Murray Chass slams Peter Nash

[Jlighter]

New article.

http://www.murraychass.com/?p=6116

[glynparson]

In my opinion he can be a big time scumbag forger and telling the truth about other forgeries. I am not defending the person just trying to point out that he could be exposing others work to throw some off his own. I do not believe everything he has pointed out to be lies. In fact I do believe some things have been shown to be correct. No doubt he has brought more harm than good to the hobby but that does not mean some of these allegations don't deserve some investegating. It sometimes amazes me at some of the people that would rather not expose the negatives of the hobby. I think many are afraid that if everything came to light their valuable collections would suffer huge financial losses. I do not think this would be the case. I tend to believe in the long run good real stuff would be worth more as there would be less items even if there were less participants/ collectors due to a major hobby shake up.

[Cardboard Junkie]

Bad guys can become good guys and vice versa. People change. I think many of Hall of Shames allegations warrant further investigation. What concerns me is the the Hall of Fame and the NYPL don't seem concerned about investigating missing items. If Nash is the Cooperstown Forger he should come clean. Dave

[bigtrain]

It is my understanding that the artifacts housed in the Baseball Hall of Fame and anything articles donated to the Hall of Fame are the property of the State of New York. Therefore, one would think that the State Attorney General's Office would be interested in investigating missing items.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Jlighter

New article.

http://www.murraychass.com/?p=6116

A pure horse* response from Chass.

"2. Does any of this change the fact that so many of the ‘vintage’ jerseys Halper sold to MLB for them to donate to the HoF were fakes? (And that Halper’s stories of provenance could not possibly have been true?)" - Valid point.

"Reader No. 2 chose to ignore Nash and his crooked schemes and question the honesty of Barry Halper" - What reader 2 pointed out are facts (first sentence). While the implication might be there, the reader isn't claiming Halper intentionally did this. Halper's stories could be simply mis-rememberences? (benefit of the doubt)

"In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t know Nash, talked to him on the telephone once, and knew Halper, though I had no knowledge of his memorabilia activities."

Really? So what he is telling us is that he has no knowledge yet is going to "report" on it like he does? One would think at this point that Chass would then go on to investigate something he doesn't know anything about, but he doesn't do this. The rest of the article is fluff in an attempt to bolster Halper. Nothing wrong with backing someone you know/like, but don't offer what is presented here as hard-hitting proof of anything. It's just another way to "slam" Nash.

As questionable of a character as Nash is, he sure seems much better at reporting on fraudulent activities than Chass. Maybe it takes one to know one.

"People like Nash, however, make the memorabilia business more suspect." - Maybe it should be. And why again is that a BAD thing? While nothing to do with actual fraud, a good example on how the memorabilia business cannot simply rely on faith or even provenance. http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page...o-clemente-bat

[Cardboard Junkie]

Sports Collecting Blues

First Take Nash
Who lost some cash
through lawsuits
or so it seems.

Then there's Halper
A real scalper
with his bogus
memorabilia schemes.

Last there's Chass
a bonified JackA$$
for reporting his
wildest dreams.

[Rich Klein]

that Herbie Buck may actualy exist.

RIch

[MattyC]

There have been many cases throughout history in which a former criminal eventually became a valuable resource for exposing or helping authorities catch his own kind. Frank Abagnale comes to mind, who was the subject of Spielberg's film CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.

Chass' utter dismissal of his quoted "Reader #2" makes him look quite lazy, or at least not at all interested in delving deeper and perhaps finding things that might sully a late friend's reputation. All Reader #2 did was point out that Nash's issues are one thing, and other fakes are another thing.

[TexasLeaguer]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There have been many cases throughout history in which a former criminal eventually became a valuable resource for exposing or helping authorities catch his own kind. Frank Abagnale comes to mind, who was the subject of Spielberg's film CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.

The difference is that Abagnale and Canseco came clean first, and then started ratting out everyone else. Nash maintains his innocence, so it's harder to take him seriously.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by MattyC

There have been many cases throughout history in which a former criminal eventually became a valuable resource for exposing or helping authorities catch his own kind. Frank Abagnale comes to mind, who was the subject of Spielberg's film CATCH ME IF YOU CAN.

Chass' utter dismissal of his quoted "Reader #2" makes him look quite lazy, or at least not at all interested in delving deeper and perhaps finding things that might sully a late friend's reputation. All Reader #2 did was point out that Nash's issues are one thing, and other fakes are another thing.

Frank Abagnale spent 5 years in prison.

[Eric72]

I am a bit late to this discussion. Additionally, I do not know much regarding the principal players in this drama. Having said this, I am wondering something.

Since it seems, to me, that items of questionable authenticity have come into focus, what is the harm in verifying (or repudiating) their legitimacy?

Regardless of who puts a particular item in the spotlight, a genuine article will stand on its own merit and a fake should not withstand strict scrutiny, right?

Just curious here...not trying to stir the pot.

Best Regards,

Eric