REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book
 

I am primarily a card / photo collector and only have purchased one vintage autographed item for my collection. However, I always wanted to own a Babe Ruth autograph. I bid on this item (I believe I am currently the second under-bidder on this lot) as it is an attractive piece. However, I just read an article on Hauls of Shame stating that this is an obvious forgery. Needless to say, this article has significantly reduced my enthusiasm. However, I am unsure if the writer of the article is correct or not.

I would appreciate any feedback from autograph experts as to their opinion on the autograph.

Thanks,
Eric

The writer and owner of that site is a criminal and should be in jail. His whole website is mostly lies and smoke and mirrors to disguise his own criminal activity. Just about everything on that site is false and information he fabricated. And almost anyone commenting on that site is really only the owner, Peter Nash, himself posing as other people. He has also been sued countless times and filed for bankruptcy very recently. My guess is he will land in jail soon. I wouldn't believe one word said on his site.

Thanks for the feedback Leon.

Leon provided no information on the autograph. Find Babe Ruth autograph experts and ask them privately.

Leon's comments must be taken with a grain--or an entire shaker--of salt. There is a well documented animosity (feud?) between Leon and Peter. Without taking sides in any way, I can tell you that most of what Peter posts regarding forgeries, the selling of stolen and/or doctored items, etc. is very well researched, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, true.

Decided not to waste time on negativity.....thanks

Leon deleted his post, but you're still worthless scum to me! ;)

I try!

Please try to be nicer.

Peter Nash is one of my favorites. Glad to see someone take the time to expose the many frauds in the industry.

I do boxing, the best sport ever! (Go boxing!) So everyone can take it for what it's worth, but you can't make up the research he posts. Why show all the research if it is just made up? The real point of contention lies elsewhere, not the research. Whoever is doing this research must be in a bedroom somewhere on a computer with the door closed, wolfing down the mountain dew for marathon sessions. A real rain man type. That's what I always envision. NASA or Bell Labs should find this guy. Who thinks to find Wilson glove catalogs from the 1960's? It's something else.


I gave my opinion with a Rocky Marciano fake letterhead story once a few years ago. I can reassure Leon it wasn't 'made up', but it is obvious the research is way above and beyond just checking wikipedia. It's wild. The baseball guys must have nothing better to do than to look all that stuff up. He quotes Ron K, Dave Grob, Brandon Grunbaum, I guess they are all jerks? I figure he has a bat computer.

A lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual, but a lot of it is also bullshit. He once posted that I personally was aware of something that I obviously wasn't aware of, and he used the favorite "Sources say" to qualify it. IOW he lied about me because he views me as an adversary. How am I to believe anything he writes on his blog when I know for a fact that he lied about me?

He definitely muddies the water, nearly every blog he writes he has to get in personal jabs at Rob Lifson and/or Barry Halper even if the story has zero to do with either one of those guys. And how can you take hauls of shame seriously when he completely ignores the fraud perpetrated by John Rogers? Oh yeah, that's right because Rogers "loaned" Nash a large amount of money. :rolleyes:

It boggles my mind that there are regular posters to Net54 that defend the POS.

His personal attacks notwithstanding, Dan, when Peter says a particular CDV was stolen from the NYPL, or a certain letter was stolen from the BBHOF Library, you can pretty much bet they were.

I guess I'm going to pass on the Ruth autograph. If it is real somebody is going to get a very nice item.

This is why (with one relatively low priced exception) I don't buy autographs. Not many people in this hobby seem to be trustworthy.

Are you in the hobby? Are you trustworthy? You want to buy an item for a few thousand dollars, but you want to blindly trust someone you don't even know. Maybe try doing your own homework and making an educated determination yourself about the item. I'm not going to say one way or another my thoughts on the item, but i think it's ridiculous that you blanket a while collecting niche because you don't know what you're talking about.

That is 100% bullcrap. I have seen him waffle back and forth a number of times . He sounds good but doesn't have a clue about a lot of stuff and literally makes it up. Karma .....

I clearly stated in the very first sentence "a lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual". Did you not read that part? But I know for a fact that he will lie to further his agenda...and it's not just a "personal attack", it's a lie. Big difference. He's a liar and that's the least of what he's been accused of doing...and also found guilty of in a court of law.

Mind boggled..... :(

To answer your questions and generally respond:

1. If you mean do I purchase an occasional card or photograph, then yes I am in the hobby. If you mean I sell or deal items, then no, I am not in the hobby.

2. I am trustworthy. However, since you don't know me you can make your own conclusion.

3. There's not many people in the world can tell a real Babe Ruth autograph from a fake. That is why there are professionals to make those determinations.

4. I made a statement about "not many trustworthy" people based on numerous posts on this website, the Hauls of Shame website, news stories about fraud in the industry, especially autographs, etc. I stand by my statement.

5. I did my homework and passed on the item.

Stop being reactionary and defensive.

So you think anyone convicted of a crime "in a court of law" is a piece of shit? Just want to make sure I know who you think the pieces of shit are in the hobby.

Can you please point out where he says Nash is a POS because he's been convicted of a crime in a court of law?

So does he make up stuff or post factual stuff? Hard to follow this thread.

+1

You're hardly the disinterested observer, Leon. Show me an instance of his "waffling" on an item.

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

Rea
 

David,

By your comment above, am I to understand that you David Atkatz believe 100% that the REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book is a forgery?

That's because it generally is not Peter doing the speaking when it involves discussion of items with research behind it.

I know for a fact that much of what 'he' writes is true, because he's swiped research directly from this forum (my research and that of others) and also been fed information that I provided others, and which later showed up on his website…not stuff he (or his researchers) would have come up with on their own.

There is a lot of complaining here about the fact that he is allowed a voice to speak on ills of the hobby (his website), given his past, but you rarely see any complaints about the plagiarizing he has done - the fact that a lot of this plagiary is actually being done by his 'researchers', some of whom are respected members of our hobby, is even more pathetic.

Here is a copied email from a good hobby friend - Nash said mine was in the collection previously (I concede it had an NYPL mark on it....but that is it)....and they have it now so it's mostly water on the bridge...but Nash is wrong on this. According to this story of his there were only 6 in total? Mine is/was #7....



"Here is a link to the article:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=13664

Here is the article that I think is important:

The New York Public Library has two examples of the card pasted into the scrapbooks and score-books ofHenry Chadwick and two other copies that are believed to have been owned by Harry Wright (one of which was already stolen and recovered by the FBI). When the copy owned by Samuels is returned they will have five in total minus one more example still missing. That copy was used in an illustration in Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour Mills’ 1960 book Baseball: The Early Years, and is still missing.

Nash makes is sound like all of the examples in the library are accounted for. The one missing card is pictured in Seymour's book. I have a copy of that book and it is definitely not picture of the one that you have."


.

nevermind….fixing the internet isn't my problem.

To the OP: if everyone else ignores a poster, you should consider doing so as well.

Deleted this one by accident, but have already discussed with the person involved.

While I agree that much of what Nash says appears to be accurate, his tactics are despicable. We all know that he has multiple six figure civil judgments against him. These judgments based on fraud are unlikely to be discharged in bankruptcy. We also know that he has been convicted of tax evasion. He has a never ending vendetta against Rob Lifson and REA but he also attacks anyone who disagrees with him. Last year, I had the audacity to suggest that in my opinion his comments did not constitute proof of fraud by Barry Halper, who of course, is dead and unable to defend himself. Nash called me a Halper apologist and posted my picture on his website. Fortunately, it was a very flattering picture taken about 20 years earlier when I was a local school board member with no gray hair and 60 pounds lighter. Incidentally, I am very anxious to read Nash's "Hauls of Shame" book which is due to be released in 2011 according to the website.

You're a very well-respected member of the community, Scott. Why don't you publish your research before anyone can swipe it?

David - it's minor stuff, but you are correct. I should probably at least have a blog where I keep my findings. I'll send you an email later with some details regarding the research I was referring to.

The other reason for not publishing (even in a blog) is that most people who do sometimes publish (myself included), are hesitant to put anything out there while still preparing to publish an actual article or book, that others could swipe and use in their own publications.

And to go a step further - I once sent an article to a well-respected organization for consideration of publication, and it was rejected; however, bits and pieces of it showed up later in the blogs of baseball researchers who were likely on the board of editors who rejected my article. This was esoteric stuff that would not have been found on their own.

So, yeah, I'm familiar with how to protect my research and the fact that it really can't be completely protected unless you either publish an article, publish a book or apply for a copyright every single time you find something new.

You are claiming--or your good hobby friend is claiming--that Nash is in error. I don't see an example here of "waffling."

And you concede that "your" card did have an NYPL stamp? When did you realize that it did? If it was before Nash published his findings, you yourself should have contacted the Library. If it was after, you should thank him for righting a wrong.

Can we take a break while I go to the snack bar for some raisinets? I don't want to miss anything.

Michael - the first thing you should learn here is to keep a large box of your favorite microwavable popcorn handy.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. :rolleyes:

Don't look now, but your pal Nash has gone after your pal O'Keeffe in his latest diatribe.

Strange music in the haul?
 

This just in... Sources say that the well informed "Peat Nash Guru" and Net54 member DAVID ATKATZ stated that "MOST of what Peter posts" is "very well researched" and "true" but that some of the Pet Gnash posts on the Hauls of Shame website are not well researched and are indeed false. Also, other sources say that apparently DAVID ATKATZ has spoken with Petey and may have taken "an item" to "the BANK".? One can only guess at what kind of "MYSTERY" item Dr. ATKATZ would take to the bank after listening to Mr. Peters. Certainly more to come on this mystery.

I am reacting, to your statement. I might be defensive as well as I have been collecting memorabilia for over 30 years and take it as an insult that most people in "the hobby" are not trustworthy. If I buy an autograph that is no good, I blame myself.

One of the biggest problems in "the hobby" are idiots like you that are willing to spend large amounts of money solely relying on the opinion of someone you don't know and know very little about their credentials. Also, looking for a good deal on the most collected autograph in sports. "Collectors" like you allow forgers to perpetrate their crimes and flood the market with that bogus material. After all of that, you want to blame the TPA because you were taken or about to be taken.

"A fool and his money are soon parted"

PS: I am still not making any opinion on the item in auction, only the fool bidding

Was there really a point in getting personal, Shawn? Are you that much of an ass?

And, BTW, to you, it's "Dr. Atkatz." ;)

Hey dumbass - you obviously are illiterate as I have now stated more than once that I don't buy autographs as a rule (I own one) and am not buying this one. People go on this website all the time and ask for others' opinions on items. I am hardly the first to do so. So you need to get off your high horse.

If a potential buyer can't reliably purchase an autograph certified by one of the most trusted authenticators in the industry through one of the most reputable auctioneers in the industry, it is evidence that my statement is correct. This isn't some ebay auction from some unknown seller. Also, I would never blame the TPA unless they knowingly listed something they knew was fake; I would blame the TPA who is paid to make these determinations.

One final thought: if only people who can look under a microscope and determine whether an autograph from 70-90 years ago is authentic should be buying autographs your hobby would be very small, almost negligible. Just sayin.

Tongue nuts!

Hey, EJ. As one who has purchased--at most--exactly one autograph, and has spent just about no time at all studying the field of autograph and manuscript collecting, you're talking out of your ass. Many of us here have spent several decades--at least-- in the field. We were here long before TPAs, and we'll be here after they're gone, too.

Great; hope you enjoy!

We do. That's why we collect. What we don't enjoy is when some pissant with no knowledge or experience whatsoever decides to pontificate.

Good luck!

Hey guys
Quit with the name calling (and I will try to do the same :)).....thanks

It's a relief to see that you've quit giving your opinion on things you know nothing about. Other than that, the OP did nothing to deserve your typical name-calling.

Ok, he was wrong. Sorry that is different. So you admit he was wrong on that but otherwise his stuff is well researched and everything else is correct?... Cool.

Yes, Nash started the ball rolling on the mark and Chris B did the final input. I knew there was a mark there the same time the rest of this board did, regardless of what anyone believes. Finding the mark was fine, no issue with that actually. I wish it was found earlier it would have saved me some heartache. The issue is everything else that went with the debacle not the finding of the mark. After my write off I should come out fine on it so my CPA says. I still lost some money but that wasn't the issue. Having people say I knew something when I didn't is what was ridiculous. ....A person could say the sky is up and some knuckleheads would argue it...Such is life..

He's not my good friend at all -- I'm just capable of appreciating that a guy with a minor criminal record (a misdemeanor which has been discharged) may have some value and shouldn't be discounted completely. You do the same thing with your hobby friends with extensive criminal records, don't you Dan?

I don't discount everything he has to say, some of it is true, most of it is parroted from elsewhere, but some of it is true and I conceded that I believe in the very first comment I made to this thread.

If Bill Cosby had a blog about rooting out date rapists in the entertainment business I probably wouldn't find much value in what he has to say if he never once wrote about his own misdeeds.

I don't know whether he was wrong or not. Your friend said he was wrong.

The bottom line is this: You were trying to sell a stolen card--a card to which you did not have good title. Nash informed you of that fact, and that led to the card being returned to its rightful owners--the public library of my home town.

Thank you, Peter.

Yeah, a minor criminal record discharged, pleading the 5th on where his items came from, a recent bankruptcy, lawsuits out the ying yang, a huge amount of alleged fraud, lots of hot checks, outstanding civil judgements....yeah I wouldn't discount him either. Great guy.....

oh yeah forgot to mention his 50 different personalities on his site.....that commands a lot of faith in what he says too

It was never proven stolen. I still had good title until I gave it to them.. They would have never asked for it as it was never proven it was theirs. They never showed a record of having it AND your good friend Peter SAID it wasn't one of the ones in the collecton, by omission, according to his 2012 article. You might want to get your facts straight before you start arguing.

Repetitive Nature?
 

Doctor Atkatz,

Nothing personal at all, just good factual reporting. Are you getting emotional about this?

Not "good factual reporting" at all. I did not state that "some of the Pet Gnash posts on the Hauls of Shame website are not well researched and are indeed false." You inferred that. (And inferred incorrectly to boot.) And the rest of the post--a poor attempt at satire--is pure gobbledygook.

That's right, Leon. It was never in the NYPL collection. You just decided to donate it to them. And the NYPL stamp was there by... magic? You did not have good title, regardless of what you--or your lawyers--might claim. The stamp proves it was--and remains--library property. When you learned of the stamp is irrelevant in proving title. I must take you at your word that you didn't know it was library property. But that does not change the fact that the card indeed was.

it has a nypl stamp on the back and they never had it?

Their letter to you, which you posted, said thank you for RETURNING it to the nypl. you can't return it if it was never there in the first place.

You can say whatever you want to but it won't make it so and won't change the facts. I am most likely done with this thread. It's really a moot point as what is done is done. I am happy with the way it all turned out in the end. Thanks for your opinion. Have fun with your fraudulent friend....

The fact is the card belonged to the NYPL. The evidence--the library stamp--proves that. The lack of other records--assuming there are none--still does not negate the fact that the card was stamped. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Be "done with the thread" all you want. But there isn't a person here who doesn't believe the card is NYPL property.

I concede it might have been theirs, there is just no proof beyond an almost illegible mark. You can't change those facts either. Maybe you should ask your good friend Pete, who was wrong about it already. You do trust him right? Birds of a feather I guess.... LMAO..

I made my mind up to get rid of it at that point so didn't contest the letter. Had I not accepted that letter and wanted to keep the card I would still have it....and have it forever or until I sold it if I wanted to, just like the other one that is still out there. I had good title to it until I gave it to them. But with what I do in the hobby I felt I should give it to them to end the controversy.

I didn't say he was a great guy -- I just said that he should hardly be discounted because of his past. Some of his work is valuable and most of the objective, experienced hobbyists here agree. Just because you don't like him doesn't make this untrue. Ask Dan McKee.

Maybe he should be discounted because he is psychotic and a habitual liar. Mckee is probably the only real guy that has posted over there. How could you possibly believe a guy that acts in the manner Nash does?

Biased & Emotional?
 

Doctor David Atkatz,

Inferences are made everyday as part of good factual reporting. It seems you may be biased as this report was about you. This often happens as a defense mechanism and is rather expected. Perhaps a fresh look or different perspective would be helpful for you? Let me know if you would like some suggestions but I must say there could be a conflict of interest.

You supported Mastro and Allen for years and you're the arbiter of who should be trusted?

The question was, how can you believe him when he has lied and committed so much fraud? Him taking the 5th on where he got some items means he basically admitted guilt. And he has been sued (and lost) so many times, all in recent years? How do you believe a guy like that?

I used to ask you the same thing re Mastro and Allen.

As for Nash, he's supplying facts with much of the stuff he does -- not opinions. If Dan and David, two of the most knowledgable guys in this entire hobby, can find some value in Nash's work maybe, just maybe, you're missing the boat here.

"almost illegible mark"?

are you still disputing that it is NOT an nypl mark on the back of that card?

If you are not disputing it, why say 'almost illegible mark', why not just say an NYPL mark, because that's what it is.

Scott, I do, but have you ever eaten chocolate and popcorn at the same time? It is pretty good...

If you concede it might have been theirs, then it is not a clear title, it is a disputed title.

If you have clear title like you are stipulating all along, then what's the controversy?

A lot of people choose to 'get rid of' 80,000 dollar cards. i don't believe you could have sold it without possibile liability down the line if the person who bought it from you was ordered to return it to the library. They could have charged back to you claiming you knew it was nypl property being told by a field agent himself according to you on a tape in which every time you uttered the word NYPL, it was in hushed tones. As well as cleverly devising a description at auction which describes it as 'possibly being a library mark' as the first option of what the mark on the back might be.

A court decides who has good title. Not you. Not your lawyer.
And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there.

Give it up, Leon. No one supports you on this. You're all alone.

Your ignorance is mind-boggling. But my spelling isn't very good :).

I don't see anyone standing up for you. I don't see anyone--anyone at all--who's willing to state he doesn't believe the card was NYPL property.

And that's not mind-boggling at all.

I have only been here a year or two but as a newcomer to this site just have a few basic questions.......Is all this bantering back and forth serious or is it just the boys "busting etch others balls"? I realize the subject matter is serious but at at the end of the day are you guys still friends?

Little Guy?
 

Truly amazing,

Doctor David Atkatz now controls the court of law as evidence in his statement "And no court would grant you title with that stamp being there". How would Doctor David Atkatz have any clue what the court of law would decide unless he had insider information or had some sort of control over the judge. Tell us Doctor, how do you know what the court would decide...? I will say Dr. Atkatz, you are good - you are really good.............. Your powers.... wow

I too would like to know who thinks the card was NOT NYPL property.

And as for Leon saying he accepted the wording on the letter in order to return it and didn't want to dispute the wording of the letter that says "thank you for returning the card" implying that returning means it was theirs in the first place.

Leon, YOU POSTED THE LETTER! There was nothing to refute or correct because you didnt have to show the letter to anyone!

Shawn, you are an ass. We get it. But do you have to prove it over and over?

Sorry but ive been reading this whole post and one thing ive noticed is you keep getting ignored...lol...k carry on

I see the following collectors and prominent people have commented over there, not just Dan McKee.

Dave Grob
Richard Simon
Bill Hedin
Josh Evans
Theo Chen
Linda Ruth Tosetti
Richard Bond
Bill Panagopolous
Dorothy Seymour Mills

and more as well as myself. As well as contributions to the articles by Grob, Brandon Grunbaum, and responses to questionnaires put out by Halls of Shame by many auction house owners, major dealers and others.

There is just no leg to stand on trying to single someone out and trying to isolate them as the only person who comments over there like you tried to do to Dan McKee. That's pretty low and/or not fair.

In bed with Petes Nash
 

Dr. Dave Atkatz,

My point was proven much earlier (by you) when I reeled you in - hook, line and sinker because you felt the need to defend yourself against the absurd & ridiculous comments I made about you being tied in with Petey Nash... I truly chuckle at it... By you defending yourself against my insane comments lends zero credibility to anything you have to say, much less anything the "pop goes the weasel" has to say. You missing the boat is semi "LOL"... Also, your lack of the English language is quite telling... My wife, and shall I say my children resort to foul language & curse words due to a lack of up-bringing and adolescence. Some may find it hard to take you serious unless you speak more intelligible...