This is what happens when EMR team reports get ignored

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I just don't buy that secrecy is the way to clean up the hobby. Sorry. The "Michigan forger" has been allowed to forge for decades while you guys sit back and keep his secret for him. Call me cynical, but it seems the only people who get to know your secrets are people who make money in this hobby.

Some of you knew for a long time that David's 1927 ball was a forgery and you kept it a secret.

Thanks...I guess.

Wow, this coming from a guy who admittedly knows ZERO about autographs.

This is the same guy who was defending the Huggins & Scott Babe Ruth signed ticket, but yet knows ZERO about autographs.

Geez, Dan, would you have defended that Huggins & Scott Babe Ruth signed ticket if Huggins & Scott wasn't a Net54 advertiser?

And by the way, Dan, I was the one who infomed Atkatz that his "1927 Yankees" baseball was not authentic after his avatar caught my eye. Before that, I had never seen David's "1927 Yankees" baseball. Then later on Atkatz would claim that he sent it to a friend of his, who told him his ball was not authentic. Atkatz will never admit that it was me who informed him first that it was not authentic. As a matter of fact, at the time David and I were still cordial towards each other, I sent him a message that read "nice ball." I didn't have the heart to tell him it was not authentic.

Richard wrote "Aside from reporting him to the FBI, which was done, what do you suggest should be done about the Michigan forger Dan??
We allowed him to forge for decades?? Really?? Is that what you think??
We allowed him?? Can anyone make a dumber statement on this board than that one??"

We do what we can and we (the pro-active collectors against forgers and sellers of forgeries) hope for the best.

I agree with Richard when he wrote "Can anyone make a dumber statement on this board than that one??"

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

i As a matter of fact, at the time David and I were still cordial towards each other, I sent him a message that read "nice ball." I didn't have the heart to tell him it was not authentic.

What a guy!

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

And by the way, Dan, I was the one who infomed Atkatz that his "1927 Yankees" baseball was not authentic after his avatar caught my eye.

No Chris, it was Richard. And not out of the kindness of his heart, or the desire to protect the integrity of the hobby, either. It was a pure act of spite.

On Halloween two years ago Richard posted another of his typical cryptic threads--this one concerning a forger he called "Johnny F." I criticized him for once again (and again, and again, and again) posting just enough to show us how much he himself knows, but not enough to be useful to anyone. He could, for the board's enlightenment, have posted examples of this forger's work, but, to quote the late, great, John Belushi, "Nooooooo."

Throwing a little tantrum at my audacity in criticizing the master, Richard told me that I should be very familiar with Johnny F's work, since I was so "close to it." On further questioning, he revealed his long-held secret--the ball was fake--and informed me that another on the board agreed. (Ain't that Richard all the way? Always backing up his statements by referring to unnamed board members.) At that point, Chris posted that the unnamed person was him.

Sometimes--when Chris or Richard post something priest-like--I say to myself 'Let it be. Don't bother posting a response--it ain't worth another argument.' In this case, however, I'm extremely glad I pissed Richard off--it led to the removal from my collection of a significant forgery.

That might never have happened had I stayed in Richard's good graces.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No Chris, it was Richard. And not out of the kindness of his heart, or the desire to protect the integrity of the hobby, either. It was a pure act of spite.

On Halloween two years ago Richard posted another of his typical cryptic threads--this one concerning a forger he called "Johnny F." I criticized him for once again (and again, and again, and again) posting just enough to show us how much he himself knows, but not enough to be useful to anyone. He could, for the board's enlightenment, have posted examples of this forger's work, but, to quote the late, great, John Belushi, "Nooooooo."

Throwing a little tantrum at my audacity in criticizing the master, Richard told me that I should be very familiar with Johnny F's work, since I was so "close to it." On further questioning, he revealed his long-held secret--the ball was fake--and informed me that another on the board agreed. (Ain't that Richard all the way? Always backing up his statements by referring to unnamed board members.) At that point, Chris posted that the unnamed person was him.

Sometimes--when Chris or Richard post something priest-like--I say to myself 'Let it be. Don't bother posting a response--it ain't worth another argument.' In this case, however, I'm extremely glad I pissed Richard off--it led to the removal from my collection of a significant forgery.

That might never have happened had I stayed in Richard's good graces.

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

I guess nothing gets by that "autograph eye" of yours. LOL!

You may have spoken to Richard, but you were not the first to tell me. (I guess I just didn't piss you off soon enough.)

Don't worry, though, Chris. I consider both yours and Richard's behavior here equally hypocritical, duplicitous, and inexcusable.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I guess nothing gets by that "autograph eye" of yours. LOL!

You may have spoken to Richard, but you were not the first to tell me. (I guess I just didn't piss you off soon enough.)

Don't worry, though, Chris. I consider both yours and Richard's behavior here equally hypocritical, duplicitous, and inexcusable.

Thank you for the compliment, David.

[thetruthisoutthere]

By the way, David, you have no one to blame but yourself about your first "1927 Yankees" baseball.

You're the self-proclaimed vintage Yankees autograph expert.

You're the one that attempted to start-up a Quick Opinion service on Net54.

You held that "1927 Yankees" ball for over decade and during that time you never knew about the person who penned that baseball? Why?

Self-proclaimed experts like yourself are suppose to be keeping up with the Joneses.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

By the way, David, you have no one to blame but yourself about your first "1927 Yankees" baseball.

That's true. And I never said otherwise. I bought the ball because I was fooled by it. My mistake, and mine alone.

Not sharing with me the fact that you thought the ball a forgery as soon as you had suspicions is, though, as I stated before, hypocritical, and inexcusable.

But, you just go on publicly congratulating yourself for whatever you do.

We're all used to it.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's true. And I never said otherwise. I bought the ball because I was fooled by it. My mistake, and mine alone.

Not sharing with me the fact that you thought the ball a forgery as soon as you had suspicions is, though, as I stated before, hypocritical, and inexcusable.

But, you just go on publicly congratulating yourself for whatever you do.

We're all used to it.

David, you're unbelievable.

If you remember correctly, it was August 2011 when I first saw full images of your "1927 Yankees" ball. I requested photos from you after your avatar made me suspicious of the autographs.

Before that, I had never seen your first "1927 Yankees" ball.

When I first wanted to tell you the autographs were forgeries, I didn't have the heart to do it. I have written that more than a few times here on Net54.

It was approximately two weeks later that I finally informed you all of the autographs were forgeries.

And you didn't believe me, did you, David?

No you didn't.

You went to your friend Jodi, didn't you, David? Then you told the Net54 members here that your friend relayed that the autographs were forgeries.

You give the impression that I knew for months or years that your "1927 Yankees" ball were all forgeries and that I held that information from you. That's a 100% lie.

That isn't the case. You know it and I know it.

That's what you do, David. You spin and deflect. Then you'll start calling me names. Why? Because that's what you do.

[David Atkatz]

I've posted what happened above. As usual, you present a totally self-serving, BS version.

What part of "In a fit of pique, Richard told me the ball was a 'Johnny F' original" don't you understand?

Richard told me, Chris. Richard. (Only to get back at me, but, what the hell. It was still Richard.)

I know you're his little lap-dog, Chris. But you still are two different people.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

You give the impression that I knew for months or years that your "1927 Yankees" ball were all forgeries and that I held that information from you. That's a 100% lie.

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

As a matter of fact, at the time David and I were still cordial towards each other, I sent him a message that read "nice ball." I didn't have the heart to tell him it was not authentic

You can't even keep your story straight from one post to the next within the same thread!

"Oh what tangled webs we weave... "

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

It was me, David.

It was me who asked Richard to take a closer look at the photos of your "1927 Yankees" baseball. It was then, that Richard agreed the sigs were not authentic.

I was the first one on this board that was suspicious of those autographs after something caught my eye about your avatar.

Chris is 100% correct.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Wow, this coming from a guy who admittedly knows ZERO about autographs.

This is the same guy who was defending the Huggins & Scott Babe Ruth signed ticket, but yet knows ZERO about autographs.

Chris - Dan, myself and others, defended the process for calling out a forgery, not the signed ticket itself. You know this, so stop deflecting. If you have something to say either say it, or go back into hiding. This has gotten old.

[Big Dave]

+1

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Chris - Dan, myself and others, defended the process for calling out a forgery, not the signed ticket itself. You know this, so stop deflecting. If you have something to say either say it, or go back into hiding. This has gotten old.

agreed.


we were concerned about the PROCESS of calling it a fake and impugning an auction house, and two authentication firms without showing any proof.

it might be fake, it might be real, that wasn't the point. and of course everyone else knows ZERO about autographs, but the guy who knows 100 won't say what he knows about the ruth?

[slidekellyslide]

I have no idea if the autograph is real or not...the provenance is not good enough for me to buy it, but I wouldn't spend that much on a leap of faith in anything. The process of calling it out when it was already certed by JSA and showing ZERO proof is what irks me. Using Net54 for an unknown agenda irks me, and Chris seems to be doing a lot of that.

edited to add: I also do not have an reins put on me when it comes to advertisers. Ask Heritage what they think of me....I was also critical of Huggins and Scott buying from their own auction and later selling on ebay.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I have no idea if the autograph is real or not...the provenance is not good enough for me to buy it, but I wouldn't spend that much on a leap of faith in anything. The process of calling it out when it was already certed by JSA and showing ZERO proof is what irks me. Using Net54 for an unknown agenda irks me, and Chris seems to be doing a lot of that.

edited to add: I also do not have an reins put on me when it comes to advertisers. Ask Heritage what they think of me....I was also critical of Huggins and Scott buying from their own auction and later selling on ebay.

Dan,
Did you criticize them on Net54 or did you just e mail them with your concerns?
Have you been critical of Heritage on Net54?
Just askin' I really don't know what your answers will be but I am curious.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Dan,
Did you criticize them on Net54 or did you just e mail them with your concerns?
Have you been critical of Heritage on Net54?
Just askin' I really don't know what your answers will be but I am curious.

I have been critical of both right here on the forum for all to see...I don't have time to search for the links to the threads right now because I'm headed to a hockey game, but I'll do so later tonight or tomorrow morning.