recent m101-6 jackson

[Peter_Spaeth]

Speaking of the Hauls of Shame blog linked in the Harris Collection/Carter Collection thread, it starts off with some rather disturbing allegations about the auction house representing the recent m101-6 Jackson as unique even after learning that it was not. Is this just a baseless rant, or is there something to this?

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/

The lead paragraph: Ken Goldin’s M101-6 “Shoeless” Joe Jackson card (the one he was promoting as a the only known copy) sold for $37,784.48 last Friday. As reported last week, Goldin was promoting the card as unique even after he was informed another example had been sold at Lelands in 1994.

I did not see this discussed elsewhere but I may have missed it.

[nolemmings]

This was inserted into the online description--in red italic--although only a day before the auction's end

After publication of our feature catalog, and subsequent press releases, we were informed by an old time established collector that an M101-6 Felix Mendelsohn Joe Jackson card was listed in an auction catalog in 1994 (listed as a 1919 image). However, as of Friday, November 1st, 2013, we have yet to be provided with any image of said card. Goldin Auctions researched this card and issue extensively, and found several long-time M101-6 collectors who had yet to even see an image of this card until this offering. In addition, the two most prestigious third-party grading services, SGC and PSA, have yet to authenticate or even see any other M101-6 Joe Jackson card.

Seems to me like it was responsibly handled, but hey, keep investigating, maybe form a committee.

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to Hauls of Shame -- to which I assign no credibility one way or the other -- Goldin Auctions was informed about the prior Leland's sale in September, by the seller himself.

[Goldin Auctions]

The first time our office received any confirmed evidence of an M101-6 Jackson being listed for prior sale or auction was Tuesday October 29th, three days prior to auction close. The online description was immediately amended. The description was further amended on Wednesday October 30th to clean up other areas of the description. In addition, each bidder on the item was not only alerted to the description change, but was sent the new paragraph as well as told to contact the office if they wished to cancel a bid for any reason. Finally, at the close of the auction, the winner was sent this email

“ Hi XXXXXXXX
I wanted to inform you that if for any reason you did not wish to pay for and accept shipment of lot #3 Joe Jackson card, that is acceptable to us. I mention this due to the disclosure we made regarding a sale of possibly another M101-6 Jackson in 1994, as well as potentially another one that exists in a private collection.
TO date we have not been faxed or emailed an image of said card, but I still wanted to tell you that you will remain in good standing and no issues if you wanted to NOT go thru with the purchase
thank you

Ken Goldin”
And the reply from the winner.
“Ken,

Thank you for the gesture, but I will honor my bid

As I am sure that Mendelsohn printed more than one copy of this card, it is likely that other copies of this card do exist. Even if there were 2 or 3 three others out there, the card is quite rare.


Thank you, xxxxxxx”



As of Tuesday November 12th, Goldin Auctions has not been emailed, faxed, or sent a link to any image of any existing M101-6 Jackson besides the one it auctioned.

[Stonepony]

'Nuff said !

[Peter_Spaeth]

I cannot recall the card now, but years ago Mile High ran into an issue representing a card as unique when it turned out not to be. There is a thread someplace but I cannot find it. A cautionary tale.

[autograf]

A cursory quick check at Google Images yielded this image from Blackbetsy.com

Sure looks like a second (different) card but who knows...........

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by autograf

A cursory quick check at Google Images yielded this image from Blackbetsy.com

Sure looks like a second (different) card but who knows...........

Isn't that the same stamp that appears on the Goldin copy?

[ullmandds]

After I read the hall of shame article a week or 2 ago...I saw the image of the other JJ card...can't remember where.

IT seems to have been easily viewable somewhere on the internet.

regardless...it appears goldin handled the situation reasonably appropriately...esp in comparison to other similar examples by other AH's.

[jhs5120]

So it looks like there are definitely two (possibly three) of these in the hobby. I think Ken went above and beyond in handling the situation and according to the winning bidder, he does not regret the purchase. Kudos to Ken.

[nolemmings]

Isn't that the same stamp that appears on the Goldin copy?

Yep, same stamp, same card--cropped slightly and photo-shopped.

Pete please think hard on where you saw that other image, because I have not seen a second (thought I did years ago, but was mistaken, as I recalled a fielding pose).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Not even Nash insinuates there was an image of another M101-6 publicly available, at least as I read his post. That being the case, and given that Ken says he still has not seen an image of another one, I wonder what the "conclusive" evidence Ken mentions was that convinced him to change the auction description. The old Leland's description Nash mentions does appear to be erroneous and refers to an M101-4.

[ullmandds]

i must have seen the one that's on the black betsy web site which appears to be a different one that was in goldins auction.

[kengoldin]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not even Nash insinuates there was an image of another M101-6 publicly available, at least as I read his post. That being the case, and given that Ken says he still has not seen an image of another one, I wonder what the "conclusive" evidence Ken mentions was that convinced him to change the auction description. The old Leland's description Nash mentions does appear to be erroneous and refers to an M101-4.

Still have not seen another images of an actual card besides one that was sold.
I was emailed a copy of of the 1994 listing of a the card in question on that date, and although it was listed as a 1919 card and did not show a picture, I thought it was prudent to edit and be cautious since it was so close to auction close .
The image on black Betsy appears to be a photo, not a card as the background is different ( when I last looked a week ago)My writer was not aware of that photo though either.

[MattyC]

Does the issue made at that linked website strike anyone else as pure high school drama for the sake of drama? The outing of fake autos is one thing, but if I read it accurately, here we have...

Some info came to light, a description was amended, bidders were e-mailed and offered retractions if so desired.

It is an AWESOME card, zero debating that, and I'm sure whoever now owns it is thrilled-- and rightfully so.

What is the Sturm und Drang all about?

[ullmandds]

halls of shame is definitely partial truths mixed with a whole lot of drama!

[ullmandds]

surely someone must have an old lelands catalog with aforementioned JJ card?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

surely someone must have an old lelands catalog with aforementioned JJ card?

Peter look at the link to Hauls of Shame. No pic, only an erroneous description, it says M101-6 but calls it Sporting News.

[ullmandds]

peter...was it NOT sold in a lelands auction? Was it a private sale?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

peter...was it NOT sold in a lelands auction? Was it a private sale?

It was sold in Leland's apparently, but I think the point is that with no image and an erroneous identification in the catalog as a Sporting News, there could have been some doubt about what the card actually was at least based solely on the catalog.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Does the issue made at that linked website strike anyone else as pure high school drama for the sake of drama? The outing of fake autos is one thing, but if I read it accurately, here we have...

Some info came to light, a description was amended, bidders were e-mailed and offered retractions if so desired.

It is an AWESOME card, zero debating that, and I'm sure whoever now owns it is thrilled-- and rightfully so.

What is the Sturm und Drang all about?

Nash appears to be arguing that the 1994 consignor had informed Goldin Auctions about the prior sale back in September, but that Goldin Auctions had continued to claim the card was unique.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It was sold in Leland's apparently, but I think the point is that with no image and an erroneous identification in the catalog as a Sporting News, there could have been some doubt about what the card actually was at least based solely on the catalog.

Chicago based Felix Mendelsohn did the photos on both series. Maybe that was some mix up..

[Shoeless Moe]

I think there needs to be a show called:

CSI NET54

[MattyC]

LOL! I can make that happen-- doing a TV show right now with the creator of CSI. There is surely enough drama here to support a series

[nolemmings]

Actually Mendelsohn published the cards for both series, but borrowed heavily for his photos in the m101-4/5 sets. He was far more hands on with m101-6, copyrighting many of the photos which he either took or more likely had taken at his direction.

Leland's can be forgiven for listing the card as affiliated with the Sporting News in its 1994 auction description, since at that time the hobby regarded m101-6 as connected to TSN. The hobby then considered the set as being issued in 1919 also, which is probably why LeLand's claimed its Shoeless was issued "during notorious 1919 season". In fact, the photo was taken in 1917 and the set was first available that year.

IMO, it would be a mistake to assert that this card was unique, although I still have not seen an image of another. M101-6s could be ordered for a nickel a card. It seems hard to believe that Joe Jackson would not have been a popular choice among collectors, and Chicago publisher Mendelsohn would not have been shy about printing them. He has been listed in the checklist for at least a quarter century (he's in my first edition SCD book), and while that alone is not determinative, it does imply that someone has seen his card a time or two before.

[wonkaticket]

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Reading through the Haul of Shame article referred to in the initial post, the article really makes some "harsh" accusations about PSA, Collectors Universe and its top brass regarding the grading of the PSA 8 T206 Wagner. If Mr. Nash claimed to have received a cease and desist letter from PSA's attorney last year regarding his alleged defamatory accusations that the said Wagner card was trimmed, no doubt PSA will soon be suing him for his continuous and persistent rumor mongering about that card.

[Cardboard Junkie]

I doubt psa will ever man up about anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Junkie

I doubt psa will ever man up about anything.

Given their past and ongoing success, it is understandable that from their point of view, their public relations strategy has been the right call.

[glchen]

BTW, the image of another known M101-6 Jackson card has been posted on the Hauls of Shame page: Link

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by glchen

BTW, the image of another known M101-6 Jackson card has been posted on the Hauls of Shame page: Link

Ummmm...Gary, can't you tell that the second scan is the same card, just scanned by a huge eBay seller???

Cheers,
Blair

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Bosox Blair

Ummmm...Gary, can't you tell that the second scan is the same card, just scanned by a huge eBay seller???

Cheers,
Blair

Blair, What am I missing? These are different cards.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by glchen

Blair, What am I missing? These are different cards.

Just a bad joke poking fun at the many threads on wildly altered scans...hence the winky guy at the end...

Cheers,
Blair

[glchen]

Cool, no worries, Blair, I got it. I'm slow sometimes.