Net 54 Vintage Baseball Card Forum
Hello to all visitors! Please visit the NEW Net54 board at www.Net54baseball.com You can directly contact the moderator here if you have any questions or comments. Enjoy!
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Top of page | Bottom of page | Main Index  

Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007 at 5:04 PM
MarkH56  (Login MarkH56)

Thank you to all who have responded to my posting regarding the 1930 Goudey – Babe Ruth Calendar Card – Questionable Authenticity. Please note that on February 14, 2007, I offered to send the card for testing if Steve Verkman would place the funds paid for the card in an escrow account with my attorney until this was resolved to both parties satisfaction. He refused to do so and I was not willing to have him have possession of both card and the money and leave me with nothing. When I originally asked Verkman about paper testing, he told me he did not want to do that. I have checked with John Reznikoff (who does have a machine for paper testing) regarding paper testing and was informed that they would have to have a comparison piece for the testing to be valid. With regard to testing, it is certain possible to obtain old paper and cardboard to create a reproduction. Paper testing may prove nothing. The issue is not about paper testing – it is about Clean Sweep’s guarantee as stated in its catalog and on its website. I still hope this matter may be resolved in an amicable manner. However, this is my final attempt to obtain a full refund without filing a lawsuit and I will be seeking punitive damages.

Thank you,
Mark Haverkos

March 21, 2007

Steve:

When I purchased this card in your Clean Sweep Auctions #123 (9/27/06), I was excited about the prospect of owning an authentic 1 of 1 Babe Ruth Card from his playing days, truly a dream for a Ruth collector like me. I did not anticipate any problems with 3rd party authentication of the card and knew, with confidence, that if there was a problem, Clean Sweep Auctions would stand behind me and make it right. When we have had issues in the past, Steve, you have always told me that if I didn't like an item that I had purchased from you or had problems with it, I should simply sent it back and you’ll refund the money.

Also, in you auction catalogues, you state that Clean Sweep “Has an amazing reputation when it comes to autographed items and authenticity in general.” Furthermore, on your Clean Sweep Auctions website (csauctions.com, Frequently Asked Questions) under “What are our standards for Authenticity?” you state that “CSA only sells original items. We completely stand behind the authenticity of every item we sell… CSA uses the strictest standards in the industry and does not sell questionable items.” In response to the questions about your policy with regard to grading services, you state that you guarantee all items to be authentic and will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service.”

With these guarantees in mind as well as my inherent trust in you as a professional collector/dealer and good, honest person (our 6-7 year business relationship), I bid with confidence on Lot 978 (Auction 123), which was described as follows: Catalogue Description:

1930 Rare Babe Ruth Calendar Card VG-EX $3,000 Measuring 3 ½ x
5 ½, this is a black & white cardboard card with a full body pose of Ruth on the front, with the Goudey league baseball in the four corners. The back is a calendar for 1930 with Goudey clearly printed at the bottom. This has some mild creasing and general wear. Rare card that we have never seen before that was likely a precursor to Goudey’s seminal 1933 gum card set. Fresh item unknown to the hobby until now that was obtained in New England. This appeared in one of our auctions last year and sold for $10,738. Sadly, the winning bidder purchased this treasure to become the centerpieces of his son’s collection and the son died in a car accident this year.

In fact when I called Clean Sweep Auction on the night of 9/27/06 to check on my bid, you told me that the card was already hotly contested by 2 advanced Ruth collectors but, by placing one more bid, you felt that I would have a pretty good chance of winning the lot. And so it came to pass that I sent you a bank check for $18,775.32 and you sent to me the card encased in a large block of acrylic that had a sticker on it (hand written) stating “NY Yankee’s 1930 Goudey Gum Babe Ruth Calendar Card, “Excellent Condition”, Goudey Holy Grail, $10,738.”On the reverse was a sticker reading “CSA 9/27/06, Lot #978, Facon 88.”

The card initially looked to me to be as represented in the catalog. I was a little surprised by the lumpy feel of the front of the card but hey, I’m no expert. I’m a collector. I leave the authentication to the experts and my own research.

I commenced my research almost immediately upon receipt of the card. I contacted, among others, the Boston Public Library (for information on the Boston company Goudey), the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Cy Burdicke Collection), the man who purchased the remaining Goudey archives in the 1970’s, Marshall Fogel (who wrote the history of the Goudey Gum Co.), the Standard Catalog of Baseball cards, the Calendar Collectors’ Society, and many others. I put in countless hours of my own time trying to find a historical reference to authenticate the card. In all of these contacts from 10/06 – 02/07, I found absolutely no reference to the card. During this research process, I also sent the card to PSA on October 20, 2006 (23 days post auction) for authentication (not grading). Several weeks later, I was contacted by PSA who informed me that they could not authenticate the card and were returning it to me. If I could find any supporting evidence in my research, PSA told me to re-submit it for re-evaluation. On December 8, 2006, Steve, I called to inform you of PSA’s rejection, my research findings and to request from you your evidence of authenticity. You were the vendor who only sells authentic items so you had to have a way of proving the card’s authenticity. By telephone you told me that: 1) you had no supporting evidence; 2) you knew the card was real; 3) PSA couldn’t prove it wasn’t real; 4) you would “work it out with Joe Orlando” (President of PSA). I also requested a letter of authenticity from you. The following is what you sent, signed and notarized:

December 21, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
This is a letter of authenticity for a 1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Calendar card.
This is unique card measures 3 ½ x 5 ½ and has black and white printing on cardboard with a full body pose of Ruth. The Goudey league baseball is on the four corners. The back is a calendar for 1930 with Goudey clearly printed at the bottom. This has some mild creasing and general wear. Rare card that we have never seen before that was likely a precursor to Goudey’s seminal 1933 gum card set. Fresh item unknown to the hobby until now that was found in an attic in Vermont in 2005 as part of a vintage collection. The lucky person who discovered this card then consigned it to our May 2005 auction and it sold for $10,738. Sadly, the winning bidder purchased this treasure to become the centerpiece of his son’s collection and the son died in a car accident this year.
When this card sold publicly in 2005, this garnered a lot of attention in the hobby and to our surprise, NO OTHER EXAMPLE has ever surfaced.
I have been involved in the sale and purchase of vintage sports cards since 1979. My company has been featured or mentioned in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Fox News etc.
Steve Verkman
President
Clean Sweep Auctions


Basically, Steve, you re-state the auction catalogue information in paragraph 1, tell me of your surprise after you sold the card previously in paragraph 2, and what your credentials are in paragraph 3. But where is the authenticity in your letter of such? It is actually a letter of history, not authenticity.

Nevertheless, it was the only item of corroborating evidence that I could find in my many hours of research. On January 8, 2007, I re-submitted the card and your letter to PSA for authentication. The following letter from PSA, concerning the card, (which I provided you with a copy) dated January 28, 2007, was received.

January 28, 2007
Dear Mark,
I am writing this letter to inform you of our findings.
The card that you submitted, an alleged 1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Calendar Card is, in our expert opinion, not genuine or original based on the following:
1) This card has not been documented by any respected publication nor has it been acknowledged as an original card by any respected third party expert service that I am aware of. No such card, to date, is known to exist. In fact, the existence of such a card would counter any logic based on what we know about the Goudey company and trading cards of that era.
2) More importantly, this card does not possess the characteristics normally found on trading cards of the era or issued by the manufacturer. The print, registration and paper quality are not consistent with any period Goudey card or any other card from that time period. In fact, even the wear found on the card appears to be contrived to give the card the appearance that it is of certain vintage.
3) In sum, it appears to be poorly constructed fabrication based on the above-mentioned characteristics.
PSA has been found for nearly 16 years and we have handled over 10 million trading cards in our history. As the leading trading card authentication and grading service in the world, it is our collective opinion that this item is not genuine.
I am very sorry for the bad news but it is our job to be both the good and bad messenger at times.
If you should have any other questions regarding this matter, please contact me directly at (949)567-1170.
Sincerely,
Joe Orlando
President


Genuine and original are the definition of authentic. PSA clearly states that the card is “Not genuine or original. It appears to be a poorly constructed fabrication.” Steve, your own website states that you “will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service.” Am I missing something, or did PSA state that the card is not genuine or original (authentic)? Is PSA not a reputable grading service? What about your own words, Steve? Your integrity? The reputation of Clean Sweep Auctions?

I also had sent the card to Bill Mastro, figuring that if he would auction it, I wouldn’t necessarily need to put it in a holder. On December 13, 2006, he sent the card back to me with the following hand-written letter:

12-13-06
To Whom It May Concern –
I have viewed and held in my hand the supposed 1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Calendar card and it is absolutely a fantasy piece which was created within the last few decades. It is absolutely not from 1930 and no original piece is known to exist. The print quality and type of paper are not that of the 1930’s. The wear is contrived to make one believe it is old. Nothing about the piece is original. This is not an opinion – it is a fact! I have been dealing in such material for over 40 years and my credentials are unquestionable. The piece is not authentic and is of no value.
Sincerely, William Mastro
CEO
Mastro Auctions


Bill clearly states the facts, Steve: 1) it is not from the ‘30’s; 2) it was created recently; 3) the print and paper are not from the 1930’s; 4) the wear is contrived; 5) nothing about the piece is original. He held the card, Steve, and these are the facts, not opinions.

As stated above, I also contacted Marshall Fogel and his reply is as follows:

From Marshall Fogel

As to your recent telephone call, this is to confirm the answer to your inquiry that I did write about the history of the Goudey Gum Company for the Sports Market Report National Convention Issue(SMR) on July 8, 2003. (The article can be found on the internet-The Goudey Company-Marshall Fogel.) After this article was published, similar information confirming my original research as well as new valuable information appears on the internet. When I began to research for information about this company, there was no reference material other then "bits and pieces." I was fortunate to locate and interview people, in detail, who had an intimate knowledge of facts that appear in the text of my article.

This letter is in response to your request for my comments after viewing a copy of what I will refer to as the calendar card that is represented to have been published and distributed by the Goudey Gum Company. (The referenced company, for clarity, printed the 1933 Goudey Baseball Gum set.) An image of Babe Ruth appears on the front of the card and a 1930 calendar is printed on the reverse. My opinion is based on available historical information.

CONCLUSION
It is my opinion that there is no evidence that the referenced Goudey Gum Company printed or distributed the calendar card as it now appears . There is substantial and compelling evidence that this company did not print or distribute the calendar card that you e-mailed to me.

1. I cannot offer you any logical motive or business reason why the Goudey company would print or distribute, in any quantity, a card with an image of a young Babe Ruth previous to 1930 and three years before the company had any connection with baseball as a marketing theme. Additionally, the calendar card is black and white, low grade quality and just "plain ugly." Goudey printed high quality colorized advertising images. These images were simply to advertise gum and appeal to "kids." It is clear to me that the Goudey company purposely and carefully incorporated quality art work when printing their products. For example, some images in the Goudey Indian gum set were copies of original print images belonging to the Smithsonian.

2. The Yankees, in 1930, were not the dominant baseball team and Ruth certainly did not have a season that was as memorable as his past seasons. Including that fact that Goudey, in 1930, had no connection with baseball in promoting their products, there is no reason for the company to print the 1930 calendar card of what Ruth looked like before 1930 and to feature a Yankee when this team was not dominant and did not win. In fact many experts consider the 1929 and 1930 Philadelphia A's as great or greater then the 1927 Yankees.

3.The reverse of the 1930 calendar card states the term Big League Chewing Gum. No such term was used by Goudey until 1933 and then again in 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1938. Before 1933, Goudey advertising brands were, for example, Oh-Boy Gum, Around The World Gum, as well as other gum brands; but, not Big League Chewing Gum. (Refer to the internet for examples of gum labels)

4.The calendar card has the word League printed inside a baseball four times on the front of the card. At this point, we are in the death penalty phase regarding this card. What is League? What is Big League Chewing Gum in 1930 when there is no Big League Chewing Gum to chew.

5. Since the image of Ruth appears on the calendar card along with a crude advertising attempt to promote Big League Chewing Gum, it is logical to conclude that the calendar card was to be widely distributed in 1930 so the public would take advantage of the calendar. It is a fact that there is a significant number of Goudey sport and non sport cards and premiums in various conditions that can be collected today. One would conclude that, at least, a moderate amount of calendar cards, especially picturing the Ruth image, would also be available today. They are not and they should be.

During the time I have been writing this letter I became aware, in detail, that there is not longer controversy surrounding this calendar card. It is obvious to me that very experienced and knowledgeable people have overwhelming opined that the calendar card is not authentic. Also, there are others who have commented, on various message boards, that support the view of these experts as well as including many of the same opinions that I have stated when approaching the calendar card issue from an historical point of view. While others have opined that the card is not authentic, I would add my opinion that there is no compelling historic evidence that the Goudey Gum Company did print the calendar card. I would be open at all times in the future to reassess my opinion if there is evidence to the contrary.

Finally, Mr. Verkman you should take seriously the views expressed and return the collector's money. Your offer to have the card tested before you refund the collectors money is not in keeping with your return policy, and your offer simply unfair. I must add that I read you supposed letter of authenticity. The content of your letter falls short of the standard set for those of us who write letters of authenticity.


In short, I purchased this card from Clean Sweep Auctions with confidence in it’s authenticity and Clean Sweep‘s integrity and honesty as the vendor in backing up that claim. There’s no one who wanted to authenticate this card more than myself. I bought it. I even put in countless hours of my own trying to find the proof for it. But, Steve, the resounding word, whether you and I like it or not, is that it’s not authentic. So come on, man, step up to the plate. Are you going to do the right thing and refund to me my money paid to you for the card as I have requested twice, or are were going to have to take this one step further? I have been very patient and understanding so far, Steve, even offering to put the money in a third party escrow account until the matter is settled to the satisfaction of all. But you informed me that your company didn’t do business that way and that I would have to send you the card, with no refund, in order for you to authenticate it or else you had no more time to spend on the matter. But didn’t your catalog description tell me what the card is? Now, you still don’t have it authenticated, after selling it to me. Steve, the only way that you aren’t going to spend anymore time on this matter is if you do the right thing and sent me a full refund of $18, 775, in exchange for return of the card. If you can authenticate it with that calendar that you spoke of, do so and re-sell it. I’m sure it would be worth your while. But I have received my answer and it is a resounding “no.”

I’m not satisfied, Steve. You have always told me, in the past that if I wasn’t satisfied, to send the item back for a full refund, otherwise, keep it. Why not now?

Presently, I’m only asking you to honor your word and send me a full refund. If we need to go to court, I’ll be asking for a whole lot more.

Do you really want to put us through this, Steve? It is bad for the hobby, bad for Clean Sweep Auctions, and wholly unnecessary. Think about it. Do you really want to drag your reputable business, Clean Sweep Auctions, through all of the allegations? My patience is running out Steve, and I definitely won’t quit. I’ve asked our friends and colleagues on this message board for any new information that would be useful in authentication. Nothing. I hope to hear from you soon, Mr. Verkman.

Mark Haverkos





 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
barrysloate
(Login barrysloate)

Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word

March 21 2007, 5:14 PM 

This is getting ugly. You two guys aren't even remotely on the same page. Your posts and Steve's posts seem to be mutually exclusive. I think you will need a third party to settle this.

 
 

Dan
(Login a66cobra)

Just my opinion

March 21 2007, 5:15 PM 

Mark,

Take it to court, you will win hands down. Not to mention, he will be paying your legal fees if he is not careful you might just find a few law-dogs from this site that will do it pro-bono for fun.

I got your back if you need it, I hate when people have lapses with their integrity.

 
 
Steve
(Login SteveVerkman)

enough

March 21 2007, 6:16 PM 

Mark,

You are not dealing in an honest way and it is thus hard to take you seriously. You personally told me that you went to a museum in your area and they told you it would run $300 or something to test the paper and you did not want to spend the money; I then offered to pay the cost of testing (and not just the paper, also the ink) and would have this done in New York. You also asked me to send you a notarized LOA in early November and told me that you would be comfortable with that as a solutionl you certainly did not say that you were going to submit the card to PSA a second time with my letter. It is these types of things that make it very difficult to work with you and why an escrow arrangement with a lawyer of your choosing is not acceptable.

Bottom line is if the card is proven scientifically to be found inauthentic, you will be taken care of. Letters from collectors, even those as knowledgable as Mr Fogel, do not prove the dating of any card. Every grading company has made mistakes with respect to authenticity of vintage items as this can be subjective. Goudey may well have made this as a prototype or promotional card. If this was reproduced, why would someone only make one of them? It simply does not make sense; we are not talking about a Frojoy Ruth card here. Finally, while it is your right to air this out in a public forum, you do not help yourself when you omit crucial details and are basically running a smear campaign. - Steve

 
 
Peter Spaeth
(Login Peter_Spaeth)

questions

March 21 2007, 7:17 PM 

If I were judging/mediating this dispute I would want to hear more from Mr. Verkman as to why he affirmatively believes the card to be genuine, as opposed to statements to the effect that the three experts who apparently think it is not might be wrong. I would also, in fairness, want to know more about Mark's prior relationship if any with the experts -- one must always be sensitive to bias.

I repeat my suggestion that a better course of action than litigation would be to agree on a neutral or panel of neutrals to examine the card and render an opinion.

 
 

JimB
(Login E93)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 7:32 PM 

If I were Steve, I would apologize for an honest mistake, refund the money in full and cut my losses. The longer this goes on, particularly with the way Steve has handled this thus far, the more he destroys whatever reputation he has left. How ironic this is after the unfounded accusations he flung at Brian Drent a few months back.
JimB

 
 
Peter Spaeth
(Login Peter_Spaeth)

addendum

March 21 2007, 7:59 PM 

What say you, Mr. Verkman, to the point that on your website you promise to accept the return of any item found not to be authentic by a reputable grading company? This seems a fairly compelling point having read the presumably accurate quote from the website and the letter from Mr. Orlando of PSA. If indeed such a guaranty was made, it would seem irrelevant whether or not PSA is right or wrong; what matters is their refusal to authenticate. EDITED TO FIX TYPO


    
This message has been edited by Peter_Spaeth on Mar 21, 2007 8:01 PM


 
 
barrysloate
(Login barrysloate)

Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word

March 21 2007, 8:18 PM 

Steve- I know before this issue is resolved you want some definitive proof, or documentation, that this card is no good. Technically speaking, you are entitled to it.

But from all that has transpired so far, my gut tells me you can't win this battle. I can't imagine any scenario where after this card is tested it comes back unequivocally authentic and the case is closed in your favor. I agree with Jim- nothing good is coming your way in this deal, and it is best to cut your losses and move on.

While I don't want to go into specifics, I once sold a baseball card at auction- of greater value than this- and received a call from the buyer that he was certain it had major restoration done to it. I could have gone through the same routine- have it tested, send it to all the experts, etc. But in my heart I knew he was right. I put a check in the mail the next day.

I find it hard to believe that you feel with any certainty that this card is good.

 
 
howard
(Login howard38)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 8:24 PM 

Sounds like Mark has a good case. Was the guarantee changed from "reputable authenticator" to "proven scientifically"? If the buyer is misrepresenting the case then we need to hear more from the seller. What he posted earlier was unconvincing.

Howard

 
 
Jeff Prizner
(Login Bicem)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 8:46 PM 

quoted directly from csauctions.com...


What is our policy with respect to grading services?
We guarantee all items to be authentic and will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service. We cannot guarantee the grade any item we sell will receive by a grading service due to the inherent subjectivity of grading.

 
 

Dan Bretta
(Login slidekellyslide)
Network 54 Moderator

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 9:22 PM 

What is the liability of the consigner in a case like this?

 
 
Peter Spaeth
(Login Peter_Spaeth)

consignor

March 21 2007, 9:28 PM 

I can't see the consignor having any liability to the buyer. The buyer's dealings are with the auction house, which in this case made the representations about authenticity and accepting returns.

 
 

JimB
(Login E93)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 9:34 PM 

The consignor bought the card from Verkman too and reconsigned it to him. Perhaps there would be recourse from the original consignor two auctions back, but I think that would be a tough one since Verkman has vouched for its authenticity twice now.
JimB

 
 

Dan Bretta
(Login slidekellyslide)
Network 54 Moderator

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 9:55 PM 

I should have made myself more clear...I was wondering does Clean Sweep have any recourse against the original consigner?

 
 
Corey R. Shanus
(Login benjulmag)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 9:56 PM 

As I understand testing, it will not say an item is authentic. All it can do is tell you an item is not authentic (through the detection of substances not available when the item was purportedly made). So if the threshold in this instance is that for the auction house to prevail it must prove by testing that the item dates to 1930, by definition the issue is decided before the item is even sent to the lab; it cannot be done.

I do think though the issue is academic. If as has been posted Clean Sweep has in fact warranted that all that the winning bidder needs to do in order to return the item for a full refund is to produce documenation from a reputable grading service opining that the item is not authentic, the matter is closed. PSA's letter certainly says that. So beats me on what basis the auction house feels by fighting on it could possibly prevail.

 
 

Jason L
(Login smallcapdaddy)
Registered Users

WOW!!!!

March 21 2007, 9:57 PM 

Let me see if I got this right:
Customer: "Please prove this item that I bought for $18k is authentic."
Seller/Auction House: "No, you prove that it is not authentic."

Seriously?
Huh?!?!?!?! Holy crap...

Mr. Verkman, I have never done business with you, but please find a way to place me on your list of banned bidders. Immediately.
Thanks,
Jason Leinberger



 
 
Peter Spaeth
(Login Peter_Spaeth)

Corey

March 21 2007, 9:58 PM 

Perhaps PSA is not a "reptuable grading service"? This is, after all, Net 54.

 
 

J levine
(Login Wite3)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 10:00 PM 

Alas,
Makes me wonder as well...does anyone know the consignor?

Why is Steve fighting this so hard. He has done returns before and the bad press he is generating is certainly costing him more than the return fees, s/h, etc.

My question is whether Steve is the actual owner of the card and is unwilling to take this "loss?"

Joshua

 
 

Dave
(Login asphaltman76)

Re: Mr. Verkman – Keep your Word - Letters From Bill Mastro, Joe Orlando, & Marshall Fogel

March 21 2007, 10:32 PM 

Steve is going to take alot more losses than just this one...(which should be in court at this point). We've seen it before..customer is always right..get in a publice dispute with a customer and you need to do whatever possible to stop it from becomming a major issue for all taking notice. The longer this drags on the more business Steve will lose because of it. I certainly wouldn't buy from an auction house that wouldn't stand behind the items they are selling...as well as making thier own money from with a commission. Bad business is bad business.


    
This message has been edited by asphaltman76 on Mar 21, 2007 10:32 PM


 
 
Steve
(Login SteveVerkman)

some points

March 21 2007, 10:35 PM 

1. I am not, and have never been, the owner of this card.

2. I am only fighting for this card to be tested. Again, if this was fake, why would there be only one of them? Why would someone go to so much trouble to make a single example of this item?

3. Our auction return policy is that all sales are final. With that said, we will again deal with this but want definitive testing. My point is that Mr Haverkos does not want this tested in almost any circumstance and has resisted MULTIPLE attempts for me to do this.

4. Nature of card. This is not a Frojoy Ruth, 54 SI card or other known problematic pieces. Leon made a good point on the last thread, which has not been answered. What specifically about this card if the issue? The fact that it is from 1930 is not an issue. For Mr. Fogel to argue that the Yankee were not a Championship team in 1929 or 1930 and therefore Ruth should not be the topic seems to me a reach. As this is a unique card and one of the major arguments of everyone involved is that there are none known, therefore this is fake is a classic tautology. Having a full test wil resolve this.

5. This is on thick stock and is nicely printed; there are no dot matrix patterns or other telltale signs of a fake. It is a calendar and is not a trading card, was obviously not issued in gum packs. We can go on about this forever but...

6. This was consigned to us by a tiny hobby store owner in Vermont. It seems rather unlikely this person would be perpetrating a fraud but again this is not a fact, only a theory.

I am asking for nothing more than what I absolutely would get in the discovery phase of a trial: the right to test the card to make sure. At that point, this is over. I AM NOT, AND HAVE NEVER, TOLD THIS GUY TO TAKE A WALK, only that we be sure about this.


 
 
 
< Previous Page 1 2 3 4 57 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Top of page | Bottom of page | Main Index