Amazing article on 1869 Red Stockings balls faked by Cooperstown Forger!
 

White Betsy has written another amazing article revealing that the 1869 Red Stockings balls that sold for almost a half a millon bucks were faked. This is one in a series of articles about the Cooperstown Forger.

http://whitebetsy.wordpress.com/2012...ect-game-1869/

The Cooperstown Forger. May he rot in hell.

I have a funny feeling, if he is who I think he is, he is rotting on Earth first.

This White Betsy stuff is on par with the Kennedy Assassination from an intrigue perspective.

you would think the auction houses would do more research befor offering these items. If they would have taken some time and had the balls tested this would have never happened.

Do we know who is writing these Black Betsy articles?

The testing technology has changed a lot since 2002. At the time the testing would have been expensive, probably a few thousand dollars, and would have usually required a sample of the material in question that would be destroyed by the test.
Now there are handheld devices that can determine the physical makeup of an object without damage. And they become less expensive all the time.

From the business end- who would spend a few thousand to check an item with the probability that if the item was bad you'd be sending away the consigner but still be paying the bill to the testing lab? And getting the consigner to pay for the test probably isn't likely.

With todays tech they could get results in a few minutes. Then they'd just need the knowledge to interpret those results. The machine is under 30thousand. If I owned a high end auction house I'd want to have one.

Steve B

I really like his March 4 entry. He is quite right that the guy depicted is not Al Spalding (yes, the ears really are grossly different).

I know nothing specifically about verifying autographs, but it is interesting that 4 "experts" verified the signature of Spalding on a photo that does not depict him.

I have written about "confirmation bias" and how it affects the judgment of collectors. In this case it clearly affected the judgement of the handwriting experts consulted.

He contacted me directly to direct me to his site but when I asked he would not reveal who he was.

Oh, come on Richard... It's your split personality!

Also, REALLY interesting articles they are posting.

The articles are certainly interesting but my knowledge is not in 19th Century items, so it is not me or my alter ego :D:D.
And my expose web page (www.richardsimonsports.com/hofauto2.htm) is not anonymous.

Thanks Richard. I have a problem with people who write articles like these but choose to remain anonymous. As such I won't read them anymore.

I would have to respectfully disagree. What matters to me is the presentation of a solid logical argument about a subject that interests me. I know that this particular blog has gotten a lot of attention among serious researchers.

I like what this person has to say and how he/she says it, whomever he/she may be.

Dumb question, but why doesn't the FBI demand the name of the consignor of the items attributed to the Cooperstown Forger? These items have to enter the arena after they are completed, so wouldn't that be a logical place to start?

Yes Mark, agreed that what I read so far appears to be accurate. I've known all about that trophy case for a long time so the facts seem solid.

But I don't like anonymous posting on the internet on principle. I think it's a slippery slope that allows someone to say whatever he pleases without repercussion.

Well Jake. With any luck, they already have and are putting their case together as I write this. And NO I do not believe in Santa Claus nor the Easter Bunny! ;)

:D

The real problem is that the FBI has basically turned into Santa Claus over the last 20 years. Neither exists!

Not so sure about that. And I don't believe in Santa.

Leon, is the identity of the original consignor with Mastro still a mystery? What's your understanding of this issue?

Edit: Well, shit! Peter Nash consigned this garbage???

We have a winner!

1+1=2 2+2=4 3+3=6

:D