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

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Perhaps someone was fooling around who had printing knowledge that made one many years ago for fun, or whatever, and it ended up in someones collection, who knows? Its not even the point. Point is that its not deemed authentic by a reputable grading company therefore it meets Verkmans standards stated on his website for a return. End of story, period. If it is real he wouldnt have disputed it, as he couldve resold it. Perhaps realizing the card is a counterfeit he's doing all he can so the buyer takes the loss and not himself.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1174567977/last-1174570118/Can+anyone+tell+me+what+this+card+is

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

Just crazy.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Not sure what SV thinks paper testing will prove -- as others have already pointed out, even if the paper is old, it doesn't mean the card is real.

This Ruth card/calendar (whatever it is) is starting to look a lot like our favorite fake T206 Wagner printed on old paper:
http://bobconnelly.com/honuswagnert206.html

I say, let Arnie and Walter tell you its old. Then, adopt the theory that old means real, like Messrs. Cobb and Edwards. Then send it to Bob to sell.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

I'm surprised this thread has gone this long.

Verkman sold a card he guaranteed as authentic. His guarantee on his website discloses any argument on this point.

Buyer wins a card that is later deemed a reproduction; hence, not authentic.

Verkman won't honor his guarantee.

Why hasn't the buyer just stopped posturing on an internet message board and sue the seller for breach of guarantee? After all, CSA is holding over $18,000 of his money. Everything else is just noise.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Scientific testing by itself CANNOT establish the card is real, period. Even if the testing shows the composition of the paper and ink is consistent with a 1930 manufacture, that same result can be produced by a counterfeiter making the card yesterday and using substances known to be available in 1930. So Mr. Verkman CANNOT win his case by scientific testing alone. Therefore, even if the testing does not prove the card is not authentic, absent some corroborating evidence establishing a 1930 manufacture (e.g., a period newspaper ad illustrating the card), the buyer can still credibly argue (via the expressed opinions of hobby experts, grading services and auction houses) that the card is not genuine.

Peter in my view makes the dispositive point. Assuming Clean Sweep represents that any item can be returned if a reputable grading service deems it not authentic (and I read Clean Sweep's guaranty to say just that), case closed (absent perhaps showing fraud, collusion on PSA's part). PSA has opined just that, and by any credible legal standard they will be found to be a reputable grading service.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

The buyer is hoping the court of public opinion will persuade Mr. Verkman to do the right thing before the buyer has to spend money on an attorney or commit to some contingent fee arrangement. There is no rush to bring suit.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Wow - an honest dispute about authenticity can really bring up some emotions. Allow me to make a few points please:

(1) The TCMA type card appears to be the same pose. That does mean a lot as we all know many pre-war cards used file photos as images; ie we see the same pose of Cobb and others on many cards. This is interesting but CERTAINLY NOT definitive.

(2) Return policy. I completely where people are coming from on this but please understand my position on this: (1) This is a unique situation and we all know grading services can change their mind; (2) This part of our web site did not exist when this card was auctioned; (3) Mr Haverkos bid by phone and not on the internet; (4) We are willing to accept a return but we want to know the actual age of the card first.

(3) Winning bidder/board. I have been pushing to have this card tested since last October. If you step back from the situation and think about it, why does Mr Haverkos not want to test the card? Surely with three letters in his mind there can only be one outcome. He has been offered this for six months and has resisted it at every turn. You really make it hard to for someone to establish authenticity without access to the item. Everyone on this board knows I would never run a bait and switch and keep his card and the money; further, as I pointed out to him repeatedly, I would personally sign for any package.

(3a) Mr Haverkos ABSOLUTELY was manipulative with his first and post and even with his second. While the internet is great for free exchanges of information, it really is troubling when people (as other board members have pointed out) make HUGE OMISSIONS. If he is so sure of his position and is a straight guy, why resort to these tactics? I never ignored him or make a single promise that I did not keep.

(4) General. What is the real issue here? I think it is whether the card is real and I will overnight him a check immediately if this can be proven by aging the card. The basic rationale for rejecting this card is that we have not seen this before; NO-ONE HAS DONE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS. If and when this is tested, I plan on comparing this larger size Goudey Ruth items like an R309-1 and even Ruth bookplate images from the 1930s.

(5) Testing. I am not running a scam operation here and have never; this is simply an honest disagreement and desire to know the answer from science. I will have the ink AND paper test, both front and back. I believe the suspect T206 Wagner may be a real back with a fake front as I believe only the back was tested; this is a very common tactic among people who fix and alter early cards.

(6) I agree 1000% to the terms set by Judge Fred, who is the only one who is really trying to be fair to both parties here (I do know him, but perhaps he is a wise real judge!).
I will in fact pay the cost of the testing regardless of the outcome; in other words, if it comes back from the period, it is on my dime. I will go further and say publicly that if the authenticity cannot be determined by testing (after an actual attempt), I will also issue a refund.


Bottom line: is this about finding out if the card is real or running a smear campaign? All I am after is indisputable truth and if that is not possible, I will issue a complete refund.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Steve- do you think it is possible that you and the buyer will be able to resolve this between yourselves, or do you think it would be best to use the services of an outside third party? It does appear that the two of you can not do it alone.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Steve; I bid on high end items on behalf of a big collector and have scratched your auction house off my list. I'm not sure how many other customers you have lost but why not just give the guy his dough back, authenticate it and re sell it?
How can it be more simple then that?
Give the buyer a break here as it appears that he really doesn't want the item now authentic or not so why not just do the right thing?
If I were you, I would fix this before you do your firm any more damage.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

"(1) This is a unique situation and we all know grading services can change their mind; (2) This part of our web site did not exist when this card was auctioned; (3) Mr Haverkos bid by phone and not on the internet; (4) We are willing to accept a return but we want to know the actual age of the card first."

If an unqualified guaranty was made, then #1 is clearly irrelevant, and #4 is inconsistent with the terms of the guaranty. #3 also is irrelevant; surely the degree of protection the buyer gets doesn't depend on his method of bidding, and the guaranty nowhere says it is applicable only to internet bids. That said, if #2 is true, then no return guaranty was made with respect to the item. Is there a way objectively to determine whether the language at issue is indeed a recent addition to the website? At first blush it seems a little too convenient under the circumstances to carry a lot of credulity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean BH

I would think that it would be in the best interest for Steve to return the money, get the card back and have it tested. If it turns out to be "authentic" I would think the card would sell for a lot more.

How much is it worth to drag this out?

Sean BH

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

I have been trying to stay away but let me make a few points:

1-Did the auction catalog contain the authenticity guaranty?

2-If yes to #1, why is it relevant that Mark bid by phone?

3-Although, as Steve states, this is a "unique" item, I assume that the guaranty clause does not have a caveat to exclude "unique" items

4-I agree with Corey; testing the paper can only prove the negative, but not authenticity

5-Question for Steve: If you accept the return will you attempt to return the lot to the original consignor and, if so, what recourse do you believe you have against him?

[Archive]

Posted By: PC

Paper testing is a red-herring. It might prove that the paper is not old (and thus, without a dobut, that the card is fake), but what if it demonstrates that the paper used was old? Will a refund NOT be given at that point?

PSA has already spoken -- they believe the card is not authentic.

Why not agree to let SGC or GAI make the final determination? If SGC cannot confirm authenticity, then that would confirm PSA's conclusion, and that should be the end of this.

Or even better -- assuming he would agree to look at the card, send it Kevin Saucier. Based on what I've seen on this board recently, he'll not only be able to tell you if it's authentic, but also exactly how it was faked (if it is not authentic).

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Mark- Demeter1

You are correct - this is a commercial dispute and those who may have used the term punitive damages were using the term generically. In most states, including the state where I practice, there are unfair and deceptive trade practices statutes that deal with commercial disputes. Those statutes typically have some sort of liquidated damages provision - here, its treble damages and attorneys fees. Not saying that the facts in this case are sufficient to prove a deceptive practices claim, only that there is likely some basis for additional recovery.

Peter - I am, of course, aware that there is no need to bring suit immediately here and that the buyer would prefer to work it out without the need for fees. However, based on SV's continual refusal to simply take the card back, its unlikely that this will be resolved cheaply.

Steve V. - If testing cannot establish authenticity, why go through the hassle. Take the card back and if you are curious about the date, test it yourself before you resell. Even if paper testing says the card stock dates to the 1930s, it doesnt establish that the card is authentic. Your guarantee is apparently worthless and that tells me all I really need to know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Sorry I was responding to Josh Adams, not you.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

"All I am after is indisputable truth and if that is not possible, I will issue a complete refund."

To beat a dead horse, if testing cant offer "indisputable truth" that the card is real, then in your own words, a refund should be forthcoming.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I think it is worse that Steve is saying that the guarantee is more current than the sale of the item.... yet he will not abide by the guarantee.
Its not as if he is saying it is an outdated guarantee.... quite the opposite - it seems to be the current one.

Plain and simple - if your guarantee hinges on the opinion of a reputable grader - abide by it even if you disagree with the grader or think he could be wrong.

Otherwise, change your guarantee.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

If it's proven real, being that I was the underbidder twice, I will buy the card for $19,000.....

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I gotta disagree with ya there, if the buyer bought this card at a time Mr. Verkman was not promising a return guaranty, then the buyer is not entitled to it simply because Mr. Verkman later enlarged his guaranty. I read somewhere there is a way to get a picture of websites as of earlier dates, does anyone know?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

There is a family-run grocery store near where I live, that has a sign out front that says:
Rule #1: The customer is always right
Rule #2: See Rule #1

This thread is highly entertaining...it's kinda like a big train wreck, grotesque but you can't seem to turn away.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

my comment (as titled) was from a customer's perspective. Not so much from a legal perspective (which I defer to people more learned than I am).

But as a prospective customer....

I find it troubling that this is the current return policy and yet it is not being abided by.

As a customer, am I to believe that the auction house will abide by a reputable grading company's opinion for all future items.... or will there always be the "well they could be wrong or mistaken" defense?


And as noted by Leon.... a buyer is there if the item is legit. I could only scratch my head and wonder why an auction house would balk at a return that is very much consistent with their current philosophy as to what a 'good reason' for a return would be.... especially if they believe the item to be genuine and could sell it to someone else.


edit: grammar (probably still wrong)

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

I am absolutely willing as Barry and others have suggested to have a COMPLETELY independent third-party perform a test. Again, to talk about red herrings, we all know the games with paper and ink. This is clearly something that was printed; people that use period ink tend to sign autographs and not print cards and I want to make every best effort and then some to resolve this definitively and AGAIN, if tests are inconclusive, the winning bidder gets an immediate refund.

Corey and Jay, you are both very bright guys and I respect you tremendously but how would one ever corroborate a unique item? There is not always available a vintage ad, especially as in this case, where it is likely a prototype. Testing can also be a positive as it would tell us a lot if the ink and paper were from 1929/30.

It troubles me that few address the key point as to whether this is real. Any quick look at the blog can tell that grading services often make mistakes and are not infallible; this seems to me to be a particularly potent case with a unique card. Also, this needs to be said (as it was to the winning bidder): had PSA run a paper and ink test and on that basis rejected the card, there would be no issue and an immediate refund.

People, technical issues can be debated, but why such a momentous resistance to knowing if the card is real via testing? However this resolves itself, this card needs to be tested to know its authenticity.

Strictly speaking as hobbyists (as I am a collector as well as a dealer myself), the only way to resolve something like this is to test. This happens in the art world all the time, in the world of historical documents; our hobby should be at the stage at which we can resolve thing like this and not by collecting history (ie, we all have seen or not seen this before, ergo real or fake)

Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Lundrigan

I have a question for Leon since he was one of the underbidders on this card "or anyone else for that matter".The question I have was brought up by others earlier in this thread but it seems like the question was lost in the shuffle. Is it common practice for the auctioneer to be disclosing bid information about other biddders on an item during an ongoing auction?This seems to me a little bit unethical and does even more damage to the credibility of the auction house in my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I would like to add... because I have not said it already:

I do not know Steve, and I don't believe I have had any prior business dealings with him.

But, I am very impressed with Steve's answers and the manner in which he is posting.

He is a gentleman in a tough situation - and that is to be commended.

Based on that, I am guessing this will eventually work itself out in an amicable way.

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan

http://youtube.com/watch?v=EdlKux504-c

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

So is this an official change to the policy that returns can be made only after paper and ink tests are performed? Will there be a reimbursement for these testing procedures?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike

Internet Archive:

http://www.archive.org/

This page, with this word for word guarantee, has been published on the csauctions.com website since at least March of 2005.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305035144/http://www.csauctions.com/html/faq.html

So there goes that defense....

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

To answer your question about an auctioneer telling anything about other bids, it shouldn't be done, there should never be that situation. With that being said, and I will not name names, it is not extraordinary to be told something to garner another bid. Again, it shouldn't be done....but it is.....I have first hand knowledge of it being done, and it was not in any CSA auction.....I have no idea about this card, and this issue, in that auction....I am just answering the question you asked..I also know several good friends that have had the same experiences as I......best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

if so - that is contrary to what was said here (maybe an honest error - but pretty bad).

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

"This page, with this word for word guarantee, has been published on the csauctions.com website since at least March of 2005.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050305035144/http://www.csauctions.com/html/faq.html

So there goes that defense...."

What say you to this apparently objective evidence, Mr. Verkman? This appears contrary to your statement that the guaranty did not appear on the website at the time the item in question was offered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Lundrigan

Thanks for the respose Leon I read something in a previous post that made me comment but I just didn`t have the STRENGTH to go back and re-read every comment.I tried to state my question as best I remembered reading it.I would also agree with the post from Joe D. Though I do not personally know them, Mr. Verkman and Mr. Haverkos do seem like a gentlemen in a tough situation.Hope this works out for all involved.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Refund the money.

Test it yourself. If its real, you have a buyer. If its not, you would have to refund the money anyway.

The cost to not refunding the money but getting your way?

This thread will go to 300+ posts and many current & potential customers will become non-customers.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay

None of these individuals PSA, Mastro, SGC, GAI, Fogel are not Superman. They do not have x-ray vision to say that the actual orientation of the card is not authentic. Because they handle many expensive pieces (that has no relevance to this case). They never handled this piece which is the primary topic since it is a one of a kind card. It's merely an opinion what they are saying, not a fact because there is no proof. I am surprised at Mastro's statement-his last sentence.
You must take this card to a testing third party that handles world class documents for inspection. You are doing the right thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Double negatives are troublesome.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

No they're not.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

Al, you're grumpy as of late.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

I've heard that. I'll try harder.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

Nikdo nic nevyhrál.

"Nobody didn't win nothing" a triple negative which is the way this is turning out.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

What is most shocking to me is that Steve Verkman is still holding on and still thinks he can prevail on this one! How can he recognize a fake card if he can't recognize when he lost the battle and the war? (rhetorical question). How does someone with such low business intuition stay in business as long as he has?

Steve, for your own good, listen to what everybody here is saying. If the members of this board do not bid your auctions, you are sunk.
JimB

Edited to delete an account of my previous bad experience with Steve Verkman. I decided I do not want to contribute to prolonging this any further, even if I am not a fan of his.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Steve,

I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I think the overall resistance to having it tested may lie in what you intend to do with the results. I'm thinking that if it comes back as 30's on paper, ink or both you will conclude that it is real and call it conclusive.

So there are these possible outcomes:

1) Forego testing and refund based on expert opinion.

2) Have it tested and it fails. Again, a refund

3) Have it tested and it passes, but you agree that it is not necessarily conclusive and refund the money, possibly after further negotiation or whatever.

4) Have it tested and it passes, and you decide that is conclusive. In that case, you would be giving the age of paper and/or ink more weight than the collective expert opinion, and actually giving that outcome veto power over the experts.

So for me, the issue of testing comes down to this: It would give you the opportunity to deny a refund by taking a passing result and defining it as more persuasive than all combined experts. And you would be able to make that call because as of right now, you hold the money and Mark holds the card. This despite the many reasons given above that testing is not conclusive.

So all outcomes lead to refund except one. That's a passing result that you consider conclusive even though few others would.

It's just my opinion, but that's why I don't think there is a big clamor going on in support of testing. To help others support your position, can you clarify what you would do in the case of passing results?

Thx,

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

The return guarantee is clear. PSA, Mastro, etc are reputable experts. Yes, PSA, Mastro, Lifson and Josh Evans have been wrong individually (as we all have), but it's unlikely they would all wrong simultaneously. Mastro, REA and Lelands are competing companies, and aren't in collusion. If one of those experts offered different opinion there would be debate, but they are in agreement. If Steve accepts return and after various tests the card is proven to be vintage, he can resell it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

real, fake, old, new... whatever.

bottom line is the customer service in this situation is horrendous.

I spent over $5k in one of their auctions last year with no problems, but I won't take that kind of chance again!

Refund his money, he has a letter from the president of PSA for crying out loud.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Jay (JASONn11) -

You need to reread this thread. First, paper testing (whether done by someone who handles "world class" documents or not) cannot prove that the item is authentic. The fact that PSA, Mastro and others deem the card to be fake has everything to do with this issue since CSA's guarantee states quite specifically that they will refund a buyer's money if any reputable grading company deems an item not to be authentic. That is exactly what has happened here. Mistakes or not, PSA is reputable. To borrow a very astute comment (which I couldnt agree with more) from an email I received about this matter from another forum member:

"I find it totally hypocritical of these dealers who say 'no returns if graded by a respected third party authenticator'. But when these authenticators won't slab a card, then the dealers say 'the grading companies don't know what they are doing and I know better.'"

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

...

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

I think at this point Stevie should get familiar with the phrase "Would you like fries with that, sir?"

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Jeff,

That's priceless....

"Refund his money, he has a letter from the president of PSA for crying out loud."

[Archive]

Posted By: mark

Wow...seeing the activity on this board the past couple of days, if I ever go into business selling vintage cards I'll be extra sure to keep on the good side of you guys!!!

I've had two very different experiences with Steve. The first was similar to yours, Jim, where I bought two cards at auction that were listed in Ex condition, but had paper loss on the backs and creases. I called, returned the cards, and got a refund with no problem at all (interestingly, I saw them again later for sale in VG condition). Since that time I have always assumed that everything was one level over-graded and bid accordingly.

Later, I bought a 1986-87 Fleer Basketball near-set. The problem was that the four cards used in the catalog picture weren't included. I do believe that the folks at CS Auctions went to some effort to find them but couldn't. I called frequently for the first few months, and while they did find one of the four cards and sent it to me, I kept being told that it was hard to find individual cards in comparable condition...yet they've sold many, many 1986-87 sets and partial sets since. They rarely called back, and eventually I just gave up, stopped calling, stopped buying, and stopped bidding.

I agree that for better or worse it all comes down to customer service, and that customer experiences and recommendations carry a lot of weight.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Guys- We have said all we need to. I am not protecting anyone...I promise...but unless there is something we already don't know do we really need to continue the bashing? Steve is contacting a paper conservator now...I have spoken with Steve a few times today. It is being worked on now.....Lets give these guys a chance to work it out and chill out for a day or two.....we've all said enough....

Herman- thanks for putting your name by your post. I deleted it before that because it was semi-anonymous, which is against board rules. Also, I want you to edit your login with reference to CSA.....you may say what you want to but lets keep it professional. This is someone's business ....lets be fair. I do think a refund will come in the near future but again, those things are being worked on....This is a difficult time for the buyer and seller so lets respect that....please

ps..Herman- I just read your statement about a child porn website...that is hideous....you need to prove that or edit your statement...this is getting a little out of hand...

thanks folks.....