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

[Archive]

Posted By: MarkH56

Thank you to all who have responded to my posting regarding the 1930 Goudey – Babe Ruth Calendar Card – Questionable Authenticity. Please note that on February 14, 2007, I offered to send the card for testing if Steve Verkman would place the funds paid for the card in an escrow account with my attorney until this was resolved to both parties satisfaction. He refused to do so and I was not willing to have him have possession of both card and the money and leave me with nothing. When I originally asked Verkman about paper testing, he told me he did not want to do that. I have checked with John Reznikoff (who does have a machine for paper testing) regarding paper testing and was informed that they would have to have a comparison piece for the testing to be valid. With regard to testing, it is certain possible to obtain old paper and cardboard to create a reproduction. Paper testing may prove nothing. The issue is not about paper testing – it is about Clean Sweep’s guarantee as stated in its catalog and on its website. I still hope this matter may be resolved in an amicable manner. However, this is my final attempt to obtain a full refund without filing a lawsuit and I will be seeking punitive damages.

Thank you,
Mark Haverkos

March 21, 2007

Steve:

When I purchased this card in your Clean Sweep Auctions #123 (9/27/06), I was excited about the prospect of owning an authentic 1 of 1 Babe Ruth Card from his playing days, truly a dream for a Ruth collector like me. I did not anticipate any problems with 3rd party authentication of the card and knew, with confidence, that if there was a problem, Clean Sweep Auctions would stand behind me and make it right. When we have had issues in the past, Steve, you have always told me that if I didn't like an item that I had purchased from you or had problems with it, I should simply sent it back and you’ll refund the money.

Also, in you auction catalogues, you state that Clean Sweep “Has an amazing reputation when it comes to autographed items and authenticity in general.” Furthermore, on your Clean Sweep Auctions website (csauctions.com, Frequently Asked Questions) under “What are our standards for Authenticity?” you state that “CSA only sells original items. We completely stand behind the authenticity of every item we sell… CSA uses the strictest standards in the industry and does not sell questionable items.” In response to the questions about your policy with regard to grading services, you state that you guarantee all items to be authentic and will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service.”

With these guarantees in mind as well as my inherent trust in you as a professional collector/dealer and good, honest person (our 6-7 year business relationship), I bid with confidence on Lot 978 (Auction 123), which was described as follows: Catalogue Description:

1930 Rare Babe Ruth Calendar Card VG-EX $3,000 Measuring 3 ½ x
5 ½, this is a black & white cardboard card with a full body pose of Ruth on the front, with the Goudey league baseball in the four corners. The back is a calendar for 1930 with Goudey clearly printed at the bottom. This has some mild creasing and general wear. Rare card that we have never seen before that was likely a precursor to Goudey’s seminal 1933 gum card set. Fresh item unknown to the hobby until now that was obtained in New England. This appeared in one of our auctions last year and sold for $10,738. Sadly, the winning bidder purchased this treasure to become the centerpieces of his son’s collection and the son died in a car accident this year.

In fact when I called Clean Sweep Auction on the night of 9/27/06 to check on my bid, you told me that the card was already hotly contested by 2 advanced Ruth collectors but, by placing one more bid, you felt that I would have a pretty good chance of winning the lot. And so it came to pass that I sent you a bank check for $18,775.32 and you sent to me the card encased in a large block of acrylic that had a sticker on it (hand written) stating “NY Yankee’s 1930 Goudey Gum Babe Ruth Calendar Card, “Excellent Condition”, Goudey Holy Grail, $10,738.”On the reverse was a sticker reading “CSA 9/27/06, Lot #978, Facon 88.”

The card initially looked to me to be as represented in the catalog. I was a little surprised by the lumpy feel of the front of the card but hey, I’m no expert. I’m a collector. I leave the authentication to the experts and my own research.

I commenced my research almost immediately upon receipt of the card. I contacted, among others, the Boston Public Library (for information on the Boston company Goudey), the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art (the Cy Burdicke Collection), the man who purchased the remaining Goudey archives in the 1970’s, Marshall Fogel (who wrote the history of the Goudey Gum Co.), the Standard Catalog of Baseball cards, the Calendar Collectors’ Society, and many others. I put in countless hours of my own time trying to find a historical reference to authenticate the card. In all of these contacts from 10/06 – 02/07, I found absolutely no reference to the card. During this research process, I also sent the card to PSA on October 20, 2006 (23 days post auction) for authentication (not grading). Several weeks later, I was contacted by PSA who informed me that they could not authenticate the card and were returning it to me. If I could find any supporting evidence in my research, PSA told me to re-submit it for re-evaluation. On December 8, 2006, Steve, I called to inform you of PSA’s rejection, my research findings and to request from you your evidence of authenticity. You were the vendor who only sells authentic items so you had to have a way of proving the card’s authenticity. By telephone you told me that: 1) you had no supporting evidence; 2) you knew the card was real; 3) PSA couldn’t prove it wasn’t real; 4) you would “work it out with Joe Orlando” (President of PSA). I also requested a letter of authenticity from you. The following is what you sent, signed and notarized:

December 21, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
This is a letter of authenticity for a 1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Calendar card.
This is unique card measures 3 ½ x 5 ½ and has black and white printing on cardboard with a full body pose of Ruth. The Goudey league baseball is on the four corners. The back is a calendar for 1930 with Goudey clearly printed at the bottom. This has some mild creasing and general wear. Rare card that we have never seen before that was likely a precursor to Goudey’s seminal 1933 gum card set. Fresh item unknown to the hobby until now that was found in an attic in Vermont in 2005 as part of a vintage collection. The lucky person who discovered this card then consigned it to our May 2005 auction and it sold for $10,738. Sadly, the winning bidder purchased this treasure to become the centerpiece of his son’s collection and the son died in a car accident this year.
When this card sold publicly in 2005, this garnered a lot of attention in the hobby and to our surprise, NO OTHER EXAMPLE has ever surfaced.
I have been involved in the sale and purchase of vintage sports cards since 1979. My company has been featured or mentioned in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNBC, Fox News etc.
Steve Verkman
President
Clean Sweep Auctions

Basically, Steve, you re-state the auction catalogue information in paragraph 1, tell me of your surprise after you sold the card previously in paragraph 2, and what your credentials are in paragraph 3. But where is the authenticity in your letter of such? It is actually a letter of history, not authenticity.

Nevertheless, it was the only item of corroborating evidence that I could find in my many hours of research. On January 8, 2007, I re-submitted the card and your letter to PSA for authentication. The following letter from PSA, concerning the card, (which I provided you with a copy) dated January 28, 2007, was received.

January 28, 2007
Dear Mark,
I am writing this letter to inform you of our findings.
The card that you submitted, an alleged 1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Calendar Card is, in our expert opinion, not genuine or original based on the following:
1) This card has not been documented by any respected publication nor has it been acknowledged as an original card by any respected third party expert service that I am aware of. No such card, to date, is known to exist. In fact, the existence of such a card would counter any logic based on what we know about the Goudey company and trading cards of that era.
2) More importantly, this card does not possess the characteristics normally found on trading cards of the era or issued by the manufacturer. The print, registration and paper quality are not consistent with any period Goudey card or any other card from that time period. In fact, even the wear found on the card appears to be contrived to give the card the appearance that it is of certain vintage.
3) In sum, it appears to be poorly constructed fabrication based on the above-mentioned characteristics.
PSA has been found for nearly 16 years and we have handled over 10 million trading cards in our history. As the leading trading card authentication and grading service in the world, it is our collective opinion that this item is not genuine.
I am very sorry for the bad news but it is our job to be both the good and bad messenger at times.
If you should have any other questions regarding this matter, please contact me directly at (949)567-1170.
Sincerely,
Joe Orlando
President

Genuine and original are the definition of authentic. PSA clearly states that the card is “Not genuine or original. It appears to be a poorly constructed fabrication.” Steve, your own website states that you “will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service.” Am I missing something, or did PSA state that the card is not genuine or original (authentic)? Is PSA not a reputable grading service? What about your own words, Steve? Your integrity? The reputation of Clean Sweep Auctions?

I also had sent the card to Bill Mastro, figuring that if he would auction it, I wouldn’t necessarily need to put it in a holder. On December 13, 2006, he sent the card back to me with the following hand-written letter:

12-13-06
To Whom It May Concern –
I have viewed and held in my hand the supposed 1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Calendar card and it is absolutely a fantasy piece which was created within the last few decades. It is absolutely not from 1930 and no original piece is known to exist. The print quality and type of paper are not that of the 1930’s. The wear is contrived to make one believe it is old. Nothing about the piece is original. This is not an opinion – it is a fact! I have been dealing in such material for over 40 years and my credentials are unquestionable. The piece is not authentic and is of no value.
Sincerely, William Mastro
CEO
Mastro Auctions

Bill clearly states the facts, Steve: 1) it is not from the ‘30’s; 2) it was created recently; 3) the print and paper are not from the 1930’s; 4) the wear is contrived; 5) nothing about the piece is original. He held the card, Steve, and these are the facts, not opinions.

As stated above, I also contacted Marshall Fogel and his reply is as follows:

From Marshall Fogel

As to your recent telephone call, this is to confirm the answer to your inquiry that I did write about the history of the Goudey Gum Company for the Sports Market Report National Convention Issue(SMR) on July 8, 2003. (The article can be found on the internet-The Goudey Company-Marshall Fogel.) After this article was published, similar information confirming my original research as well as new valuable information appears on the internet. When I began to research for information about this company, there was no reference material other then "bits and pieces." I was fortunate to locate and interview people, in detail, who had an intimate knowledge of facts that appear in the text of my article.

This letter is in response to your request for my comments after viewing a copy of what I will refer to as the calendar card that is represented to have been published and distributed by the Goudey Gum Company. (The referenced company, for clarity, printed the 1933 Goudey Baseball Gum set.) An image of Babe Ruth appears on the front of the card and a 1930 calendar is printed on the reverse. My opinion is based on available historical information.

CONCLUSION
It is my opinion that there is no evidence that the referenced Goudey Gum Company printed or distributed the calendar card as it now appears . There is substantial and compelling evidence that this company did not print or distribute the calendar card that you e-mailed to me.

1. I cannot offer you any logical motive or business reason why the Goudey company would print or distribute, in any quantity, a card with an image of a young Babe Ruth previous to 1930 and three years before the company had any connection with baseball as a marketing theme. Additionally, the calendar card is black and white, low grade quality and just "plain ugly." Goudey printed high quality colorized advertising images. These images were simply to advertise gum and appeal to "kids." It is clear to me that the Goudey company purposely and carefully incorporated quality art work when printing their products. For example, some images in the Goudey Indian gum set were copies of original print images belonging to the Smithsonian.

2. The Yankees, in 1930, were not the dominant baseball team and Ruth certainly did not have a season that was as memorable as his past seasons. Including that fact that Goudey, in 1930, had no connection with baseball in promoting their products, there is no reason for the company to print the 1930 calendar card of what Ruth looked like before 1930 and to feature a Yankee when this team was not dominant and did not win. In fact many experts consider the 1929 and 1930 Philadelphia A's as great or greater then the 1927 Yankees.

3.The reverse of the 1930 calendar card states the term Big League Chewing Gum. No such term was used by Goudey until 1933 and then again in 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1938. Before 1933, Goudey advertising brands were, for example, Oh-Boy Gum, Around The World Gum, as well as other gum brands; but, not Big League Chewing Gum. (Refer to the internet for examples of gum labels)

4.The calendar card has the word League printed inside a baseball four times on the front of the card. At this point, we are in the death penalty phase regarding this card. What is League? What is Big League Chewing Gum in 1930 when there is no Big League Chewing Gum to chew.

5. Since the image of Ruth appears on the calendar card along with a crude advertising attempt to promote Big League Chewing Gum, it is logical to conclude that the calendar card was to be widely distributed in 1930 so the public would take advantage of the calendar. It is a fact that there is a significant number of Goudey sport and non sport cards and premiums in various conditions that can be collected today. One would conclude that, at least, a moderate amount of calendar cards, especially picturing the Ruth image, would also be available today. They are not and they should be.

During the time I have been writing this letter I became aware, in detail, that there is not longer controversy surrounding this calendar card. It is obvious to me that very experienced and knowledgeable people have overwhelming opined that the calendar card is not authentic. Also, there are others who have commented, on various message boards, that support the view of these experts as well as including many of the same opinions that I have stated when approaching the calendar card issue from an historical point of view. While others have opined that the card is not authentic, I would add my opinion that there is no compelling historic evidence that the Goudey Gum Company did print the calendar card. I would be open at all times in the future to reassess my opinion if there is evidence to the contrary.

Finally, Mr. Verkman you should take seriously the views expressed and return the collector's money. Your offer to have the card tested before you refund the collectors money is not in keeping with your return policy, and your offer simply unfair. I must add that I read you supposed letter of authenticity. The content of your letter falls short of the standard set for those of us who write letters of authenticity.

In short, I purchased this card from Clean Sweep Auctions with confidence in it’s authenticity and Clean Sweep‘s integrity and honesty as the vendor in backing up that claim. There’s no one who wanted to authenticate this card more than myself. I bought it. I even put in countless hours of my own trying to find the proof for it. But, Steve, the resounding word, whether you and I like it or not, is that it’s not authentic. So come on, man, step up to the plate. Are you going to do the right thing and refund to me my money paid to you for the card as I have requested twice, or are were going to have to take this one step further? I have been very patient and understanding so far, Steve, even offering to put the money in a third party escrow account until the matter is settled to the satisfaction of all. But you informed me that your company didn’t do business that way and that I would have to send you the card, with no refund, in order for you to authenticate it or else you had no more time to spend on the matter. But didn’t your catalog description tell me what the card is? Now, you still don’t have it authenticated, after selling it to me. Steve, the only way that you aren’t going to spend anymore time on this matter is if you do the right thing and sent me a full refund of $18, 775, in exchange for return of the card. If you can authenticate it with that calendar that you spoke of, do so and re-sell it. I’m sure it would be worth your while. But I have received my answer and it is a resounding “no.”

I’m not satisfied, Steve. You have always told me, in the past that if I wasn’t satisfied, to send the item back for a full refund, otherwise, keep it. Why not now?

Presently, I’m only asking you to honor your word and send me a full refund. If we need to go to court, I’ll be asking for a whole lot more.

Do you really want to put us through this, Steve? It is bad for the hobby, bad for Clean Sweep Auctions, and wholly unnecessary. Think about it. Do you really want to drag your reputable business, Clean Sweep Auctions, through all of the allegations? My patience is running out Steve, and I definitely won’t quit. I’ve asked our friends and colleagues on this message board for any new information that would be useful in authentication. Nothing. I hope to hear from you soon, Mr. Verkman.

Mark Haverkos

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

This is getting ugly. You two guys aren't even remotely on the same page. Your posts and Steve's posts seem to be mutually exclusive. I think you will need a third party to settle this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan

Mark,

Take it to court, you will win hands down. Not to mention, he will be paying your legal fees if he is not careful you might just find a few law-dogs from this site that will do it pro-bono for fun.

I got your back if you need it, I hate when people have lapses with their integrity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Mark,

You are not dealing in an honest way and it is thus hard to take you seriously. You personally told me that you went to a museum in your area and they told you it would run $300 or something to test the paper and you did not want to spend the money; I then offered to pay the cost of testing (and not just the paper, also the ink) and would have this done in New York. You also asked me to send you a notarized LOA in early November and told me that you would be comfortable with that as a solutionl you certainly did not say that you were going to submit the card to PSA a second time with my letter. It is these types of things that make it very difficult to work with you and why an escrow arrangement with a lawyer of your choosing is not acceptable.

Bottom line is if the card is proven scientifically to be found inauthentic, you will be taken care of. Letters from collectors, even those as knowledgable as Mr Fogel, do not prove the dating of any card. Every grading company has made mistakes with respect to authenticity of vintage items as this can be subjective. Goudey may well have made this as a prototype or promotional card. If this was reproduced, why would someone only make one of them? It simply does not make sense; we are not talking about a Frojoy Ruth card here. Finally, while it is your right to air this out in a public forum, you do not help yourself when you omit crucial details and are basically running a smear campaign. - Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

If I were judging/mediating this dispute I would want to hear more from Mr. Verkman as to why he affirmatively believes the card to be genuine, as opposed to statements to the effect that the three experts who apparently think it is not might be wrong. I would also, in fairness, want to know more about Mark's prior relationship if any with the experts -- one must always be sensitive to bias.

I repeat my suggestion that a better course of action than litigation would be to agree on a neutral or panel of neutrals to examine the card and render an opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

If I were Steve, I would apologize for an honest mistake, refund the money in full and cut my losses. The longer this goes on, particularly with the way Steve has handled this thus far, the more he destroys whatever reputation he has left. How ironic this is after the unfounded accusations he flung at Brian Drent a few months back.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

What say you, Mr. Verkman, to the point that on your website you promise to accept the return of any item found not to be authentic by a reputable grading company? This seems a fairly compelling point having read the presumably accurate quote from the website and the letter from Mr. Orlando of PSA. If indeed such a guaranty was made, it would seem irrelevant whether or not PSA is right or wrong; what matters is their refusal to authenticate. EDITED TO FIX TYPO

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Steve- I know before this issue is resolved you want some definitive proof, or documentation, that this card is no good. Technically speaking, you are entitled to it.

But from all that has transpired so far, my gut tells me you can't win this battle. I can't imagine any scenario where after this card is tested it comes back unequivocally authentic and the case is closed in your favor. I agree with Jim- nothing good is coming your way in this deal, and it is best to cut your losses and move on.

While I don't want to go into specifics, I once sold a baseball card at auction- of greater value than this- and received a call from the buyer that he was certain it had major restoration done to it. I could have gone through the same routine- have it tested, send it to all the experts, etc. But in my heart I knew he was right. I put a check in the mail the next day.

I find it hard to believe that you feel with any certainty that this card is good.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Sounds like Mark has a good case. Was the guarantee changed from "reputable authenticator" to "proven scientifically"? If the buyer is misrepresenting the case then we need to hear more from the seller. What he posted earlier was unconvincing.

Howard

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Prizner

quoted directly from csauctions.com...


What is our policy with respect to grading services?
We guarantee all items to be authentic and will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service. We cannot guarantee the grade any item we sell will receive by a grading service due to the inherent subjectivity of grading.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

What is the liability of the consigner in a case like this?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I can't see the consignor having any liability to the buyer. The buyer's dealings are with the auction house, which in this case made the representations about authenticity and accepting returns.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

The consignor bought the card from Verkman too and reconsigned it to him. Perhaps there would be recourse from the original consignor two auctions back, but I think that would be a tough one since Verkman has vouched for its authenticity twice now.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I should have made myself more clear...I was wondering does Clean Sweep have any recourse against the original consigner?

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

As I understand testing, it will not say an item is authentic. All it can do is tell you an item is not authentic (through the detection of substances not available when the item was purportedly made). So if the threshold in this instance is that for the auction house to prevail it must prove by testing that the item dates to 1930, by definition the issue is decided before the item is even sent to the lab; it cannot be done.

I do think though the issue is academic. If as has been posted Clean Sweep has in fact warranted that all that the winning bidder needs to do in order to return the item for a full refund is to produce documenation from a reputable grading service opining that the item is not authentic, the matter is closed. PSA's letter certainly says that. So beats me on what basis the auction house feels by fighting on it could possibly prevail.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Let me see if I got this right:
Customer: "Please prove this item that I bought for $18k is authentic."
Seller/Auction House: "No, you prove that it is not authentic."

Seriously?
Huh?!?!?!?! Holy crap...

Mr. Verkman, I have never done business with you, but please find a way to place me on your list of banned bidders. Immediately.
Thanks,
Jason Leinberger

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Perhaps PSA is not a "reptuable grading service"? This is, after all, Net 54.

[Archive]

Posted By: J levine

Alas,
Makes me wonder as well...does anyone know the consignor?

Why is Steve fighting this so hard. He has done returns before and the bad press he is generating is certainly costing him more than the return fees, s/h, etc.

My question is whether Steve is the actual owner of the card and is unwilling to take this "loss?"

Joshua

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Steve is going to take alot more losses than just this one...(which should be in court at this point). We've seen it before..customer is always right..get in a publice dispute with a customer and you need to do whatever possible to stop it from becomming a major issue for all taking notice. The longer this drags on the more business Steve will lose because of it. I certainly wouldn't buy from an auction house that wouldn't stand behind the items they are selling...as well as making thier own money from with a commission. Bad business is bad business.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

1. I am not, and have never been, the owner of this card.

2. I am only fighting for this card to be tested. Again, if this was fake, why would there be only one of them? Why would someone go to so much trouble to make a single example of this item?

3. Our auction return policy is that all sales are final. With that said, we will again deal with this but want definitive testing. My point is that Mr Haverkos does not want this tested in almost any circumstance and has resisted MULTIPLE attempts for me to do this.

4. Nature of card. This is not a Frojoy Ruth, 54 SI card or other known problematic pieces. Leon made a good point on the last thread, which has not been answered. What specifically about this card if the issue? The fact that it is from 1930 is not an issue. For Mr. Fogel to argue that the Yankee were not a Championship team in 1929 or 1930 and therefore Ruth should not be the topic seems to me a reach. As this is a unique card and one of the major arguments of everyone involved is that there are none known, therefore this is fake is a classic tautology. Having a full test wil resolve this.

5. This is on thick stock and is nicely printed; there are no dot matrix patterns or other telltale signs of a fake. It is a calendar and is not a trading card, was obviously not issued in gum packs. We can go on about this forever but...

6. This was consigned to us by a tiny hobby store owner in Vermont. It seems rather unlikely this person would be perpetrating a fraud but again this is not a fact, only a theory.

I am asking for nothing more than what I absolutely would get in the discovery phase of a trial: the right to test the card to make sure. At that point, this is over. I AM NOT, AND HAVE NEVER, TOLD THIS GUY TO TAKE A WALK, only that we be sure about this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg

Wouldn't the consignor have been paid already? If that's the case, wouldn't the auction house have to eat the entire loss on a return? That might help explain the unwillingness to do what's right.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave

Steve....that would all be fine and dandy...your problem however is this statement...



quoted directly from csauctions.com...


What is our policy with respect to grading services?
We guarantee all items to be authentic and will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service. We cannot guarantee the grade any item we sell will receive by a grading service due to the inherent subjectivity of grading.


Edited to say...Joe Orlando has his own word on paper concerning this very card. What more is needed? SGC's written statement? GAI's?

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

Does the return guaranty NOT apply to auctions but only to direct sales, is that what you are saying?

[Archive]

Posted By: Silver King

Wow. What a thread. Knowing nothing about cards and authentication I feel I'm a pretty impartial person. I would think that Mr. Verkman should take the card back and refund the money just to get everything back to square one. If Mr. Verkman is certain the card is authentic then whatever evidence he has can be used to authenticate the card and then re-auction the card with full disclosures in his next auction. It's the only win/win situation for both parties. If this card is found to be authentic down the road then all this publicity will elevate the price higher than $18K. If it is found to be a fake then the money would have to be refunded anyway. Bottom line - refund the money, authenticate the card and re-auction it again with full disclosures.

What else can any buyer do that hasn't already been done? It's time for Mr. Verkman to step up and authenticate the calendar...but refund the money and relist the card for future auction.



robert shaw

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

A simple test would be to check the printing technique that was used. If it doesn't have vintage printing, then case closed. PSA mentioned that the print wasn't correct, but didn't elaborate according to what was posted. It would be really nice to see a picture using a digital microscope with atleast 40X magnification.

[Archive]

Posted By: Gilbert Maines

It seems to me that Corey is correct. Unless you have documented provenance on an item, proving its authenticity is virtually impossible. This of course leaves the only hope for "proof" being to prove the item's illegitimacy.

Certainly PSA offers their standard meaningless BS - in this instance "gee, we never saw it before, and we actually never saw anything like it; nor has anyone else we have heard of":

- This card has not been documented by any respected publication nor has it been acknowledged as an original card by any respected third party expert service that I am aware of. No such card, to date, is known to exist.
- More importantly, this card does not possess the characteristics normally found on trading cards of the era or issued by the manufacturer. The print, registration and paper quality are not consistent with any period Goudey card or any other card from that time period.

To be "reputable" perhaps one only needs a reputation. Indeed, PSA has a reputation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE indicates that there was no such thing as Big League Chewing Gum in 1930.

Period.

I'm not sure what else there is to argue about here.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

And I don't know the other guy from Adam (sorry), but if your web site says:

"We guarantee all items to be authentic and will accept a return of any card or other item deemed not to be authentic by any reputable grading service. We cannot guarantee the grade any item we sell will receive by a grading service due to the inherent subjectivity of grading."

then you're dead in the water on this one. Take the card back and investigate it yourself, before this gets any worse.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Buyer (Mark) and Seller (Steve) - would you two be willing to put the card into the hands of an agreed upon third party after establishing:

1) What will be the outcome of the testing and validations by hobby experts: complete refund?
2) What type of testing would be completed? Ink and paper?
3) Who's responsible for paying for the testing? If proved not authentic then Steve, otherwise, Mark.

Where does it go from here? Another thread? It's come this far, lets get it resolved and over with that way the both of you can move on. Mark, your original post should have included that Steve offered to have the card tested. The part where you didn't want to send it back to him is understandable. That last statement is not meant to say Steve can't be trusted, it's just to say Mark's feelings were understandable.

Test it, get opinions and post the findings.... my guess is that if one party doesn't abide by the agreement then it'll get posted here anyway...

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Pugeda

Why weren't tests done before the item was put up for auction? Especially for a one of a kind item of a BB legend where authenticity might at some point be called into question.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Silver King makes a great point.

Steve wont refund the money because he suspects it is a fake and, if so, that is the only scenerio in which he loses out.

If he offers a refund and it turns out to be authentic, what's the harm - you reauction the card.

I could be completely wrong here, but as far as never owning the card, I guessing that's not exactly accurate. The card was auctioned once and purchased back by Steve - I dont recall how long after the original auction that occurred, but Im guessing it wasnt immediately. Im further guessing that Steve paid the consigner after the first auction and paid his own money when he repurchased the card from the first auction winner. If so, that card belonged to Steve when auctioned.

Finally, what really gets me is that Steve continues to ignore his own return policy. Explain that for us Steve. If it only applies to direct sales, why doesnt it say so. If your policy is all auction sales are final - surely you cant be telling us that if you sell a fake card, its tough s*#t for the buyer - that its there obligation not yours to insure that the card was real in the first place.

If this isnt resolved, Im predicting a very expensive lesson for CSA Auctions - a big court loss, lots of legal fees (both its own and the plaintiff's) and a dramatic drop collectors willing to bid in CSA auctions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Mark's post lays out information and support for his position that is, to me, very compelling.

Steve lays out ... oh, that's right, nothing. Except claims that everything Mark has shown is still not enough to stand behind a written guarantee that is published for the purpose of generating sales, and did generate this sale.

Seems simple to me. No CSA in my future. Ever. It's the principle. Unless something comes out very quickly to support Steve's position.

Interesting that if this goes to court, Mark has stated he will not just be going for the $18K plus fees, but punitives as well. Good. That's exactly what punitive damages are for.

I don't know jack about Steve Verkman and his auctions except that this is not Mastro or REA we are talking about here. I wonder how much of a lawsuit the company can withstand. And if not much, then maybe Mark gets left holding the bag anyways.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Lee Behrens

All I have to say is that the whole situation does not surprise me. I have had a problem with Verkman in the past gave him a chance to rectify and did not. Needless to say I do not and will not bid or buy from him. THere are enough quality dealers and auctions out there to buy from.

Lee

[Archive]

Posted By: Frank Wakefield

In the other thread the card was associated with the year 1930. As it is here. Realistically, a 1930 calendar would be printed and distributed at the end of 1929...


Someone really did get "Cleaned" in this deal... and it almost got "Swept" under the rug.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

There's little doubt a 1930 calendar would have been issued in 1929, but 1929 V 1930 would be a minor issue at best in valuation.

My opinion is that someone competent could examine the printing with a microscope and offer a good opinion if the card is vintage or modern. As digital images can be made through a microscope, images could be posted on line as evidence. If the calendar is a modern computer print, that would be illustrated easily. If it's a photoengraving, which is a process that likely would have been used to make such a 1929 item, that could be illustrated as well.

If the item was made with a photocopier, as some suggest, there's no need to do paper tests on the card. I can assure you that, no matter the age of the paper, photocopiers weren't being used in 1929.

It would be nice to know when Goudey started Big League Chewing Gum. If the brand began with the 1933 cards, there would be little debate the card is fake. Goudey wouldn't have advertised a product 3-4 before it existed. However, I haven't heard anyone state the year when the brand began.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Maybe Stevie wants Walter Rantanen of Integrated Paper Services, who tested this T206 Wagner to test his Ruth item.

Not so reassuring that he is unwilling to accept the opinions provided to date. Once again, if Steve is so sure the item is the real deal, take it back and resell it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

David:

Best I've been able to determine, Goudey did not begin marketing the Big League Gum brand until 1933. I can't see any instance of Big League Gum being marketed without cards. Until 1933, it seems that the Oh Boy brand was Goudey's dominant product, and I would imagine that since the company letterhead publicized the Oh Boy brand of gum and not the Big League brand, that if the company were to use Babe Ruth's image to sell gum in 1930, it would have been the Oh Boy brand.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Shane

This whole thing has "fishy" written all over it. First off, the card should have been authenticated before it went to auction. Even if the card was considered restored by a grading company, at least every bidder going in on this has confidence that the card is real. What makes me really bothered by the story that Mark has written is that during the auction Steve told him that two aggressive Ruth collectors were on this card and that one more bid would probably guarantee him the high bid. Steve, where is the integrity in this? Why would you be telling him two large collectors are on this fighting this out and that one more bid would possibly knock both out? Are you trying to get more money for the card? Who would benefit from this the most? The consignor would.....could the consignor be you in fact? Since the card sold the first time for $10K and you knew that two heavy hitters would be going for it the next time around, you simply purchase the card back and relist the item knowing that two guys would be on it. I have placed many proxy bids on items from Mastro, MileHigh, Lelands and SCP before and have felt 100% confident that when I did this, I was in good hands with these guys. If I ever found out that one of these guys was screwing around with my bids or telling others about my high bid or who I was, my relationship with them would end immediately.

Regardless of how this ends up, your screwed.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

When I first saw the auction description, I found this part very odd: "Sadly, the winning bidder purchased this treasure to become the centerpieces of his son’s collection and the son died in a car accident this year"

Why was this necessary? And was it appropriate to put in an auction description? Even if that's what the consignor wanted, it just seems out of place. After the events in the past couple of weeks, instead of seeming out of place, now it sounds fishy.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Cmoking,

I agree I found that very odd, didn't seem to add really anything or seem needed. Perhaps Steve was going for a "Hope" diamond vibe....

Both parties’ have valid points and concerns, I myself have bought a few cards from Steve. I have never had to try to return anything so I have no track record there with Steve. However the cards I have bought have been nice and very close to as described in his defense. I even bought several raw Obak’s from Stevethe ones I sent in graded with in one grade of his descriptions, which in the grading game is pretty close.

As for this, tough position for both people, and there are always two sides to every story. I say send it to be tested, and if it’s bad news bears chalk it up as a learning experience.

Unfortunately for Steve “Learning Experience” from what I have learned is Greek for take it in the pants.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve f

Mr Verkman,

You know it's fake, the professionals know it's fake and this board knows it's fake. Heck, I'm just a freakin bum and I can tell it's a laserprint counterfeit. 'Do unto others...' applies here. The only option is to do the decent thing and return this kid's money. Perhaps you can salvage a bit of your once good name, more importantly, sleep tonight.

Again, Good luck Mark. As I see it, you had no other option but to bring this to an open forum.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

It seems that Mr. Verkman's main point in establishing the items authentication is the question "why would only one exist." Well making one calender and selling it for ten grand seems like a pretty compelling reason to make a fake calender. Who knows the specifics of why a counterfeiter didnt produce more, or maybe he did, and is house burnt down, who knows? Point is no one believes its authentic, including Mastro and PSA. And while grading is subjective Mastro and PSA handle a lot of cards, and counterfeits, and their opinion will hold water in a court of law.
I personaly will never do business with Mr.Verkman after witnessing this charade. Honor your policy stated on your website. If you had an item that PSA and Mastro deemed fake that you purchased from another auction house and they wouldnt refund your money you would be equally upset.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Steve- whether it's real or fake is almost moot at this point.

Your reputation, which you have always worked hard at to tell people was second to none, has just fallen off a steep cliff. You have bought yourself over 18K worth of bad publicity. This whole sordid affair will have long term repercussions for Clean Sweep Auctions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Demeter1

I am amazed at how many people can develop their own such strongly held opinions without any reference to the primary data. I have had cards rejected by PSA then slabbed when they were re-submitted 6 months later. I have had vintage autographs with differing opinions from respected authentication sources within the hobby, people whose opinions I still respect, although it was not possible that they were both correct in certain instances. Unfortunately, in this hobby we too often have only opinions to work with, and not one of them is, or can be , definative, and we in the hobby have to work through that murkiness all the time. But why act like that is not the case? Does it make us feel better about what we bought, or chose not to buy?

This is a unique case where credible scientific testing is available, so why not do it? And why not withold judgement until that testing is done? All this talk about lawsuits and punitive damages is fantasy (I am a lawyer, and I assume if there are other lawyers on this blog they will agree with me). No one is getting punative damages in a commercial dispute, which is all this is, where the subject matter is in legitimate dispute. But if there is a lawsuit, the very first thing that is going to happen is the very testing that is NOT taking place now will, and Viola! The answer will be revealed, and the matter settled way before a judge or a jury ever hears about it. The sad thing is, we will either not hear about it, or no longer care about it, by the time this resoves itself. But all our opinions without basis will be posted here, in cyber space, without being confirmed or refuted, forever.

Find some independent 3rd party to coordinate testing and bring this out of the realm of opinion and into the realm of fact. This is not an arguement about whether or not CSA honors its commitments-it is an arguement about whether the facts bring that commitment into play. When there is objective, verfiable testing available to answer that question that testing needs to be done. Only testing will bring this entire matter out of the realm of speculation and into the realm of fact. As a hobby we already confuse fact with opinion enough, because too often we have to, because we have no other options. They do here, and they should use them. And if this case does go to court, that is precisely how it will resolve itself anyway.

All that said, barry might have hit the nail on the head-sometimes the damage is done, regardless of who is right or wrong.



Mark

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

...that anyone paid over $10 for this card -- let alone $18,000. What was the buyer thinking? Who lays down that kind of money without knowing what the heck he is buying?

That card was brought to my father-in-law's attention a few years ago. He is from Vermont. I posted it on this board asking for opinions, and everyone said it was totally fake. There were good reasons given as well, though I can't imagine how I'd find the old thread on this card.

When I saw that card in this auction sell for as much as it did, I just couldn't believe it. While I think the seller is 100% in the wrong on the refund issue, especially given the statements made in his guarantee, to take an $18,000 risk on this piece of garbage is waaayyyy beyond my comprehension.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I count no less than 4 lawyers and 1 judge in this thread....there are more than 200 that read this "blog".....I sort of hate the term "blog" but a message board by any other name, I guess. If you are a lawyer, and I am certainly not, then you should readily see that Steve has pre-empted anything else with his guarantee on his site. Whether the card is real or fake is irrelevent at this point. PSA is a reputable grading company (like it or not) and they deem it counterfeit. Case closed.....unless I am missing something? How would you argue that point? For the record I have had many good transactions with Steve's company and only one return which went very smoothly, albeit it was only about $100. Waiting to hear your argument to that point sir? best regards and thanks for your view point....

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

"This is not an arguement about whether or not CSA honors its commitments-it is an arguement about whether the facts bring that commitment into play."

If Mr. Verkman's guaranty that he will accept a return of an item if any reputable grading service opines it is not authentic is indeed applicable to his auctions as well as his direct sales, then this is very much an argument about whether he honors his commitments.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Myself, and another board member and good friend, with over 30 years experience, were the 2nd and 3rd underbidders. We were of the same thinking...that if Steve had held the card and was selling it as authentic then it probably was. He and I have both done business with Steve before and were comfortable with the venue...The 3rd underbidder and I were going back and forth running the card up....he finally quit, I thought I had won it....but then later Mark bid again and I was not going any higher....If this card isn't good, which I believe at this point, it wouldn't have been the first time I made a mistake...though it would have been the most expensive by a long shot....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

... The return should be allowed. The return policy clearly puts the 'returnability' of an item in the hands of a reputable grading company. PSA is not only reputable, but the largest - most well known in the industry.

I'm not sure it needs to go any further than that.

But I do want to address a couple of other things:
"2. I am only fighting for this card to be tested. Again, if this was fake, why would there be only one of them? Why would someone go to so much trouble to make a single example of this item?"

On point 2 - couldn't the same be said for a company making a real item? Why would someone go to so much trouble to make a single real example? The fact is - someone did go through the trouble - whether it is real or fake.


Another point mentioned earlier is very compelling... would an auction house care about a return if they thought the item was genuine? They could always auction it off once again. Its not like this is buyer's remorse and 'no reason' for a return. The buyer did get the opinion of PSA which is what the return policy looks for.

[Archive]

Posted By: Peter Spaeth

I think you are too harsh on the buyer. He didn't have the card in his possession, and therefore relied on Mr. Verkman's promise of authenticity and return guaranty. If one presumes one is dealing with a reputable seller, then there is no risk.