Without even checking I bet this description is plagiarized
 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-Topps-R...-/122324228389

If that doesn't sound like Bill Goodwin, nothing does.

Nothin says :) like clearing 30K on a single card sale.....

Did anyone else notice the paper loss on the reverse? How did PSA miss that.
Robert

paper loss
 

I don't see any paper loss on the Goldin card but it is easily visible on the eBay card.

Someone shoulda bet me, my point remains though, it was plagiarized. A minor pecadillo to be sure it just amused me. Not seeing the paper loss but I'm on a tablet.

That would be an unexpected development. I was looking at Goldin's image.

I'm going with "piece of schmutz on the case." There's another one on the bottom under the HR column as well. We're probably being picky expecting clean, clear, un-schmutzed images, I mean it's not like it's a $100,000 card.

Reading Goodwin's descriptions remind me of Elaine working at J Peterman's writing descriptions of clothes. The best word is describing the Clemente is "luscious". :o

Both of those spots on the back are from material on the back of the holder. You can see the shadow on the card. For a supposed $75k card, he might want to clean the holder up before photographing.

Rob M

I believe the main writer for Goodwin is a member here...and he seems quite proud of his descriptions!!!!

Roberto "Clements"

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Why you feel like you need a page of flowery prose to convince someone to spend $100,000 on a 52 Mantle is beyond me. This isn't people staggering down the paper goods aisle at the supermarket trying to decide what brand of paper towels to buy. Anyone swimming in that end of the pool isn't likely to be swayed by some words. Not sure what the hypemasters think they are accomplishing going on and on, but obviously pays someone's bills to sit there with the thesaurus spinning.
Read Al's write up in LOTG. Informative, no hype, no discussion of what is and is not a good investment, and he fairly points of problems or shortcomings with the item. Treats us like intelligent buyers. Not that hard.

I wasn't bashing Bill Goodwin (and I was wrong anyway since it was a Goldin Auction) but I do also wonder who those flowery descriptions are for. I do kind of get a kick out of reading them though, but I'm an odd duck.

i think they are just playing to the the people that consigned the cards. Those people arent going to complain. If they say just '1955 clemente psa 8, enough said' and the card goes for peanuts...they likely will complain..

that makes way too much sense, can't possibly be right.

Most descriptions, other than physical attributes and relevant historical and factual information, are for the consignors. And mostly, the catalogs are for consignors too. Just my observation as a casual user :)...

If that doesn't sound like Bill Goodwin, not anything does

Brian (not a plagerizer, just doing my due dilligence)

Perhaps you are referring to me? Wrong auction house though :)

One of my new favorites of all time. From Goldin's Babe Ruth auction.

A thousand words could never do it justice. This masterpiece speaks for itself.
Everything that's good and pure and holy about our national pastime—and our nation—shines forth here in our unlikely young hero. He's the dawning of a Golden Age. He's the American Dream writ large. And he's only just begun.


Understated perhaps. I have to give them credit though . . .only went on for about 400 words after stating that it speaks for itself.

d'oat!!!

+++agreed. I have't been around long enough, but the discriptive exuberance is out of control at some AH's. Was it always like this?

I write for an auction house and really think it should be a balancing act. Consignors do appreciate a certain amount of fluff but we try to rein it in a bit. I think we do a very good job overall.

'relevant' Could be a difference of opinion of what is deemed relevant