Old Judge Proofs?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I have nothing to add.

I just wanted to be Post #100 !!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Seth--Interesting post. Now we see that three major auction houses, one major vintage card dealer, and our own photographic expert have said that these items are not vintage. I think it is time for American Memorabilia to say why they think it is vintage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

who the 'major' dealer was that Seth sold them to. NOT TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT. I think he's being totally forthright in his coming to the board to give the details. They're at $4400 or so now (or were), so someone made a good deal if they got them for $1K. It would be difficult for AM to admit they're not period (if they're not) since it was the basis for the cover of their auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

LET ME MAKE A GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENT---I will sell my group of four Flynn images (the same ones that Seth cut up and are being auctioned now) for the current bid, without the buyer's premium, of $4400. Please email me at curl777@aol.com if interested.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Will any board members be at Ft Washington this weekend to examine the Flynns?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay MIller

Did anyone catch what is on the cover of this week's SCD? You guessed it--the American Memorabilia auction catalog with the Flynn piece on the cover. I guess both AM and SCD have alot invested in these pieces being vintage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian Weisner

Hi Jay,
You beat me to it...............




Be well Brian

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

The "cover" to which you refer is a mailing wrapper and is a paid advertisement by American Memorabilia.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

I believe the record is 167

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1054127903&lp=1055948439

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Bob--It is absolutely amazing to me but you are wrong on this. The cover, not the mailer, pictures the American Memorabilia catalog. In fact, I called SCD just to make sure I was correct and asked if this was on the cover and not the mailer and they said cover. As far as I can tell, you're 0 for 2 on this material.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

and the "Memorabilia" cover (or in this case, mailer). I THINK you're both right...Bob says that the MAILER of the auction is pictured on the SCD cover (there's NOTHING on the SCD MAILER--never has been).

Anyway, how else would A.R. got on ---higher than I can count--SCD covers except for $$$? It's still a paid ad, no matter which it is....

I hope...you see, I don't have one...

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Julie,

This issue of the SCD (or mailing cover) could become a VBC collectible. Anyone got one that they would like to put on ebay. You could post a message in the B/S/T thread. I'd pay a buck for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

It's amazing how this thread and tbob's thread about his "proof" cards are so similar. The parties owning the cards want to live a fantasy about what they have even though the evidence says clearly says otherwise.

Seems to me like it's time for some people to put up, or shut up in regards the their fantasies. And from where I sit, SCD is taking a hit in regards to their image and reputation with debacle. If I were SCD, I'd be trying to distance myself from this mess.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Wierd, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I went to the Ft Washington show yesterday and had the opportunity to meet Nick and the rest of the folks from American Memorabilia and see the Flynn images. First, let me say that Nick was very nice and helpful, a real gentleman. However, nothing I saw after examining the images changed my view that they are not period and were not produced by Goodwin & Co. Actually, the most interesting thing about the Flynn images was reading the catalog descriptions. The introductory sentence + to the section of the catalog describing these images states:

"Vintage card expert Bob Lemke recently delivered an in-depth report in the pages of Sports Collectors Digest regarding a group of newly discovered Old Judge proof cards which served as models for Goodwin's standard N172 issue. This catalog offers four of these rarities......."

After reading that it makes it sound like Bob is the resident expert who proclaimed these to be good. This doesn't give me a really warm feeling. Secondly, later in the introductory paragraph it states that the image's mountings are "absolutely unviolated". Am I having a senior moment or didn't Seth say that he had the group of four images cut up into four individual images. Sounds violated to me and it also sounds like this was a display piece. Finally, unfortunately for me and these images these are exactly the same images that I have on a four image Flynn display piece. Hardly unique proof images.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

jay
can you post an image of your set of flynn photos

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

David--Since this is a framed piece I would have to take a picture with a digital camera and then download it. Since I don't have a digital camera this involves borrowing one and, in all honesty, it's more of a pain in the ass than it's worth. Imagine the four American Memorabilia pieces put back together as if Seth had never done his hatcket job and you'll be there.

[Archive]

Posted By: rhys

Couldn't you tell by placing these under a black light that they are the ones Seth had since the sides have been trimmed? At the very least these could then be trimmed items which should have been detectable to a photographic "expert" and that should be mentioned IMHO in the auction discription.

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: George Layne

Tintypes and daguereotypes and other " positive in the camera " images can be made unreversed with the use of a reversing prism or mirror. Such devices were readily available, written about etc. as early as the 1840s-50s. Any knowledgeable expert on nineteenth century images would be aware of this. Not all photographers used them, but a tintype could certainly be made unreversed.

George Layne, Philadelphia

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

that in the case of these items, an "expert" is anyone who supports your opinion of what you are trying to sell

[Archive]

Posted By: tim mayer

wish I had paid alittle more interest in this,,,I am a bit disapointed that something so suspect made it into the auction. I have bid on a few items, and I hope I win a couple , but I really think if an item has any doubt about its authenticity it should be pulled,,,,it's hard to trust an auction house if you know that they know that they have items that might not be real..even one person saying its bad should be enough for me

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Has anyone checked out the four Flynn lots ending this evening? The total for the four lots, so far, is $23,285. Yes, you are reading correctly. Underbidders, I have the same items except not cut up into four individual pieces. You can buy these at a discount to these high bids.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

are reading any of this stuff, except tim

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary B.

the unfortunate aftermath of something like this thread for me is that i would be very hard pressed to trust an american memorobilia auctoin after this. i was chatting with another net54 member and they felt the same way. they might make $25,000 plus on those "proofs," but is it worth the cost in negative publicity and potetntial buyers not trusting them anymore?

i don't want to put them down, as every other auction they have might be completely legitimate (and for all i know the proofs are legitimate), but this thread on the proofs casts a sad shadow of doubt, at least for me, that erodes my trust in them...

[Archive]

Posted By: tim Mayer

I am thankful for all the comments, it was great reading, and very useful. I would like to say you all saved me some money, but I would have lost hours ago anyway, even if I had decided to stay in...I didn't stay in though,,,I am not dumb,,,the evidence is overwhelming.I amazed at the prices that are being realized as we speak. Someones going to be real unhappy in a year or two when they can't resell them.

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

Check out the prices and think about what you could have been able to pick up somehwere else for over $45,000!

Rhys

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...but when I received their catalog, I checked to see if the "proof" auction was indeed described as this thread indicates. When I saw that was the case, I threw my catalog in the trash without reading further.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nickinvegas

Gentlemen & Julie,
I just wanted to take the opportunity to thank those who supported our September Auction. In regards to the Old Judge Proofs, there were several bright and experienced hobby pro's that felt they were extraordinary and authentic. Last night as I viewed the list of bidders I saw several of the hobby heavyweights bidding on the proofs. At the Fort Washington show I shared in discussions and inspected the items with several of the hobby's best dealers and collectors and with one exception they agreed with our assertion of authenticity. And I think the final price on the Proofs spoke volumes. This, like any debate had two sides. Keep in mind the side of truth is not always the loudest side...

As I have mentioned before, I will be handling and approving all future vintage baseball auction listings. I started just after this auction began. Having been an active member of this board for several years I can assure you that board members will get premium service! Please take a moment to register, just write "Nick-NET54" as your reference. I will personally take care of your transactions beginning to end. Registration is Free.

Our current auction has some great items. We are looking for consignments for the Big Holiday Auction. We will have over 300 vintage baseball cards listed including several Old Judges(no proofs, just cards.) And of course the usual great selection of game used uniforms.

Thanks again for your support.

Sincerely,
Nick Martinez
American Memorabilia
Auctions: 1-800-430-0667

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

Can we have some of the names of these hobby veterans who looked at them and proclaimed them real?

I have not seem them myself, but was just wondering who does think they are real.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I was just wondering the same thing. Without getting these hobby veterans to step and put their name on the line, it's no better than the eBay scam artist claiming that he's had paper experts and other "experts" look at his item to declare it real. Ol' Blue Eyes comes to mind right off the top of my head.

There are a lot of hobby vets that have been willing to step and say there ARE NOT legit, yet it doesn't seem that many hobby vets of similar stature are willing to put their reputations on the line to say they are what you claim they are.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

It went as you hoped - that's good for you. I don't think anyone on this board had any reason to want these items to be something other than what you described - in fact, most of us get really excited when something that is new and real surfaces...but this wasn't it.

As far as "hobby heavyweights", anyone with a large amount of money and a wilingness to spend freely must be one of these. Personally, I know several huge spenders who have some of the largest and most valuable collections in the hobby, and who know about as much as the novices who buy t206 reprints...and that's fine - I don't go them when I need expert advice. What bothers me is that the auction houses are indeed more concerned with the money of the "hobby heavyweights" than with the opinions of the experts.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

The problem with this 'debate' (I supose we could debate if the color blue is blue too), is that my assesment of these proofs is accurate, and those who disagree are ingorant. It's as simple as that. You can argue with me about this, but you'd be wrong.

Only for the sake of argument in this paragraph, let's say the proofs are authentic. Why hasn't the AM auction description been ammended to say that these were owned by Seth N. and he stated publicly that he had these chopped down from a larger piece? I haven't collected cards in a while, but I've been under the assumtion that things like trimming and altering (cutting a thing into four smaller pieces being an example of alteration) were of significance in the trading card hobby. Has AM decided that these things are mere technicalities that should be withheld from potential bidders? What other things and kinds of things has AM decided are mere technicalites that should be witheld? In which lots?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Unbelieveable, David. How can your assessment of the Old Judge pictures be accurate when you admittedly never personally examined them?
I did.
And to quote the Teri Hatcher character on an old Seinfeld episode, "They're real and they're fabulous!"

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Last winter, I was asked to formally examine a series of proofs by a highly respected person at MastroNet. Some people know who this person is, but he asked me that his name not be included in any Net54 brewhaha (can't fault him there). Independantly (we live over 1,000 miles apart from each other), both he and I agreed that the proofs were not legitimate, and MastroNet rejected them for their auction. This person originally thought them fake, but promised the consignor he would get a second opinion (me).

When the AM auction started, I didn't have a catalog or SCD or pictures and wasn't sure what was being offered. I was later told by this person at MastroNet that the AM proofs were the same ones I examined in person.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

It is now known that these were cut down recently at a frame or whatever shop. They were originally a multi photo framed display, and Seth had them cut into cabinet-style photos.

When I examined them (I got them in the mail), I didn't know this history. However, I could clearly see that the edges were cut recently. The cuts were not neat die-cuts like an real cabinet card, but were kind of funky cut. Almost as if they were cut with a big paper cutter. The edges were obviously first exposed to the world just recently, as the exposed cardstock was as clean and fresh as a dewy morn. I even remarked specifically about this when I talked on the phone to the person at MastroNet.

At least when I saw them, most any person on the street or a 75 year old neighbor or casual friend or my mailman would have have judged that they were cut recently and not in the 1880s. I'm not exagerating! The edges were so new and un-die cut that some may have even wondered if I had just cut them myself.

This is why, irrelevant to any issue of authenticity, I found it bizarre when an auction house would judge the proofs as to have never been tampered with.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Bob--I hope you provide the same reference of authenticity for my proofs when they come up for auction as they are exactly the same as these. And, before you ask, I saw the AM ones at Philadelphia so I am positive that they are the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Daid, you seem to be confusing the photos themselves with their current mounting. I do not disagree that the cardboard on which the photos are mounted is a latter-day accommodation. I am saying, and have said all along, that it is my considered opinion that the photos are genuine late 19th Century vintage. They were likely mounted and framed at a later date, (then unframed at an even later date). That should not affect the value of the photos themselves any more than slabbing a 19th Century card in a 21st Century plastic case affects the value or authenticity of the card itself.
And Jay, unlike some persons, I would not express an opinion on the authenticty of your grouping (or anything else) without personally examining it.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bob, you are well respected in this hobby, but to compare mounting a photo to a cardboard back to slabbing a card is absurd. This means that cards mounted in scrapbooks ahould be just as valuable as slabbed cards.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Bob, all 19th century albumen prints were originally mounted-- the photo paper was so thin that they had to be or they would curl up into little cigarettes. The original mount, with name of studio or photographer or other information, is as inseperable a part of the cabinet card as the Sweet Caporal back to a Honus Wagner or the sleaves to a Joe DiMaggio game worn Yankees jersy. The original mount is quite simply a part of the cabinet card, and removing the print from the mount is destroying the overall photo. Any sport or non sport 19th century photo collector knows that if you peel the photographic print from a cabinet you have significanctly reduced the financial value. Any Old Judge N173 collector on this board knows that if you peel the print form a N173, you've probably reduced the value by 80 or 90 percent.

Assuming for the sake of argument these prints are authentic as you say, this means that the prints would have had to have been pealed from the original mount, pasted to a new mount, then cut down at a framing shop.

Are you saying that if someone peels the photographic print from a 1869 Peck & Snynder or 1887 Four Base Hits King Kelly and had them remounted at the local frame shop into 11x14 display pieces, this will have no effect on the value? Irrelevant to value, are you saying it's okay for an auction house to knowing withold the information that the Peck & Snyder and Four Base Hits were restored substantially in recent times?

You have no problem attacking my position, but you sure seem loathe to say one thing bad about AM withholding that the 'unaltered proofs' have been, as you yourself said, far from their original state.

Bob, do you honestly beleive that the bidders would bid the same amount of money if they were told by American Memorabilia that the proofs were remounted and put under a papercuter at a frame shop a year or two ago?

Do you honestly beleive that the winner(s) of the proofs will have no care one way or the other if he finds out that the proofs are not on the original and unaltered mounts as AM 'authenticated' but have been altered/remounted at least twice in modern times?

Do you honestly beleive the winner will be content and smiley the moment he finds out that AM knew about the restoration early in the auction but chose not to tell bidders?

Bob, if you weren't an employee of SCD but the winning bidder, what would be your feelings if you found out six months or a year later that the auction house knew about but chose to to disclose such modern alterations and restorations? After an experience like that would you bid in another of their auctions?

The financial significance of rebacking or restoring a photo or print or baseball card can be debated, but the rebacking or restoring that is known to the seller aways (e.g. without exception) has to disclosed to the potential buyers. It is up to the potential bidders, not the auction house witholding the information, to decide the financial or aesthetic significance of the substantial alteration to a baseball card, cabinet card, premium or vase.

... The proofs are fakes AND altered. Any way American Memorabilia's apologists try and slice it, it's not a pretty sight.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

What the Flynn proofs are mounted on today cannot in any way be compared to a Wagner card's front and back or a Peck & Snyder, or even an Old Judge cabinet. Those items were intended to be issued to the public in the manner in which you see them today. There was never any such intent with the proof photos. They would have been mounted on something sturdy -- surely NOT a printed Goodwin or other identified cabinet backing -- so that they were protected and viewable by the cigarette people, the printer or whomever participated in deciding whether or not the image made it into production as an N172 or N173. Is a Rembrandt worth any less if it's mounted in a 19th Century frame than a 17th Century frame? As for the buyers . . . anybody who plunks down $10,000 or $20,000 on any item in this hobby should have the sense to thoroughly investigate their proposed purchase regardless of what the seller or numerous uninvolved third parties have to say.

I am going to conclude my participation in this particular "debate". We still seem to be missing each other's points and are unlikely to change anybody's mind.

[Archive]

Posted By: david

certainly if the backing was replaced and the piece was cut up into four individual 'proofs' this should have been disclosed by the auction house. for AM not to do so is irresponsible. also, i would like to know who was able to remove the albumen photo from the original backing and the put it on another backing causing ZERO damage to the photographic images all the while displaying no evidence of the change in mounting. i will put this offer out to the winners of the auction if they are there. there is a lab in my dept that tests fake currency, stamps etc. i would be willing to have the lab perform a forensic examination on the proofs to determine if the mount, photo and glue used to adhear the photo to the mount are period or not. perhaphs then this issue will be over with and we will all know for certain if the proofs are real or not

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

So I am a perfect candidate for the "jury" on this. Tabula rasa (blank slate) so to speak. Here are my reactions:

If AM knew the checkered history of these photos, AM absolutely had to disclose it. I would be very pissed off if I bought a vintage photo on a modern board and the seller knew that the item had been cut down, peeled, remounted, etc.

I simply cannot believe that altering the item by removing it from its existing old mount and remounting it on new board would not alter the value of the item. Apples ain't oranges (to steal a phrase): I cannot believe that a vintage period piece is worth the same as a piece that is partly vintage and party contemporary. Watch Antiques Roadshow; when you restore an antique, you affect its value (and no, I am not talking about cleaning it, de-acidifying it, etc., although that too can affect value).

I do not believe that peeling the photos and remounting them is an appropriate means of conservation framing for these photos and that leads me to believe that the current condition should be disclosed in full. I spent a great deal of my misguided youth working as a framer. No museum would EVER chop down a mounted piece, peel it, and remount the image. At most, they would place the pieces of paper between plexi or mylar or glass and store it that way in a "sandwich". What happened to these images is simply unprofessional.

[Archive]

Posted By: scgaynor

A couple of questions:

There are ways of removing the photo from the backing wihtout damaging the photo itself, but did David Rudd base his opinion that they were not authentic only on the mount? It does not sound like it based on his responses above.

Since the word "proof" is stamped on the back of the mount, and the mount is not vintage, what other reason could somebody have to stamp "Proof" on the back of the mount unless they were intending to deceive?

Is there anybody else out there, except AM and Bob Lemke, that is willing to say that they are authentic? Somebody who deals in 19th century material and would know. It really should not be that hard to tell if the prints are modern or vintage. For those of us that deal in 19th century photos on a regular basis, all that you have to do is look at the item, and hold it in your hand, all of the forensic tests are not needed. It would be about as easy as telling a real Goudey Lajoie from the one pulled from the Bert Sugar book.

Scott

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

AM has an ethical responsibility to inform prospective bidders that at the very least there is a controversy regarding whether or not the proofs are period, and that bidders should take this into consideration before making their decisions. From my experience in this area, auctions houses can be told the same thing from any number of experts and will still do nothing. Several years ago Sotheby's photo department sold a full plate tintype purported to be Jim Creighton. It was categorically and undeniably not Jim Creighton, and as an early baseball expert I can say this with 100% certainty. I went down to Sotheby's along with several other experts to tell the head of the photo department that it was positively not Creighton and that if they did not want to pull the lot they should at least make an announcement before the lot went up. They of course wanted nothing to do with this, and refused several expert opinions even though at the time they had nobody on the staff who really even knew who Jim Creighton was. They identified him solely on the word of a less than scrupulous consignor. And as far as Bob Lemke's statement that anyone who spends $10,000 or $20,000 on an object should do their homework, I must tell you that in this overheated market buyers are quick to throw money around without doing much homework at all. If it looks impressive in the catalog, they will accept the opinion of the auction house. I have not personally viewed the Flynn proofs so I do not wish to render an opinion, but for AM not to disclose that there have been many experts who have doubted their authenticity is plainly fraudulent. There is no controversy there.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

David Rudd wrote:

"So, from what I gather from this thread, Bob Lemke, editor of the Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards, beleives that auction houses should not be compelled to disclose to bidders that antique or vintage items have been substantially retsored or altered in recent times, as it's the bidder's responsibility to figure it out him or herself.

Is this Sports Collectors Digest's official policy, or it just your personal one?"

OK. I went back and re-read every post by Lemke on this longwinded thread, and I can't find a post in which he states anything like what you are implying, David. While his "buyer beware" point is certainly overly casual, he never states that "auction houses should not be compelled to disclose..." as you write. Frankly I find what you wrote to be potentially libellous and your implication troubling.

For the record, I don't know Bob Lemke - never met him or spoken to him, just exchanged a few emails with him. I'm also not an expert by any stretch of the imagination in the area of 19th century material - I have no opinion either way on the piece under discussion. I just hate to see a man's reputation dragged through the mud, especially after he has already said he won't post about this issue any longer.

If I missed something in this thread that Bob wrote that matches what David implies, which is possible, I will be the first one to post an apology to David.

I'm sure that I'm going to regret ever getting involved in this one...

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Jeff, all I am hoping for is that Bob will say that he beleives AM should have disclosed to bidders that they knew the proofs were altered and/or restored in modern times. That is all I am asking for.

Am I asking for too much?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff O

No, that's not asking too much. But if that's what you want to ask, just ask it and don't put words in Bob's mouth... words that he didn't say (or write) and that could be very damaging to a reputation that has been built over 25 years in the hobby.

Again, I'm not saying who's opinion is right or wrong in this matter. I can only form an opinion based on what I've read... and as I wrote before, I certainly don't have enough experience in this area to be comfortable in voicing that opinion.

I just hate seeing someone accused of saying or writing something that they did not. I have seen this kind of stuff happen too many times in my line of work dealing with bodily injury lawyers (disclaimer - I'm only referring to a very small number of specific BI lawyers... most of them are honest and ethical) who will turn around something that was said and then make unfounded accustations.

If you want his opinion, or need him to clarify a statement, simply ask. It's better than implying something unfounded.

Jeff

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Obviously I disagree in the extreme with American Memorabilia and how they handled the auction, and, to a lesser degree, I have issues with the way Sports Collector's Digest handled it. SCD doesn't run American Memorabilia and may be under financial obligations that prevent them from being forthright, so I don't have near the grief towards them.

I have long admired Bob Lemke's work, and recommend his price guide and 'Sportscard Counterfeit Detector.' I will continue to recommend the books, as they are good ones.

I promise I won't post anymore on the subject, assuming Nick doesn't come on once again and post how wonderfully beautifully sexily authentic the photos are, and Bob doesn't claim that I'm wrong when I'm not (Helpful hint: The later is not a good technique to to keep quiet). As one sign of truce, I will remove the above admitedly goading post and replace with a Shrimpton.

There are people who disagree on this subject, and I am willing to call a truce


(soothing flowery 1970 Jean Shrimpton photo indicating peace and truce).

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Bob, you of all people should know that there are far too many people that pass thru the hobby that have alot more money than common sense. If the flavor of the day is baseball memorabilia, then they are going to drop some serius cash on the stuff to impress their friends, regardless if they know anything about the steff or not.

Jay

I saw weird stuff in that place last night. Weird, strange, sick, twisted, eerie, godless, evil stuff. And I want in.