|
Collect.Com Auction Catalog on-line
The Collect.Com Auction catalog is now on-line at
http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...omAuction1.pdf The print version will be mailed with next week's SCD on Tuesday, or can be obtained by registering to bid. |
There is some great stuff in there Bob. Best of luck.
|
Stall & Dean Cobb
Bob...
I'd like more information about lot #2, the Stall & Dean Cobb advertisement. Specifically, have you had professionals date the paper and printing on the piece? I've come across two of these since the Halper auction and both have been reproductions. As a matter of fact, if you look closely at the one offered in Sotheby's auction and compare it to those since offered, they all contain the same irregularities as if they were copied from their catalog. All irregularities but one, however. The original Halper piece had a crease while those that have followed are mysteriously cut differently (a slightly different shape) so that, alas, the crease vanishes! Here is a brief thread about the repros: http://www.network54.com/Forum/56713...t+another+fake... I'm not saying that the item in your auction a reproduction, I just want to state that there are several forgeries out there that look similar to lot #2 and are slightly different than Halper's. Could you please disclose any information of its history and your process of authentication? Thanks... Jerry |
Jerry,
No doubt in my mind the lot from Collect.com is also one of the fakes. IMO you're correct with your gut feeling on this. The lot has the same tell tale signs the other fakes have all had. Which you are correct were most likely copied from the Halper sale catalog. http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...ean%20Ad22.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn.../deancopy4.jpg http://photos.imageevent.com/piojohn...huge/dean2.jpg The signs are as such… A: There is no black border or stroke line around the baseball, also the baseball’s on both the Heritage and Collect.com appear to be hand cut or have a wavy appearance. B: There is a mark on the pinky finger section of the glove (2) little tears this was on the original from the Halper item, it’s clear on both of the other units. C: Once again on the Halper unit one can see the tiny pin holes or marks these also carry over to the other 2 units from Heritage and Collect.com D: The original heavy crease you mentioned from Halper’s example above seem to always be a spot for weak printing or damage on the other 2 units…as the “Church Lady” would say “Isn’t that convenient” These have always been highly questionable items almost like Fro-Joy’s if you will. http://sports.ha.com/common/view_ite...3&src=pr#PHOTO http://www.sportscollectorsdigest.co...omAuction1.pdf To find any other examples with the same damage and markings in the exact same spot seems highly unlikely and should make any good seller or buyer raise an eyebrow. I’m surprised Heritage and now Collect.com didn’t do their homework or catch these sooner. Not the lot I would want to highlight in my first auction unless I was 100% certain it was the real deal… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5EZ9...e=channel_page Not for nothing but this is part of SCD correct? Didn’t SCD take ads from Coaches Corner a known counterfeiter of signs and such? If the above is true there’s some irony…:) Cheers, John |
Excellent work John! Top notch... TOP NOTCH ! ! !
That explanation and side-by-side comparison is more than enough for any reputable auction house to pull the lot. Thank you for your efforts! :) |
John raises a point that popped into my head about 5 seconds after I read this post that SCD is delving into the auction-house business: This is the same SCD that accepts advertising from Coach's Corrner and has for years.
You reap what you sow, I guess. |
Though I believe Bob Lemke to be an honorable person and a valued member of our hobby....well...as the saying goes "you go to bed with dogs ,you wake up with fleas". When SCD stops associating with Coaches Corner's swill than their auction will be received much better.The creditability of SCD is near zero.
In the last Coaches Corner auction I believe they had a single signed Mike Kelly ball from 1890.....are you kidding!!! I think I can complete a single signed HOF set just from Coaches Corner and have it fit in my budget. How can you think for 1 second you can run your auction next to Coaches Corner and have it embraced.Mr O'Connell,you know right from wrong...do the right thing. |
Yea if you go to Coach's Corner auction that just ended you could have won a King Kelly autographed ball for 1520.00 and a Lou Gehrig autographed bat for 460.00 both for under 2000.00. What a stinking joke. Somebody stop these guys.
|
I think there is so much anger toward this, basically like rats leaving a ship when it comes to what is correct and incorrect in regards to the forementioned. I have to ask you (and by coming in here, I think I should) what others want to know. Why should we trust SCD?
It cares more about the revenue stream then doing the right thing. Also, doesn't anyone else think it's amusing that a periodical that's sole duty is to get the word out on the behalf of auction houses (and sellers) through paid advertising, is now competing with them? Also, great job Wonka. |
This reminds me of SCD's attempt to get into the graded card market a few years back, how'd that work out?!?
Plus did anyone else feel like their min. bids on most items were high? Many of the min. bids would be the max. I'd bid on that particular iitem.jmo. Mr. wonka, you continually impress me with every post,and you've got my vote as having the best icon by your name. |
CC is an advertiser, this appears to be the company's own auction house. Excluding the discussed lot and looking through the auction catalog, it's easy to differentiate the two. To start, the third party autograph authenticator for this auction is JSA. It should also be noted that many, including many on this board, thought SCD did a reliable job of grading and authenticating baseball cards, but weren't able to get a foothold in the market. If anything, recalling their defunct card grading unit, and their old game used authentication unit (SCDAuthentic), points out the company's abilities in those particular areas.
I also think that auction errors should first be pointed out to the auctioneer. If it is then not corrected, then it can be brought public. It's duly noted that in this case Bob initiated the thread and the initial sign post was only a question. I hope the auction is a success for SCD and bidders. Success means SCD makes a good honest profit and bidders win good authentic stuff. |
First off this is not directed at Bob Lemke the guy is a super star and a hero in this hobby just a bad case of association here with a bogus item.
I’m sure Bob and the team will pull this lot. Although I’m very surprised and shocked this one got by Bob and the team as it’s so obvious like a blue eyed Wagner or Fro-Joy set…your first auction and a highlight lot? Not buried in the back of some huge catalog but lot 2 is a super well known commonly questioned item..I'm shocked.:confused: Bob must have been out the day of the YouTube PR video shoot; no way has a guy like Lemke missed this one? In regards to SCD it’s all about feeding the system…you can’t play both sides of the fence. On any given day you can’t play the side of a publisher whose job it is to play a neutral field in the form of accepting advertising from anyone who is willing to pay, to running an auction house for profit. One can’t do the second and be so neutral one must be willing to boot lots ask questions of sources and consignors the luxury of see no evil hear no evil won’t apply to the latter. Also taking money from guys like Coaches Corner and the sort is only feeding the system of fraud and giving a known bad guy if you will an avenue to 92,000 collectors as they are so proud to admit to reaching. A person recently emailed me a great analogy imagine if REA was partners of PRO or was owned by PRO and then in direct mailings REA told folks about their legitimate honest grading service PRO….one would certainly scratch their head…something to think about. Cheers, John |
Maybe some people easily can ignore the relationship between the two companies. Others might -- rightly so, in my opinion -- look at the association with a more critical eye.
|
I didnt feel anyone was attacking Mr. Lemke,but they were commenting on SCD's loss of credibility.
I remember hearing complaints about the SCD grading/authenticating setup and then it was gone. it lasted what, 1-2 years? That just dosn't bring "successful" to mind. I too hope it's a win-win for SCD and those who buy their auction items,but as a former subscriber,I wish they would have focused more on making a great hobby magazine with 100% credibility. jmo. |
From a practical standpoint, it would seem a good way for SCD to free itself from CC is for this auction to succeed financially. If you want SCD to drop CC, you should hope SCD's own auction is a success. If you wish SCD to remain financially dependent on CC's advertising money, you should hope its auctions fail. The former may not free SCD of CC, but the latter will almost certainly keep the CC advertising alive and well.
|
From a practical matter, it would seem a good way for SCD to free itself from CC is for this auction to succeed financially. If you want SCD to drop CC, you should hope SCD's own auction is a success. If wish SCD to remain dependent on CC's advertising, you should want SCD's auction to fail.
If someone wishes to boycott SCD and their auctions (which I assume means he doesn't own a Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards!) that is fine by me. However, I hope the above illustrates that relationships and, in particular, practical cause-and-effect are often different than one believes. One of my favorite quotes of Yogi Berra is, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." By the way, do I think the magazine should drop CC advertising? Sure. |
I disagree with David: once an auction is made public, it can and should be publicly critiqued if so merited. The energy spent supporting those who would commit fraud or otherwise sell bogus items (and this is not directed at Bob L. who clearly is above-board even if this item is not) is almost comical here. How does one expect to avoid being defrauded in this hobby when even the targeted victims will exhaust themselves apologizing to those who would defraud them?
|
as an auctioneer and business person
I think it's ok to critique things publicly but as a business person I hope folks would give me a chance to make something right before going public.
|
Jeff I agree.
It seems pretty simple to me if you’re taking the time to print catalogs and shoot YouTube videos for items you should be taking the time to make sure said items are legit. It’s all about personal responsibility if you’re in the auction business make sure what you’re selling is legit or don’t list it for sale. And if you list something for sale without doing your homework expect somewhere a few folks may call it out as Jerry and I did. It's nothing personal and there really is no said protocol to follow either regarding private or public nobody’s throwing anybody under the bus just calling out a questionable item. I don’t think this is a huge deal here (Stall & Dean) I’m sure Bob and the team will pull the lot if they agree with us on the questionable authenticity of the item. The SCD and CC connection well that’s a whole other topic and not so easily responded too and the real embarrassment IMO. As the Stall & Dean can be chalked up to a mistake but years of taking advertising money from a known bad guy well…..:confused: Cheers, John |
John
I agree with what you said for the most part. I doubt there is an auction house that is in business today that hasn't made some mistakes. It's all about how you handle them. I am sure Collect.com will investigate and make the right decision. regards
|
I stand by what I said, in part as it's a courtesy each of us would wanted extended to us if we made a mistake. I'm not saying this courtesy is due to obvious fraudsters, known serial offenders or people who have ignored your help in the past. Also note that I said it was okay to go public if the auctioneer ignored you and/or didn't correct the problem.
Did you know that at the GameUsedUniverse forum, posters are required to first contact the seller before posting about an authenticity problem? I believe this is to allow honest sellers, often eBayers, to correct an honest error or once in a while correct the complainer. |
Bob came on a public forum to advertise his auction, free of charge via a new thread. I feel that questioning the authenticity of a highly publicized lot is justified given the circumstances. If he had not taken this course, I would have questioned him privately after I received the catalog or viewed his website.
Furthermore, John and I have information regarding past forgeries/reproductions of the item in question. Do you feel it best for us to remain quiet and try to get the item pulled from behind the scenes or to inform and educate the collecting community who, perhaps, weren't privy to its history? Whether done publicly or privately, the end result should be a withdrawn lot. If they want to succeed as an auction house, admitting and rectifying an oversight is the ethical course of action. No one will fault them for this. Ignoring the issue, however, and letting the lot run to fruition would be more telling. Jerry |
Only in this hobby and this forum can one respond to another forum members question about an item which is commonly known to be faked. And have to spend time justifying why it wasn’t done to someone else’s liking or standards. LOL :)
Funny Jerry and I should have handled differently so there should have been due diligence on our part but the auction house gets the benefit of the doubt. Hmmm the item sells or doesn’t sell Jerry and I benefit how again? What’s our motive again?:confused: I also think private notification is silly if an auction house has nothing to hide and uses this forum to promote items and in doing so is notified publicly that said item or items may be questionable. It’s an easy fix remove item or items if they agree and thank the forum for its support and input. If they disagree explain why so bidders can bid with ease and confidence. Nobody expects folks to be perfect but we expect business owners to be professional and fix mistakes which I’m sure Collect.com will be as they have given me no reason to think they won’t. This applys to all auction houses, grading companies and sellers etc. Still the bigger question is a valid one that folks have raised me included. An auction house that is affiliated with a company who derives revenue from known fraudulent sources like Coaches Corner does seem to be a conflict of interest bad Stall & Dean item excluded. Cheers, John |
On another note there is also a batting version of this Stall & Dean ad correct anyone have a scan?
Love to see it. |
John, we need some lawyers to come on now and tell us that what you did was positively evil. And then post 3000 times about it. And then agree with you at the end.
|
Quote:
And then we could end it all with a huge cockfight. |
Or we could just wait for one lawyer to come onto a thread and spout his self-righteous yet-always-right-without-question pap. Beats the hell out of getting a variety of opinions.
|
Or we could just wait for another lawyer to lay out obviously incorrect law in the most self-righteous manner any strip mall lawyer ever could.
|
but wait
we have that. He just posted. Let's see if we can find that thread where he who is smarter than all educated the board on how reliable polygraph exams are regarded--Leon, I believe it will be found in a Clemens thread-- only to then immediately backpedal. Then I would love that he, after consulting with others (since he knows little to nothing of what he speaks) will point out the "obviously incorrect law" to which he refers, after which he will again to be shown to be as much full of crap as he is with himself.
|
Todd, yawn.
I only need to be smarter than you. Which I am. Now can we get back to watching Matt Garza and Jason Bartlett in Triple AAA at the All-Star break? |
Oh and by the way, I recently used a polygraph exam to convince federal prosecutors to back off a certain life sentence for a client and negotiate a plea agreement which resulted in a 7 year sentence. Oh and the FBI has a polygraph department -- I know this because the former head of it was in my office last week.
But I'm sure you know all this through your experiences in your real estate practice. |
Well
geez, I thought we all should benefit from your genius Jeff. And BTW, trying not to get into a whose is bigger thing here--unlike you, I do not suffer from delusions of grandeur--but you are not smarter, not only than myself, but also of many, many others who post or lurk here but who get tired of your massively large ego.
Yep. Let's talk about the standings and trades some more. May is just the best time for that. And I'll be just amazed when Bartlett wins his batting title, rather than the been there done that (twice) Mauer, and stunned how the Rays keep rolling along at that .500 pace, a half-game better than the Twins. BTW, please show me, I'm too stupid to point out where I said Bartlett and Garza would be in the minors--oh, wait, I didn't, just more of your "observations"--you rascal. |
Todd, don't blame me for your feelings of inferiority. Considering it appears to happen so often to you I assumed you'd be ok with it by now.
As for Bartlett (and Garza), no one ever compared him to Mauer. Tbob complained bitterly about the trades made by the Twins in which they got rid of great young talent and received nothing in return. Bartlett and Garza were basically traded by the Twins for Delmon Young. On planet earth that is considered a bad trade. Had the trade been made for Mauer your point might make sense. But of course you don't. |
thanks
but I have no feelings of inferiority. In fact, you're the first person to ever suggest such a thing about me--wait a minute, are you just funnin' me again or am I just havin' trouble keepin up with your superintelligence? Gosh-dasher you're so damn droll it just don't seem fair.
Know what? I met Tbob, and will probably meet him again in Cleveland. I will tell him again to calm down about the Twins (hi, Bob) until the season is over. But yeah, until one team wins a World Series, I'll reserve judgment on who got the better of a specific trade and, more importantly, just how much it matters. Right now, the Twins have a decent and full starting staff and a 23 year-old Delmon Young, plus a three position player in Brendan Harris. I recognize that on Planet Jeff--where I'm far too primitive to qualify as sentient life-- it may seem like a horrible trade. In fact, you know what, it may prove to be just that on Planet Todd, where me and Jethro are studyin our guzzintas in hopes of making it to double-naught spy school. Just seems to us hicks that it don't matter all that much right now; obviously, we could use your superlative guidance, 'less of course you think it's better that we have no opinion. |
Todd, put the tub of beer down. The Garza & Bartlett for Delmon Young trade is bad today, tomorrow and 100 years from now. Now the Santana for Carlos Gomez trade...why don't you tell me how good that one was again? Oh wait, I remember: it was a good trade for the Twins because Santana will never see a World Series. Got it.
|
heck
I don't know, superman, ye of must have the last word. Ask the Tigers how much they liked getting Doyle Alexander for some no-name pitcher named Smoltz in '87. Missing piece in that '87 World Championship Tiger team. Oops, forgot, the Twins cleaned Detroit in '87 on their way to a title and Smoltz went on to excel for something around 20 years for other teams. But so what- we need to hear from one of the prescient ones like yourself to show us what will happen and how one team should be branded for "100 years from now".
Why stray off topic though? Let's hear how smart you are again? I really don't mind you showing off how intelligent you are and how dumb I am--it's the only chance us inferior types have of crawlin up the ladder. Please edgeycate us on the law, Justice L. Show us that thread on lie detectors and how they all work. While you're at it, I seems to recollect that you were enlightening us all on how brother Barry was a candidate about to meet his comeuppance in the election back in October. If you would be so kind as to show us again how that was going to blow up on him, I'd love to hear it again. You know, I'm a bit thick to get it the first time. |
Todd, you really need to see a shrink for those ugly feelings of yours. Maybe you're just not getting enough action in Landlord/Tenant court?
And you're right: the Santana for Gomez trade is a good one because John Smoltz is a HOFer. Got it. |
wow
gots me again. Please be so kind as to refer me to a professional who can help me with my many shortcomings. Of course, I assume you yourself are more than qualified, but you must have a conflict of interest. Certainly, you would help me, no? I don't deserve the best?
And the Santana for Gomez+3 trade was your run-of-the-mill trade. Got it. Twins had way too much leverage and blew it. Stupid Twins. Stupid Angels, letting Tex go. Stupid Brewers, can't keep Sabathia. If these teams just had the foresight to hire you Jeff, the league would be much more balanced. Damn midwesterners are just too flippin dumb. And then there's stupid me--not enough time to get into all of that. |
I guess the same leverage the Twins had when they dealt Garza and Bartlett for a bag of rocks.
And somehow I suspect the Twins could have done a bit better than trading the best pitcher in baseball for a Triple A player. Todd, I really like when you type like Jethro Bodine and refer to yourself as dumb. Saves me some typing and having to state the obvious. |
Anything to help, master
gettin' alot of mileage out of that bag o' rocks analogy, aren't you. I also suspect you are right--most people here would consider it obvious that I am some sort of dumb hick. Can't imagine a one of them thinkin' you're a jerk though. If so, just a bunch more t/fools, n'est ce-pas?
|
Nah, Todd, no one on the board thinks you're a jerk. And no one thinks you're overly defensive or angry or hilarious with some of your ridiculous arguments that are almost universally wrong legally and factually. No one at all.
And PS--I really didn't say you were dumb -- you said it. I just said I was smarter than you. Which I am. |
Jeez
From one sarcastic guy to two others:
Take this one to private emails! |
Jodi
Hang on...I think I was insulted about 20 posts ago but can't quite tell?:eek: Heck, that back and forth would have been about 4 billable hours!!
|
Is it just my imagination,or does every post on this board now degenerate into a bitch-slap between 2 - 3 people?:confused:
|
J. Mc.
I'd say it's either your imagination or a gross exaggeration. |
Quote:
When I posted this at 8:56 last night, little did I know how prophetic it would be. |
If we just look at the auction for what it is, there is not much premium material after Lot # 1 - NCP's..........
|
I think it has nice material. It's obvious the auction is intended for a wider sports collecting audience, not just Pre-War baseball card specialists.
My guess is the Anson portrait photograph belonged to Anson. There are a small number of oversized, high quality studio portraits around, including from the same studio, that were Anson's and later obtained from his family. A friend owned some of them and had a family provenance letter stating they were Cap's. Due to the studio quality, display size and formal sitting, they are physically and stylistically consistent with photos to be made for the subject, family and home. If a neighbor picked up one of the photos at a garage sale except the guy in the picture was an anonymous nobody, I would say "It looks likes a family photo. It was probably made to be displayed at his home, office, relatives home or somewhere on that order." |
Bob... the holiday weekend is over and a full business day has passed. Based on the number of views this thread has generated, I'm curious as to if a decision on lot #2 has been made? Will the Stall & Dean Cobb advertisement be pulled or is it business as usual at SCD?
Eagerly awaiting a response... |
OK, I'm back
This (circa 10:45 a.m. CDT, Wed., 5/27) is the first time I've been on the forum since mid-afternoon Friday, so the authenticity question raised by Jerry is new to me. I've had a chance to read the thread (including its tangents) and take note of John's analysis of the Halper piece versus the two that have since come to auction.
I have conferred with Collect.com's auction director Steve Bloedow and he has agreed that we should pull this item from the auction. We will undetake a more in-depth look at the S&D stand-up and seek outside assistance in determining or disproving its authenticity. Let me be totally up front in stating that I am the one who passed judgment on the originality of this item. When I heard it had been consigned I was immediately concerned because I was aware that this particular ad piece had been counterfeited in recent years. My cursory poking around on the internet, however, indicated that the fakes seen in quantity on eBay, etc., were of a smaller size. I visited the Heritage auction site and studied the example sold there compared it with the consigned item. It was my considered opinion that the piece sold by Heritage was not the progenitor of the piece consigned to Collect.com; that is, nobody stole the image from Heritage and made a counterfeit from that source. I had never heard any indication that the Heritage piece was questioned. If you look at the Halper piece as the possible "source" for both the Heritage and Collect.com examples, the concerns expressed here become understandable. As I said, further study will be undertaken and the consigned S&D standup is now off the market. That being said, I have to concur with those who expressed the idea that I, or Steve, should have been contacted directly on this subject. To this moment, I have not received a single e-mail or PM from anybody referencing this matter. As you can see, I am not an everday visitor to this forum, and Steve is even less so. The professional courtesy of a heads-up from the original questioner or anybody else with a concern would seem to have been the way to go. I also note the appearance of some new "faces" on this thread, hiding behind anonymity to pursue their tilt at the Coaches Corner windmill. They should properly take up their cause in a new thread that would likely rival the 400+ post-count of the last one and have the same impact on the way business is conducted in this hobby/industry. We appreciate the vigilence of many of the experts who frequent this forum and you have my thanks for raising this concern; just know that in future any issues would be more timely addressed by a direct contact. |
A few comments
1) Bob and Steve did the right thing to do when they realized what was happenning. I agree with Bob's version of the time line. See pt 2 for what I mean
2) Having worked for a similar type company to F&W; let me assure the posters that there is no way that every department is aware of what is going on in all the other departments. Krause (F&W) is just too large for that to occur. 3) Jeff and Todd; please take your ribbing, serious or not, to emails. 4) Bob; I do disagree with you slightly in that I believe the public comment helped you all do the right thing. Just like when you wrote about the fake grading companies all those years ago. You could have contacted them privately but instead wrote a very nice article about the Fake 1963 Bazookas IIRC. 5) The Coach's Corner issue is a tricky one. Even assuming as I do based on pt #2 that Collect.Com auctions and SCD are two different operations -- unfortunately Collect.Com will be branded by the Coach's Corner relation although it is obvous that Collect.Com auction is going to be properly vetted whenever possible. Now; my buddy T.S. O'Connell wrote a blog recently in which he vented AND with very good reason about some Coach's Corners comments Those comments appeared in his blog entry about Max Silberman (also a good friend of mine and trading partner since the 1970's) and his battle with his many ailments. That was not an appopriate place for the Coach's Corners comments and ANYONE who posted in that blog piece should be ashamed of themselves. However; the general issue is acceptable to discuss Coach's Corner and a public airing is fine. Hey; I worked at Beckett when we were all the major pricing game in town and you should have seen some of the lies said on the old Sports Net boards in those days. Give someone an computer and not face to face talk and see what negative things get posted. 6) Good luck to Bob; Steve; etc in your auction. I hope that every lot *except for any I may bid on* reached more than your maximum goal :) |
Bob
Thanks for the feedback and follow up. The only thing I will add is that there is absolutely no one on this forum, that is a participant, who is completely anonymous. They can usually remain anonymous in threads but if push comes to shove I do have their contact info, meaning first and last name and a phone number. As a matter of fact I too saw some new faces and double checked to make sure their info is on file...and it is. Good luck in the auction. If you have enough of them there will no doubt be other issues in the future. It's all about how they are handled. I knew this would be handled professionally. regards
|
Thank you, Bob. Pulling it for further evaluation is the prudent thing to do. I applaud the decision. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is authentic, utilizing multiple and trusted sources, this thread will be a blessing in disguise for your next auction as the piece will garner more bidders than it would have otherwise gotten given the skepticism. I, for one, however, believe that the authentication results won't be pleasant.
As for contacting you directly, in retrospect, perhaps I should have. I understand your point of view, but hope that you understand mine too. You came on a public forum to advertise your offerings. My intent was to have a potential forgery pulled from the marketplace and not have a buyer endure the cost and hassle of later realizing he was taken. John's visual, side-by-side comparisons were invaluable. This forum is to help educate and advance the hobby. That's what was done and private emails would not have accomplished this. Lastly, your initial concern about its authenticity given your knowledge of prior reproductions casts a darker shadow. Comparing your example to Heritage's is commendable, though why not delve a bit deeper, especially on a $20k+ lot that is the star of your inaugural auction? If you can reference Sotheby's hammer price, perhaps comparing your piece to theirs would have been appropriate. This is not a pissing match and I don't want to diverge too far from my initial intent of thanking you for pulling the lot. A mistake was made. I make them, you make them, we all make them. They will continue to be made by all of us to varying degrees. I'm content that the proper action was taken and useful knowledge has been disseminated to the broader hobby. Jerry |
Quote:
|
Geeesh, Aric. I hope someday if you make a mistake or error in judgement at work, that none of us are looking. If that day ever comes, I'm sure you'd appreciate a private "Pssst..." rather than a public airing out.
I don't know of any individual or any auction house that is flawless. What sets them apart is how often (or how seldom) they have problems, and how they deal with those problems. Bob has been around this industry a long time. I strongly suspect that he has added more to it than you ever will. (I can only "suspect" because you've made 2 posts on this board... ever. And in the second you go into attack mode on a guy who already has admitted that he may have made a mistake, and is rectifying the problem.) Glass houses buddy. |
As Bob noted, no one contacted him and if someone had he would have have known about the issue that much sooner. This is an instance where contacting the auctioneer is the most effective and efficient way to get practical result.
|
I'm with JimVB - every word and even every syllable of his last post.
Shut up Aric. Joann Kline |
I have no problem with the public post that was made regarding the authenticity of the item, but I'm surprised that Bob (or someone else at the auction house) wasn't sent an e-mail at the time the post was made.
Quite honestly, it's not like you can expect an auction house to make public why an item is pulled, so the post on the board helps educate and inform collectors in the event the item shows up in a different auction or on eBay at a later date. But not sending an e-mail to the auction house expressing your concerns is a questionable decision at best. |
Okay, I may have overreacted and been a bit harsh and for that I apologize. My problem does not lie in that a bogus item made its way into the auction's catalog. I realize that happens in even the best and most prestigious auction houses. And I am sure Bob would have removed the item once it's authenticity was brought into question.
My problem lies in the calls for this to be kept private. There is too much fraud and deceit in our hobby for these things to be hidden away anymore. The good guys are sitting right next to the bad guys and who knows which is which any more. The only way we, the collector and hobbyists, can arm ourselves is with information. |
Aric is right. No knock to Bob who is by all accounts a very decent guy. And certainly the auctioneer should have been alerted via email. That being said, outing this possibly very large fraud was the correct thing to do.
|
Wow Aric. Nice post. Thanks. And I'm not saying nice post b/c you agree or disagree with any particular opinion, but because in only your third post you were able to be look objectively at your position. I would have lost a lot of money betting that your next post would have been aggressive belligerent. Guess I'm just too cynical these days!
Thanks again, and I apologize for being so crabby too. J |
Jeff
I am not sure anyone is against outing this, or any auction, that is potentially tainted. It's just the way it's done that is in question. :cool:
|
Nothing was wrong with the way it was brought up.
Bob had enough energy to post the auction and hype it here. His team had enough time to make and post YouTube videos for the bogus item. Heck even Bob had enough time and forethought according to him too compare this questionable item to the Heritage item which I find shocking that Bob didn’t say hmm same pin holes and marks etc…hmm? But because Jerry didn’t email Bob and I didn’t go running down Bob to outline my quick overview in a response to a fellow members question of an item so bad Ray Charles would have raised an eyebrow. We now did something wrong? So laughable. Another side here for you guys to think about if Bob doesn’t have time to check the board everyday ok. But what makes you guys think Jerry and I have time to chase down auction houses we have day jobs too? I post here for pleasure not profit, perhaps I just posted and went about my day not unlike Bob, and what a whopping few days went by... Last I checked my day job doesn’t involve auctioning baseball cards and related items or cause me to post here to drive business to my front door. Jerry asked a public question to a public post and I added my two cents. Anyone who felt Bob needed to be emailed I think your computers work as you guys must have been using them to read the thread so why didn’t you email Bob if it was all so important? :confused: Cheers, John P.S. I wonder if SCD has time to cash advertising checks from Coaches Corner?…LOL :) (kidding) |
Also Leon as an advertiser and customer I would have thought you would have emailed Bob already?
|
John
I was in contact with someone at their company early this morning so I knew it was being taken care of. It was in fact a long holiday weekend so I figured it would be fine in short order, as it is now. At this point we can continue debating or just let it be and get back to collecting. The main thing is folks learned and no one will have to deal with a bad piece. Obviously we are on the same team when trying to expose bad stuff in the hobby....I never have an issue with that.
You have your eye on anything this evening in Huggins and Scott? |
One item Leon and you?
Yep same team no hard feelings just felt there was no need for a fire drill on this one. Besides Jerry seemed on top of it! :) Just sharing knowledge on the item in response to Jerry. Cheers, John |
Huggins and Scott
2-3 things.....I doubt we will butt heads. If you are going for anything esoteric you might drop me an email.
|
First of all, I had to give Leon a blood test in order for the registration.
Second, noted errors made public on Boards are fair game especially if you bring this to our attention for free advertising. Third, Rich was correct above. Sometimes people get out of line and mask themselves to protect their identity. I read most of the stuff on T.S's blog. Is it fair to him that an outraged public spews hatrid in his direction? Probably not, but is it fair that the "voice of the hobby" misleads people? All SCD does is ignore the general public and all we can do is say "no" and apparently the general public has created what we have now, thirty-five pages and I don't know one single person with a subscription. Fourth point, your auction would be praised if you did not have an association with the periodical. SCD touts these "authenticators", stuff sells LOW and can we then consign these items to the Sportscollectorsdigest.com auction? Why not! I don't understand? Fifth point, the famous thread was over 700, not 400. Lastly, you have to understand, we are all frustrated and nobody gives anyone answers. It's not your fault, nor was it T.S's fault, but we are all tired of being ignored and you guys wear the work clothes of the big cog. Who is the top man in control and makes the decisions? When someone brings up this concern to someone at SCD, they handle it in one of two ways. Ignore the person or get defensive. You wonder why so many people are angry? Check out the blog at www.sports-rings.com. That dude is angry. In saying the above, I will NEVER, EVER, EVER bid on an SCD auction, no matter how badly I need something, I would rather not fill that hole at any cost then support "that" brand name. This is my opinion. DanC |
The whole SCD/Coach's Corner relationship is a total mess. I would think that by now, with all the abuse it apparently subjects TS to, he would certainly like to distance himself from his controversial advertiser. Unfortunately, higher ups and business survival probably dictate otherwise.
I guess dealing with the abuse is part of the job description for him, Lemke and any other SCD employee who puts himself out there. It seems to me that this new auction venture is just an attempt to generate some positive cash flow in an effort to stay afloat. As far as supporting the auction goes . . . I have to agree with DanC here. |
Quote:
Total time required: I'm guessing less than a minute. Maybe two. Edited to add: I'll reiterate that I'm glad to see the information about a bad item posted here and appreciate it. I just don't think it was beyond reason to think that an e-mail could have been sent, if only as a courtesy. Even taking into account everybody's day jobs. |
Believe it or not
Dan:
I still have a sub to SCD Rich |
a few thoughts from an unknown.
As long as it's done respectably, anyone who points out a fake item should never be called out on the carpet. While Mr. Lemke should have gotten an email about this thread,fact is NOBODY emailed him,not even the ones saying it should be done. I thought Danc's post #68 summed up perfectly how alot of people feel about the SCD/CC situation. Very nice post. while I know I'm a non-expert nobody in this hobby, it dosn't mean I dont have an opinion about situations like this,especially if it involves me possibly spending my money. My handle IS my name,directly linked to my email. |
I'm not sure if people are referring to me or not about the anonymity issue. I'd like to chime in, if I may. I've been involved in the baseball memorabilia hobby since the late 1970's but haven't bought or sold a card for over 20 years. Because of this, I really don't have anything of value to add to 99.8% of the threads in this forum. I lurk and absorb as much information as I can because I love baseball, its history and have an interest in the broader hobby's progression. Since about 1989, I've almost strictly collected vintage baseball gloves. It's what I've gravitated towards and enjoy the most. I have a few other select pieces of memorabilia, but my focus has predominantly been on gloves and glove related ephemera. This is why I had knowledge enough to question the S&D Cobb glove advertisement. Until another glove related issue arises, you'll probably not hear from me, though I will be reading frequently.
Like everyone, my full contact information is on file with Leon. I signed my initial post with my first name and my email address is attached to each post I've made. Furthermore, I can be contacted via this forum's private messaging function. If anyone wanted, or still wants, to know my full name or anything else about me, there are outlets to get in touch with me (though it seems no one sends private emails :) ). Interestingly, only two people have clicked my username and viewed my "about me page" even though there have been over 3,000 views of this thread. It's not mandatory for us to reveal our full names when posting. That was the forum owner's decision, not mine. My decision was to not disclose my last name. I stand by that choice because I simply don't want to intertwine my hobby and my profession when someone searches my name on the web. Sure, there are abusive, anonymous posters here. They upset me as much as they upset you. Until the rules of the forum change and full name signatures are mandatory, there really isn't much we can do. I simply wanted to provide my point of view as to why I don't want my full name attached to each and every post I write. I'm sure I'm not alone in this line of thinking. Jerry |
Quote:
Public forum, public question and public reply on my part. Bob had the time to post here and hype figured he would have checked back to see the customer base and reaction seems logical. I sure would if I owned an auction house and was paying for advertising and droping threads on my business actions.... P.S. Jerry don't fall into the need to defend yourself with some of the folks who find fault in anything. You're not the one who was trying to selling a known bogus item in your first auction, you're not the one who owns a business which is part of a company that takes ad money from a known fraud of a company. Folks should be thanking you for asking the question and happy that I took the time to share the info I did. Not spending time pointing fingers at you telling you what you did wrong. |
Quote:
Two reasons: 1. In all honesty, and of course I have no way to prove this, it never dawned on me early during the early days of the thread that Bob or the auction house had not been contacted. It really just seems -- to me, at least -- to be a no-brainer to do that. So I simply didn't see a need to do it. 2. I've got a job and don't have time to chase down auction houses. :) In all seriousness, in the grand scheme of things and taking all things into consideration, I think the fact that the auction house wasn't notified privately pales in comparison to the lack of homework that was exhibited by them and the service to collectors that was done by pointing out that fact. I have a feeling that you and I think along the same lines that it's an auction house's responsbility to do its homework -- and that wasn't done here with this item. My intent wasn't to put you and Jerry on the defensive, and in looking back on this thread, I think you both received way more support and thanks (including from me more than once) than you did criticism. |
Rob no doubt were eye to eye on this...no hard feelings. :)
Trust me if Bob never popped back in here in a few days I would have linked him and asked what was up. I was sure he would round back and this would be a quick fix which kudos to Collect.com seems to be exactly what was done. Cheers, John |
Pulling an auction item doesn't tell the whole story
If it hadn't been for wonkaticket's post here, lots of us would not know about the authenticity issue. Even if we're checking the Collect.com auction, seeing that a lot was pulled doesn't tell why it was pulled. Lots that are perfectly genuine get pulled because of ownership disputes (divorce, death, assertion that the item was stolen, etc.), because the contractual agreement with the consignor fell apart, because the lot is giving the auction house bad publicity (e.g., Roberto Clemente plane pieces), or because something has happened to the item.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:00 PM. |