Brooklyn CDV

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I was wondering when someone would pull out this nonsense cliche.

Troy - did you sent the 1889 Boston Bean Eaters cabinet card to Lelands or SGC? (I'm referring to the forgery that I called about while it was still up for auction - the day before the January 1 auction).

Oh, wait...does calling an auction house to tell them they are auctioning a $10,000+ forgery....being a "hater"? Quite honestly, I sincerely wish I had never said a word about the Bean Eaters cabinet, and one of you had won it. Sometimes the best lessons cost a few bucks, and some of you really need to be educated.

Because we question something we are haters!!! How dare you Scott.

If anything I am sure this thread has helped the photo in question. And if the auctioneer really understand how adding a few high end bidders to the mix could add value, with lessening any leap of faith to the equation, he would have done so. But then again, we are haters. And would you please just forget about the fake that got pulled and the comment about just putting the photo back in the SGC holder? I cement holders back together all the time, don't you, you hater? Enough is enough with all of the questions.....just sell it.

[Matthew H]

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

SGC gave their opinion. They think it's real. I think it's real. I just am not at 100% on it. The photo will do great in auction. Isn't that all that matters?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

SGC gave their opinion. They think it's real. I think it's real. I just am not at 100% on it. The photo will do great in auction. Isn't that all that matters?

+1 to all of the above.

I actually would have stopped responding on this thread a while back, but a few of the comments kind of drug me back in against my will. But that's what these discussions are for - you see something that interests you and you comment. This is very interesting stuff. Hopefully everyone's learned a bit more about albumens, but not enough to outbid me on the far cheaper ones that I collect.

[Saco River Auction]

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall. We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo. We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.

Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall. We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo. We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.

Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

Troy, if interested parties may be coming in to see the photo, it might be in everyone's best interest to not re-holder it yet, so that they can get the best possible view of the raw item. Seeing documentation is great and all, but getting a clear in-person view may be required by some potential buyers as well. The holder can somewhat obstruct that.. I think leaving it raw for now, could help re-assure someone of their potential purchase, and could help lead to higher bids. Re-holdering can always be arranged at a later date, before final delivery of the item, if the buyer chooses..

No conspiracy theory, or anything. Just an honest opinion..

[Saco River Auction]

That's great advice and I thank you, however there are people on here that do not allow for a common sense approach and feel that every move we make is a way of decieving potential buyers of this card. To leave it out of the holder or in its current re-glued state is going to force a select number of people to continue to speculate that we are doing something ridiculous like a bait and switch or forgery. I would feel better if I could put that particular fire out long before the auction occurs.

Troy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

That's great advice and I thank you, however there are people on here that do not allow for a common sense approach and feel that every move we make is a way of decieving potential buyers of this card. To leave it out of the holder or in its current re-glued state is going to force a select number of people to continue to speculate that we are doing something ridiculous like a bait and switch or forgery. I would feel better if I could put that particular fire out long before the auction occurs.

Troy

Troy, this is a ridiculous assertion. One thing we ALL have stated is that we are CERTAIN that you are NOT trying to deceive anyone.

There is absolutely no doubt here that you are honest. I can also assure you that no one thinks that your re-gluing the SGC holder would be akin to a 'bait and switch' - it would simply be indicative of ignorance regarding our hobby and slabbing.

Edited to add: Regarding the Bean Eaters cabinet, I felt that it was simply a case of your putting up something for auction that you did not know was a forgery. Yes, your practices are questioned, but not your honesty. There is a huge difference.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

As I said yesterday I am going to try to stay out of the discussions on this forum from now on. Unfortunately I do not like being called out by Scott and Others. You can say what you want about this card and take your shots at the process or whatever. But do not take shots at the credibility of me or this auction hall.

You are creating a straw man. We asked valid questions and presented facts.

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

We have a unblemished reputation and I will not remain silent when I see Scott trying to smear our reputation over the bean eaters photo. For the record we are not experts on every item that walks through the door. Alot of the provenance and history of items come directly from the consignor. At times and on items that are not big hit items we rely on the statements of the consignor to formulate our descriptions for individual items. The bean eaters photo was explained to me that it was "a print taken off the original negative". We listed it as such, and withing days of the auction realized(based on the interest) that something was wrong. It was worded in a way in our description that lead people to believe that it was an original photo. We looked at it under high power magnification and determined that this was a very modern re-production of the original photo.

Any smearing of your reputation is being done by you, not me. If you are going to sell multi-thousand dollar cabinet photos, you better not rely on your consignors to write your descriptions. And you might want to determine the authenticity of items a bit sooner than the day before the auction.

When I called and told you that it was a forgery, I also responded to you that it was not taken from an original negative, and I explained to you how I knew this: an original negative would have to exist, which was highly unlikely, plus I matched your scan up with a scan on the internet and found a piece of residue on the 'real' photo, meaning that yours was copied from that image (not from a negative). This all occurred on December 31 - the day before the auction.

High-power magnification was not needed - I have bad eyes and was able to do it simply by looking at my computer screen. This should have been done before the item ever was put up for auction by you.

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

We decided to pull the item from the sale and cancel all bids as we do not want our customers buying an item that we do not believe in. Pardon us Scott for making a mistake and correcting it before anyone was affected financially. I guess that gives us a bad reputation. Also Scott you are becoming very paranoid as everything to you is a forgery. I am shocked to learn that you feel that because a 19th century photo was re-produced for a decorative piece, there must be bad intentions behind it.

You are pardoned for making this mistake. No, not all are forgeries, but the Bean Eaters cabinet is. Now you are back-peddling and calling it a "decorative piece" and telling us that you knew this all along? What kind of auction house would auction off real 19th century mounted photos, alongside a fake that they knew was a fake? Answer: No one. And either did you.

Originally Posted by Saco River Auction

Lastly I have an appointment and have for days with SGC to re-holder the card. Scott at SGC has agreed to do it and it will be done long before the sale. We haven't been able to send it out yet because the press has been here at our hall looking to view the card and shoot their stories. He is going to verify that the card is the same one he authenticated in the first place and re-holder it for safety.

I feel that you all would love for me to stop posting on this site, and I would rather not post on here until after the sale, but I refuse to listen to a giant smear campaign of my reputation and the auction halls reputation without responding accordingly.

Troy

There is no "giant smear campaign" of your reputation, and playing the victim is a waste of everyone's time.

I will say this - my opinion of you has definitely changed. You were happy discussing these pieces with me until I started asking questions. This is a hobby where questions get asked, especially when we are talking about very expensive and rare pieces. If that bothers you, then you should stick to that other stuff you normally auction.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

Troys taken a few punches already... Is anyone ready to slam SGC for slabbing this without really knowing whether or not it was really authentic?

Personally, I think SGC should stick to slabbing cards. I visited SGC's site and was unable to find their standards for slabbing photographs such as this cdv. It's probable that their photo-slabbing comes with a disclaimer as to what sort of tests they are willing to do. So you get what you buy. For example, if SGC performs all the tests that Mr. Messier performed, but does not perform the additional ones that he mentioned in his report, then you end up with the same level of authentication with each. You can't blame Mr. Messier for stopping where Troy asked him to, any more than you can blame SGC for performing a level of authentication that they contractually promise and that you agree to.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

And would you please just forget about the fake that got pulled and the comment about just putting the photo back in the SGC holder? I cement holders back together all the time, don't you, you hater? Enough is enough with all of the questions.....just sell it.

I'm wondering where all the non-'haters' were while we were discussing the Brooklyn cdv on this board WHILE the 1889 Boston cabinet was still up for auction on Saco's website? They are knowledgeable enough to insult the skeptics, but not diligent enough to check out Saco's other auctions. Hell, even Peter Nash checked them out!!! (you know, the guy you hate, but who actually does his research).

You would think that those of us who gave a damn enough to research this thoroughly and actually spot the Bean Eaters forgery, would get a little bit of respect, possibly even gratitude? Nah. We are haters. But I can tell you this much - without the skeptics the forgers would have a field day, and YOU will be their customers, not me.

[wonkaticket]

Scott, no offense I have no issue with anyone questioning in this thread. But the Pete Nash does his research give me a break!

Maybe he does so much research to help make those fakes he sold?

I don’t like Peter Nash because….gee I don’t know he is uhhh….a forger responsible for countless fakes in peoples collections some well over 100k. Not to mention at least two fake photos BTW. I’ve said it time and time again….his site exists to draw attention away from the bad crap he has done and is most likely still doing. The fact that this guy is even listened too makes me throw up in my mouth a bit. I also love the recent drag a dead Barry Halper thru the mud classy guy.

Not hearsay public record look it up while you are speaking if his wonderful research.

Having Pete Nash shed light on crime is like have Jerry Sandusky going door to door letting folks know there are pedophiles in town.

John

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Scott, no offense I have no issue with anyone questioning in this thread. But the Pete Nash does his research give me a break!
John

Haha. I was just saying that he dug a bit deeper than the non-skeptics here on Net54....who didn't actually dig at all.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Maybe he does so much research to help make those fakes he sold? John

I think it is the relatively recent exposure of a number of very high dollar elaborate forgeries exposed by materials testing that has lead to the healthy skepticism that appears on this thread.