Buying Certified Autos Stinks: Finding the Fakes

Money is tight at the moment, but with the compa's permission I've dumped a lot of cards on ebay. I have a strange fantasy that I am going to purchase a Willie Mays or Hank Aaron auto to mark the passing of this particular semester. So with a good deal of trepidation I'm dipping my toe into the category of "people who pay too much for cards." And that's fine, it's a one-shot deal.

I enjoys autos and send out my share of ttms. I like hearing back from players but let's face it: taking the auto in the envelop at face value is based on the same leap of faith most of us take in assuming our parents are indeed our biological parents. You have no empirical proof of the fact, no photos, no video, and even if you did you take on faith that the baby in the picture is you. It's complicated, but it doesn't bother you too much if at all. TTM autos are like that: I have no proof Bobby Doerr signed my 1938 Goudey, but I sent it to his address and it came back signed. So yeah, I'll take that on good faith.

But certified autos? Blech. For example, you have certified Mays fakes. It's a long story I've posted about before. Then this Mays auto, which has been sold several times by the same seller. And if you think that's nuts, this low-numbered seller has flipped that same Mays 14 times! I read somewhere that card has a print run of 150. At best it's shill bidding. At worst...? What the heck happened at Fleer?

Then you have what appear to be sticker fakes. Gellman used to go off about these. But here's a Hank Aaron ending today, and the price as of 11 AM is definitely right. But wait: the auto is surprisingly clean for a 2008 Hank, it's completely on the sticker, AND a letter or two looks a little suspicious. After some sleauthing (looking up the checklist did NOTHING), I found this card. The auto is classic Hank Aaron from the last five or so years: labored, falling off the sticker. Then you check the back: yup, Donruss did the solid of printing the certificate of authenticity on there. You look again at the first card and oh, wait.....It's a fake.

Frustrating if nothing else, but it always sucks to see collectors screwing each other. It's why a) I love the blogosphere and b) I generally stick to my own ttms.

Have a good one and goodnight Pumpsie Green, wherever you are!

Card Show Purchase #2: 1959 Fence Busters

Overall the dealers at the Fargo show weren't terribly organized. Not that that's a bad thing, it's just once you've seen some of the guys who frequent the Raleigh, NC shows you kind of expect to show up to a card show, ask for what you want, and have it handed right to you. There's plenty of room for serendipity, but not quite as much.

So, I was rummaging through what looked like a Braves-heavy section of this guys vintage box and this card popped out:

It's not mint but with Hank Aaron and Eddie Matthew it doesn't need to be. And man do they look young here!

But what it that supposed to be in the background? It that a busted fence or an odd fractal threatening to swallow up Matthews?

Pretty sweet that a card about "Fence Busters" has a guys sliding and stealing bases on the back.

Even so, the original price on the card had it WAY out of my price range. There was a lot of great vintage there, vintage I hadn't budgeted to run into, so I was already over budget. Long story short, after bargaining I landed this 50s classic for $6. 

Have a good one everybody and goodnight Pumpsie Green, wherever you are!

Hank Aaron baseball cards: What if?

OK, so, I'll say I'm not sure if Hammering Hank (or Bad Henry according to BB reference) was the best ever, but he's definitely in the conversation. I will say, however, that this Kmart card is at least tied for best action shot on an Aaron card with the '73 Topps being the only other of which I'm aware.

I know, it's not an "original" Hank, but it predates recycling yesteryear's starts into ginormous base sets to move product. In 1982 Hank had only been retired for 6 years and was elected to the HOF, so he still very much current.

When you think about it, it's pretty strange that Hank doesn't have a single action shot on any of his "original cards" beyond the 1972 "In action" and the above mentioned '73. 1956 is a great card, but it's more of a painting. And in the '73 he's playing first base. And in '72 he's rounding the bases. Why no shots of Aaron at the plate!?!

My guess is (and those who know can correct me or affirm this) is that '73 is really the first year that "action shots" were incorporated into the bb-card repertoire. I've thought a lot about it and, other than the '72 In action subset, there are no action (or very few) before 1973. So in '73 we have Aaron at first field a pop-up.

Part two is that someone at Topps didn't like Hank breaking Ruth's record in 1974, and that comes from my dad, not me. There is a 1976 record breaker of Aaron at bat, but it looks like he's taken a check swing. Hardly the beautiful, awe-inspiring stuff you see courtesy of Kmart. I don't necessarily believe this, but I certainly can't explain the absence of "Hank taking a heroic swing" card other wise.

If anyone else has any explanation, I'm all ears!

Bar Debates: Death of an American Genre

I thought the All-Star Game "This Time It Counts," brought to you by a one minutes Taco Bell commercial, "they're all about the Roosevelts," would be an appropriate moment to throw out a word or two on the death of argumentation in the US, the highest form of which was once the drunken bar debate. Seriously. Only a scant few years ago, if you wanted to say that Hank Aaron was the greatest player ever, you had better back that up with facts, man.

Now, however, the line of argument runs something like this:

1) Hank Aaron is the greatest baseball player ever.

2) People who do not agree with #1 are filthy ignoramuses.

Therefore:

3) The author of CCC is a filthy ignoramus.

I know, that's ridiculous, but that basic formulation seems to be the bedrock of most political discourse in the country and it has infected everything from Congressional hearings to ESPN. Opinions are passed off as facts and ideological labels are used to bludgeon dialogue into neat little boxes from which no real thought can escape.

People talk past each other and no one listens. There is no argument because no one is trying to prove anything. Debatable issues are presented as non-negotiable facts, adjectives standing in for entire arguments. The attitude is that if you are on the opposite side of the aisle from me you have nothing to contribute to the conversation because my logic, as outlined above, is fairly airtight. Instead of teasing out different issues and trying to get to the bottom of things, answering questions like "By what standard is Aaron best player ever?," anyone who questions #1 is automatically thrust into the category of undesirables.

I think the reason a lot of sportswriters feel threatened by the blogosphere is that they have been blogging, in print, for quite some time, just spouting half-baked opinions without backing them up. Their only claim to authority is that they are in print and blogs aren't. Note that you don't hear people who cover politics carping in a similar fashion. They all just started blogging. The comments sections on those things are full of idiots spewing venom at each other that they'd never have the cajones to say around their mother, much less to the faces of the people they are throwing it at.

Which brings me back to bar arguments. When I was younger I used to genuinely like throwing back a few beers and hammering at different political issues with folks I knew. These days that's all preempted by the tripartite argument above. No one argues openly and honestly with anyone else because anyone who disagrees with them is the ignorant spawn of Satan.

And means we'll never hammer out who's the best baseball player ever, much less the more important issues of the day.