Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorewalker
Your disclosure was better than mine. Anyway, I hear what you are saying. I have seen some one offs in the hobby in my short time here that in most instances turned out to be legit items after extensive research. I totally accept your skepticism. There are lots of unexplained things out there lacking full stories due to lack of technology or importance.
I think as an auction house, Hunt does a better job than most of providing information rather than hype. To my pov, I feel they were mild and responsible in this write up.
And the two circus clowns having analysis done on their Wags I feel is not a fair comparison to put both of this uncut sheet's experts in the same light but opinions are like assholes...Forman had no vested interestin 2016 and I cannot expect him to do much else than we would do by seeing it having handled pre war issues. I think Dave has likely handled many so his vouching for feeling it is a valid period piece would carry weight with me.
If I had an extra 30K plus to stick into something (since I am not liquidating my retirement accounts for cards) I would have been all over this. Could I use the money in the hobby in a better way, yes, but not sure it would be as interesting as this piece.
|
I am not familiar with the two named experts herein who found the sheet to be possibly from this period. This methodology doesn't have much (any?) of a history of being used in our hobby accurately and I am a natural born skeptic. Forman's conclusion is in another category, his conclusion is very restrained and not much of a conclusion at all so it doesn't say much as testimony.
I am a big fan of uncut material from this period, and have definitely overpaid for some of it, but I have a hard time justifying a large spend on an item when I don't know what it is. I've bought a number of oddities and unique things in boxing land but never for a lot of money if I could not identify what it is. This piece is really cool, I'm a fan, but I have no idea what it really is and all we have our opinions second and third hand. The only primary source testimony from hobbyists who have handled it seems to be Foreman's conclusion that he didn't notice anything inconsistent with the dating, which isn't must of an endorsement in its restraint from saying much. This could be for some sort of magazine insert, guidebook, notebook, or a host of other things too, if period. The mysteries are half the fun.
With your avatar, you should liquidate your 401K and buy it
.
To our true baseball history experts - is there perhaps a barnstorming or exhibition team/game that ties this list of players together? Just a thought.