettes T206 Dolly Stark Brown Back SGC 30. I would not have been interested based on the scan, since it clearly looked to me to be black. I wanted to know why the label guaranteed it was brown. After I received it, again, to the naked eye, it was a faded black. Then I looked at it under magnification and I saw that the ink was brown. That was enough for me to understand how it got labeled. It wasn't enough for me to be thrilled at having this as the one example for my back set because the hand cut, easily visible light brown examples appealed to me more. But this was still one to keep in my opinion.

I looked at all my other OM Southern League cards under a loupe and they were all clearly black to me, only this one appeared brown - much darker than the hand cut ones [obviously] but still brown. I always assumed there may be others like this out there, so eventhough this was the only labeled an Old Mill brown back with a number grade I still did not consider it unique or spectacular. It might be both, but because the brown color was not visible to the naked eye it had less appeal to me than many of my other cards.

Over the years I have sold cards that in retrospect I would like to have back - I imagine we all have. With the money raised I pursued other items I wanted. When I decided to see what this card would bring at auction I sent it to REA along with other cards. I told Rob that he should review this card carefully since it looked faded black and only under a loupe could I detect the brown back, and if for any reason he felt uncomfortable listing it to send it back to me. He did send it back. I mentioned this card to Bill Goodwin and sent it to him along with other cards with the same explicit information. He reviewed it himself under magnification and was satisfied that it was brown. I insisted that in any description of the item that potential bidders understand that it looked faded black but appeared brown under a loupe and also that SGC said it was brown.

I would never have kept the card initially if I did not feel it was brown [under magnification] nor would I have sent it in as an auction item if for any reason I was convinced that it was black.

For those who questioned if I told Goodwin that REA passed on the item I have this to say. How many of you had a T206 card for many years and finally sent it in for grading only to be told that a card looking perfectly fine to you was trimmed? Then, when you either resubmitted it to the same or different grading company because you disagreed with the assesment, I'm sure that you included a note saying, "By the way XYZ Grading Company said this was trimmed. I just wanted you to know that." That is the way it works, right?

When Bill told me a number of collectors questioned the card, we both agreed to pull it and send it back to SGC for a thorough review. There was no hesitation to do this.

I was expecting SGC to contact me fairly quickly. When about a month had passed I decided to call them for an update. I was expecting a detailed explanation of what they did and what they decided. What I got was a grilling about what I paid, when I bought the card, from whom and where. Not a single word about their findings. I had to call them back the next day to actually hear them say that their graders decided it was black. When I asked if it was looked at under magnification I receved no answer ... and I still have no answer to this day. When I asked for a written evaluation I was told they would not provide that and I still have not received one. When I asked why it was originally labeled as a brown back among the answers I received were:
A. The head grader in 2005 believed it was a brown back
B. It was submitted for grading as a brown back on the form and their data entry entry person at the time may have kept that brown back designation on the final label.

I then asked if the fact that all other Old Mill brown back cards known to exist were hand cut with a light brown ink back while this one was factory cut with the brown only visible under magnification was the reason it was deemed not to be a brown back this time. I never received an answer to this question and it still has not been answered.

Eventhough one of SGC's employees told me "when I look at the card, it looks to be faded ink that appears slightly brown", he added that he was not a grader and not an expert but the current chief grader "immediately recognized the card was a mistake." However, that still did not address the issue if the card at that time, was viewed under magnification, because I also immediately thought it was black until I saw it wasn't. [OMG I'm having flashes of John Kerry - OY!]

Many of you have thoughts about what compensation I should receive for this once SGC verified card IF IT IS NOT BROWN. But what should be done, if under magnification it clearly is brown? SGC broke it out of the holder and refuses to return it as they received it. We have a difference of opinion about this card and what once, based on their say so was a truly remarkable and rare card is now apparantly just another common.

My feeling at this time is that I want this card brought to the National Show in Baltimore. I want a group of knowledgeable T 206 collectors [you guys from this board are fine with me] to look at it ... under magnification. If you say it is black I'll take the raw card and put it in my raw T206 set. BUT, if when viewed under a loupe you say it is brown, SGC should agree to do one of three things:

1. Put it back in their holder with the prior description on the label including the fact that it is a brown back with a number grade. Also include certification as to how this latest review was arrived at.

2. Keep it out of their holder but replace it with an Old Mill brown back that they have no problem labeling as such.

3. Keep it out of their holder and compensate me somewhere between a commom price and a brown back price and return the raw card to me.

Of course another solution is possible, which is the one have been anxiously trying to facilitate. Namely, in order for SGC to keep this out of their holder, labeled as it was, we should reach a satisfactory solution that we both can live with and return the raw card to me [because I still want to show it at the National]. That is the solution I was pursuing and I hope SGC's tone will now change and that they will not insist on waiting until they are good and ready to make a decision, but instead act in a more timely manner.

I apologize for the very long post but I felt the questions raised deserved a serious response. I also hope you will excuse me from further posts on this topic at this time. Those of you who know my son or me are always welcome to call us at any time, especially on issues as significant as this.

Regards,

Hank

I am still a bit stumped as to how SGC should be financially responsible for paying the market value of a card based on a labeling error.

When PSA mis-labeled a T206 Heinie Wagner card as a Honus Wagner card.....did they have to pay the lucky owner of the Heinie card the difference between a Heinie card and a Honus card? :confused:

I think the mislabeled heinie card was kept by a collector...and obviously no one would pay honus $$$ for it...while...if sgc mislabeled the levy card as brown...then it was purchased based on the assumption that it is/was brown...I could see SGC having some liability.

On May 9 <a href="http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=123599">I posted on the B/S/T a group of Butter Cream cards for sale</a>. Here's an excerpt from the description:

Finally, PSA's grade of a 6 for Glen Wright should be considered fairly high grade for this issue. Full disclosure: When submitted for a crossover, SGC said the card is trimmed. Again, I don't see it, because the size is correct, and when I examine it with a loupe, I see no evidence of trimming. Welcome to the world of professional grading.

So, no, it's not unheard of for people to be forthcoming with what some might consider key details regarding a card they're trying to sell.

Rob D. correct....another example..

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2008/198.html

I still don't understand why color would appear different under a loupe? Can someone explain?

because
 

it's bigger

Damn why didn't I think of that?

Correct me if I am wrong-SGC is willing to compensate you but they want a record of what you paid? So I believe they are stepping up to the plate.

Also if you truly believe this is a one of a kind, new factory cut brown Old Mill, I think you would not be selling but trying to get this added to the registry just like the Cycle Matty.
Instead it gets consigned to Goodwin where no one knows who the consignor is.

If SGC gives you any more than $100, they own the card as you were compensated.

If the card is truly brown, you don't need it labeled as so, didn't the Sid Smith bring brown money in a past Goodwin and was not labeled brown.

Once the card is under a loupe you can see it is brown-I think SGC has a loupe.

I am confused why it had to come to this, couldn't you have taken what SGC was offering and keep your card out of their holder as you know the card is brown. You can see this under a loupe?

I still don't understand why the card was never shown to any collectors. You both have been to my table at Philly with loads of wonderful cards and also to gatherings with collectors were everyone was showing unique & rare cards and talking brown Old Mill as a brown Reagan and a brown Revelle were present.

We all make mistakes, I think this can be labeled as a mistake and move on.

Let it be known that dan mckee is calling bullshit on hank levy's post.


Bs!

+1

+1
Be well Brian

with what the levys know and who they know about t206s it's just very hard to believe they paid brown OM money w/o consulting anybody for this particular card with so many red flags...and no records or memory to back up the claim.

some board members are pissed off and feel this charade to save face has gone on long enough. sgc can prolly check the cert to see who the original submitter was and trace it back?

Riddle me this...

With the Levy's vast knowledge of T206's and the amazing amount of knowledge at their disposal via other collectors, how could they hold a TPG company responsible for this?

Um, so the answer is no, you didn't tell Goodwin that REA passed on it, right? I got lost, cuz you used a lot of words...

Jeff

could it have gone down like this?
 

Bought it, realized it wasn't brown, buried it for a good long while instead of showing it to a soul, tried to consign it taking advantage of the label, got called on it, tried to get sgc to buy it back? Just wondering, does that seems to fit the chronology better?

I just louped a bunch of cards, I didn't notice any changes in color. Whatever.

I just louped a bunch of cards, I didn't notice any changes in color. Whatever.[I][/I]

Did you make them big enough?

Loupe?
 

Lots of collectors getting loupy?

This is an interesting thread to say the least.

Awhile back I had bought a Rockenfeld T206, and when it arrived I noticed when comparing it side by side to a Hannifan Old Mill that I had, the Rockenfeld appeared almost brown.

At the time, I didn't belong to Net54, but had discovered Trae's site T206.org and had contacted him. Finally I was able to figure out how to send a photo of it (I am not very computer savvy),, and Trae confirmed to me that what I had was not a Brown Old Mill. The strange thing though, was that the photo I took made the back look "blacker" than it appears in person.

Anyhow,, I have since learned that (thanks to TedZ) I will not find a Rockenfeld with a Brown Back.................and also, my Rockenfeld is factory cut, and not hand cut.

So I guess it fits under the catagory of "faded black",,,,,,,,,,,,,but I'm just wondering if this is the same type of color that confused the Levy's?

I am working with a new computer now, so if I can figure out how to show some scans of these I will (probably don't need to, I know all of you Veteran T206 collectors have seen what I'm talking about?)

Sincerely,Clayton