New York Daily News - http://www.nydailynews.com
Controversy
fits like glove
By MICHAEL O'KEEFE
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER
Saturday, May 7th, 2005
End Zone
Pockets bulging with cash, checkbooks and credit cards, memorabilia collectors flocked to New York from every corner of Baseball Nation in 1999 to battle over the legendary collection put up for sale by Yankee minority owner Barry Halper.
Serious collectors wanted a piece of the treasure Halper had accumulated during 50 years of wheeling and dealing, and the weeklong auction racked up $25 million from the sale of everything from a Ty Cobb jersey to a jar of Vaseline autographed by Gaylord Perry.
North Carolina collector Ralph Perullo arrived at Sotheby's with his eye on Lot No. 1118, advertised as the Rawlings Red Rolfe glove used by the great Joe DiMaggio during the late 1930s. Joltin' Joe even vouched for the glove himself: It was accompanied by an index card that said, "This glove was used in my first years as a Yankee - Joe DiMaggio."
But Perullo says he backed off bidding on the mitt after running into glove expert Dennis Esken at Sotheby's. Esken told Perullo the glove, despite the Hall of Famer's blessing, wasn't even manufactured until 1954 - three years after Joltin' Joe retired. One tell-tale clue: The glove had lacing through the fingers, a sure sign it was a postwar model.
"If Joe were standing next to me, I'd shake his hand and tell him he was a hell of a ballplayer," says Esken, regarded as the nation's top authority on baseball mitts. "I'd also tell him he's no glove expert."
Even more infuriating, says Esken, the misidentified glove remained on the trading circuit long after the Halper sale, passed along like a rare painting, picking up a letter of authenticity from the hobby's most influential evaluators, Dave Bushing and Dan Knoll, whose seal of approval can make or break an item's sale price. All told, the glove was sold at least three times and brought in thousands of dollars before finally being pulled off the market in 2003. In December, it was returned to Sotheby's, the auction house that originally sold it.
"Bad pieces that continue to circulate through the hobby - that's a major problem," says Josh Evans, president of Lelands, another prominent sports auction house. "People don't want to take the financial hit, so these things continue to go round and round."
But in the world of sports memorabilia, nothing is ever straight forward. Although his name is on the certficate that accompanied the glove at auctions in 2001 and 2002, Knoll says he never even examined the glove. "I'm not qualified to render an opinion on that," Knoll says. "Ask me about jerseys."
Bushing, meanwhile, has long denied authenticating the seven gloves offered in the Halper auction, although the dealer hired to oversee the massive Halper sale says he did.
"No letters came from us on Barry Halper gloves. We're listed in the front of the catalogue as doing hats and bats," Bushing said in a recent interview published by Sports Collectors Digest.
But Robert Edwards Auction president Rob Lifson, the veteran memorabilia dealer hired by Sotheby's to work the sale, insists that Bushing authenticated all the gloves in the Halper auction. Bushing was not credited for examining gloves in the catalogue, Lifson adds, because the huge auction - it had more than 2,400 lots - included only a handful of gloves.
*
The DiMaggio glove is not the most expensive glove purchased in the Halper auction - that honor went to the buyer of a Lou Gehrig glove that went for $385,000, and to Billy Crystal, who paid $239,000 for a questionable Mickey Mantle glove - but it may its most controversial.
"It shows you what is wrong with the hobby," Esken says. "This is not a hobby, it's a business, dictated by a few individuals who determine what is real and what it's worth. If it was real, it would have sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars. A lot of people knew that - but apparently not everybody."
The Upper Deck trading card company paid $34,500 for the glove that September day in 1999, then awarded it to the winner of a promotional contest, who in turn placed the glove in a 2001 Robert Edward Auctions sale. It turned up again in a 2002 auction conducted by MastroNet, the $30 million a year sports memorabilia giant. MastroNet president Doug Allen says he asked the buyer to return the glove in 2003, after a knowledegable collector who had been reviewing old catalogues notified the company about a potential problem.
After determining the glove wasn't manufactured until the 1950s, MastroNet says it reimbursed its customer.
"If the guy got his money back, what does it matter now?" Allen asks.
It matters, says self-appointed memorabilia watchdog Robert Plancich, because the obviously misidentified glove remained on the market long after the Halper auction, thanks in part to Bushing and Knoll, who provided a letter of authenticity accompanying the 2001 sale by Robert Edward Auctions and the 2002 MastroNet sale.
Powerful figures in memorabilia, the pair's opinion is widely regarded as gospel; dealers say they can't get top dollar for their items unless they are accompanied by a Bushing and Knoll certificate.
"If these guys are this sloppy with a DiMaggio glove - something that is a real piece of American history - then how much time do they spend on less significant items?" asks Plancich, who says he founded the Collectors Alliance for Reform and Disciplinary Sanctions to protect consumers against memorabilia fraud. "This brings into question every item they have supposedly painstakingly authenticated."
The glove finally made its way back to Sotheby's in December. Even though virtually everyone involved in the mitt's travels now agrees that it's a '50s glove and not used by DiMaggio in a major league game, spokesman Matthew Weigman won't say if the Upper East Side auction house plans to seek compensation from Halper, who is ill and unavailable for comment. But in March, Weigman says, Sotheby's asked Bob Clevenhagen, the Rawlings senior glove designer, for his opinion.
"To anybody who knows anything about gloves, it's black-and-white," Clevenhagen says. "This glove was made in the '50s."
Upper Deck spokesman Don Williams says the company relied on Bushing's expertise before it bought the glove. Bushing, who also bid on behalf of the company when it spent $332,500 at the Halper sale for a Ty Cobb jersey, assured the company the glove was genuine, Williams says. "We acted on the advice of Bushing and Sotheby's."
"These guys aren't qualified," Esken says. "They spend more time marketing themselves as experts than doing research."
Bushing did not return phone calls from the Daily News. His partner, Knoll, however, says he didn't intend to mislead by signing off on a glove he never examined; his name and Bushing's appear on the certificates they issue because they are partners. Earlier this year, however, SCD Authentic, the firm headed by Bushing, reviewed its practices, and the company will now issue signatures only from authenticators who actually reviewed the items. "If I look at something and sign it, I want to really examine it," Knoll says. "I want to feel good about it."
Joe Phillips, the editor of The Glove Collector newsletter and a Bushing collaborator, says it's not kosher for an authenticator to put his name behind an item he never examined.
"I wouldn't sign off on anything I didn't look at," Phillips says. "If the guy is going to authenticate, he should at least do the research."
Plancich says when he discussed the DiMaggio glove with Bushing a few years ago, the authenticator told him the glove is insignificant. "'The value is the letter,'" Plancich remembers Bushing telling him. " You can always get another glove.'"
Bushing's credibility has been questioned during the past few years thanks to several embarrassing blunders. Most recently, as the Daily News reported in December, he identified a barely used Tom Seaver glove made in the mid-'70s as "circa 1969," which would have connected the mitt to the Miracle Mets' World Series victory and boosted its value substantially. Sotheby's and its partner, SportsCards Plus, notified potential buyers of the error on the eve of their auction.
In addition, Bushing came under fire earlier this year after he acknowledged he had not actually received the master's degree that had been included for years in his biography on MastroNet's Web site.
Still, Bushing has legions of supporters who say his work has helped clean up an industry plagued by fraud and ripoffs. MastroNet's Allen says Bushing and Knoll shouldn't be judged on a handful of mistakes. "Dave and Dan have written letters for hundreds of items in our auctions," he says. "I still believe they are the best."
Phillips and Allen speculate that the problems with the DiMaggio glove began when someone at Sotheby's put the Joe DiMaggio index card with the wrong glove. Sotheby's Weigman says he can't comment until the auction house completes its investigation. But that explanation doesn't fully satisfy: The mix-up theory doesn't make sense because there was no 1950s DiMaggio glove offered at the Halper auction. It also doesn't explain how the mistake wasn't caught before the auction began, or how the glove was allowed to remain in circulation for years after the Halper sale.
One thing is certain: Joe DiMaggio was no glove expert. Even his longtime attorney, Morris Engelberg, says the Yankee Clipper was an undependable source.
"You think Joe ever looked at that glove? He wouldn't know the difference," Engelberg says. "Barry (Halper) would buy him a nice dinner and he'd sign anything. Joe didn't know what he was signing half of the time. It didn't mean anything to him."
Here's the catch
Besides the bogus early career DiMaggio glove, at least three gloves offered in the Halper auction were misidentified. Here's a look:
# As the Daily News first reported, a Mickey Mantle glove advertised as "circa 1960" and purchased by "*61" director Billy Crystal for $239,000 turned out to be from his injury-plagued 1966 season, not the height of his career.
# Sotheby's also refunded $71,000 to a collector who thought he was buying a Cy Young glove but instead got a glove from the pitcher's grandson.
# A Yogi Berra glove advertised in the catalogue as a model that "could only be ordered by Berra" was really a cheap store model made in South Korea in the 1970s, a decade after Berra retired, according to Esken. Spokesman Matthew Weigman says Sotheby's has not received any complaints about the catcher's mitt, including from Berra, who attended the auction preview.
I have been told by any number of folks who have been interviewed by Michael O'Keefe of the NY Daily News to expect an article in tomorrows paper dealing with game used sports memorabilia items that myself and, or Dan Knoll may have been associated with. If this article is like similar pieces by this reporter and paper, I am preparing myself for some rather unflattering copy. Not knowing exactly what is being addressed, I can only assume the larger issue deals with one of the hobby's most pressing issues; trust and confidence in those who offer opinions on items that you have in your collection or are considering adding to it.
As a person who has offered opinions on thousands of items over the past decade, I know your trust and confidence comes with an enormous amount of responsibility; personal, professional, and financial. To that end I would like to state in what has become probably the most visible and public forum in the hobby, that if you own an item that I have written a letter on and that item is shown to be other than what I said it was, I will buy it back.
This is not simply for an item that I may have sold, but this also goes for those items I was retained by an auction house to evaluate. I include this later category because I can only assume that you made your bidding decision based on some level of trust and confidence in me as it related to the item.
As with others in this field, we are not above being in error for any number of reasons. For me, I will never be able undo what I said or wrote about any item. All I can do is ensure that any final accountability for these instances is addressed, and is addressed by me.
The hobby has changed a lot in the past few years. Resources are available to both collectors and those looked at to offer opinions that did not previously exist. On-line photo archives like Corbis and forums like this are but just a few. I have also been exposed to new methods and procedures for improving the quality of my own work. I bring this up so that you know a couple things as they relate to the issue of trust and confidence.
If you bought an item with my name associated with it, I assume it was based on some form of trust and or confidence in me. I remain committed to continuing to educate myself and hopefully the larger hobby when I can. In cases where you feel that trust and confidence was misplaced, I ask that the responsibility for it be placed back where it belongs, on me. I stand by all this with my name, the same name that will appear on the refund check.
I am a bat collector who is not fond of Josh so my opinion may be a bit tainted.
I find it amazing that weeks after a game used DiMaggio glove that Josh refuses to buy back is sold publically that (1) O'Keefe decides to write yet another article about the DiMaggio glove sold in Halper, Robert Edwards and Mastro where the only new news is that the glove has been bought back yet the content of the story is Bushing Bashing and (2) he used the following quote from Josh "Bad pieces that continue to circulate through the hobby - that's a major problem," says Josh Evans, president of Lelands, another prominent sports auction house. "People don't want to take the financial hit, so these things continue to go round and round." I guess Josh should know since the only bad pieces I know of that continue to circulate are items he sold like the DiMaggio glove!
Good piece. I'm glad that someone in a major newspaper has an interest in investigating some of the things that we talk about on this forum..
Since Bushing has said he's going to make good on all of the mistakes he has made, it'll be interested to see what happens from here.
Matt
That’s it! This is the BIG NEWS we were waiting for. My apologies for all those who have not been inundated with this story on this and other forums like it, and are just catching up, but there is nothing new hear at all. Just a rehash of what we have known and read about already. I feel like I had read this article before. I had to scroll to the top to make sure I wasn’t reading an OLD article. Maybe its because all these points have already been covered at nausea in multiple forums!!
I too have been critical of Bushing in the past, and I still reserve much skepticism, but I have seen some positive changes and movements which have been encouraging. Bushing himself has made some positive actions and gestures, and time will tell how genuine they are...but no need to put the boxing gloves on for this article....it adds nothing to the debate.
Here's my problem with the whole thing. Sure, everyone makes mistakes, but how can these particular mistakes be made? These are not subtle glove characteristics...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Esken told Perullo the (Dimaggio) glove, despite the Hall of Famer's blessing, wasn't even manufactured until 1954 - three years after Joltin' Joe retired. One tell-tale clue: The glove had lacing through the fingers, a sure sign it was a postwar model"
"To anybody who knows anything about gloves, it's black-and-white," Clevenhagen says. "This glove was made in the '50s."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
And this mistake (recapped from a december daily news story)
The Seaver error burns glove expert Dennis Esken, another Bushing critic, because it's so obvious: the glove has a large "R" near the thumb of the Rawlings-made glove, which indicates it wasn't available until at least the 1975 season, and four dots along the thumb, which mean it wasn't made until 1978, when Seaver was with the Reds. To glove collectors, that is a tell-tale clue, as obvious an indicator of the glove's true age as the big fins on a 1955 Chevy.
"This is the guy who is supposed to be a world-class expert?" Esken says.
Joe Phillips, the editor of "The Glove Collector" newsletter who advises Bushing, says the glove is confusing because it is a "hybrid" that includes features from early and late '70s gloves. But Bob Clevenhagen, Rawlings' senior glove designer, says that isn't so: "There's nothing special about this glove," Clevenhagen says. "There's nothing hybrid about it."
Clevenhagen, who reviewed a picture of the glove on the Sotheby's Web site, says the glove doesn't even look used. "The pocket doesn't even look like there's ever been a ball in it," he says. "It doesn't look game-used to me."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank goodness he's not a surgeon.
Dan
Dan -- just to set the record straight, and if you choose you can go back and read my previous posts on the Seaver glove, I didn't say the glove was "Hybrid." to Mr. O'Keefe. As Bob Clevenhagen would say, why the big deal about "Hybrid" anyway? My word would have been "retrofitted". This was a 1960s glove made in 1975 or later. To use the analogy, a 1960s Chevy made with new 1975 license plates and VIN. Bob is right, it is normal to customize or custom make gloves for the major leaguers. That's not in the context that I heard the glove described to me unfortunately (with the circle R logo) and I never saw the glove. It should have not been issued as it was with a 1969-71 dating period.
Regarding another part of Mr. O'Keefe's story. Will someone please produce the letters of authenticity on all of the gloves in this Sothebys auction? Surely LOAs were used for this important sale and for nearly $600,000 in gloves and mitts? If so, that would nail down who's responsibilities these were for their legitimacy.
I'm not certain, but it's possible that each Halper auction lot came with an unsigned 'LOA' from Sotheby's, and not from or listing any individual authenticators. The accompanying document to many of the Halper lots wasn't actually a letter of authenticty, but a property rights document-- sort of a fancy receipt. As the proprty rights document listed the lot and included Sotheby's authenticity guarantee, the document could be used as an LOA.
There's only one guy I know to be a true expert in game used gloves and you won't find him posting in this forum - so I'll share what I've learned from him about Jeter gloves. The truth is, Derek Jeter has only used Rawlings gloves and it is highly unlikely that one could ever obtain one of his current "gamers". Without getting into specifics, the model numbers are PRO 5XBCB and PRO DJ2. Steiner did sell some of these in the past, so you beter know what you are looking at. I hope this helps.
Bob Clevenhagen was kind enough to offer this on Derek Jeter's glove>>
American made was Pro 5 x BCB then around 2000 he started getting it made in the Philippines, same glove just called Pro DJ2 with a man throwing a ball instead of the bull stamp. There was a lot of these made and sold in NY area to dealers. Don't know if the imports were marked or not. I mark the USA ones my self.
---
from Joe: a couple of sporting goods places were offering gloves the same as Derek jeter wears but I'm not sure they were. Dennis knows.
Joe and Rob,
Thanks for your input. The glove in question is only a game model glove, but I wanted to be sure that it actually was the model that he uses. Thanks again Sam
So, there apparently is no documentary way to track a sale item back to an authenticator or authentication group but only to Sothebys as sort of a general guarantee of the item, or to a review of the list of authenticators for the auction listed in the catalog. No authenticator is listed for gloves, an oversight?
This, then, lays responsibility back to-- whatever was decided between Mr. Lifson and Mr. Bushing regarding examination of the gloves, which as a group sold for over $600,000.
There seems to be a difference of opinions.
This sale was massive and I can understand there were time constraints; things that should have been priortized might not have escaped from between the cracks so it would seem. I've been there.
If a 60's glove was made in the 70's it is still a 70's glove? The style or pattern or web is irrelevant.
The bottom line is when it was made, not what style it is or what characteristics it has.
Dave was wrong. You agree he was wrong and he got called out and busted on it. I understand that you did not personally examine the glove, but it seems like you had an opinion on it based upon a phone conversation.
Is the new VW bug made this year a 60's bug made in 2005? NO, IT IS A 2005 car...very simple.
I read your analogy again and now it makes even less sense that before:
A 60's car with 1975 license plates and VIN # would still be a 60's car, would it not?
A 60's glove that has been restored or modified is one thing, but a glove made in the 70's to look like a 60's glove would still be a 70's glove. THE STYLE OR FEATURES DOES NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT, IMPACT OR RELEVANCE TO WHEN IT WAS MADE. PERIOD.
Vikes -- without reading exactly what I wrote here goes. Hopefully If an automobile has a VIN number that is a 1975 VIN number (circle R Rawlings) and lets' say a license plate issued for it 1975 and Was Made in 1975 it is a Made in 1975 model. I never said that it wasn't . That was MY POINT, it IS a 1975 (or later) glove.
BUT -- this was a 1960s whatever car, MADE in 1975. A 1960s style glove made for Tom Seaver IN 1975!! Put this in your data base. Bob Clevenhagen will agree with me. Hopefully this finally makes sense to you. It does to me.You're reading something into this for YOUR own spin Vikes.
Now further to the crux : all I heard on the phone was a description of a 1960s car. I didn't see the car (glove) to match everything up. I wasn't authenticating the glove. I was asked a question and heard 1960s.
And VIKES, have you gotten around to answering Bruce Weaver on who you actually might be? And to my repeated question, have you posted on any subject but Dave Bushing's or my items?
I'm really not expecting a response.
Vikes --we're on the same page. It's just that you're looking for that little something to twist.
I should have said '60s "STYLE" car or glove MADE in 1975 so that would clear your mind a little.
Let me call you on the phone and describe a 1956 Chevy Bel Air to you in a casual conversation and see what you come up with, hopefully a 1956 Chevy Bel Air. Yes, if you see a picture of it or the actual car and discovered that had a "Made in 2005" on it that changes.
I didn't know if Dave had the glove and was asking for an "official" opinion on the glove or worry about it at the time. I certainly would have if I'd thought the Vikes Spanish Inquisition would begin. I didn't care why he was asking. I just gave an answer and really completely forgot about it.
By the way, what did you think of the efforts by Dennis' friends to tie me into the glove
No comment?
Thanks for the further clarification. I do think we are on the same page. The key is when the item was made. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't understand your comment about friends tying you to the glove. Unless the original article was incorrect, you tied yourself to the glove by commenting on something you did not examine. It seemed like to most all readers of the original article (even though you may not have meant to) that your comments were trying to explain away Dave's obvious mistake by saying there was some confusion.
You are a well respected individual in the hobby and as such, you should be more careful on what you say and how you say it. As I have been able to point out here in this very instance, what you (or anyone) say(s) should always be what you mean and leave nothing to interpretation. Say what you mean and mean what you say so that your "opinion" is crystal clear.
Vikes -- believe me, next time Dave calls I'll be all ears and keerful. I was trying to provide my perception of where "I was mentally" when the phone call came and after the phone call.
Dave should have never proceeded on that conversation basis. He will have the circle R tatooed on his arm. I mentioned this incident to people and then wrote about it here in the forum only to stand next to Dave while "all those without sin" cast their stones at him.
Now, please, again, go back and read my last post on the Seaver glove. A good friend of Denny's attempted to tie me into the Seaver glove before Dave saw it and it got into auction. Months before. By hinting that I heard about it first and was involved with B&E in getting it to Dave, etc. I was totally innocent on that but I resented the implications without proof and the underhanded way it was gone about. Wouldn't you agree?
By the way, I did talk to B&E yesterday for the second time in 10 years and will have a marvelous article for my newsletter. Dennis Esken will love it. He's part of it!
Thanks for the note on respect. I try hard to earn it. Don't always achieve it.
When I first started doing the gloves, newsletters I thought I knew everything and had it down pat. Guy called and said he had a Marty Marion Marathon glove. I pulled myself out of my chair and informed him that there was never a Marty Marion Marathon brand. Of course I was wrong then and I've continued to make mistakes since then but I do take care not to be 100% on anything until all the available facts are in.
I know nothing of the overall background sitution on the Seaver glove with Dennis Eskens' friends or what you are describing, so I cannot offer any comments on what you mean.
I will say that my thoughts are simply that if you or Dennis Esken or whomever else are the "glove experts" in the hobby, why are Bushing and Knoll even writing letters or offering opinions on any gloves in the first place?
Seems like the same old money grab to a lot of us here and people in the periphery of the hobby/business are beginning to see due to the national media coverage.
If they (Bushing/Knoll) call you and you give them your opinion (with or without a physical examination) and they write a letter and now it is wrong, who do people go back to? Couldn't they ("Dave and Dan") come back and say, "...well we checked it out with glove expert Mr. Joe Phillips and that is what he said...?" (I think you ought to ask your attorney about that one.)
I know they are your friends and all, but in my book, with friends like that, who needs enemies? Joe, doesn't that worry you that they might actually be tying you in without you even being aware of it or you wanting to be involved?
They are using your name, your reputation and your expertise for profit, or so it seems. That sounds like a situation that I myself would want no part of. Especially as you have said before, that you reeived no money for wrting any letters or offering your opinions.
And really aren't you supposed to "stick to what you know" anyway?
Sorry, I don't want my podiatrist looking at my charts before I have heart surgery even if the first guy is an MD. (How about you?)
Bushing's mea culpa sounds all fine and good, but is this an express "money back guarantee" on ANYTHING that he has signed? I bet the trial lawyers are salivating over that post. Or will you need 2 permission slips from home, a note from your HS prinicipal and small vial of holy water from the Vatican first before your item can be "re-examined"? And re-examined by who?????
On whose word would Dave give a refund. Sound like a whole bunch of BS and nothing to me....that is until someone decides to take him to court over it. I can see it now....the ratings on Court TV will skyrocket!
I'd watch the fall out if I were you. I hope for your sake they don't try and throw you under the bus first to save themselves in the long run.
Friendships are friendships, but business is business if you know what I mean, especially with all that $$$ at stake.
Being as this individual, vikes066, loves to write about others, factual or not, why don't readers of this board just ignore his posts?
By attempting to justify yourselves or others with repeated postings, you just keep giving this individual more to write about.
If you want to post about authenticators, start on autographs. There is more to write about there, then anything regarding equipment. Autograph authentication is one vast open range of sleaziness, back-stabbing, and good old boy dealings.
Here was my previous post from old Net54 board. I hope this give you the all the insight that you need:
___________________________________________
Would the FACTS change if my name was:
Paddy O'Donaghue or
Giana Marconi or
Enrique Rodriquez or
Heidi Von Essens or
Schlomo Rabinowitz or perhaps
Sam Smith or
Byung Kim Lee
Ponder that for a moment. Personally I am irrelevant to the issue. Male, female, young, old, as the Rock used to say in WWE Wrestling: It's doesn't matter!!!
You could substitute me for any of the people I listed above (obviously made up names) and the FACTS surrounding the discussion still remain the same.
I don't understand how simpler it can get
_________________________________
My credibility is not relevant. I am just the messenger. Don't shoot me if you don't like the message. Nothing would change if my name appeared. I can't comprehend posts like yours.
Please tell me how the facts would mystically change if I signed my name and put my self in jeopardy to fulfill Joe's or Bruce's our your curiosity. Let me help you...NOTHING.
Vikes does make some great points that seem to be based on fact. Do we really need his name to prove if these are indeed the facts? If memory serves correct, we never learned who was behind "Deep Throat", however, the facts behind Watergate and this "unknown" source proved to be accurate and true.
Vikes -- your first three words of your last post sort of summarizes.
Let me tell you a funny little story. Small country church. One of the older members in the church was always complaining about items in the Church budget that the pastor would submit, we'll call him the Rev. Bushmat and the complainer's name, let's say, Mr. "V".
If the good reverend would submit for a van for the bus ministry to help the elderly get to church, Mr. V would object to that in the budget meeting. If it was seeds for the flower garden in front of the parsonage, he would deliver a tirade against that. Should the reverend submit a proposal for a new Church pew because some of the members would have to stand during service then "Mr. V was stubbornly opposed to that.
The little candleabrum at the front of the Church was sooty, tarnished and had tallow on it, so one night at the budget meeting, the Rev. Bushman politely suggested that the Church purchase a candelabrum.
Mr. V jumped to his feet, and with firm disapproval, told the preacher: "Rev. Bushmat we don't even have anyone in this church who can play a candelabrum!"
One last parting word and then I'll be bidding good bye for awhile. One of the most despised of soldiers by the enemy is the sniper. This is a person who conceals himself so he can't be seen to take the enemy fire, and he wounds, maims and kills the enemy. Most of his own fellow soldiers don't truly respect such a soldier.
I am sorry to see you go if indeed you decide not to post anymore. While I may have been biting with my sarcasm, even you would agree what I posted was factual in nature. You and others may not have agreed, but it was indeed factual.
If you are leaving this forum, I do say that you will be missed. As I have said many times, you are and will continue to be well respected in the hobby. That won't change.
What I hope does change is that for your own sake that you watch your own back. There is a "circle of friends" in the industry that you are a small part of that is starting to crumble under the rumblings of all the mis-deeds of the past. I hope they don't pull you down with them. Lord bless you if you continue to give them free advice. I'd check with my attorney first.
The hobby is now entering the "Quiet before the storm" phase. Where will the first new bombshell come from? I guess we'll just have to sit back, wait and see.
I hope you'll at least "lurk" and provide some feedback as needed in the future. If not, adios muchaco. Being from Texas and as close as you are to the Nokona people, I'm sure you understand a few Spanish words.
PS- I didn;t take offense to the 1st line of your last post. I am not involved in the conspiracy of Dennis Esken's friends that you talk about. I don't understand what all that is about.
He's able to make statements (factual or not) and he's able to hide, unlike the rest of us who have no problem with being recognized. If we guess true to his name, he would just deny it anyways so no one really wins.
The VBC switched to a pre-war only site and before that, vikes lived to debate with the same 'song and dance'. The VBC also made a rule that said if you were going to be as opinionated, all 'anonymous' posts will be deleted. That should be done here as no one can pin point the source since he's hiding.
I will just continue to ignore him and I hope others do as well. The Dave Bushing debate seems to be an obsession and at some point, we all have to move on from it. No new answers will ever be revealed with the kind of threads that come from the mouth of the Byung-Yung Kim over here.
I believe that everyone has the right to face his/her accuser. When I was in college, I recall taking a course on research strategies. The primary focus of the course was how to determine whether or not someone else's research and finding were credible. As I recall, one of the most important pieces of any legitimate research is for the researcher to state any potential biases that they might have upfront. That way you can look at the information within the context of whatever biases the researcher may have and draw your own conclusions. I would simply like to know what Mr. Vikes' biases are, what is motivating him to invest time in posting, what experiences may have influenced him, and so forth. Does he have a vendetta against Mr. Bushing? Is he really trying to do a good thing for the hobby? Is he a competing authenticator? I would like to know. As we all know, facts can be spun in many directions. Mr. Vikes is not just putting facts out there, he is expressing an opinion and selling an idea or belief to this forum. I would just like to know why? This is not an indictment of Mr. Vikes, just an honest response to why he should consider revealing himself. Until he does, there will be a lack of credibility in my opinion.
it does not matter who vikes is. it's about his motivation. Thus far, his motivation has been to enlighten us through his vast knowledge and his unafraid approach toward the entrenched powers in the hobby. this is done with no disrespect to very knowledgable and kind people like joe phillips. joe understands this and has been unafraid in answering vikes directly.
i'm enjoying the tete a tete between vikes and joe -- without a forum like this, these important issues could not be discussed straighforwardly. kudos to both vikes and joe.
I have no problem telling people who I am. I stand behind what I say. Seth, I'm not saying his points are good and they may be factual or they may be not but more respect would be made if we knew who/what we were dealing with.
All great debates have two parties, two known parties even throughout history and I'm insignificant because I basically exist as an observer --one that has seen this fight spill over long enough from the VBC thread with the same argument over and over and over and over again. If I was ready to make a statement like vikes is making, I would let the world know who they were dealing. Instead, it's rather cowardice.
DJ
P.S Seth, are you Vikes? Kidding. I am a fan of your books and admire your collection.
thanks for the nice words. they are much appreciated.
i can understand the frustration vis a vis vikes' anonimity but actually, i find it refreshing: it brings no pre-conceptions about the messenger -- it places the focus on his well-written/documented theories, whether you agree with them or not.
i'm just one collector, but lest anyone get the impression that i'm taking vikes' "side", i'm not: i just don't care if he's anonymous.
having said that, i personally have high regard for the talent and the integrity of both dan and dave. i have no reason not to. I've bought from them and used their authentication services and i sleep quite well at night. they also happen to be very nice guys.
