My name is Mark P. Haverkos. At the end of September 2006, I won (bought) a purported 1930 Goudey Premium Babe Ruth Calendar Card from Clean Sweep Auctions. Since that time, I have attempted to authenticate the card, but thus far, everyone has told me that the card is neither original nor genuine – expect for Clean Sweep. I have a letter from PSA stating that this card in not genuine or original. I also have a letter from Bill Mastro stating the same. Verbally, by telephone, Rob Lifson has told me that he also believes the card is not authentic, although he has never held it in his hand or wanted to do so. Two other experts have also advised me that the card is not authentic. The only “letter of authenticity” that I have been able to get for the card is from Steve Verkman, President of Clean Sweep Auctions. I paid $18,775.00 (with the buyer's premium) to Clean Sweep Auctions for the card (auction ended 09/27/06). Based on my inability to have the card authenticated by anyone (other than Steve Verkman’s opinion) I requested a refund from Clean Sweep Auctions and who refused to give me a refund and told that they were not going to spend anymore time on it. Can anyone help me with this unfortunate situation? Does anyone have any information or know anything about this card? Your help would be greatly appreciated by me, as I have put many hours into trying to find any information on the card and have come up with absolutely nothing. Thank you for any help you can provide.
Below are pictures of the front and back of the card:
edited title to be more specific
This message has been edited by leonl on Mar 9, 2007 8:29 PM
Re: 1900's Babe Ruth Possible 1/1 - Please Help With Info!
March 8 2007, 10:37 PM
I am curious- What reasons did PSA give for its not being genuine? Did the fact Mastro and Lifson had never heard of the card before make them question its authenticity or did they make their decision based on the paper and printing, etc.? If you bought a card which is not original or not authentic or countefeit or a "cinderella," you have no recourse than to sue to have your money returned based on either fraud or misrepresentation.
I was the underbidder (bridesmaid) twice on this card. I will be very interested in seeing where this goes. I also would like to know, for my own edification, why those folks that think it's fake think the way they do. I am not, by any means, saying they are wrong or right, as I don't know. I would think if all of those folks mentioned, PSA, Bill Mastro, and Rob Lifson, all think it's fake....then it's probably fake. But I would still like to know why. Is the paper too new, the printing, are there dot patterns etc..??? Very interesting...Also, this could almost get into the realm of some forensic testing with the price it was sold at....
edited to put in "PSA" instead of "SGC" as that is what Mark had said...
This message has been edited by leonl on Mar 8, 2007 10:53 PM
Re: 1900's Babe Ruth Possible 1/1 - Please Help With Info!
March 8 2007, 11:18 PM
Well I'm sorry for you. To me, that card doesn't look like a 1930 baseball card. It may well be real, but I wouldn't give you $5 for it.
Have you looked at the print with a strong magnifying glass?? Have you illuminated the card with black light? Have you contacted an attorney about legal recourse, if any, against Clean Sweep?? Those would be good steps, especially the last. Or sell the card to the underbidder and take a loss. I think if you got much of anything at all for the card then you've done well to get out.
Does anyone have the description that Clean Sweep put on the auction? I vaguely recall something along the lines that the seller (who I guess won the item in the first auction) had some sob story which did not seem appropriate for an auction description. It just seemed odd.
That sucks that you spent $18K on a fake item. I guess my question would be why would you go this deep on a card that 1) is not graded 2) is not known to exist 3) is in this crappy auction 4) has a calander on the back? I don't like Stevie anyway, so I would sue him just because of that. I am not sure about the statue of limitations on this, so you might consult with an attorney on this one.
1900's Babe Ruth Possible 1/1 - Please Help With Info!
March 9 2007, 7:07 AM
According to Steve, the winning bidder bought the card for his son, and then the son was killed in an automobile crash and the distraught owner decided to sell it. I won't even question the veracity of the story.
One of the problems with this is it is unique, and therefore there are no other examples to compare it to. I would send it to a conservator, and pay a few hundred dollars to have him test the paper. If the paper is not consistent with what was out there ca. 1930, then you have a very strong case. If you just go by people's words and opinions you won't get anywhere with it.
Re: 1900's Babe Ruth Possible 1/1 - Please Help With Info!
March 9 2007, 8:10 AM
As I understand the law in New York State, if a lot is identified as being one thing and turns out to be something else, you have legal recourse. The key thing is where the identification occurs. It must be on the first line (often in bold type) right after the lot number, not in the descriptive paragraph(s) below. So in this case if the description read something like "Babe Ruth calendar card from 1930" and you can establish (for example by forensic testing) that the card could not have been made before, say, 1950, I think you're home free (assuming there are no statute of limitation problems); Clean Sweep would be legally required to take the card back and refund your money.
I do think, though, as others have mentioned, that perhaps the main lesson to be learned is the danger of buying something you've never seen before and that does not come with third party (e.g., SGC, PSA) authentication, especially when accompanied by some sob story explaining why the card is being resold again so soon. All auction houses have a conflict of interest in how they describe something, and it is always best to learn about an item from an individual or company that has no economic stake in what you do.
Re: 1900's Babe Ruth Possible 1/1 - Please Help With Info!
March 9 2007, 8:55 AM
Above I mentioned that I wouldn't pay $5 for the card... If the card was in a PSA slab I still wouldn't give you $5 for it. Slabbing isn't the solution. I can see it might help you sell it... it wouldn't help me buy it.
Don't call a lawyer, get some money together and go see a lawyer. Soon.
What are the dimensions of that Ruth card???
This message has been edited by Greatwake on Mar 9, 2007 9:36 AM
As a relatively inexperienced, but very enthusiastic collector, reading the above post is pretty scary. I realize stuff like this can happen on Ebay, but from an auction house?!? I thought auction businesses were required to be bonded for just such situations. From my business dealings (non-baseball), sweet-talk and polite asking simply doesn't accomplish anything when these type of disagreements arise. I know regardless of the outcome of this situation, I will never place a bid with this auction. I would greatly appreciate an update when this situation is resolved. Thanks.
Personally I've found Clean Sweep easy to deal with and have not yet had a problem. I'd like to hear his side of the issue.
This card looked ok to me when I saw it in past CSA catalogs, but if so many people of note (Mastro, Lifson, etc.) are standing up and questioning it's authenticity, then getting the paper tested is really the only way to be sure. In the end CSA may be willing to work something out if a concrete expert analysis proves that it's not vintage.
Good luck, I hope it all works out.
This message has been edited by AdamBaxter on Mar 13, 2007 5:19 PM
Some 5 years ago this card (perhaps another example) was submitted to Hunt auctions for sale. We corresponded at length about it and although I never saw it in person, the auction firm came to the conclusion it was not authentic nor vintage and returned it to the potential consignor. I doubt it has become any more genuine with the passing years.
I believe the answer to your question is "both". The running theme is that Goudey never made it AND it's not authentic. Also, please keep in mind, 1930's type cardboard can be found any day of the week.....It's the printing on the cardboard that needs to be tested, in my novice opinion. From my understanding the way some paper testing (and maybe ink testing too) is done is to prove when something could NOT have been made...thus eliminating certain time frames..So if the particles in the ink weren't invented until 1948 then we know it couldn't have been printed until then or later......Again, this is ALL conjecture on my part....I am just glad this issue isn't mine....
Leon is correct about how paper and ink are tested. If this were made recently, there would be chemicals found in the ink not known in 1930. If both the ink and paper were consistent with what was in use ca. 1930, then it is likely to be original. It's not hard to do, but it could be a bit expensive.
What are our standards for authenticity?
Unless noted, Clean Sweep Auctions only sells original items. We completely stand behind the authenticity of every item we sell. We will provide Letters of Authenticity from Clean Sweep Auctions upon request for all autographed items priced at $30 or more. Clean Sweep Auctions uses the strictest standards in the industry and does not sell any questionable items.
Although it also says that all sales are final in his auctions.
Nice to see Steve in hot water and I am sorry it is at the buyer's expense. I don't see Steve standing behind this one without pressure from an attorney--He is just that kind of guy.
To test paper or cardstock, a paper chemist takes a small piece of the stock and separates it into its tiny pieces and determines what they are. If one of the chemicals or substances or types of wood fiber was invented or introduced in 1950, the stock couldn't be from before 1950. Unlike, judging handwriting, it's all scientific and there are standard textbooks and university courses where you could learn the techniques. Presumably, most people who would do the tests would have a graduate degree in chemistry, paper chemistry, forestry products or something like that.
As is well known to many here, a simple test normal collectors due is to shine a black light on stock. If the stock fluoresces very brightly, it couldn't be from 1930, as the substance that fluoresces was introduced to paper/cardstock in the 1950s.
Printer's ink is much harder to date for various reasons.
As a side note, pen ink is relatively easy to date, in part as most pen manufacturers submit their formulas to the FBI. The FBI could determine which brand of pen you used.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 14, 2007 4:01 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 14, 2007 3:33 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 14, 2007 3:28 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 14, 2007 3:26 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 14, 2007 3:24 PM
"We completely stand behind the authenticity of every item we sell. We will provide Letters of Authenticity from Clean Sweep Auctions upon request for all autographed items priced at $30 or more. Clean Sweep Auctions uses the strictest standards in the industry and does not sell any questionable items."
If all sales are final, what does this really mean? To me, "standing behind" an item means taking it back if there is credible evidence that the item is not authentic. Otherwise, the "guaranty" is really just circular/meaningless. It's like a certificate of authenticity on an autograph -- anyone can give one.
Hopefully Clean Sweep is responding accordingly even if they aren't posting their views here.
What it means is that if Steve is selling it, it is authentic and there will be no refund checks cut. He is not offering a guarantee. He is merely putting down words that will make buyers feel more comfortable by giving them a false sense of security.
It would make an interesting case. I agree with Josh the "completely stand behind" language would be construed as a guaranty beyond Clean Sweep's mere subjective opinion, so the case would turn on whether the buyer could prove, through admissible evidence, that the card is not authentic. Hopefully for all concerned it will not come to that.
Actually, I think the buyer does have to provide overwhelming evidence that the card is no good to get a refund. That could either mean having it tested by a lab, or perhaps getting letters from the major grading services and other experts. I think the case hinges on documentation, not hearsay. Ultimately, it does have to get resolved one way or the other.
I was willing to spend it as I would have been fooled......I would have counted on Steve V to make it right had it not been good. No, I didn't buy it (thank goodness) but, as a type collector and if it were real, it would be a great card.....which is why I bid and was outbid....I don't "not bid" on something because it's unique. I have many unique "good" cards in my collection.....There seems to be overwhelming support for this card to be a fake...I am not sure why Steve doesn't just take the return and move on??...regards
"We completely stand behind the authenticity of every item we sell."
If that isn't a guaranty I don't know what is. The LOA language applies to autographed items and doesn't give CSA the right to send you a LOA and tell you to eat it. The problem, practically speaking, is that you have to prove everything to prevail, which is going to cost more than you spent.
I cannot believe that Verkman is doing what is presented. He has worked hard, really hard, to clean up his reputation. I don't know whether the loss on this card is worth the trashing he's going to take, both for accepting what is apparently a dodgy item and for refusing to deal with it.
If it were me and I spent $18K on the card I'd drop a few more dollars in to have the ink and paper tested. If the tests are conclusive and there is no way that it can be from 1930 then I'd contact CSA and let them know of revelation. I'd tell them that they are not only on the hook for the sale pice (including juice) they are now responsible for the paper testing bill. If CSA continues to ignore addressing the issue then I go to the hobby experts and get bonafide opinions on paper and send those to CSA with a law suit that is going to collect sales price + juice + paper testing + all expenses associated with contacting and getting letters from others + damages.
I figure there are a few legal experts here - is that possible? If so, then CSA might consider reviewing policy or possibly taking the card back, having the test done by an agreed upon independent lab and then probably abiding by the opinion of the lab.
Dan Bretta made one of the best points yet: "1930 is a full three years before Goudey produced cards of any type." If that's the case then it's almost like case closed.
I would buy a $10 black light and see how the card fluoresces. If it fluoresces brightly, it's modern.
I would then get a microscope and see if it's photoengraving printing, which would be consitent with the period. If it is or isn't would prove definitely, but would offer insight.
If Bill Mastro and Rob Lifson all say it's not original, that's as good of evidence as anything. I don't know of an experienced collector who would buy a card knowing Mastro and Lifson are of the opinion is fake. That would comparable to buying a Babe Ruth autographed ball knowing that it had considered fake by both PSA/DNA and JSA.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 19, 2007 3:40 PM
I have seen this piece before, but not with the Ruth illustration on the front. It was the calendar back only. If memory serves me correctly, it was about 4 x 6'' and printed on ink blotter type paper (I thought it was an ink blotter). It was even scuffed up like the one pictured here. At first glance it looked right, but after I looked closely I turned it down. Take that for whatever it is worth.
If you're having tests on it you may run into a "Catch 22". The testing process requires samples to be taken from the card which would possibly hinder a return of the card, through the courts or otherwise.
Well they'd be wanting to fabricate something with Ruth... and it would need to be from when he was a player... couldn't be 33 or 34 because we know what those Goudeys look like. 30 makes sense to me, so long as you're not trying to fool everyone.
If a modern fake is unique or close to it, it's likely a computer print.
This is because there are big upfront costs to making lithographs and similar
'printing house' prints, so there has to be a big print run to bring the cost per card down. In
other words, if someone made a modern lithograph Babe Ruth fake, there would
probably be tons of the cards floating around-- just as we see Fro Joy reprints
all around. On the other hand, a forger can make a single fake on his home computer
at reasonable cost.
Certain kinds of computer printing, in particular laser printing and
photcopiers, are simple to identify with a microscope. And, obviously, if a card
is a laser print it's modern. This type of printing was invented in 1937,
didn't come into widespread use until years later and MLB cards, scorecards
or calendars have never been made by photocopiers or home laser printers.
Not even Donruss or Upper Deck ever made a baseball card on a photocopier.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 19, 2007 5:51 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 19, 2007 5:50 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 19, 2007 5:37 PM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 19, 2007 5:32 PM
Scott Gaynor's post may answer the question "why 1930?" It's possible that Goudey produced a blank-backed calendar in 1930 and this is that calendar. If a forger wanted to add a picture of Ruth to something, that would be an ideal item. Obviously, this is all speculation on my part and I have no idea if it's real or not beyond what's been said in this thread.
If the scenario is that calendar side is original and the front modern, analysis of
the printing would identify this. The front and back printing would be made with
different types of printing. If both sides were printed at the same time in 1930, the
same type of printing would be used back and front ... Again, there's a good chance
the pic of Ruth (if modern) would be a computer print.
So far we know that PSA, Mastro, Rob Lifson, Scott Gaynor and Joshua Evans feel the item is not authentic. These are some very big names in the hobby with lots of experience. If the 4 auction houses mentioned above would not take the item to sell then it is pretty compelling argument the item is not authentic. Not sure what other proof one would need to prove fraud. Frankly, if any of them had a pet dog, I would take the dog's opinion over Verkman's as to the legitimacy of the item. Steve is a snake oil salesman of sorts and I do not consider him to be one of the most reputable dealers out there.
Also if Steve was so sure that the item was legitimate then why wouldn't he just take the item back and sell it to someone else? I think that Steve knows that the item is questionable and prefers to roll the dice.
I'd really like to know why/how the experts concluded that it was not real, or that it was questionable. Not maligning anyone, just wondering what went into the thought process. Absent an explanation, I would disagree with any assessment that there is overwhelming evidence. "Never seen one before" would not go very far with me either, so I hope it was looked at closely.
Maybe someone can research when it was that Big League chewing gum first hit the market. It has probably been assumed all along that it debuted in 1933 with the cards. If true, then a reference to the brand name three years prior would seem bogus. Some google research would tend to suggest that '33 was the issue date, but I wonder if those just worked on the assumption that the gum always accompanied the cards. Here, this "card", even if genuine, was almost certainly not intended to be sold with the gum, but was there Big League gum sold in other packaging in 1930?
The genuine back, fake front doesn't make much sense to me. The back clearly references the Babe, with two lines of centered type. Why have such reference and then use a blank or unrelated front? Could that name and team info have been added? Doubtful, IMO. Why leave that conspicuous if not prominent front center area blank with the year on the sides? Why not just one big 1930 in the middle?
Are there collectors of, or resources about ink blotter advertisting from the period who/that could be consulted? Seems like alot remains up in the air about this "piece".
Why would Goudey print a calendar in 1930 with the "Big League Chewing Gum" logo and crossed bats and a ball, when they had yet to produce a single baseball card? What would have been their connection to baseball in 1930?
The site owner is a member of the Goudey family and a super-nice guy. I pointed this item out to him when I initially saw it in the auction. He is a great guy and has done a lot of research on the history of the Goudey Gum company; his website is an outstanding chronicle of that. I did not notice any reference to a Big League Gum in 1930.
This message has been edited by Novocent on Mar 19, 2007 7:47 PM This message has been edited by Novocent on Mar 19, 2007 7:27 PM
I would say you have the word of Mastro, Lifson, Evans and Hunt....if that ain't good enough for the hobby then nothing is. Josh Evans even states it was offered to him and he could tell right away it was a "Color xerox copy". What more does anyone need?
as I said, I'm not maligning anyone, but I like to keep an open mind. Xerox copy of what? this thing supposedly doesn't exist. And didn't someone say that Lifson opined over the phone, without having it in hand? These folks may very well have a short and sweet explanation as to why it's not authentic, all I'd like to know is why. Frankly, even if they came on and said first hand "because I said so", that would be more than hearsay from others.
Barry--my point exactly. What was Goudey's connection to big league basseball in 1930? Did they release their Big League gum that year (or earlier)? Putting out market feelers?--remember, no real gum cards for quite some time prior to 1930. If not, it's a pretty stupid mistake by the fakers to place a calendar year that could not possibly jibe with the gum, especially since it would seem easy enough to just pick a more plausible year.
This message has been edited by taslegal on Mar 19, 2007 8:07 PM
Todd, I would take the word of Josh Evans since he apparently had it in hand....And never mistake forgers for being smart. How many Red Rock calendars do you see on ebay from years that Ruth had absolutely nothing to do with Red Rock cola?
I agree with David (cycleback) that the basics should be checked. Use a black light. Use a microscope & see if it's photo engraved. Some cards were photo engraved for many years after 1930, but the ink will have a distint look around that time period. Experts like David, or a (self proclaimed) semi expert like myself could help. I bought one of those fifty dollar "Digital Blue" microscopes, & they work great for taking 10x, 60x, or 200x digital pictures.
I remember the first thing that raised a red flag with me was the fact that Ruth's name was on it, but there was nothing else related to Ruth (remember mine was blank backed). If it had stats printed on the back or a slogan like "Babe Ruth chews..." it would have made sense, but his name just floating for no apparent reason seemed odd. Also, the type and style of Ruth's name is similar to that on 1933 Goudey cards, but three years before they were issued.
Also, on the one that I saw, the black printing was shiny, while the background was dull. In college I worked in a copy and printing shop so I can usually pick up on the difference between a xerox copy and an item that has been printed. Toner from a copier tends to be very shiny and appears to sit on top of the paper, while printing is dull and, especially on a vintage piece, is sort of "in" the paper (it is kind of hard to explain, but pretty easy to see if you are holding the item in your hand). For me, It just had too many red flags to take a chance on it.
Something else I just noticed, everything on that piece can be photoshopped from another piece. The Ruth name from the back of a 1933 Goudey, the Goudey logos at the bottom from a Goudey wrapper, the calendar from anyplace on the internet. My guess is that any 8th grader with a basic working knowledge of photoshop could produce that piece in a few minutes.
This message has been edited by scgaynor on Mar 20, 2007 12:11 AM
It seems that if someone deliberately made this card to defraud, they would have made several....There is one way that somebody that has time may be able to definately confirm if the card is real...The US Trademark office phone # is 1-800-786-9199...They have "dead" trademark records that record the date of filed trademarks back prior to 1930 if you can find the right person or pay a fee possibly.
If the trademark "Big League Chewing Gum" was filed after 1930 and before 1933, the card is not real however it is possible that a prototype could have been made using the 1933 format as seen on the back font. This can be identified as stated by prior posters by using a microscope to see if the ink pattern dates. The front and back paper must be independently tested to see if the paper was manufactured in that era, as the back may be real and the front could have been attached but that does seem unlikely. This might require a very small sample to be removed which will cause collateral damage. If you can establish the date of the trademark, this will conclusively see if the item could have been made in 1930. Maybe someone wants to call the government # listed, at least it is a starting point.
If it's a Xerox, it would be easy to identify as a fake. Xeroxes, photocopiers and
laser printers all use the same printing technology (electrographic printing, aka
Xerography). This process doesn't actually use ink, but a powdery toner that is fused,
or melted, to the paper. This probably helps explains the mentioned shiny, 'ink sitting
on top' appearance. If one has a good microscope this printing is easy to identify because
you can see the specks of toner powder.
The above is a microscopic pic of a laser printed letter. The tiny specks floating around the
edges of the letter are specks of toner fused to the paper. Looks like it needs a dusting. A
Xerox or photocopier would have the same appearance. In part because baseball cards old and
new use real liquid ink, not powdery pigment, no genuine baseball card will have this dusty
appearance. And, as mentioned before, Xerography wasn't invented until after 1930.
Anyone who owns a laser printer, as opposed to an inkjet, has likely noticed two things: the
toner cartridges are messy with dry colored powder. You often need a vacuum cleaner to clean up
after changing cartridges. The second is that the 8x11" prints come out of the printer warm, even hot.
That's because the printer fused, or melted with heat, the toner power onto the paper.
With almost all other printing, including lithographs and woodcuts and even inkjet printers, liquid
or at least wet ink is used. This explains the 'wet sheet' ghosts on the T206s, where sheets were put
on top of each other before the ink dried. It explains why the print comes out of an inkjet printer
wet and you have to wait a while before it's dried. And, as these use wet ink instead of dry dusty pigment
powder, they won't have the dusty appearance under a microscope.
This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 20, 2007 1:30 AM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 20, 2007 1:20 AM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 20, 2007 1:18 AM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 20, 2007 1:13 AM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 20, 2007 1:08 AM This message has been edited by drc1 on Mar 20, 2007 1:05 AM
Just a thought, but all these Ruth items listed here are fakes. I have seen at least 3 other "wrappers" listed on Ebay and I am pretty positive they are fakes as well. A friend of mine purchased the 6 Ruth cards and the wrapper shown in the scan. The cards are not that impressive as far as reprints go, but the wrapper was done quite well. It seems quite plausable that these Babe Ruth cards and the Goudey Babe Ruth discussed here could have been produced by the same person.
One think not mentioned is the size of the card. I asked about the measurements, haven't seen anything. Mentioned a black light way back up there...
The card 'looks' to be the size of a modern day baseball card. When did that dimension come into use? 1957??? It wasn't 1930. And Larry's observations about clip sources for the various bits of print on the card seem sound.
If you are going to post things on a public forum, please make some REMOTE effort to tell the truth. Let me work backwards here as this is the first that I have heard of this thread as I was away.
1. BARRY AND OTHERS ARE CORRECT. I TOLD HAVERKOS TO SEND THE CARD TO ME TO GET IT TESTED AND IF IT DID NOT COME BACK FROM 1930, HE WOULD GET A REFUND. THIS IS 1000% ACCURATE AND I AM PERSONALLY OFFENDED THAT THIS WAS LEFT OUT. HAVERKOS DID NOT WANT TO DO THAT AS I WOULD "HAVE HIS CARD AND THE MONEY"
2. To BOTN, to make obnoxious and inaccurate comments, I suppose is what you do in life. Keep fixing Cracker Jack Walter Johnsons and enjoy your life.
3. Now, from the beginning:
A. We sold this card both times on a consignment basis and it was not owned by us. The first time this was auctioned, I believe May 2005, this had probably 20 different bidders, including many experienced hobbyists, AND NOT ONE WORD POTENTIALLY QUESTIONING ITS AUTHENTICITY WAS STATED TO ME; IF SO, I ABSOLUTELY WOULD HAVE PULLED THE LOT AS HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR COMPANY POLICY.
B. This item was re-consigned to us a year and a half later by the winning bidder. We again auctioned this off and did hear ONE WORD from anyone questioning this piece as we would have ABSOLUTELY withdrawn this from auction. We did not try to get this slabbed by anyone as we figured because it is so unique the grading companies would be reluctant to grade it. Had Mr Haverkos asked me before the auction if I would guarantee this would be slabbed, I would have said absolutely not given the nature of the card.
It is nice that everyone now questions this but NOT ONE PERSON here can say that one word was emailed or said to me EITHER time this was auctioned. With that said, if the card is not real, and the only way to determine this is to date the paper, which I offered to do at my expense, we will compensate the winning bidder. Leaving out vital details on public forums is frankly a disgusting way of trying to disparage someones reputation.
If anyone wants to go into this in further detail (besides BOTN/SCHWARTZ), feel free to email me or call our office.
I appreciate your response. I do understand your concern about the grading companies not slabbing a unique type card. I have some Headin' Home cards and SGC, so far, will not slab them (though I think they told me at the last National that they will now)....even though I am absolutely positive they are good...and had Kevin Struss (Mastro) and others agreeing with me. They said they just didn't know enough about them. I know you probably don't want to get into too much of a public debate but let me ask you one question, and this might solve the problem.
Would you be willing to let Mark send the card to GAI (have Baker look at it), to PSA *(have whomever their head grader is look at it), and have him send it to SGC (and have Scott H, and Bob L, look at it)....even though they might not slab it, if they all said it was not real, would you refund the money? thanks again.....
The problem with this and this touches on a larger issue in the hobby is that the grading companies do not have a machine that can test for the aging of paper. From what I understand, this is a very expensive machine that might run six figures. Without out a point-of-fact scientific answer, anything else is subjective; this obviously is related to other cards as well. I am willing to pay the expense of this process but without the card, of course this is not possible - Steve
This is so far in the open now that the buyer should be able to send it back to CSA or an agreed upon third party so that the next step can be taken. This card could really make the rounds:
Lab for testing
In any case if I were CSA I would want to have the issue resolved just to clear the air. I would have thought that something could have been worked out sooner. There are a lot of trustworthy people in this hobby and I'm sure someone could have been made an agreed upon (by buyer and CSA) middleman. Whose court is the ball in now.
I think we can actually have a friendly debate on the board, at least once in a while . I hope this is one of them. As I, and others have pointed out, only testing the paper does no good. We all remember the 2 jokers with the fake Wagner that had a good Piedmont back stuck to it. The paper tested was good... but the card was silly looking. Early paper and cardboard can be had any day of the week. My main concern is with the ink/type of printing, as David pointed out above. Do you know if the printing has those Xerox/copy looking dots around the letters? Not that this would be 100% proof if it doesn't, but it would help, and if it does, then we know it's not 1930's (I think).....thanks again
Well there certainly was a second side that needed telling. Thanks for posting it.
The card still doesn't seem to be authentic (thanks for the correction up there), and I still would not pay $5 for it, shipping and all.
It seems to me that the seller's concern that the card wouldn't grade is an indication of doubt as to authenticity, and not concern that it merely wouldn't grade. If it had graded it would have sold for more, resulting in more commission. And if the seller were confident of authenticity then grading would have been sought.
The buyer, consignor and auctioneer, or seller, or whatever, all need to get together with cash and card, and resolve the matter. Lawyers X 3 will result in less cash to divvy up when the card finds a home among the protagonists. If they can't agree, then let the lawyering begin!
Current Topic - 1930 Goudey- Babe Ruth- questionable authenticity?