Interesting Article On Peter Nash
 

I just found the below interesting article.

http://www.murraychass.com/?p=6099&u...On+Baseball%29

Does any of this change the fact that so many of the "vintage" jerseys Halper sold to MLB for them to donate to the HoF were fakes? (And that Halper's stories of provenance could not possibly have been true?)
Or his well-publicized story--also a lie-- about playing under coach Jimmie Foxx in college?

Or, the irony of pointing out how unregulated, uncontrolled, and un-fact-checked internet blogs are. In your own blog.

i guess halper didnt do anything wrong then because the person reporting it is someone mr. 2% doesnt like.

No, it just means he's a vengeful crusader as opposed to a moral one! :)

As long as he tells the truth, I don't care about his motives.

Chris, you posted it what are you thoughts.

Lotsa luck!

He already gave his thoughts: He said it was "interesting."

My third grade teacher told us never to describe anything as either "interesting," or "nice."

this is one of those one sentence threads with no point again. third times the charm.

From the stuff I've read over the years, I think Halper and Nash must have been separated at birth. They both seem to be cut from the same cloth. Circus hucksters that draw/drew people in by their tales and yarns. Their respective motivation really doesn't matter to me, both have been alleged to be spurious.

Just because the messenger is a general deadbeat, doesn't mean that EVERY message they spout is false. Some of the best information is provided by the worst offenders.

I think Peter does an excellent job....and he has a lot of resources, of which many are of the human kind.

Thanks Ken.

An ancient proverb (written by me): "In a debate, proving wrong your opponent doesn't automatically mean you're right. In many debates, both sides are wrong."

What is even the point of that 'article'...

"I first encountered Nash’s name and talked to him in July 2011 for a column I wrote about how he had grotesquely maligned and tried to destroy the reputation – posthumously – of Barry Halper, a limited partner of the New York Yankees, a world renowned collector of baseball memorabilia and a genuinely good person."

Barry Halper's own lies and fraud destroyed his reputation. Murray Chass is trying to shoot the messenger.

Not really fair to compare Nash to Halper. Halper died a fraud while Nash turned the page.

there is no point other than the author trying to carry water for other people who aren't mentioned but are behind rehabilitating halper's name while trying to do the opposite to nash.

startling how the views on nash differ between the card side and the autograph side.

edited to add: he might not be that savior if after reading his articles you want to sell your collection :)

Any writer using those words does not have any credibility at all.

The question is, what kind of job is he working at? Is it straight-up investigative journalism? Hardly. He does make some good points here and there, but his stories are so slanted, it's no wonder he has to keep raking that muck or else it would roll right off.

Me, I'll stick to reading the posts here on Net54. That's where Pete gets most of the meat at the heart of his stories anyway, and personally, I prefer my meat without that sloppy gravy of heavily spun slander applied to it.

Last year I visited the Bob Feller museum and saw Feller's Babe Ruth day bat. Seeing as it came from Halper I questioned the story behind it. I posed the question to this board and only heard crickets. I then posed the question to Nash. Here is what he said (I assume Nash won't mind me repeating this):

"I asked all the same questions you had in regard to the Feller bat and considering Halpers track record was very skeptical. I include my research on this bat in the book, which surprisingly reveals that the bat appears to be authentic. I was able to track down some hi res photos of Ruth using the BST as a cane and was able to match the grain of the bat in the photo with the bat in the museum.

I will email you some of the photos when I get a chance after thanksgiving."

and then a follow up:

"In addition, it does look like Robinson's [Eddie Robinson, the man who claims to have retrieved the bat after Ruth set it down] story checked out and he actually stood by the story which was repeated by a few of his relatives.

I must say I was surprised things checked out but relieved that Fellers. Museum hadn't been defrauded."

For those of you who think he is only out to bury Halper, here he supports Halper.

Nash deserves far more credit than many on this board are willing to give him. You can't change the past. If he could, maybe he would. Got to think others in this hobby who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar would like to change the past as well. However, in the present Nash is an advocate of cleaning up the hobby which makes him ok in my book.

+1

Except that he refuses to pay the price for his misdeeds and as far as I know has never even owned up to them. "don't do the crime if you can't do the time..." Well, we're waiting.

I don't have an opinion on the Ruth bat in the Feller museum, but I did see it last year and took lots of pics and posted them to the memorabilia board.

Ken, so you and David are a team? I didn't realize that. Now I understand your previous response to one of my posts. I guess I have to respect your having your buddy's back, even if inappropriate.

So because he wont admit to do anything wrong we should not look at what he has to say. Dan do you have any idea how many items have been proven not to authentic or stolen because of him. He does not only go after Rea. In the last few weeks it has been Huggins and Scot, REA and Heritage. I dont think he has any favorites.

Reaction to the 'new' Nash is going to differ widely among collectors. For me, I have no use for him until he admits his wrong-doing publicly, on his site. Even then, until he quits stealing information from this board (and I assume other places as well), I have no use for him - in addition to being a liar, he's also a plagiarist.

That's just my own thoughts about it - I realize that for some, as long as he's providing useful information today, all else is okay. I do read his site, and I do find useful information there, but I'm not patting him on the back.

I think attitudes toward him might mellow a bit if he had cards for sale that people wanted or needed. Just a hunch and I'm probably wrong. :)

Information given freely and publicly, can not be stolen.

If one also publicly states that he has no use for someone, then uses what that person states or does, one has the appearance of a hypocrite.

As for others seeking a public shaming to appease their sense of right and wrong, then let those others publicly confess their misdeeds first.

I agree. It is a benefit to have an additional fine mind reviewing auction listings.

But it is not truth to state an auctioneer's mal-intent, for every listing on which an error is made. Auctioneers make errors, and auctioneers rely on people who make errors.

It is a good service provided to have such errors, or possible errors, brought to light, and to debate. but it is a dis-service to spread distorted truth with regard to intent, etc.

The manner of the message is at least as important as the message itself.

I wish such reports were a little less emotion and less repetitive emotion, and more straight analytical.

Help me here: is this a snide comment??

Feel free to peruse old posts, or PM David. We are definitely not a team. However, sometimes we agree on things. I just got done reading about you agreeing with him on another post; are you a team?

Please let me know where I've been inappropriate.

Ken

Your initial 'snide remark' post surprised me. Now that we've had a couple more exchanges, I'm wondering why I was surprised.

Goodbye Ken.

It's hard to know if what he's posting is true or if it's vendetta. He was heavily involved in fraud in this hobby and he's out there lobbing bombs at everyone without so much as a sentence on his own crimes. He's the Jimmy Swaggart of the baseball memorabilia world...until I hear him tell us how much he sinned he's just another charlatan to me.

I have a pint glass with Homer Simpson quotes that is more useful than the above.

DUDE... you are throwing haymaker tonight! Good Lord sir..double espresso?

no, you are right.

If I bought a card from him I'd be afraid it was fake.

Ben, the guy called me a hypocrite and said it's okay for people to plagiarize other people's work. Quite honestly, I could throw virtual haymakers at that guy all night long. And I'm drinking beer tonight, not coffee.

I have a great time on Net54, but while the card forum and the non-autograph forums involve my primary collecting areas, I come to the autograph forum purely for entertainment. Not to slight anyone, but I really don't learn much here. Anyone who has anything useful to share does so via phone, email and PM. And if I can say that, and I'm no expert at anything related to autographs, you can imagine how guys like Jim must feel.

When anyone with anything worth sharing says that they are "leaving", they just mean this forum. The people in here who cause such events are the only ones missing out - everyone who is actually serious about exchanging information and knowledge will continue to do so, just not here.

Leon - please do not EVER merge this sub forum back with the others. You've allowed those who choose to, to ignore it altogether. That's a great option to have.

LOL. I believe Scott and I share the same credo: I (we) don't suffer fools gladly.
(I actually used that phrase in my Match profile. AND got a wife out of it!)

Haymaker? Scott tosses pipe bombs as if they are cigarette butts. ;)

And before anyone gets their panties in a wad, I am NOT calling anyone a fool. Publicly. Yet.

i hear you, i would feel much better owning a card mastro and lifson owned.

I don't own any cards Mastro owned (always got outbid in his auctions), but I do own two Nebraska Indian cabinet photos that Rob Lifson helped me obtain by sending someone who contacted him to me.

Where is the face palm icon?

See, what you did here, you didn't respond how someone wanted you to, so your reward is a snide remark. Been happening way to often over here recently.

I think the cause is "I'm-so-full-of-myself,-I-think-everyone-wants-to hear-every-one-of-my-witticisms,-ramblings,-and-bitchslaps"-itis. We're in the process of running off the intelligent people out there so we can fill the forum with "That's fake because I said so" and "I've got the biggest d*ck on the internets" threads.

Ken

PS: I've set the timer to see how long until I've been hit with a virtual haymaker!