Options
1930 Goudey Babe Ruth Saga
Buccaneer
Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
Fascinating reading and more fuel to the fire regarding authenticity and the games that are played...
Net54 1930 Goudey Ruth Saga
Net54 1930 Goudey Ruth Saga
0
Buccaneer
Posts: 1,794 ✭✭
Comments
Go Phillies
Bosox1976
gee...I paid $19K for a card that I have NO idea what it even is...or what it's worth........
There's more to the story!!
It looks bad for Steve though. Too bad, he really is a nice guy!
I love the part about not knowing if the company can afford a lawsuit. Steve does VERY well for himself. It's not the money he fighting for..it's principle.
Always looking for Topps Salesman Samples, pre '51 unopened packs, E90-2, E91a, N690 Kalamazoo Bats, and T204 Square Frame Ramly's
<< <i>This cost him many, many times the 19K in lost sales. >>
Yes, because...it's the principle, which states that one must honor your refund policy and not back out of it.
The problem here is that he certified it's authenticity on auction. Now he's just out of luck.
If you buy a car for $20-25 k, most people do weeks, months of research.
If you want to spend $15 k on a vacation, you'll do alot of research and asking around.
Spend $19 k on something like this...(throws up hands).
Why is it off center?
Why is it grainy?
Why 1930, when they didnt make cards that year?
that's the 11th commandment...may the stupid be punished!!
That is not quite true. At the time it was 1 fazed. I read he changed that caveat after this blew up in his face.
Steve
<< <i>What was odd to me was that the underbidder was Leon Luckey--moderator of Net54, who certainly knows his vintage cards. >>
Jim, You are correct. not only was he the underbidder once, he was the underbidder both times!! But he is a type collector and if this did turn out to be real, it would have been a real find.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
But beyond bad judgment, the issue that the auctioneer allegedly divulged the bidding levels of one bidder to another should scare anyone off from that outfit for good.
Perhaps they can sell this "genuine" card to Mike Wallace.
I did not think auction houses disclosed who the winner was, let alone who the underbidders were.
"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. "
The issue isn't really WHO the other bidders are, but in essence, the auctioneer revealing what the top-all bid was of competing bidders. This in my opinion this far from being "above board".
Nick
Reap the whirlwind.
Need to buy something for the wife or girlfriend? Check out Vintage Designer Clothing.
You are 100% INCORRECT....whoever you read that from is wrong!! His rules have been the same since 1997...it has been 2 phased always...
Not just to cover this incident.
This is the type of BS that frost me....people posting without any knowledge....on hear say...and " I read this or that."
I know Steve, on a casual basis. I met him through my best friend Mike, who actually does Steve's web hosting and site work. Mike says that the rules are the same today as they have been since 1997 ..when he set the site up.
He always takes returns from his online store, as that is his actual inventory. In his auctions, items are supposed to be sold as "all sales final." Because alot of what he sells is in on consignment.
The gliche here....he guaranteed authenticity....you can't put a claim out like that and and then say all sales final....if evidence proves otherwise.
To the best of my knowledge..Steve is trying to work this out...has offered to put the money from the sale in escrow and has offered to get the card tested.
Maybe a day late and a dollar short..but.....maybe it should've been done prior to sale.
<< <i>What was odd to me was that the underbidder was Leon Luckey--moderator of Net54, who certainly knows his vintage cards. >>
<< <i>Leon admitted on the Net 54 boards that he was the underbidder twice. >>
Who would pay $18K for such a card? That seems insane.
If it's an original 1930 production of the Babe Ruth, the greatest baseball player ever, and it's a one of a kind item, then is it really that bad of an investment? $18k is a bit high for me, but on the other hand most modern collectors will spend $18K given enough time accumulating thousands of cards and probably be lucky to get 10% of their money back if they tried to sell their collection.
Steve
FROM HIS OWN FINGERS:
(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.
NOTE #2 He claims the guarentee was not on the website at the time of the auction.
It was then PROVEN that it was in fact on the web site since at least March of 2005.
It was this fact that i was referring too in my earlier post.
Hope no one gets all frosty over this.
Steve
edited to add: or was he saying the return policy was not on the web site when the card was auctioned? i do not know him or the person that creates his web sites, nor do i want to.