Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>This guy has to be kidding. First he has it listed for $9.95 and then revisted it and made it $99.95. I think he would have been lucky to get $9.95. What do you guys think? Rob <BR><BR><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dllViewItem&category=31722&item=41273049 53&ssPageName=STRK:MEBWA:IT" target=_new>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dllViewItem&category=31722&item=41273049 53&ssPageName=STRK:MEBWA:IT</a><BR><BR>[edited to fix link]

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>I think the seller is a frigginÕ dumb a** and the only potentially bigger frigginÕ dumb a** would be the someone who bids on it.<BR><BR>Too subtle?

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>It would be nice if there could be a self-policed subset of ebay. In this dream world, everyone would have an IQ over 100 and be honest. If x number of other qualified members issued complaints against you for stupidity, dishonesty, exhorbitant s&h, etc., you are automatically booted. A minimum amount of feedback would be required to even be considered for membership.

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>Bill Cornell</b><p>This card was nominated by Ben as the worst card on eBay in a previous post - <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1080690945&lp=1082 048052" target=_new>http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1080690945&lp=1082 048052</a>. It's been relisted with an even more ridiculous starting price.<BR><BR>Bill

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>I have a blank back AND blank front Wagner T-206 card if anyone is interested in making an offer. I have analyzed the cardboard and can almost assure it was a T-206 card. The card is in great condition but may be a little short so I can't guarantee it will grade. By far, the rarest Wagner out of them all.

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>mzm55</b><p>Jon how much are you intrested in selling your wagner blank back for ?

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>I don't know Jon. Your Wagner sounds like it could be a proof. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>Jon Canfield</b><p>It may have roled off the same sheet as Old Blue Eyes

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Lithograpic ink (such as used on the Lajoie and T206s) does not disolve in water. If it is one of those mass produced reprints (also lithograph), it likely was exposed to a harsh, if household, agent.

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>t-206collector</b><p>I have some very badly damaged t206 cards in my collection that were exposed to something that made the ink on the back blur and fade away. I am certain these are not reprints -- they are just junko commons that were left exposed to something for too long. I can insert some scans if you like, but they're gross cards. They all came in a lot from a very unhealthy individual -- unshowered, very skinny, grime under his finger nails, etc. I always suspected the money I paid for them went straight to this guy's very apparent heroin addiction.<BR><BR>

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>hankron</b><p>Different types of ink disolve under different types of chemicals. For example, some inks can be disolved with certain types of around the house rubbing alcohol. <BR><BR>In forensic cases, they often disolve an ink in order to separate its substances. When they have identified substances, the can sometimes deduce the age, type and even brand of ink. They sometimes are able to make a judgement about how long the ink has been on the paper, by how long it takes to disolve. <BR><BR>I'm sure a number of genuine cards have been damaged by the accidental exposure to normal household or workshop substances.<BR><BR>One of the worries of beginning card soakers (removing cards from albums via water), is that the images might suddenly dissapear. The cardstock may be warped or whatever from the water, and if you soak it for an hour the paper with the ink on it may be damaged or removed. But, as noted, lithographic ink only disolves under the lengthy exposure of specific harsh substances, and won't disolve under water.<BR>

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>runscott</b><p>For instance, t206's can be soaked easily, but the lettering on the back of t205s tends to come off if you aren't careful. Old Judges obviously can't be soaked, but "Talk of the Diamond" can be. What about Mayos? What about Goudeys?<BR><BR>Anyone know enough to make a more complete list?

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>1948 Leaf: no problem<BR>1951-2 Bowman: no problem<BR><BR>Assuming we are talking distilled H2O of course.

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>well, I guess if you just have to have something akin to a card to complete your set...personally, even assuming it is real, I'd rather have a clean reprint to fill the space.

Napoleon (Larry) Lajoie 1933 Goudey POOR (not ruth)
 

Posted By: <b>Rob</b><p>Wow now we have a bin for $1000.00. This guy must be smoking something really good. Rob&nbsp;