REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book

[David Atkatz]

Leon's comments must be taken with a grain--or an entire shaker--of salt. There is a well documented animosity (feud?) between Leon and Peter. Without taking sides in any way, I can tell you that most of what Peter posts regarding forgeries, the selling of stolen and/or doctored items, etc. is very well researched, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, true.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Leon's comments must be taken with a grain--or an entire shaker--of salt. There is a well documented animosity (feud?) between Leon and Peter. Without taking sides in any way, I can tell you that most of what Peter posts regarding forgeries, the selling of stolen and/or doctored items, etc. is very well researched, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, true.

Decided not to waste time on negativity.....thanks

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Leon's comments must be taken with a grain--or an entire shaker--of salt. There is a well documented animosity (feud?) between Leon and Peter. Without taking sides in any way, I can tell you that most of what Peter posts regarding forgeries, the selling of stolen and/or doctored items, etc. is very well researched, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, true.

Leon deleted his post, but you're still worthless scum to me!

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Leon deleted his post, but you're still worthless scum to me!

I try!

[Leon]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Leon deleted his post, but you're still worthless scum to me!

Please try to be nicer.

[mrkrab]

Peter Nash is one of my favorites. Glad to see someone take the time to expose the many frauds in the industry.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Leon's comments must be taken with a grain--or an entire shaker--of salt. There is a well documented animosity (feud?) between Leon and Peter. Without taking sides in any way, I can tell you that most of what Peter posts regarding forgeries, the selling of stolen and/or doctored items, etc. is very well researched, and, in my opinion and the opinion of many others, true.

I do boxing, the best sport ever! (Go boxing!) So everyone can take it for what it's worth, but you can't make up the research he posts. Why show all the research if it is just made up? The real point of contention lies elsewhere, not the research. Whoever is doing this research must be in a bedroom somewhere on a computer with the door closed, wolfing down the mountain dew for marathon sessions. A real rain man type. That's what I always envision. NASA or Bell Labs should find this guy. Who thinks to find Wilson glove catalogs from the 1960's? It's something else.


I gave my opinion with a Rocky Marciano fake letterhead story once a few years ago. I can reassure Leon it wasn't 'made up', but it is obvious the research is way above and beyond just checking wikipedia. It's wild. The baseball guys must have nothing better to do than to look all that stuff up. He quotes Ron K, Dave Grob, Brandon Grunbaum, I guess they are all jerks? I figure he has a bat computer.

[slidekellyslide]

A lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual, but a lot of it is also bullshit. He once posted that I personally was aware of something that I obviously wasn't aware of, and he used the favorite "Sources say" to qualify it. IOW he lied about me because he views me as an adversary. How am I to believe anything he writes on his blog when I know for a fact that he lied about me?

He definitely muddies the water, nearly every blog he writes he has to get in personal jabs at Rob Lifson and/or Barry Halper even if the story has zero to do with either one of those guys. And how can you take hauls of shame seriously when he completely ignores the fraud perpetrated by John Rogers? Oh yeah, that's right because Rogers "loaned" Nash a large amount of money.

It boggles my mind that there are regular posters to Net54 that defend the POS.

[David Atkatz]

His personal attacks notwithstanding, Dan, when Peter says a particular CDV was stolen from the NYPL, or a certain letter was stolen from the BBHOF Library, you can pretty much bet they were.

[ejharrington]

I guess I'm going to pass on the Ruth autograph. If it is real somebody is going to get a very nice item.

This is why (with one relatively low priced exception) I don't buy autographs. Not many people in this hobby seem to be trustworthy.

[Duluth Eskimo]

Are you in the hobby? Are you trustworthy? You want to buy an item for a few thousand dollars, but you want to blindly trust someone you don't even know. Maybe try doing your own homework and making an educated determination yourself about the item. I'm not going to say one way or another my thoughts on the item, but i think it's ridiculous that you blanket a while collecting niche because you don't know what you're talking about.

[ejharrington]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

Are you in the hobby? Are you trustworthy? You want to buy an item for a few thousand dollars, but you want to blindly trust someone you don't even know. Maybe try doing your own homework and making an educated determination yourself about the item. I'm not going to say one way or another my thoughts on the item, but i think it's ridiculous that you blanket a while collecting niche because you don't know what you're talking about.

To answer your questions and generally respond:

1. If you mean do I purchase an occasional card or photograph, then yes I am in the hobby. If you mean I sell or deal items, then no, I am not in the hobby.

2. I am trustworthy. However, since you don't know me you can make your own conclusion.

3. There's not many people in the world can tell a real Babe Ruth autograph from a fake. That is why there are professionals to make those determinations.

4. I made a statement about "not many trustworthy" people based on numerous posts on this website, the Hauls of Shame website, news stories about fraud in the industry, especially autographs, etc. I stand by my statement.

5. I did my homework and passed on the item.

Stop being reactionary and defensive.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

Are you in the hobby? Are you trustworthy? You want to buy an item for a few thousand dollars, but you want to blindly trust someone you don't even know. Maybe try doing your own homework and making an educated determination yourself about the item. I'm not going to say one way or another my thoughts on the item, but i think it's ridiculous that you blanket a while collecting niche because you don't know what you're talking about.

+1

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

His personal attacks notwithstanding, Dan, when Peter says a particular CDV was stolen from the NYPL, or a certain letter was stolen from the BBHOF Library, you can pretty much bet they were.

That is 100% bullcrap. I have seen him waffle back and forth a number of times . He sounds good but doesn't have a clue about a lot of stuff and literally makes it up. Karma .....

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

That is 100% bullcrap. I have seen him waffle back and forth a number of times . He sounds good but doesn't have a clue about a lot of stuff and literally makes it up. Karma .....

You're hardly the disinterested observer, Leon. Show me an instance of his "waffling" on an item.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

You're hardly the disinterested observer, Leon. Show me an instance of his "waffling" on an item.

Here is a copied email from a good hobby friend - Nash said mine was in the collection previously (I concede it had an NYPL mark on it....but that is it)....and they have it now so it's mostly water on the bridge...but Nash is wrong on this. According to this story of his there were only 6 in total? Mine is/was #7....



"Here is a link to the article:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=13664

Here is the article that I think is important:

The New York Public Library has two examples of the card pasted into the scrapbooks and score-books ofHenry Chadwick and two other copies that are believed to have been owned by Harry Wright (one of which was already stolen and recovered by the FBI). When the copy owned by Samuels is returned they will have five in total minus one more example still missing. That copy was used in an illustration in Harold Seymour and Dorothy Seymour Mills’ 1960 book Baseball: The Early Years, and is still missing.

Nash makes is sound like all of the examples in the library are accounted for. The one missing card is pictured in Seymour's book. I have a copy of that book and it is definitely not picture of the one that you have."


.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

His personal attacks notwithstanding, Dan, when Peter says a particular CDV was stolen from the NYPL, or a certain letter was stolen from the BBHOF Library, you can pretty much bet they were.

I clearly stated in the very first sentence "a lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual". Did you not read that part? But I know for a fact that he will lie to further his agenda...and it's not just a "personal attack", it's a lie. Big difference. He's a liar and that's the least of what he's been accused of doing...and also found guilty of in a court of law.

Mind boggled.....

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I clearly stated in the very first sentence "a lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual". Did you not read that part? But I know for a fact that he will lie to further his agenda...and it's not just a "personal attack", it's a lie. Big difference. He's a liar and that's the least of what he's been accused of doing...and also found guilty of in a court of law.

Mind boggled.....

So you think anyone convicted of a crime "in a court of law" is a piece of shit? Just want to make sure I know who you think the pieces of shit are in the hobby.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So you think anyone convicted of a crime "in a court of law" is a piece of shit? Just want to make sure I know who you think the pieces of shit are in the hobby.

Can you please point out where he says Nash is a POS because he's been convicted of a crime in a court of law?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by calvindog

So you think anyone convicted of a crime "in a court of law" is a piece of shit? Just want to make sure I know who you think the pieces of shit are in the hobby.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Don't look now, but your pal Nash has gone after your pal O'Keeffe in his latest diatribe.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I clearly stated in the very first sentence "a lot of what Peter Nash posts is factual". Did you not read that part? But I know for a fact that he will lie to further his agenda...and it's not just a "personal attack", it's a lie. Big difference. He's a liar and that's the least of what he's been accused of doing...and also found guilty of in a court of law.

Mind boggled.....

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

[smokelessjoe]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

David,

By your comment above, am I to understand that you David Atkatz believe 100% that the REA Lot 819: Babe Ruth Autographed Book is a forgery?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Sorry I've boggled your mind Dan. I've got no dog in this fight--some posting here do. When Peter speaks of an item, you can take it to the bank. I make no judgements regarding his speaking about a person.

That's because it generally is not Peter doing the speaking when it involves discussion of items with research behind it.

I know for a fact that much of what 'he' writes is true, because he's swiped research directly from this forum (my research and that of others) and also been fed information that I provided others, and which later showed up on his website…not stuff he (or his researchers) would have come up with on their own.

There is a lot of complaining here about the fact that he is allowed a voice to speak on ills of the hobby (his website), given his past, but you rarely see any complaints about the plagiarizing he has done - the fact that a lot of this plagiary is actually being done by his 'researchers', some of whom are respected members of our hobby, is even more pathetic.