Nicholls SC150 649 OP CONTROVERSY

[wonkaticket]

Leon, not sure how my last post with the images of the Nicholls card ted faked and posted here were a jab at you?

[barrysloate]

Hi John- Ted and I have spoken at length on the phone and will probably continue to do so. I am choosing not to do it on the board, which is my prerogative. And there is no question Ted has gotten himself into a bad position here. I will be speaking with him about that too. But I'm not crazy about the photoshop stuff. What else can I say?

[wonkaticket]

Fair response Barry I understand and you are correct it’s your choice to post or not on the subject I also respect that.

But I can’t help but feel a bit miffed if you will that folks will get bent out of shape or say I’m being a bit hard on a person who has clearly been lying and taking advantage of a community. When all I have really done is post in a joking manner serious info with a tongue & cheek barb or two.

I wish folks spent half as much energy getting bent out of shape over Ted’s actions and lies as they do my few Sanford and Son pop culture references and one liners then perhaps we get something done and clean up this mess Ted has created.

Sadly Barry I feel Ted is beyond saving many of us have given him ample private and public opportunities to resolve this Ted has chosen to continue down the same path at the sacrifice of many hobby friends and fellow collectors no matter how silly and you guys are only seeing a fraction of it here FYI.

Now all we can do is warn others that much of Ted’s info is in fact falsified or what is presented as fact is not much more than one person’s views.

Cheers,

John

[Leon]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Leon, not sure how my last post with the images of the Nicholls card ted faked and posted here were a jab at you?

I didn't mean to insinuate that. I was only saying I don't care what you do concerning myself....that's what I meant. Sometimes when chatting on boards it's hard to address things in succession....

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Leon

I didn't mean to insinuate that. I was only saying I don't care what you do concerning myself....that's what I meant. Sometimes when chatting on boards it's hard to address things in succession....

Ahh got ya!

[wonkaticket]

Barry,

Something I never do and will never do again ever but for you I will.

Because I feel nobody should get a pass for lies and taking advantage of collectors mentally or financially, funny no out cries that my Photoshop’s were too much for Pat Chan, or Doug Allen/Mastronet.

But to show how important this topic is to me I’m taking down all the images and tags.

Now that my position is less than belittled if you will lets’ see this board and most importantly Ted addresses these fabrications.

So Ted, what do you say care to explain honestly why the above was done, why you have fabricated stories of cards you have not owned?

I can’t say your theory’s are all wrong as we can’t really prove anything 100 years later dead accurate there will always be new info come to light etc.

However I can see when folks are adding bad entries, and creating fictional or “imagined” as you said cards and entries to prove their own points or make themselves look the big shot.

Not holding my breath but let’s see if as a community and if Ted will bring the greatest “Mission Accomplished” thread to light yet.

The one where he makes good on what he has done now that would be a mission of true accomplishment.

But I have feeling nothing comes of it…and it gets ignored pushed away into the nether reaches of the NET54 bowels…so if that’s the case it must be a joke or not mater to anyone, so forgive us if we then have a laugh amongst ourselves post funny pictures and laugh.

Cheers,

John

[mdschulze]

I don't know Ted or the history that he brings with him to the table... so I have no comment on that.

Here's my issue... I'm new into the T206 world and I rely on Net54 members almost exclusively for accurate info. I have witnessed over the last year or so who the "regular" contributors are and which ones who appear to have a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the 206s.... I rely on their opinions and statements as gospel because of the experience factor. When I encounter a thread like this one that exposes inaccurate info, I now feel the conspiracy-theorist side of me kick in and I start to doubt the legitimacy of other threads regarding t206 info. The only saving grace are for other experts to chime in and correct these misleading posts... thank you for that!

So my questions are: 1) Are the majority of knoweldge based posts on this forum accurate and how confident should I be in the accuracy of obtained info from Net54? 2) Is there a verified, accurate and completed T206 master checklist with all front/back combos? 3) If one exists, can you PLEASE put me in the right direction to obtain it? Thanks guys!!

[barrysloate]

Thank you John, I do appreciate it...and they're called "tags", thanks.

[wonkaticket]

Mike, all great questions and our history with Ted is exactly that history.

But you are 100% bad info does nobody good no matter the motives. I would take much of what you read with a grain of salt, don’t be afraid to double check or ask questions of the source and of others.

On the other hand there's a lot of good info on here and that's what makes what Ted has done all the worse, because how are many folks to decode what is good and what is bad.

Yes there is a good list and we can make sure you get a copy or links.

Cheers,

John

[wonkaticket]

Barry you're welcome.

All the images are down, however all the substance of Ted’s actions still there let’s see if this makes a difference in Ted addressing HONESTLY this situation.

My humor at Ted’s expense removed from, Ted’s actions at our expense and the hobby's expense still alive and well FYI.

Cheers,

John

[ullmandds]

can I still order a t-shirt?

[wonkaticket]

“Thank you John, I do appreciate it...and they're called "tags", thanks.”

Barry I assume you are making corrections to my typos correct? A bit of irony if you will that you would be concerned with my typos in a thread that’s very nature is about much more important typos/lies, made by the very person you have asked me to take it easy on. Well played Barry you grammar ball buster love it.

John

[ChiefBenderForever]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

I don't know Ted or the history that he brings with him to the table... so I have no comment on that.

Here's my issue... I'm new into the T206 world and I rely on Net54 members almost exclusively for accurate info. I have witnessed over the last year or so who the "regular" contributors are and which ones who appear to have a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the 206s.... I rely on their opinions and statements as gospel because of the experience factor. When I encounter a thread like this one that exposes inaccurate info, I now feel the conspiracy-theorist side of me kick in and I start to doubt the legitimacy of other threads regarding t206 info. The only saving grace are for other experts to chime in and correct these misleading posts... thank you for that!

So my questions are: 1) Are the majority of knoweldge based posts on this forum accurate and how confident should I be in the accuracy of obtained info from Net54? 2) Is there a verified, accurate and completed T206 master checklist with all front/back combos? 3) If one exists, can you PLEASE put me in the right direction to obtain it? Thanks guys!!

This is the really bad/sad part of all of this, what people just took for granted now is tainted and that really sucks.

[ChiefBenderForever]

I don't know the whole story here but just want to say that if someone did fib or lie and doesn't correct it or provide evidence otherwise their should be no mercy no matter who it is. I like Ted but he hasn't defended himself at all or just said 'hey guys I fk'd up and am really sorry' and for all the collectors that considered him a guru this isn't looking very good. Say it ain't so Ted !!

[Al C.risafulli]

can I still order a t-shirt?

The T-shirt doesn't exist. John just says it does.

-Al

[steve B]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

I don't know Ted or the history that he brings with him to the table... so I have no comment on that.

Here's my issue... I'm new into the T206 world and I rely on Net54 members almost exclusively for accurate info. I have witnessed over the last year or so who the "regular" contributors are and which ones who appear to have a wealth of experience and knowledge regarding the 206s.... I rely on their opinions and statements as gospel because of the experience factor. When I encounter a thread like this one that exposes inaccurate info, I now feel the conspiracy-theorist side of me kick in and I start to doubt the legitimacy of other threads regarding t206 info. The only saving grace are for other experts to chime in and correct these misleading posts... thank you for that!

So my questions are: 1) Are the majority of knoweldge based posts on this forum accurate and how confident should I be in the accuracy of obtained info from Net54? 2) Is there a verified, accurate and completed T206 master checklist with all front/back combos? 3) If one exists, can you PLEASE put me in the right direction to obtain it? Thanks guys!!

Here's my take on things in general. Assign them whatever level of belief you find comfortable.
1) Most of what you'll read here is fairly accurate/believed to be accurate by the poster when it's posted. In my limited experience, most of the fact based stuff is very reliable.
That being said, there's always something new being discovered/learned etc.
2)The superset list or Scott Readers info seems to be the best out there.
ANY list will have errors and shortcomings. Even with long established lists that are constantly reviewed by experts ther will be differences. Compare a Scotts stamp catalog to a Stanley Gibbons catalog and you'll see what I mean. And uncataloged cards still turn up after 100 years+ I'm sure there are also listed cards that don't exist. There was a thread about just that on the pre 1980 list, and I was amazed how many listed cards aren't really out there.

It makes me a bit sad to see things devolve like this. All the people involved have done some good work, and have workable theories. I do think that eventually we'll be able to get very close to proving a few things about T206. Doing that will require a major collaboration just to generate the raw data and fights like this won't help. (All of which hinges on my own theories which aren't ready for prime time just yet. )

Steve Birmingham

[marcdelpercio]

I do not see this discussion as a personal attack. If ANYBODY...and that means somebody who can't even spell T206 to somebody who has been researching and collecting the set for 50 years...is intentionally promoting false information, they should absolutely be called out on it. The substance of the allegations made seems to be very straightforward. Either Ted (or somebody) owns the cards in question. This was a claim he clearly made on several occasions. If this is the case, it should be very easy to show credible and legitimate evidence of this. Otherwise these cards don't exist and Ted has made deliberately false statements. There really is no other alternative.

I can understand the mixed feelings on some of John's photos and such. I personally think they are hilarious but can see how others would not. The substance remains the same however, and while I see many who are defending Ted or at least saying "enough", conspicuously absent is a response from Ted himself to set this record straight one way or the other.

I am not interested in belittling or attacking anybody. In fact, this is the first "controversial" thread I have ever even posted in. I am VERY interested though in fully supporting the efforts of those who are attempting to accurately research and document this hobby that I have been so passionate about since I was a toddler. I think all can agree that there is far enough shady behavior, misrepresentation, and outright fraud in this hobby that it is especially damaging when somebody who seems to quite publicly wish to combat that is accused of some of those same activities himself. Here's hoping that this issue is resolved quickly and positively and that we all continue in our own small or large way to add good things to this hobby that I love.

[teetwoohsix]

Originally Posted by marcdelpercio

I do not see this discussion as a personal attack. If ANYBODY...and that means somebody who can't even spell T206 to somebody who has been researching and collecting the set for 50 years...is intentionally promoting false information, they should absolutely be called out on it. The substance of the allegations made seems to be very straightforward. Either Ted (or somebody) owns the cards in question. This was a claim he clearly made on several occasions. If this is the case, it should be very easy to show credible and legitimate evidence of this. Otherwise these cards don't exist and Ted has made deliberately false statements. There really is no other alternative.

I can understand the mixed feelings on some of John's photos and such. I personally think they are hilarious but can see how others would not. The substance remains the same however, and while I see many who are defending Ted or at least saying "enough", conspicuously absent is a response from Ted himself to set this record straight one way or the other.

I am not interested in belittling or attacking anybody. In fact, this is the first "controversial" thread I have ever even posted in. I am VERY interested though in fully supporting the efforts of those who are attempting to accurately research and document this hobby that I have been so passionate about since I was a toddler. I think all can agree that there is far enough shady behavior, misrepresentation, and outright fraud in this hobby that it is especially damaging when somebody who seems to quite publicly wish to combat that is accused of some of those same activities himself. Here's hoping that this issue is resolved quickly and positively and that we all continue in our own small or large way to add good things to this hobby that I love.

I agree with this post 100%.

Also, thanks Jantz for those inputs, that is awesome.

Sincerely, Clayton

[Exhibitman]

Johnny: welcome to the Monster. For the most part the info put up here as to specific card sets is quite solid. Many of the posters here are listed as contributors to the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards and have written many articles for various hobby publications. That said, you have to take any information here with a grain or two of salt. We are ruminating on what might have happened in a print shop 100 years ago while they were making throw-away inserts for ciggy packs. It wasn't exactly rocket science to them.

As for the issue at hand, I can speak to it with a somewhat different perspective, being a publisher of checklists and a catalog on cards for several years now. It is extremely difficult to separate urban myth and assumptions from proven facts when it comes to so many cards because a lot of what we accept as "card lore" originated from best guesses and creative assumptions by pioneering hobbyists, as well as memories of well-meaning collectors. Some of the information is accurate, other stuff "seemed" accurate and ends up reported as fact. That is why mistakes/interpolations/errors/intentional fabrications rankle so many collectors. What is critical above all is to be open-minded enough to admit that a theory is untrue, that a checklist is wrong, etc. I've had to go back and correct several things from my earlier checklists and catalogs and I expect to do more in the future. It is both an illuminating and humbling experience. It should not be maddening.

[mdschulze]

Thank you for taking the time to contribute the info within your previous post. I just finished scanning through Scott Reader's T206 Distribution PDF file, in which you referenced, and I'm just in awe of how much research must have gone into that compilation. I'm in the process of printing it out as I type!

Out of curiosity, are Reader's checklists updated often or is everything about 99% complete (with the exception of some newly discovered card in someone's attic)? Thanks for your help. -Mike Schulze