Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have no idea how I will be able to sell computers if I keep getting involved so much but anyway........<br /><br />I just spoke to Steve...He really wants an end to this whole situation. He is willing to put the 18k into an escrow account and have this card tested. After he makes sure Mark's lawyer is a regular bar member in good standing he will even put it in one with her. Can't blame him for that. The card will be sent to an independent 3rd party paper conservator. It will be tested as to the date of printing. If it is conclusively found to be printed from the 1930 era I will buy it. If it is not conclusive Steve will refund the money. Period. I am not sure if this is good with Mark but this is what Steve is proposing. Steve will work with Mark, or I will be in the middle to help, he doesn't care one way or the other. I am going to lock this thread as there doesn't need to be any more commentary and all 3 parties have my contact info. I will update the board as to the outcome. Not sure it can be too much more fair.... From what I understand from Mark's lawyer, today, he doesn't really want to do this so I am not sure this is feasible. Again, I will update this thread and open it up later. I did want to let folks know what is going on. Sorry I locked the other thread but after 125 posts I am not sure what else could be said....thanks again

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I get moderator privileges on this one and want to say a bit more. I have about a half a dozen private emails from folks that have been in the hobby an average of 25 yrs....telling me to be careful on this. If anyone notices my wording above, and what I told Steve, is that the card has to be found to be conclusively printed circa 1930. Ink and cardstock alone won't do that. Corroborating evidence of some type will need to be there. Even with that being said, from the several experts, including SGC, that have examined this card.....I have gathered this is not a good fake. I do want to also thank everyone for looking out for me.....Ya' never know when I might hit a bump in the road so I will take all the help I can get <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>..take care... <br /><br />edited spelling

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I will give a few updates as we go along. Everyone can form your own opinion about it but I will provide the facts. I don't care to have too much commentary right now, but EVERYONE will have another chance to speak on the subject....Right now I am not sure what more can be accomplished, or said, than what is in the 125 post thread. I spoke with Mark H. and Marshall Fogel last night. Mark thanked me for trying to help. Marshall and I spoke about the way this is being handled and what would be best. I spoke with Steve just now and apprised him of that. Right now Steve is waiting for a call back from a conservator. Steve still wants it to be examined, which is fine...even though the ink and paper alone won't be enough to be definitive....however, if by some miracle, the process used to print the card was only done in the 1930's then that would be big news. Again, I am told by at least 6 extremely knowledgable folks, that have handled the card, that it's not good....but we are still making process towards resolution. Mark is willing to have Steve put the money in an escrow with Mark's lawyer. Steve is ok with this too. So that means Mark will be getting his money back. As I learn more I will update everyone. When the outcome is reached we can open this back up for debate....for now let's get some resolution though. For the record this is not exactly the way I would have done this if I were Steve and I have told Steve this.....However, it is being handled as quickly as possible....thanks much...

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>You guys can post away....this was never meant to be a private deal between Steve and I...I am only trying to help all concerned parties...if it is real, and someone else wants it, they can buy it....it's only cardboard....thanks

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Leon, only one question you said if its proven to be real you will but it, if its real why wouldn't the person who bought it in the first place want to keep it?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>First of all maybe it was a mistake to lock this thread.....so for that...it's unlocked now. To say it was some private deal was kind of stupid imo. If it was private why would I be posting it? As for Mark keeping the card if it's real, it's still up to him, but he has indicated to me he doesn't want it now. I am totally open to buying it or not, if it can be proven to have been printed in circa 1930. Hope this helps explain....

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Leon, thanks for answering my question. It was more out of morbid curiosity than anything else. If it’s real would be a gem of an item huh?<br /><br />Also for what its worth I had really no problem with you locking the thread. In fact if you didn’t it more than likely would have had another 200 posts, with about 20 posts adding something new or valuable to a discussion that was beat to death IMO.<br /><br />Leon for the most part you do a pretty good job here, personally I can only think of a few things that you have done in the past that I didn’t agree with per say, locking this was not one of them. <br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />John<br />

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>I don't think either party fared well in this ordeal. Steve Verkman probably lost a lot of potential customers and the buyer has had to agonize over a card which is, to use the term Lew Lipset used in his book, a "cinderella." <br />I'm with John, I don't see a problem with the 125 post thread locking. It was getting pretty bad. One could argue that it was only the scathing posts which pushed Steve in to a position where the buyer was able to receive a refund but I think the thread degenerated and agree with Barry that enough was enough. <br />Freedom of speech is dear but it should also be remembered that the purpose of this board is to discuss cards and the hobby in general. Contrast the way this thread spiralled. I think everyone had their say and it appears things have been resolved. <br />I read a couple of threads about the Demmit and O'Hara variations and other card discussions and it reminded me of how useful and informative this board can be.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>Leon you mentioned SGC having looked at the card. I read in the other thread that PSA had examined it, but not SGC as well. Has it just been sent off to SGC? If both SGC and PSA deem it as a counterfeit thats pretty conclusive for most people. If the paper and ink testing comes out to show its from around 1930 what would be the next step in conclusively establishing authenticity? Apparently no info has ever been found about this calender in Goudey records, how will anyone be able to verify it was actually produced by the Goudey Gum Company?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I was told by SGC, yesterday, that they had physically looked at this card around 8 mos ago (don't hold me or them to the exact time as they didn't remember it exactly) and they quickly deemed it counterfeit. Another big bullet against the card.....They didn't remember who sent it in....Steve told me this morning that he was unaware that they had ever looked at it....regards

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>I'm no lawyer, but I would assume whoever submitted the card to SGC was directly involved in having the card resold without proper disclosure. Isn't that fraud? For example, if I somehow end up with a counterfeit $100 bill that was deemed so by an expert, even if I wasn't the original bad guy, I'm committing a crime if I sell (or spend) the bill without proper disclosure.<br /><br />Also, doesn't SGC have some responsibility for speaking up when they see a card they have concluded was counterfeit fetching $18k at a major auction?! I would assume they pay some attention to these auctions for marketing purposes.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />Are you saying that SGC rejected this card after it was won the first time and prior to it being auctioned off for the second time?<br /><br />edited because the implication of the above leads to a terrible hypothetical.<br />

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Yes, it would be interesting to know the timeline.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not sure of the time line, guys....it is all second hand information to me.....

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>The group of individuals and organizations that believe this card is not authentic reads like a hobby dream team: Mr. Mastro, Mr. Fogel, Mr. Lifson (I think), SGC, PSA, and undisclosed others. At some point common sense dictates accepting this collective wisdom and moving on -- not to mention the clear contractual language compelling acceptance of the buyer's return.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>"One could argue that it was only the scathing posts which pushed Steve in to a position where the buyer was able to receive a refund ". <br />I absolutely believe had Mark been left to fight this issue out by himself he would be going nowhere fast. <br /><br />Leon's over-generous gesture (in my opinion) to offer an extra out for both parties is also nothing short of startling - not sure anyone else no matter how cashed up would have taken that step of offering themselves up as a potential buyer for such a questionably important or aesthetically interesting card.<br /><br />So lastly Leon, I humbly ask why on earth you believe this card to be worth 18K plus???<br />Cinderella - great. Ruth - fabulous. 18K - ummm, seriously??? I mean the card has no interesting correlation to the player apart from his image, no relation to feats of playing not otherwise captured, or event that was shaping to him or the country, or seemingly anything. Couldn't you buy a gamer bat for that kind of money, something with more apparent reference to the man himself? I just don't get it.<br /><br /><br />Respectfully<br /><br /><br /><br />Edited to give Cinderella her correct nomenclature.<br />Daniel

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Well this card if it were found to be legitimate wouldn't just be a Cinderella Ruth card which by itself is probably easily an 18K card, but it would be the first Goudey baseball card known also.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I knew there was a reason my wife calls me idiot <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>.......though still don't like it THAT much for 18K. <br /><br /><br />Daniel

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Correct....the first Goudey baseball card, predating all others by 3 yrs, with Ruth on it.....hello.....<br /><br />Daniel- I am not too bright but I think the card would/should be worth more if it was real.....and we don't need to belabor that point (real?) much more....

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Heh. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> We're only talking hypotheticals anyways since I think we can safely say with 100% assurety that this card is a fake.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>T206Collector</b><p>...of two old Dilbert comic strips I have on my wall:<br /><br />COMIC STRIP #1<br /><br />Dog: I'm going into the sports memorabilia businesss. I've heard that most autographs are forgeries, so my initial investment will be low. Can I interest you in a baseball signed by Moses?<br /><br />Dilbert: Wow! That's going to be worth something.<br /><br /><br />COMIC STRIP #2<br /><br />No. 2<br /><br />Dilbert: This is the best price I've seen for a baseball autographed by Babe Ruth. But I don't see where the autograph is.<br /><br />Dog: It gets autographed later tonight.<br /><br />Dilbert: I'll take this and three of the Honus Wagner cards.<br /><br /><br /><br />Smarter people, with more baseball card experience than I have bid good money on this card. But to me, if someone offered me the one and only T206 card of Ty Cobb that was issued in 1907, I'd say they were smoking something -- especially if it looked like a black and white photo copy of a card that looked nothing like a T206 card.<br /><br />Another way of looking at this -- if there is not a single credible grading company or auction house (other than Mr. Verkman) who even have a doubt about the authenticity of this card, doesn't that put into question the quality of the expertise/experience of the people bidding on it? No offense meant to Leon or the other gentlemen with, again, clearly much more experience and expertise than me in this area.<br /><br />To me, this is the high stakes version of the newbie ebayer bidding $150 on the Wagner reprint in the hopes that it will be a $1,000,000 find.<br /><br />

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Paul- I have the same exact Dilbert comic strip- the first one with the ball signed by Moses- on my bulletin board too! It must be at least five years old. Pretty funny!

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I can understand the pain of a consignee having to pay $18,000 for for something he never owned and only made a small sales percentage on. This is why I don't take consignments when I sell. <br /><br />I've always assumed that the Mastros of the world have outside experts write LOAs for autographs and game used in part for authenticity/promotional reasons, but also liability reasons including to help prevent possible returns. If a lot has already been okayed by an expert, it's already by okayed by an expert.<br /><br />There are cases where Mastro will accept a return, but, as they've dotted their i's and dotted their t's, it's their call. Note that I don't use Mastro as example to suggest they act poorly in this department. I know of instances where they have graciously given refund for error and, obviously, hiring JSA or PSA/DNA to check out your autograph lots before the auction starts benefits bidders as well.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>I know this could end up being a really callous thing to say, but given SGC's review and rejection of this card, it makes you wonder if the story behind CSA reauctioning the card (a child's death) was even true. I'd hate to think someone would lie about something like that (and I dont mean to imply that Steve did this - in this scenerio, its actually more likely that the original buyer found out it was fake and made up a story so he could return it). Of course, it all depends on the timing.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Mr. Cycleback, I agree... 18k is a lot of pain.<br /><br />But who of us would offer that card for sale as genuine if someone approached us and asked us to sell it for them. Just one look, that's all it took... we know it isn't authentic. We wouldn't offer it for sale.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I consign material and have always felt that if something I consigned turned out to be a fake, I would have to return the money I earned. I wouldn't expect the consignee to be responsible for the entire sales price when he made just a small percentage from it.<br /><br />For me, I consign stuff that I am confident is authentic, either because it's something I've studied or because I send it with a reputable LOA. For a lay person non-collector, he may be ignorant about what he has and is depending on the auction house's opinion whether it is good (put in auction) or bad (return to owner). He may not be happy hearing he should return the money a year after the auction ended.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>For the consignor to not know SGC opined the card was a fake, (i) he decided to resell one year later for reasons having nothing to do with the card's authenticity, (ii) consigned the card back to Clean Sweep, (iii) Clean Sweep or someone on its behalf sent the card to SGC, (iv) Clean Sweep, upon being told the card was no good, decided it did not want to disclose that info to the consignor and agreed to still sell it, despite by doing so it was blatantly violating not only its own expressed representations of selling only authentic material but also the express provisions of its guaranty (under which an opinion by a reputable grading service is enough for a card to be deemed no good). Hardly puts Clean Sweep in a very favorable light.<br /><br />Even if the consignor knew SGC had rejected the card as a fake, he reasonably would be upset about having to refund (most of) the money inasmuch as he had recently purchased the card from a Clean Sweep auction. Because of that, I can't imagine how Clean Sweep could in anyway expect him to be responsible for the portion of the refund owed Mark up to the amount the consignor originally paid for the card the first time it was auctioned. I'm also having a hard time trying to imagine some reasonable scenario that Clean Sweep did not know of SGC's rejection of the card. Even if it was the consignor that sent the card to SGC, what Clean Sweep is saying is that a guy in good faith buys a card, sends it in for authentication, is told it is a fake, and DOESN'T then tell that to the auction house when demanding his money be returned?!<br /> <br />By any logical scenario, I'm struggling to imagine how Clean Sweep did not know of SGC's findings when it sold the card the second time.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>If either one of your possibilities is true (consignor or auction house knowing ahead of time)... take a look at the sales pitch given as to why the card was being auction off.<br /><br />That would take this to about as low a level as I could possibly imagine. Stomach turning bad.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Nothing good will come out of this sordid affair save the consignor getting his money back and everyone moving on.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>The claim that the return guaranty was not in place at the time of the auction was proven incorrect by publicly available facts -- i.e. the web archive. However, it seems to me unless the consignor reveals himself and tells his story or SGC identifies the person who submitted the Ruth (which I would not expect them to do as such relationships are confidential), we can only speculate about the sequence of events here. <br /><br />That said, I will now indulge in some speculation myself. Here is what I have wondered about since this matter first came to light. Given how much value it would have added, if you were auctioning this item off, wouldn't you have tried to grade/authenticate it? And is it a permissible negative inference from the fact it was not graded/authenticated that someone tried to do so?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have repeatedly told Steve, that if it was me, I would refund the money...get the card back...then do whatever I need to with the card. That is what should have happened the day Mark contacted Steve the first time, imo. The problem for me is, now when I see Steve's guarantee of a refund for unauthentic items, it holds no weight. That's not so good for business. I was looking at some of his auctions today and saw the guarantee...but didn't believe it.....regards

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>maybe it was the consignor .Unless anyone thought this situation would end up on the board ,(which most anything major does)it maybe hard to believe that Steve would pull the wool over the eyes of the many here. Maybe he did think he had something special.I didnt pay much into it cause Iam not a big fan of black & white or an arch of stars or any stars in a card for that matter. Whatever the case ,money back guarantee .

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I don't mind, usually, if someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes. It is actually good for me, helps me to pay attention. I do take exception to those rare folks who try to pull the whole sheep over my eyes.<br /><br />With this "card", I'd never sell it to anyone as being authentic. If it got graded somehow, I'd figure the grader screwed up, and still wouldn't sell it as authentic. That original thread is back on page 2 now, my post was the 8th, and while folks were tippy-toeing around the authenticity of the card I said that I wouldn't give $5 for it. So any of this "I didn't know SGC had looked at it" is nonsense. The matter never gets that far. Most of us would have stayed clear of this card. However I do agree that waiting a year is a long time...

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Oldest Retail trick in the Book...Fade the heat as long as possible and hope the problem goes away. Problem is, 18K fake card ain't going away.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p> prior to 1933 goudey gums most popular gum was called OH BOY GUM. if a 1930 product it would be a babe ruth oh boy gum calendar.<br /> the goudey co. was sold in late 1931 or early 1932 so the idea for gum cards were the creation,no doubt,of the new owners.<br /> the 1st cards were indian gum.1933<br /> if the item were real there would be many of these out there, and for sure would date 1933/34. ruth items have always been saved so why only 1 seen and only in the last few years? <br /> can anyone tell me an item with babe ruth pictured on it that "is one of a kind"?<br /> why produce only 1 premium and for a product that does not exist? if destroyed lots would have snuck out the back door.<br /> goudey company products were sold to children, calenders are not part of a kids world esp. in the 1920's.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>This is emerging as increasingly unfortunate all the way around - especially if SGC had looked at it some time ago. <br /><br />Whoever started out with this card got the money and is gone. It's starting to look and feel like everyone that has been involved with it since then is playing hot potato with the potential loss.<br /><br />So the first guy is the only winner. Regardless of who knew what, and when, after that first transaction, someone is going to take a loss that maybe doesn't deserve it.<br /><br />Joann

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Dennis makes a good point that a little gum chewing penny packing kid really would not have been after a calendar.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>I think that no matter what the final outcome is.. The Card is now TAINTED. So much bad press on it, will not help it's value for future sales. Even if the card is good,and it came to auction again, I do not think it would fetch 2000.00 IMO. I've been wrong before.. But just voicing my opinion. This is all the way around a lose, lose deal for everyone. It all started with CSA on it right.. That should be the first sign..... JC

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>JC- I don't think it would fetch $100.<br />tbob

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Lyman</b><p>My friends JC and tBob, I have to respectfully disagree. If in the future the card is demonstrated and generally accepted by the hobby as authentic, it would have enormous historical importance and therefore be valued far higher than the price for which it sold in the CSA auction. <br /><br />It all hinges on the definition of "good." <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Lyman

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>joe brennan</b><p>Just my 2 cents on this whole thing but I think it has been over looked completely. <br /> If Steve refunded the first buyers money after the first sale, why the beef about refunding the money after this sale? It's obvious he gives refunds.<br><br>In Rememberance of James W. Brennan Sr. 1924-1982. Dad, thanks for everything you did for me.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>didn't CSA just auction again? AND NOT REFUND

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Here's my problem with having laboratory paper/ink analysis of the card. By profession I deal with identifying, dating and authenticating art, including stuff like Rembrandt and Salvador Dali, and my technical guides on art have been required texts for university courses (I don't say this to boast, but to note that I'm not ignorant on the subject). I'm familiar with the scientific analysis, which if properly done gives effective information. <br /><br />If someone came to me with a baseball card and asked how to get an independent authenticity opinion, I wouldn't recommend he not send it to Grade A paper lab or the Louvre, but to an expert in baseball cards. A baseball card expert would include someone like Rob Lifson, SGC, PSA, Bill Mastro. If you want two opinions, send it to two baseball cards experts.<br /><br />I'm not saying lab analysis is a bad idea or that it should not be done, but I would not appoint a lab as the only voice on whether or not a baseball card is authentic. A supplemental voice offering important information?, sure, but not the pre-ordained only voice to drown out all other voices.<br /><br />My dad was a famous science professor who was literally doing this type of lab analysis before I was born. I asked for his opinion on this subject and, as a scientist/non-collector, he agreed that it appeared to make most sense to send a baseball card to a baseball card expert, as the baseball card expert would be more knowledgeable about baseball cards.<br /><br />From a common sense standpoint, say you send in a 1968 Topps Nolan Ryan card and the lab says the card dates to the 1930s. You aren't going to say the card is from the 1930s. You're going to say the lab made an error ... Say the laboratory accurately if inexactly says, from analysis of ink and paper, the card dates somewhere from 1940-1970. You aren't going to offer the card on eBay as a 1940-70 Topps Nolan Ryan rookie. You're going to offer it as a 1968 Ryan, while proudly noting that lab analysis says the cardboard and ink is consistent with the 1968 and results show the card isn't modern. Even though the lab results support that you're beloved Ryan card is authentic, you are going to use non-laboratory information to pinpoint date the card-- such as the copyright date and Ryan's 1967 stats on back and that Beckett checklists the card as being from 1968. Here's a case where the lab test was useful and you are glad you had it done. However, that doesn't mean you act brain dead and cut and paste the lab printout into your eBay listing. Because if you list a beautiful authentic untrimmed Ryan's rookie as being from 1940-70, people laugh at you.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Lundrigan</b><p>Well put Mr Cycleback and to put it in laymans terms.When your toilet cloggs you call a plumber not an electrician!

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>dennis</b><p>we all (some?)remember the scammer who used vintage ink on vintage paper to sell hall of fame baseball autographs....used to go to library and tear out pages of vintage books to get the right paper era and then use old vintage ink,(his name escapes me) but this item (seeing as only 1 is around) could be that type of scam. and david is 100% correct and the "experts" (and they ARE)have all agreed it's fake...kinda like the 2 guys w/the phoney wagner...that's were this is headed!

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>David makes an excellent point, one which has concerned me too.<br /><br />Enough experts have looked at it already, and the consensus is so strong that it is a fake that it seems pointless to pay for further testing. It's as if Steve Verkman is going down with the Titanic and not admitting that it's sinking.<br /><br />A lab can do some great forensic work but they don't deal with baseball cards. As I said in an earlier post, what would be especially troubling is if the counterfeiter used period paper, ink, and printing methods, and as a result the lab renders a report stating that the card is consistent with what could have been printed in 1930. If that is the case, I predict the two parties will not get this resolved and it will end up in court.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I suppose if CSA keeps trying, eventually an "expert" will think it's real. It gets a little frustrating to hear about the paper testing, when I'm pretty darn sure a quick check with a microscope will be conclusive proof that it's not authentic. Please buy a digital microscope & post a picture here. Those Digital Blue scopes are inexpensive, & take very nice 60X images.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I would say if three top experts were disagreeing with three top experts, a lab test would be warranted to find out who's right and who's wrong. If there are six experts and they've come to the same conclusion, there's no need for a lab test.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>As has at this point been pointed out far too many times, from a legal perspective the testing is irrelevant in regard to the buyer's right to have his money refunded. The terms of Clean Sweep's guaranty were met when PSA rendered its letter opining the card is not authentic. So unless Clean Sweep wants to allege PSA was involved in a fraud or collusion of some sort (in which case I'm sure SGC will step in), CASE CLOSED!!! All Clean Sweep is doing by prolonging this travesty is shattering whatever credibility they have left.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That has already been shattered. The next step is damage control.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>If an eBay seller's requirement for refund is letters from PSA, SGC, GAI, Bill Mastro, James Spence, a sitting US Supreme Court justice and an Oscar winner, I'll probably not bid. I wouldn't even know how to get hold of Robert DeNiro.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>There is no need for a lab test. There is no need for anything more to happen here. CSA promised a refund if a reputable grading service would not authenticate the card. That has happened -- PSA wrote a letter to the buyer saying the card is not authentic. Point, game, set, match. The rest is irrelevant, legally speaking anyhow.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I agree that since some top experts have already gave it a thumbs down, it's very lame CSA is still doing this. However, since there was some persistent talk about paper testing, I thought I would bring up the basic print identification check.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Luc Mitchell</b><p>Getting back to the issue of SGC, here are the possibilities I see:<br />1) Clean Sweep obtains the card and sends it into SGC where it fails. It is auctioned off regardless. I'm unclear on the timeline, so this one might not be a possibility.<br />2) The card is sold in the first auction and consigned again (buyer's son dies etc.) CSA sends it to SGC and it fails to pass authentication. Reauctioned.<br />3) The card is sold in the first auction, whereupon the buyer sends it in to SGC where it fails. The buyer consigns it with a fallacious story of his son's death.<br />4) Same as 3, save after the failed authentication the buyer notifies Clean Sweep in search of a refund. The card finds its way back to auction.<br /><br />The only way that CSA did not know about the failed test, then, is if the first buyer did not disclose it. One has to wonder how probable this situation would be; wouldn't it be safer to invoke a guarantee than to BS a story? Moreover, where authentication of such a potentially historically significant card could have a great impact on its value, it is logical to assume that Clean Sweep would have pursued that option. In my opinion, the only reason not to due so is if its authenticity was questionable in the first place.<br /><br />Does anyone have a rough timeline?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>what now?...we have already smegmanatted the fragistature...so do we wait for the commanistation on this one?....there is only so much fuelsalage you you can commanistate when you are bragafraturing. This is not in regard to the last post , but all that is left is either one of the parties to chime in to tell us what is gonna be the next step, I think we have all come to the conclusion that something is wrong somewhere. Ilove redundancy. is that even a word, Barry ?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>An 18,000 dollar hit is subtantial, but anyone care to guess how much Mr.Verkman will lose over the long term due to the extensive damage this has done to his credibility?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- "redundancy" might be the only word there that really is a word. What language is that written in? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>not to be morbid or anything , but if the initial consignor's son died that can cert ainly be checked through obituary records if anyone knows the persons name. Personally, I don't buy the son dying story. I've seen to many slickly presented auctions to believe otherwise these days. I even suspect that the card was auctioned with full knowledge of it's lack of credibilty. This also might have been a case of CSA wanting to "pass the buck". They may have hoped the next buyer would never know the card was not genuine....thus washing their hands of the item. <br /> As for the hit CSA will take on this one....I guess it depends on word of mouth advertising. I've told everyone I know who collects about this incident, and have directed many newbies to the forum the last week to read about this. I know my brother and I will never participate in another CSA event. This is one of those episodes that makes people who don't collect cards really laugh at us for wasting our time and money. I don't know about everyone else on this board, but $18,000 is a lot of money, and if this was me, CSA'a ass would be in every court I could drag it in to

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>I have been away all weekend and this is the first I have seen of this. My understanding with Leon was that this was going to be locked as there is not much more to say about this and this thread was degenerating (as many of the board have pointed out).<br /><br />It is also a matter of public record now that I am willing to put the money in escrow with the winning bidder's lawyer. Mr Wonka, the first to post on this thread, hints at the salient point. The winning bidder likely never wanted the card after he probably could not sell it right away. His real objection to testing the card is that if it is proven real, he then has to keep the card. Why else oppose a fully independent paid for test? We also know he was extremely manipulative (at a minimum) with his first post on this blog. It troubles me deeply that he gets a pass on this.<br /><br />THE SGC ISSUE. As I told Leon, the first I heard that this was submitted to SGC was from the President of PSA last December. Since many of you are so tight with SGC, why not ask them if I submitted the card for grading? I will be happy to waive any potential confidentiality issue with SGC. I have not submitted a single card to SGC in four years and this would not have been first one. Further, if I was going to submit the card it would have gone to PSA as we do with many of our best cards. I did not submit this to PSA as I did not think they would slab it as a one-of-a-kind card. Had the winning bidder (or anyone) asked me if I thought this would get graded, I would say it is possible but far from certain. <br /><br />It appears that the winning bidder the first time submitted this to SGC and never told me about this. I discussed with this consignor only this month and did not get a firm response. <br /><br />Look, we are working to get a fully independent third party to resolve this as soon as possible; even Leon posted on this blog that this was "more than fair." The winning bidder is not (and was never) going to be left out to dry. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND, he was offered this same testing proposal before going on this blog. <br /><br />Steve

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p><a href="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.smileycentral.com%252F%253F partner%253DZSzeb008%255FZNxdm824YYUS%2526i%253D5% 252F5%255F8%255F5%2526feat%253Dprof/page.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/5/5_8_5.gif" alt="SmileyCentral.com" border="0"><img border="0" src="http://plugin.smileycentral.com/http%253A%252F%252Fimgfarm%252Ecom%252Fimages%252F nocache%252Ftr%252Ffw%252Fsmiley%252Fsocial%252Egi f%253Fi%253D5%252F5_8_5/image.gif"></a>

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>This mess helps me visualize folks in this hobby in different groups. Some folks attempt to collect baseball cards. Some folks attempt to invest in baseball cards. And some folks are, to varying degrees, torn in between the two.<br /><br /><br />Baseball card collectors generally have a greater respect for the game itself, and learn a bit about the game's history, and about the cards. Generally, but not absolutely, the investors aren't as concerned about baseball, focus more on the dollar, and are more likely to pursue graded cards.<br /><br />It is starting to seem that this card was won at auction by someone who is skewed toward the investor type. And one thing that troubles me is that the investors tend to turn toward the collectors for help and information when they're in need. Their fellow investors aren't much help at all. Maybe the collectors should consider letting some investors sink or swim on their own....

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Jerry</b><p>Evidently, The seller doesn't believe this board holds much weight in the hobby. Otherwise the buyer would have had his money back by now. <br />He's probally hoping that this problem never gets out into the public per say and stays confined to this board. <br />Makes me wonder if this board is a drop in the bucket to the Vintage collecting world or a major player.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>I guess Mr. Verkman is just smarter than the rest of us: (1) the lawyers who have opined that the clear contractual guaranty would be dispositive in litigation; (2) the overwhelming consensus of experts on and off this board who have opined that the item is not authentic (and that the further proposed "testing" in any event would not be meaningful); and (3) the overwhelming consensus of well-meaning people who have advised him he that he is hurting his reputation and credibility by prolonging this melodrama.<br /><br />One wonders who he WOULD listen to?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>I for one am thrilled that the thread on this topic is unlocked if for no other reason than it gives Steve Verkman the continued opportunity to comment, which by itself is worth the price of admission and snacks to a Fourth of July doubleheader.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Eric Pugh</b><p>Steve, by reading this as an outsider, I have come to the conclusion that you are either one of 2 things:<br /><br />1 - a thief<br />2 - the worst business person in the world<br /><br />GIVE HIM HIS FRICKING MONEY BACK - UN FRICKING BELIVEVABLE.<br /><br />

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Eric,<br /><br />You should have a third choice of All of the Above. <br /><br />Greg

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>Barry- the language was written by me in the 2nd grade , couldnt you tell? . Thanks for the props on the one sole word !<br /><br />2-I will buy from Steve ,I just wouldnt have bought that goofy looking card real or not. If a few opt out ,better deals for the Dannerooskie. I wish well for everyone including those involved in the card. I sip fancy "red wines" to forget the problems in society, I dont need a buzz kill. <br /><br />If I were spending thousands on a card ,you can bet I would use the phone a friend, this is why we have commrades here on the board. There is alot of knowledge here, when in doubt...use it.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>"Look, we are working to get a fully independent third party to resolve this as soon as possible"<br /><br />Um Steve - what are SGC, PSA, Bill Mastro, etc. if not fully independent third parties. <br /><br />By the way, since you seem to acknowledge that SGC refused to authenticate the card, that must mean that both psa and sgc are not reputable. <br /><br />Count me in as one who will not bid in CSA's future auctions.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>One of the many great lines from a terrific movie. I think Stevie will be able to relate to it.<br /><br />"Say this one time with me: 'Would you like that in a pump or a loafer?'... Good. Now memorize it, because starting tomorrow, the only job that you're going to be able to get is selling SHOES!"

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>So even though the card has been deemed counterfeit by PSA, SGC, Mastro, etc, etc, the buyer cant get his money back until a paper test is done, which at best just shows the counterfeiter may have used paper from the 1930's era. If that happens then what? The buyer is stuck with a card he NEVER can sell anywhere. Money in escrow? How about money in buyers account? Mr.Verkman you made a mistake by taking this card in at your auction, fess up, move on, and try and salvage some of your reputation.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I keep looking at this thread, because it is like watching cars wreck. But now I think we should let it go and move on...<br /><br /><br />At this point I feel sorry for neither the auctioneer nor the buyer. From the buyer's standpoint, NONE of us would have bought that card. I wouldn't have paid shipping on it to get it free... not even if it was graded. From the auctioneer's standpoint, none of us would have tried to sell that card because it is obviously fabricated. It seems that the auctioneer must have known that something was up with the card coming back through again... and it seems the buyer was buying it to resell or as an investment. I'm interested in card collecting, and baseball, these two parties evidently are interested in money... let us forget them, and move on.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>With all due respect I disagree. The buyer and I have spoken several times. He is a collector not an investor (not that there's anything wrong with either, imo). He happens to collect Ruth cards and was really excited to win this one...as I would have been too, at first glance. For Steve to say that he was buying it to resell is pure fabrication based on nothing. Had I won the card I would have had the same issue as Mark H. is having now. I wasn't bidding to win it for resale...again, even if I was, I see no great harm. I am not an investor but it's nice the cards I collect have gone up in value. I love the history of the game, the comoraderie in the hobby, and the beautiful little works of art that the cards represent. The fact they have gone up in value, and I am glad, doesn't make me a bad person.....I also enjoy helping folks in the hobby with little bits of trivia I have learned. Just last night I sent a board member some info about the provenance of one of his best cards...I know he would do the same for me too.....best regards

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>You're not interested in money Frank? Can I have yours?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>My money? No, sir, my wife and kids are interested in it. My cards? You can have my cards one day, if you're interested in them for cards' sake, and not for monetary value, after I grow weary of baseball... I've bought 2 cards anticipating that they would appreciate so I could sell them. Sold both at about half what the market would have paid, to happy buyers, the cards have since gone down, considerably. I don't have a card in my collection that I bought because of the card's value. Sincerely.<br /><br />And if the "buyer" is a collector, then I have misjudged him. But what collector with 18k would buy that card??? Again, I'd not pay $5 for it. Still, I stand by what I said up there, when a seller and a buyer come to this board because of a fouled up deal, and both are merely in it for the money, why should we waste our time with them? I'm all for mentoring someone who wants to learn about the history of the game, or the cards. But I'm not inclined to help folks who are merely in it for the money.<br />

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Again, I am responding for sake of debate and the fact I believe you are mistaking. The buyer didn't buy the card to resell. You asked who would pay 18k for that card? I would if it was real.....This issue has nothing to do with reselling a card it has to do with an auctioneer standing behind his word.....and a collector (not an investor) being out 18k on a bad card. For the record the 3rd underbidder, right below my bid, is also a 30 yr veteran of collecting.....so he would have paid 15k, or so, for the card too....He has one of the best 1930's collections around......I wouldn't call the winning bidder, myself, or the 3rd underbidder, investors....but I have been called much worse.....Quite honestly when I first started collecting I didn't give a rats patoot about the monetary side of the hobby...but as I started putting more money into it I did become more aware of it...as most of us recent collectors have....All anyone has to do is go to my site, look at the for sale stuff, then the personal collection, and know what I do it for....I love the hobby as much as anyone....best regards

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Jeff Prizner</b><p>What about the people who love baseball, it's rich history, the old cardboard that represents heroes long gone AND who also enjoy the increasing monetary value of their collection, plus making a buck now and then by selling something off? Would you help them?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>What difference does it make whether the buyer was a collector, an investor, or a rat's patoot? If a guaranty was breached, end of story. In any event, I see no evidence the buyer was "in it for the money." Frank you wrongly assume the rest of us inferior beings can spot a fake from a scan as easily as you apparently can.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Peter, its obvious you care about money. Therefore your opinion is mute or moot or not applicable -- something like that.<br /><br />Frank, please let me know when you are having your next 50% off sale.

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>This being a collector's chatboard, I can understand you having more sympathy with collectors than investors (although with that said I'm not sure how you conclude the Ruth buyer is an investor). I do think though that the distinction between collector and investor is not black and white, and many people who rightly regard themselves as collectors also care about the potential appreciation of their cards; therefore, they to some degree also exhibit investor characteristics. Leon, the underbidder on the card (twice), in my view a dedicated collector, expresses it very well in his recent posts.<br /><br />Also, and as important, I hardly think that Clean Sweep's handling of this matter is dependant on its perception of the buyer as being a collector or investor, or something in between. Accordingly, couldn't it be said that the buyer is doing the collectors out there a favor by exposing this situation and thereby putting them on notice of the perils of dealing with Clean Sweep?

Hopeful conclusion to the 1930 Goudey Ruth saga......
 

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I never said investors are inferior.<br /><br />Didn't say collectors are superior.<br /><br />But you guys can post taking the position that I did, then jump on me for it.<br /><br /><br />And I still think anyone bidding at all for that card is nuts. Even you, Leon, if you were 3rd underbidder. When this all settles out, if whoever ends up with it mails it to me as a gift, I'd not keep it. I'd trash it... or destroy it publicly, or maybe sell it to Mr. Mint with hopes that he could never resell it. Just maybe the card is authentic... I'm incapable of ever believing that, nothwithstanding testing and grading. It is an 18k bookmark. <br /><br /><br /><br />I do wish the card prices weren't going up... I've sold a few cards. Sold them because the monetary value had gotten so exponentially beyond what I paid for them that I couldn't justify keeping them. And I wish the prices had stayed low so I'd have kept the cards. Seller's remorse, not because the cards are worth even more, but because I no longer have the cards.<br /><br />For all I know the investors out there may well be superior to my naive way of thinking... They're making money in my hobby. Good for them. Bad for me.<br /><br />And I didn't say that the auctioneer wasn't liable to the buyer... I just don't think that's a problem for collectors to fool with IF the two are in it just for the money.<br /><br />And I perceive Leon to be a top rate collector. Even if he occasionally sells a piece of cardboard or two.