What would you do?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

well you cant "assume" a card is real. its like assuming a car runs good. then when you buy it, its a lemon. just learn from the experience. be cautious next time.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

T206King, of course we can't assume a card is real, but like the majority on the board have said, the seller should stand by his goods. Especially if it is someone known by some of the NET54 board members.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Bill, you CAN asume a card is real if it is sold by a seller in the pre-1930 category on ebay. Your car analogy makes no sense -- unless you think it is appropriate for someone who purchased a Toyota Camry on ebay not to have standing to complain if, after the car was delivered, he found out that it was really a cardboard cut-out of the car and not a Camry.

[Archive]

Posted By: dan mckee

I am with Brockelman on this one. I know Brooks well and would be shocked if he tried to pass off a reproduction as real. JUST BECAUSE SGC SAYS IT IS FAKE does not mean it is fake. My apologies to you grading fanatics. SGC employees are human just like we are and my money is on me and several board members over SGC as far as determining a forgery. Everyone just assumed that the card was fake without asking to see it??? Well it looks real in the scan but possibly thin. Maybe SGC meant to check trimmed instead of forgery?? All of you just jumped on the SGC band wagon immediately like that was the gospel, too funny. I think SGC does a decent job overall, but mistakes can happen. My call is to resubmit it now, sell old Brooks the card he rightfully won, my guess is that it will be slabbed or marked as trimmed. Dan.

Scott I read your 2nd post! Browning Automatic Rifle! That is a great weapon and a very heavy 1 to carry in combat. The Navy had them as part of teams basic load, 1 B.A.R. and usually the largest and strongest individual was assigned the weapon.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

1.) You need to figure out if the Cobb is good. Look closely at the edges and compare it to a legit T205. The gold should still be rolled over at least one of the edges.

2.) If your sure it's bad and you have SGC saying it's bad ask the buyer to refund your money again.

3.) DON'T COMMIT MAIL FRAUD.

4.) Advise your buyer that you are keeping the $400 as partial repayment of his debt.

5.) Be prepared to lose your PayPal privileges if you want to keep the money and not simply make your point. Really the same thing applies to your Ebay privileges.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

There is no way I think Brooks tried to pass this off as good if he knew it was bad. I think he just didn't know, bought it as real, and sold it as real. From the looks of the back printing, and the even age tone on the back, I still don't think it looks good....but I am far from a T205 expert. I would at least have it sent back in and looked at again. My guess is it will be the same conclusion. SGC can get stuff wrong but I don't think they did on this one. Here is their customer service manager's email...it is Michael Goldberg and he is most helpful....

mgoldberg@sgccard.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Does anyone have a T205 Cobb with black Piedmont printing on the back? I know the T205 reprint set issued in the 80's did, does anyone on the board have one with the black printing?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

< Even told me the card was once in an SGC slab>

That troubles me.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

Joe,

my statement about the car is simple. if you don't ask questions before you buy, you will get soaked, obviously this auction has warning signs written all over it.

1) no where does the auction state money back guarantee, no where does it state 100% authentic. eBay is an as-is basis site, otherwise stated.

2) committing mail fraud is an illegal offense. all he has to do is call the police department and have charges put on you. then lawyers are involved costing you more money. its not worth it....

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

SGC got it right. The Cobb is counterfeit. No question.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I don't believe Brooks did this knowingly IF the card is not good. With that being said you are not correct. Ebay is still a regular market place where the UCC is still in force. That is as legal as I will get....but

Last week I saw a Judge Judy episode. A lady and her daughter bought 2 cell phones on ebay. They received 2 pictures of cell phones. The plaintiffs were suing for about $425 total, the cost of phones and shipping. Judge Judy awarded them $5000 as the defendant stuck to her guns of never saying she was selling an "actual" phone in the auction description. The judge called the defendant,along with her no count husband, a crook, thief, and everything else she could think of... . Not only are you wrong but you are very, very wrong, in this matter...imo. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott M.

I also think that the card is actually a real T205 that possibly had some type of lacquer/shellac/glue coating that was applied to it. It wouldn't be the first vintage card that I've seen this done to for preservation or some type of mounting onto a background.

As far as the darker color of the back, not all Piedmont backs are as light blue as the example that was shown to compare against the card in question.

There are plenty of legitimate Piedmont T205s that have strong, darker blue backs which can easily look almost black depending on the scanner.

I don't see anything in the scans that makes me think that it isn't an authentic T205.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Leon, do you eat bon-bons in front of the TV when Judge Judy is on?

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

SGC got it right. The Cobb is counterfeit. No question.

What is the tell? Is it simply your experience or is there a simple thing we aren't seeing?

It would also be interesting to see the entire auction as it appear back in the day if you still have it.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

I sent an email to Michael Goldberg at SGC with scans and a note about the discussion on the NET54 Forum about the card. I'll let you know what Michael tells me. I am considering sending the card Newell bought from me, although it still burns me up.
Too bad he does not read this forum or have someone read it to him. He might consider doing something good with this situation. No matter what he should have returned my payment as soon as I notified him about SGC deeming the card couterfeit.
I know there are many members on this board who would have done the right thing. I have read many times about problems with items, even years later and the "Good Guys" did make good on the deal.

Thanks again for all of your input, suggestions and support.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: D.C. Markel

...never mind.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

What should the statute of limitations be for counterfeits?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

DC not sure how you came to that conclusion. many here may have settled the issue when it occured. I am of the opinion that there is no statute of limitations on collectables that are deemed Fake. The OP said he tried to get his refund/return not years later but around the same time that he bought it. He claims he sent it to SGC and they returned it as counterfeit. What bothers me (if true) is the seller claiming it was once in a SGC slab. Like always we only get half the story, so I am basing my assumptions strictly on what the OP has said.

I never really answered the question as to what he should do now with the card that this person bought recently. IMO he should weigh two things. 1....is it a good price for said card? if it is send it to the guy, leave no feedback and move on. 2.....Can he do better selling it again? If so I'd tell the guy that he is not getting the card and Id relist it.

In no way would I advise the OP to commit mail fraud or do anything illegally.


The above advice is free too.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: D.C. Markel

Steve,

Sorry. I misread the original post. I thought the card was submitted for grading a few years after it was purchased.

I do believe there is a time limit to when someone has the right to return a card. A month or two after the purchase - upon receiving results from a grading company - definitely. A few years later - probably not.

In the final analysis for me, it's a moot issue. I'd never spend more than $100 for a raw card and I'd never sell a pre-WWII HOF card ungraded unless it was in fair to poor condition.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill

Leon,
your basing your argument on judge judy? she merely did that to show them to never do it again.
if the seller didn't mean to sell him a fake, thats different but the auction is AS-IS AND NO GUARANTEE , how is it the sellers fault? he labeled it in pre-1950. its the problem of the buyer. if the seller wont refund the money, what do you want to happen leon? lawyers involved etc etc? think practical for a change....

example : if i walk into an antique store, see a card labeled t205 cobb. look at the card and pay the 1200 bucks for it, thinking its real. not ask any questions on it. get it graded, comes back COU. you think an antique store would refund the money? haha in your dreams. its the same idea. no words of authentication or money back guarantee. you cant "assume" he will refund your money. see the point?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott M.

Hi Steve,

I appreciate the detective work that you did in comparing your scan with the scan of the card in question but I would caution that unless you have two scans taken with the same scanner and same resolution then you can't really be sure that your scans are on the same scale.

For arguments sake, here is a scan of my T205 Cobb scanned at 300 dpi and pasted over the initial picture of the card in question. The only thing I've done with the initial picture is to rotate it to the right to straighten it out and then paste the image of my T205 Cobb to the right of it.

I'm not saying that you couldn't be correct and the card in question might be counterfeit but I don't think you can make this determination based simply on comparing it to a scan of another card.



In case anyone is curious, here is the front of the card I used in the comparison above...

http://www.sgccardregistry.com/images.asp?cardid=43849&usetid=1778

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have seen worse things than Judge Judy as basing one's case on. I think for the most part she gets the law correct. We can agree to disagree on this one...take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Well, Leon, you based your opinion on Judge Judy and the prevailing law. But why should that get in the way of a good argument?

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

T206king, your example of buying a card at an antique is not the same as buying cards from a card dealer. Back in the days where you could find cards and collectibles in an antique store, you take your chances. I did this many time, of course an antique store would not have a $1200.00 price on a card like this one. That was the name of the game years ago, flea markets, antique stores and garage sales. A collector took his chances with very little money involved.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Scott,

I agree with your post regarding the size/scale of the scans. However, I think the problem that Steve is pointing out with his comparison is that the borders or lines that surround the writeup on the reverse make a different size box in each of the two cards. In your example, the lines still generally match up and the boxes surrounding the writeup on top and the ad on the bottom are the same size in both cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Bill, your analogies make no sense whatsoever. The card was posted in the Pre-1930s category. Case closed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

So Bill. Let me get this straight. You are saying that you could go onto the BST, write some artfully worded ads for vintage cards, sell them at market value, and send out reprints. And come back the next day to do it again, claiming the right to make sales in this manner because you never really SAID they were 100% authentic. Do I have that right? Do you think Leon would let that go on for long? Can you see why not? Would you be good with buying a $500 card off the BST, receiving a reprint and having Leon and the seller say that's okay? Your ethical standards for sellers are pretty low.


Another thing that has gotten missed in this whole unfortunate thing is Joe's character. The seller has had several people vouch for his honesty, and his present ebay feedback seems to support this. But his stated reason for not refunding Joe's money when the reprint was brought to his attention (within, it seems, a reasonable time) was that Joe may have switched the card.

The thought of Joe switching out a card in an attempt to steal $1200 from someone is laughable. It's easily as unlikely as this seller intentionally defrauding someone. And yet, the seller bascially said he was keeping the $1200 because Joe may have - probably? - planned to return a reprint instead of the card he got. Huh?

See, the bad thing about this episode of "Something Went Wrong Between Two Good Guys" is that after the dust settles, the one that is out $1200 is Joe. That seems unfair, and I'm surprised the seller isn't at least willing to talk compromise - even after all this time - now that he can see from this board that Joe did not switch cards.

Joe - I'd send it back to SGC first of all. It looks pretty good to me, and if the seller says it was once in an SGC slab maybe the rejection was the mistake. As to the $400, I'm just dying to tell you to keep it as partial payment of the $1200. I understand the arguments about whether that would make you a "good person" or not, but for some reason the seller seems to be getting a free pass on the "good person " front because of his reputation in the hobby. I'm not sure I see how his keeping $1200 by suggesting you would cheat him on a return is any different than you, in good faith, keeping his $400 for a card that got rejected by SGC. Definitely very gray areas we are in here.

In the end though, I think you are right to do exactly what you are doing. Don't sell him the card. That would be the final straw in the unfairness here. Keep it, let him have his $400 back, but don't lift one finger to make it easy for him to get it. Tell him to have at it and come get it, and if it is still in your account in 30 days you are keeping it. It might not be much, but it does put you on higher moral ground than he is (and certainly after this thread in which it should be clear to him by now that he may have, indeed, accidentally sold you a reprint).

And resubmit to SGC. That will be interesting.

J

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott M.

Hi Josh,

Yes, I understood what Steve was getting at in comparing the lines on his image to that of the card in question.

I just don't think its valid to compare the two cards like that without insuring that the images are scanned at exactly the same resolution/size.

That was the point of my scanning the back of my T205 and showing that it matches up with the card in question.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I got it now - and of course your point well taken/made. I was a little bleary eyed last night when I posted and for some reason it went right over my head. I thought you were comparing your card to the other original (not the card in question).

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Bill - what's your ebay ID so I can know not to ever buy anything from you?

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Scott, an open mind is a good thing -to a point. You're analysis would be valid if Joe's card was trimmed (significantly) I just hate to see Joe waste two weeks and another... What $25? on shipping back to Jersey for a resub.

I'm glad at least Josh sees the flaw has nothing whatever to do with the scanner.

On initial inspection this card could fool many. It is a convincingly aged COU. Outside of the lack of chipping (for the condition) color and clarity on the front coupled with improper scaling and elongated type on the back, this card now screams fake. I'm a PSA guy, mostly but SGC made the right call on this.

Sure like to see a blacklight comparison.

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

Hello fellow Guys and Gals collectors.

Here is an email I received from Newell, my response is below his email. Not sure if he took my advice to check out the NET54 forum discussion.
I do have one question, do I have to cancel the sale to send his money back or can he do the whole thing from his end? I think I will keep the card and give him his money back.

Joe



From: BRN1939@aol.com
To: jmaples0871@charter.net
Subject: Re: Mino on EBAY
Size: 3 KB

AS I SEE IT YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS

1. SEND CARD AND EXCHANGE FEEDBACKS

2. REFUND THE MONEY AND NO FEEDBACK EXCHANGE

3. FILE REPORT WITH EBAY AND PAYPAL WHICH WILL SURELY CAUSE YOU PROBLEMS
IN ANY ADVENT YOU CANNOT KEEP THE CARD AND THE MONEY............YOUR CHOICE LET ME KNOW HOW YOU WISH TO HANDLE IT


From: jmaples0871@charter.net
To: BRN1939@aol.com
Subject: Re: Mino on EBAY
Size: 1 KB

I'll let you know on Monday, lot's of discussion on the NET54 Forum site about this situuation. You might want to take a look at the comments.
Subject on NET54 Site "What would you do?"





Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob Dewolf

Wow, Joe, nice helping of attitude you received.

In any "advent," I'm sorry you got caught up in such a crappy situation.

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank B

Situations like this come up frequently in my business.
One oft-used solution is arbitration by peers and that decision
is final. I would suggest honoring the latest transaction and
ask for arbitration on the previous one. Sounds like both
are good guys and both experienced. They should have
no problem putting it in the hands of others who will
make a decision based on what's fair and good for all.

One possible problem is that many have weighed in on how
they view this matter so getting the parties to agree on
the arbiter(s) may be an issue. Compromise is usually the
answer in a case like this. No harm was intended it seems.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Joanne as usual makes very compelling remarks.


Jo, make it hard for him to get his dough back, make him do all the work.


Judge Judy, she was able to call the thief a thief cuz the seller in the cell phone transaction listed the item as weighing a certain amount when in fact the picture she sent was not the same weight. That is what the judge based her decision on if my memory is correct.


Bill...........you must be kidding.


All.........Sellers of sportscards (or whatever) are bound forever if they sell a fake (or reprint) as legit. Regardless if they knew or didn't know at the time of sale.



again, jmo



Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Simeone

Joe ,
I changed my mind in what I first said to you to do with the card. I think looking at the responses you have recieved I feel you would be justified in anything you want to do with the card. Newell may be a stand up guy in some peoples eyes but his handling of this situation was just wrong. Weather he knew or not ,or his eyesite is bad arenot very good excuses,and doesnt excuse him from now being just a common thief in my eyes. Sorry you lost the 1200 and Newell if you are reading this your a sorry excuse of a person. I guess your reputation was worth 1200! But as Ive seen when it comes to money even the most STAND UP guy isnot always honest.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

I heard a very similar story at the National about how Brooks just can't see the cards well enough to tell what he's dealing in. So you're not alone Joe.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

The funniest responses were from people, after learning that the seller was legally blind, suggested that Joe had no choice now but to drop his beef. I don't care if the seller doesn't have opposable thumbs: a rip-off is a rip-off. While I believe that the seller didn't knowingly rip Joe off, he still has to stand behind his product which, in this case, very well may have been a fake.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- this is yet another case of blind American justice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

it shouldn't be too hard to make a comparison of the card as it looks now to the picture from the original auction. There are clear "markings" that will prove if it is the same card. if so, a refund is in order - with interest I might add!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Regardless of someone's situation a deal is a deal...a bad deal is a bad deal. There is a fairly big issue I get to be part of right now, on the BST pages, where one member is having big personal problems. That's sort of a bummer, and I am sympathetic, but the situation still needs to be handled. One of the participants is very understanding but the other is not being quite as easy to deal with.

I hope this Cobby situation gets worked out satisfactorily but I have my doubts.....In the end we should all try to treat each other the way we want to be treated...I know I try to.....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Part of the problem with resolving this problem is that people have not established conclusively that the Cobby is counterfeit. Although SGC makes few mistakes, this could be one of them.

The statute of limitations for fraud starts when the fraud is first discovered so that should not be an issue here. However, here in CA you need to return the item promptly if you want to claim fraud.

Federal law may also apply, but I haven't found the specific statute yet.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott M.

I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind on the issue.

How do you explain the image of the back of my T205 which resides in an SGC 50 holder next to the card in question where the back lines up just fine?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter, I thought you weren't sleeping nights because some scumbag ripped off a blind person?

[Archive]

Posted By: G. Maines

What I would do is: I would look at the green area of the card under about
50x magnification (with my $25 pocket microscope obtained from the internet)
and if I saw yellow, pink, blue or black dots, I would be concerned that the
card was made after WWII, but if I saw only green dots, I would be assured
that it was made prior to WWII - when t205 prices were so low that nobody
would bother to make a fake.
Then I would check the gold border to see if it was real gold, or just gold
printing.

http://www.cycleback.com/baseballcards/twelve.html

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

We're all trying to authenticate this from a scan, which is not always easy to do. But I would think that if most of us had the card in hand, we could tell in half a minute.

[Archive]

Posted By: sagard

This guy is now bullying you with his three options email. The bottom line is you seem more trustworthy than the buyer. I believe he whether it was inadvertant or not stole $1200 from you. At this point I would claim the $400 as payment on that debt and if he wants to have a good old fashion Ebay war then so be it. His eyes are not an excuse for the way he is acting now or then.

Keep in mind there could be unpleasant Ebay and Paypal consequences. If your perfect record or PayPal utility is worth more than $400 to you then you need to decide which option is best.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Scott,

Anyone can see that you're card has been enlarged vertically, of course the print blocks of both will now align properly. After looking at those scans of equally sized cards, and you still can't agree that the printed portion on the SGC/COU is significantly larger, then I concede this issue. Steve F



"A blink is as good as a nod to a blind mule." Deputy Fife

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I agree with Sagard. Funny how now the seller has a myriad of logical choices for Joe now -- but was unable to produce any choices at all for Joe when he sold him a fake card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott M.

No reason to conceed the issue. I think we are having a healthy discussion.

Regarding the image of my card, it was not enlarged at all. It was scanned at 300 dpi and then proportinately reduced in size to match the size of the card in question. Note that my card has a bit more border on the bottom and, as such, extends a bit beyond the image of the card in question.

You made the following statement: "After looking at those scans of equally sized cards". That is part of my point in the matter. How do you know from the scans that you are comparing equally sized cards?

IMO, the card in question could very well be real but a bit short top to bottom while the two examples you are comparing it with obviously have much more border on the bottom in particular.

If this is the case and the image of the "full" cards are resized to the same image size as that the "shorter" card then it would distort the comparison of the cards and would look a lot like what you've shown.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I am just saying that I don't think we can say definitively either way based upon the scans.