The ears are there, but the're more for show. They
don't actually do anything.
03/25/07 12:59 PersonalGeneral Yammering
Collector 1: "This card looks fake."
Collector 2: "Of course it's fake. Goudey didn't use the Big League Chewing Gum brand until 1933."
Collector 3: "How do you know it's fake? Are you a paper expert? We need to get the paper tested."
Collector 2: "No you don't. There was no such thing as Big League Chewing Gum in 1930."
Collector 4: "Testing the paper won't prove anything. Anybody can get 1930 paper. You need to test the ink."
Collector 2: "You don't need to test the paper or the ink. Just read the words on the card. It can't be possible."
Collector 5: "All the hobby experts who looked at the card say it's fake."
Collector 6: "Yeah, but how would they know? They've never seen the card before. Somebody OUTSIDE the hobby needs to authenticate it."
Collector 2: "THE CARD IS FAKE. THE BRAND NAME ON THE CARD DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THE CARD WAS ALLEGEDLY PRINTED."
Collector 7: "Send it to a paper expert outside the hobby. They can date the paper and the ink. If it dates back to 1930, there's a chance it's real. Then let the courts decide."
Collector 2: "What are you TALKING about? If you saw a baseball card dated 1897, and it said 'Amazon.com' on it, you'd know it was fake without having to test the paper..."
Collector 8: "It's pretty easy to get 1930 paper and 1930 ink. Just because the ink was from the period, doesn't mean it's real."
Collector 2: "Are my words being written in some kind of invisible typeface? Can you see what I'm writing? Is there something wrong with my computer?!"
Collector 9: "I vote we put the money in escrow and then pull together a panel of leading paper and ink experts, do a thorough forensic analysis, and then have a secret ballot vote on the issue."
Collector 2: "Hello? Hello?"
Collector 10: "That sounds great. Maybe we can also do some radiocarbon dating if we can get a large enough core sample of the paper fibers. Sometimes card doctors use enhanced robotic equipment and nanotechnology to do sophisticated paper fiber stitching, to make new paper appear old, and then they artificially age the card in a hyperbaric chamber, and then laser print the image utilizing ink taken directly from the Shroud of Turin, so paper analysis might not be conclusive."
Collector 2: "I have a Coca-Cola ad from 1492..."
Collector 11: "Wait - I just thought of something. What if PART of the card came from 1930, but not the WHOLE thing? What if the image was created in 1930, but the Goudey name was printed onto the card later, like in 1950, utilizing some sophisticated printing process that's since become obsolete?"
Collector 2: "I have all the receipts from George Washington's stay at the Holiday Inn in Hoboken, plus his Taco Bell wrappers..."
Collector 12: "I hadn't thought of that. Has SGC looked at the card? What did they say?"
Collector 2: "THERE WAS NO BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM IN 1930!!!!!"
Collector 13: "I think it's fake. But if the paper test proves that it's real, I'll give you $25K for it."
Collector 14: "It's not worth $25K"
Collector 15: "Sure it is. It's the first Goudey baseball card. It's a piece of history."
Collector 16: "Sure, I acknowledge that - but $25K is a lot of money."
Collector 17: "Dude, it's Babe Ruth. I'll bet it's worth TWICE that. It's the first Goudey Ruth!"
Collector 18: "Yeah, but is it really a baseball card? I mean, there's only one in existence. It was clearly not mass-produced and distributed as a means of promoting a product, which is the definition of a baseball card. This is more of a postcard, I think."
Collector 19: "Nah, it's not a postcard. It couldn't be mailed. It's more of an advertising display piece."
Collector 20: "Can it be graded?"
Collector 21: "I don't think so. PSA wouldn't grade it because they'd never seen one before."
Collector 22: "I have a CDV of George Wright that they'd never seen before, and they wouldn't grade that, either. They suck."
Collector 23: "I agree. Anybody who collects graded cards is a fool."
Collector 1: "What were we talking about?"
Collector 23: "I can't remember. PSA, I think."
Collector 2: "Of course it's fake. Goudey didn't use the Big League Chewing Gum brand until 1933."
Collector 3: "How do you know it's fake? Are you a paper expert? We need to get the paper tested."
Collector 2: "No you don't. There was no such thing as Big League Chewing Gum in 1930."
Collector 4: "Testing the paper won't prove anything. Anybody can get 1930 paper. You need to test the ink."
Collector 2: "You don't need to test the paper or the ink. Just read the words on the card. It can't be possible."
Collector 5: "All the hobby experts who looked at the card say it's fake."
Collector 6: "Yeah, but how would they know? They've never seen the card before. Somebody OUTSIDE the hobby needs to authenticate it."
Collector 2: "THE CARD IS FAKE. THE BRAND NAME ON THE CARD DIDN'T EXIST WHEN THE CARD WAS ALLEGEDLY PRINTED."
Collector 7: "Send it to a paper expert outside the hobby. They can date the paper and the ink. If it dates back to 1930, there's a chance it's real. Then let the courts decide."
Collector 2: "What are you TALKING about? If you saw a baseball card dated 1897, and it said 'Amazon.com' on it, you'd know it was fake without having to test the paper..."
Collector 8: "It's pretty easy to get 1930 paper and 1930 ink. Just because the ink was from the period, doesn't mean it's real."
Collector 2: "Are my words being written in some kind of invisible typeface? Can you see what I'm writing? Is there something wrong with my computer?!"
Collector 9: "I vote we put the money in escrow and then pull together a panel of leading paper and ink experts, do a thorough forensic analysis, and then have a secret ballot vote on the issue."
Collector 2: "Hello? Hello?"
Collector 10: "That sounds great. Maybe we can also do some radiocarbon dating if we can get a large enough core sample of the paper fibers. Sometimes card doctors use enhanced robotic equipment and nanotechnology to do sophisticated paper fiber stitching, to make new paper appear old, and then they artificially age the card in a hyperbaric chamber, and then laser print the image utilizing ink taken directly from the Shroud of Turin, so paper analysis might not be conclusive."
Collector 2: "I have a Coca-Cola ad from 1492..."
Collector 11: "Wait - I just thought of something. What if PART of the card came from 1930, but not the WHOLE thing? What if the image was created in 1930, but the Goudey name was printed onto the card later, like in 1950, utilizing some sophisticated printing process that's since become obsolete?"
Collector 2: "I have all the receipts from George Washington's stay at the Holiday Inn in Hoboken, plus his Taco Bell wrappers..."
Collector 12: "I hadn't thought of that. Has SGC looked at the card? What did they say?"
Collector 2: "THERE WAS NO BIG LEAGUE CHEWING GUM IN 1930!!!!!"
Collector 13: "I think it's fake. But if the paper test proves that it's real, I'll give you $25K for it."
Collector 14: "It's not worth $25K"
Collector 15: "Sure it is. It's the first Goudey baseball card. It's a piece of history."
Collector 16: "Sure, I acknowledge that - but $25K is a lot of money."
Collector 17: "Dude, it's Babe Ruth. I'll bet it's worth TWICE that. It's the first Goudey Ruth!"
Collector 18: "Yeah, but is it really a baseball card? I mean, there's only one in existence. It was clearly not mass-produced and distributed as a means of promoting a product, which is the definition of a baseball card. This is more of a postcard, I think."
Collector 19: "Nah, it's not a postcard. It couldn't be mailed. It's more of an advertising display piece."
Collector 20: "Can it be graded?"
Collector 21: "I don't think so. PSA wouldn't grade it because they'd never seen one before."
Collector 22: "I have a CDV of George Wright that they'd never seen before, and they wouldn't grade that, either. They suck."
Collector 23: "I agree. Anybody who collects graded cards is a fool."
Collector 1: "What were we talking about?"
Collector 23: "I can't remember. PSA, I think."
|