Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues [Archive]

Archive

11-30-2006, 02:13 PM

Posted By: JohnWell said Colt. Jim, while I don’t doubt that what you’re attempting to do has some good motives in there somewhere. I can’t help but feel this underlined self-serving feeling in all these posts. Colt has a good point, if you’re the new super hobby police official that’s going to head these Internet tribunals what’s your background? Any skeletons in there, any un-honest dealings etc? If this really needs to be done I think this could be done in a much better manner than the current effort. Which IMO comes off as a virtually unknown guy on self-serving mission (intended or not) to question reputable and successful businesses on their integrity and business practices? I would expect most, would not respond to this line of questioning and the manner in which it has been presented. Even if any did, I would and will expect those comments to be a bit sugar coated. For those who have aired there dirty laundry not sure how I should feel, impressed and proud, or embarrassed and ashamed for them. Edited to add, haven’t read everything in all these posts if I broke a rule Leon, do what you got to do.

Archive

11-30-2006, 02:14 PM

Posted By: E, Danieljust doesn't sound all that reasonable when Jim has zero axes to grind with other members of the board, forces NONE of them to read the threads (don't understand how wearying it can be when you can choose to skip to the next thread or start your own) doesn't harangue or belittle anyone else, no one actually gets up and says he's wrong - that we should just allow cards to be altered to whatever degree they want, and yet in posts in the last hour he gets pretty awful comments directed at him by colt, who you directly follow up and call a friend, and others.....seems very poor and cheap shot 'ish' to me. daniel enright

Archive

11-30-2006, 02:18 PM

Posted By: BcDbut maybe Jim is concerned about what percentage of his 345,874 psa 10 modern vintage cards are altered! I could prove to him I am qualified to access each and every one for a small consulting fee.say .25 per psa 9 and .50 per psa 10! BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-30-2006, 02:23 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethIf there is a better way to go about it I am sure Jim and others would welcome your suggestions. It is far easier to be critical than constructive.

Archive

11-30-2006, 02:28 PM

Posted By: Adam SmithGood to see someone like Jim be proactive and try to clean up the hobby.

Archive

11-30-2006, 02:42 PM

Posted By: Colt McClellandJim has done this type of thing before against PSA and Joe Orlando. Ultimately, he was kicked off the PSA boards. I haven't followed the PSA board for quite a long time, but apparently he was allowed back on at some point. I think it is very fair to point out Jim's history on the PSA boards as I see a pattern of behavior that those following this current issue should be aware of. Furthermore, if Jim wants to be the ringleader of this witch hunt, then he can and should be subject to the same level of scrutiny.

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:07 PM

Posted By: E, DanielInstead of blustering, exactly what do you mean by a witch hunt? Is asking questions of auction houses about their practices of altering cards a witch hunt? If it is, could you please just say so. And if he had the same questions of PSA, please just confirm that he had similar issues before. Otherwise, it's impossible to understand you? Daniel

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:18 PM

Posted By: Colt McClellandJim just needs to take his 20,000+ graded PSA cards (the vast majority of which are not pre-war) and go home. If he has something interesting and educational to say about pre-war cards, then that's fine. Otherwise, I would rather not see him on this board with this type of behavior. Jim and anyone else who is interested could just as easily accomplish this inquisition privately, but to do it in this manner is unjustly harming the reputations of good dealers. I don't think this is being handled the right way, and I am simply calling a spade a spade. You and yours have said your piece for the last couple of days, now I'm saying my piece. Sorry if you don't like it, don't agree with it, or don't understand it. But I know there are plenty of others who don't like what Jim is doing here either.

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:22 PM

Posted By: Dan KravitzThank you Colt. I know many people that feel the same way. Time to end the witch hunt Jim, and move on!

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:26 PM

Posted By: E, Danielbut what exactly is he doing? he hasn't asked anyone on this board to take sides, or contribute any money to a fighting fund, or have a go at anyone elses collecting habits - by the way, nice remark about his collection and where he should go....... i'm truly at a loss, having read absolutely every post and thread on this issue, as well as following the board really intently for the last 12 months, to understand your incredibly animosity towards him and this current issue being discussed. it seems at such odds in proportion to anything he has said, or others have said, and the cause as it is being seen by some in the hobby community. surely such anger never accompanied an attempt to update any sportscards digests, such as the attempt recently by members of the board. but here, somehow, emotions are extreme, and yours just seems so completely over the top it is extraordinary!

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:31 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanColt, I'm not sure where you get off personally insulting Jim. What is up with that? And what similar scrutiny should Jim face? Jim, have you ever altered cards? There, how's that?

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:34 PM

Posted By: Colt McClellandIt's not right to summon reputable dealers into a public forum to defend themselves against totally hypothetical acts, and then start to sling mud and false accusations when they refuse to participate in such a completely unfair process.

Archive

11-30-2006, 03:48 PM

Posted By: Tony Conteand his latest post. I read these boards from time to time and rarely post. I do not view one's refusal to post as an admission to anything. While good has been brought from this I feel the actual witch hunt is not a good thing and possibly a lose/lose situation for them. Tony Conte

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:07 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanColt, first off, Doug Allen admitted that Mastro alters cards as per the defintion provided by Dave Forman. There is nothing hypothetical about that. Brian Drent claimed he was too busy and refused to respond to the question. Unless you can explain to me what a "fair process" would be for him to explain whether or not he's ever altered cards for sale in his auction, I'm going to assume the obvious and no longer spend any money in his auction. If he clears this issue up I'll feel differently. Is that ok with you?

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:17 PM

Posted By: AnonymousJeff, Where does Dave Foreman describe what Mastro did as alteration? When I read Dave's comments, he describes restoration? I believe Dave and many others are trying to draw a distinction between restoration and alteration. Do you believe there is a difference? Regards Charlie Barokas MANONTHEROCK

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:19 PM

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)Jeff, taking off a wax stain or erasing a pencil mark is an alteration by Dave Forman's post as well. These alterations go on all of the time also and are done to have cards grade higher. Why do we not go after the culprits (most of us) that do these things also?

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:24 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanHere's what Doug said: "Let me first react to the general question. Mastro Auctions will take raw cards and prepare them to grade. In my mind what this includes are practices that are accepted by grading services suck as laying down corners that may have "flipped" during handling, removing wax residue from the surface of a card and pressing out a light wrinkle that does not break the surface of the card. Here are my reactions to the following processes.... --cleaning card--such as taking glue off I have no problem with removing paste that remains from album removal especialy vintage paste that rarely damages the surface of the card. --taking out creases I have no problem with taking out light creases or surface wrinkles that do not break the surface. --erasing pencil marks I have no problem erasing "light" pencil marks. I believe dark ones impact the surface of the cards and therefore are better off left alone. --pressing cards This needs to be defined. I have no problem laying down corners or "flips" caused by handling." Here's what Dave said: "When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal. These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable." In sum, clearly Forman does not approve of Mastro's practices listed above.

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:31 PM

Posted By: AnonymousJeff, Does Dave Foreman describe what Doug Allen admitted to doing, as alteration? Charlie Edited for grammar

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:35 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI banged at that specific question in posts all day and couldn't get anyone else to opine, or SGC to expand upon.....I sure would love to know the answer to that as well. daniel

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:39 PM

Posted By: AnonymousJeff, Don't you think, especially in this enviornment, that if Dave Foreman believed that Doug Allen was altering cards he would have said so? That was the questioned asked by both Doug and Jim? Does SGC consider what Masto does alteration? I see nothing in his reponse that suggests Dave believes it to be alteration. Other than the word "unfortunately". But I suspect, a grading company would want its customers to believe they could detect anything and everything. In conclusion, I interpret "unfortunately" not to mean its unfortunate that people are restoring cards in the way Mastos admited. Regards Charlie Barokas MANONTHEROCK

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:40 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanIt would appear that he terms what Mastro does, at the very least, as "restoration." I think if you look up that word in the dictionary you'd find that to restore something is to change it and, therefore, alter it.

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:49 PM

Posted By: AnonymousJeff, Personally, I think those who alter cards are bad for the hobby and should have to deal with Dorskind but I also do not believe restoration is comseruate with alteration. There a million analogies but IMHO, the person who writes on a card alters it but the person who removes the pencil has restored the card. Same thing for a wrinkle or a flipped up corner. The alterer (if that is such a word) is the person who takes a card out of a pack and damages it in some way and the restorer is responsible for returning it to its original condition. There are some that say, they would like to own a 100 year old baseball card in its virgin original state which includes any and all defects but my anology would be does anyone what to collect game used equipment that smells like sweat or jock itch. Its like that commercial when that nerd fan is hiding in the dirty clothes bin in the locker room trying to obtain game worn jerseys. Personally, I would rather have a gave used jersey that does not stink of sweat. By removing the smell before I hang it in my living room, have I altered it or simply made a slight restoration? Regards Charlie

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:50 PM

Posted By: cmokingI didn't know Charlie had such a great senese of humor! "Personally, I think those who alter cards are bad for the hobby and should have to deal with Dorskind"

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:53 PM

Posted By: cmokingCharlie, you are dealing in semantics. The fact is that your opinion of alteration/restoration is different than PSA and SGC's opinion. This means if/when a card is altered, even on the level-one that Dave Forman described, the card alterer/submitter is basically trying to fool PSA and SGC by getting it past them. Again, you may disagree with their opinion, and you may be completely right to disagree. But the submitter is trying to fool them. That's not a good thing IMO.

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:55 PM

Posted By: Frank EvanovI wonder what percentage of Mastro's future grading business would go to SGC if Dave F. came down hard on them? As for Jim's original concept here, I don't understand the furor. As a consumer, I would like to know what the policies are of the companies that vie for my business. Frank

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:58 PM

Posted By: BcDVituperative! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-30-2006, 04:58 PM

Posted By: JohnPeter, My opinion above was exactly that, just giving my opinion of how I view what’s happening with this quest. However if you would really welcome my thoughts I would be happy to outline what I feel to be the proper way to achieve this goal you guys seem to have in mind. However my solution is much more complex and not as easy as firing out emails and making accusations or conclusions from lacks of response. It would take work and effort from multiple parties; my thoughts are that I don’t think people care enough about this to do so, just my thoughts. However if your really interested, feel free to email me and I would be happy to discuss via email or perhaps a phone call, so I wouldn’t have to type out a long email. Balls in your court.

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:02 PM

Posted By: MarkPerhaps card restoration is merely "puffery."

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:06 PM

Posted By: AnonymousKing, Thanks for the kind words about my sense of humor. First, there is nothing sematical about "alteration". That word only means one thing and is the kiss of death for a dealer. IMHO, if Dave Foreman wanted to send a message to Doug Allen or anyone else requesting that they stop the things mentioned in his first category, he had the perfect platform to do so. He did not do that and he stayed away from using the word alteration. Second, PSA,SGC,GAI are businesses and there words are scrutized very aggressively as we are doing here, which is why I do not think he could come out and condone category 1 but he clearly did not issue an edict to try an abolish it. Regards Charlie Barokas

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:07 PM

Posted By: MikeU"Boy Charlie, I banged at that specific question in posts all day and couldn't get anyone else to opine, or SGC to expand upon.....I sure would love to know the answer to that as well. daniel" Daniel, Good god, not sure what you do not understand. Forman quote: "When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal. These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable. When done properly, cards that have undergone these procedures can find there way into SGC holders, because as I mentioned, there is no way to detect that it has been done. Often these procedures are done improperly, they leave telltale signs that we consider to be evidence of tampering, and we reject the cards. Some of these telltale signs include but are not limited to a change in the cards texture, unusually flat surfaces, and at times there is a slight transfer of a foreign substance to a card." Restoration = wrinkle removal = SGC rejection, if detectable = SGC officially does not endorse Doug Allen's practice of removing wrinkles.

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:13 PM

Posted By: AnonymousMIke, Is that not the glass is half empty view point? There is nothing in Dave's response that is critical of any of Mastros behavior. It is wrong to suggest otherwise. A person could interpret the opposite of your this equals this opinion by his omission of wrong doing. Charlie

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:13 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI know this whole circus has set the high grade collector as the main interested party, beneficiary or loser, but. What happens to all the nice SGC30's and psa2's that are only graded that way because of a couple of heavy creases through the middle, when they get the creases beat out of them, and turn into 5's and 6's and 7's? When those are gone, and the raw good/very-good's with the same physical makeups are similary snatched up to be wrinkle-ectomied? What's left to the collector of low/mid grade material to find and own? Only the pulverised and botoxed to choose between, seems to me like a whole lot more collectors are likely to be hurt by goosing up vintage cards than Jim, or any other perceived "high dollar / registry set collector...... JMO. Daniel

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:18 PM

Posted By: E, Danielif you don't recall fully the specifics of what Doug Allen said, in that he didn't think wrinkle/crease removal was alteration, and only an understanding from SGC that such practices were under the exact word "alter" was going to stop him in his activities, then you can "good god" all you like, but it don't make the argument much richer. I guess I'd be much happier if Dave "dis-endorsed" Mastro's practices, rather than not endorsing. Kind of like the undecided voter to me, not willing to tell his family (see payroll) for fear of retribution and expulsion from the party. daniel

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:37 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI think Dave Forman was careful to delineate SGC's grading policies but did not in any way point a finger at any dealer or auction house. He stated what he felt about ironing out creases and he did not have to name names. He conducted himself professionally, as he should have.

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:40 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellThis is just absolutely incredible to me. Never in my wildest dreams did I think that a few fellow collectors from the premeir vintage message board in the hobby would be the biggest impediment to try to clean up the hobby. Here I undertake something which is clearly against my economic self interest and risk a number of my long term dealer friends being mad at me to do something for the good of the hobby...and I get attacked by people for doing it--amazing. This is no inquisition. I asked a few simple questions of some major dealers. You would think the sky was falling. Maybe people like Colt and Wonka like a sloppy hobby where card alteration and restoration run rampant--you must because you have never done anything to combat it and any suggestions you have are frankly lame. Or maybe its driven by that they have consignments out and are afraid of a lower price or that the value of their collection will go down. Once again a lot has been accomplished already--the knowledge base of most collectors of what is going on out there has increased geometrically because of this. Certain dealers may start to say they will stop taking creases out of cards, dealers may start disclosing which lots they own, collectors may understand microtrimming/reworking of cards and what heroes like Dave Forman are doing to combat it, and we have raised dealer awareness that collectors are unhappy and there are some major hobby issues they need to face. But this is still only the beginning. Much more needs to be done on all these measures. There needs to be a collectors organization to help police the dealers. Dealers can be rated on how well they are responding to collector concerns. As I have said to the board and I have said to Leon, if the majority want me to stop I will--but it really would be a shame, right when we are on the brink of something historic. Jim

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:41 PM

Posted By: MikeU"MIke, Is that not the glass is half empty view point? There is nothing in Dave's response that is critical of any of Mastros behavior. It is wrong to suggest otherwise. A person could interpret the opposite of your this equals this opinion by his omission of wrong doing. Charlie" Charlie, You are correct, Dave was not specifically critical of Mastro. He however clearly noted that SGC considers removing a wrinkle as a category one restoration. He went on to note with honesty that this category one restoration (wrinkle removal) is impossible to detect in many cases. However, a card would be rejected if wrinkles were attempted to be removed and it affected a cards texture, had an unusually flat surface or there is a slight transfer of a foreign substance to a card. A reasonable person can now conclude that Doug's admission to wrinkle removal is not endorsed by SGC. It is wrong to attempt to reason otherwise.

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:41 PM

Posted By: E, DanielDidn't Doug specifically tell us he was going to ask the exact question I have described, and report back to us. I'm not looking for SGC to say this guy is good and that guy is bad, simply whether or not crease removal as prepping for grading is considered alteration. Can't it be any simpler? Daniel

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:50 PM

Posted By: AnonymousMike, Like Wil Farrel said in the "Anchor Man", I agree to disagree. Answer this, why did he break restoration into three categories,if the message was that all restoration was considered wrong and or he was trying to discourage the practice? Second, as I said earlier, knowing that the term "alteration" carries the most nefarious conotation, why did he not used the term to describe cateogry 1 or Mastros activity? Charlie

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:50 PM

Posted By: MikeU"simply whether or not crease removal as prepping for grading is considered alteration." - Daniel "When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal." - Dave Forman Daniel, What do you not comprehend? You say crease and Dave said wrinkle. Is that was is confusing to you? You say alteration and Dave said restoration. Is that what is confusing to you? For clarity: Doug said wrinkle, so your crease = wrinkle = wrinkle. A match. Alteration = Restoration. Another match. I can not fathom what else you do not understand.

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:52 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDoug did say that, and unless I missed something, he hasn't come back yet. Obviously, we know the answer he will get. No grading service will condone it. Jim- I do think you are taking tremendous initiative in trying to clean up the injustices in the hobby, but I also feel maybe you have taken it as far as it can go. And are you confident that everyone who answered your questions did so with complete candor? If I had a printing press in my basement and was manufacturing T206's on it, and you came to me and asked me if I run an honest business, I would tell you I was a saint. I think there are diminishing returns by taking this as far as it has gone (not to mention there are so many identical posts running at the same time that I don't know which thread I am on anymore). I don't disagree that this hobby is rampant with scoundrels of all kinds, and you are working both to clean things up and obviously to protect your own investment, but don't we already know about as much as we are likely to find out? Correct me if I am wrong.

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:55 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanGood Lord, this is insane. We are truly through the looking glass here. This is my last post on this issue: Charlie, you're a dealer/auctioneer that does the very things proscribed by Dave Forman of SGC. You have a financial incentive to somehow not understand what Dave said. Mike, Jim and myself have no financial interest to comprehend or not comprehend what Dave said. We see it the opposite way that you do. Viola!

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: E, Danielplease read what i have written before you condescend to me. if it is you who is confused, look for understanding elsewhere. it is most clear we cannot communicate. sincerely daniel

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:56 PM

Posted By: AnonymousMike,? I am going to ask Dave tomorrow, if you are correct in changing his words. I think Dave chose his words very carefully on purpose. Not sure why he would say restoration when he meant alteration? IMHO, altering something and restoring it are two totally different things. Restoring is equivilant to a breast lift. Altering is clearly a breast augmentation. Charlie

Archive

11-30-2006, 05:59 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellBarry, I listed the subsequent steps--you don't think its a worthy plan? Also I have consulted with the six smartest people in the hobby(outside of you) for ideas on next steps and they have come up with a lot of interesting ideas. Jim

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:03 PM

Posted By: barrysloateJim- forgive me, but I have read so many different posts that I can't even remember them anymore. But if you think you can still gather more useful information on the subject, then I support you. I may be a little tired of all this now (and I think I will shut my computer for the night) but anything positive that comes out is good. So go for it!

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:10 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellBarry, Check my post on this thread at 8:40pm and tell me what you think. Jim

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:12 PM

Posted By: John“Maybe people like Colt and Wonka like a sloppy hobby where card alteration and restoration run rampant--you must because you have never done anything to combat it and any suggestions you have are frankly lame.” Hey Jim, In fact if you read my post above it wasn’t that I disagreed 100% with what your doing, just thought you were going about it in the wrong way. I even offered to give some insight into a proper format for your quest. I even said my thoughts were on the table and I would gladly discuss my suggestions in private email or via phone. I have no emails in my inbox from you or Peter, so like you I will chalk up your lack of response and assume you’re just a self-serving guy with a hidden agenda. Did I just jump to conclusions unfairly about you perhaps, but that hasn’t stopped you from doing the same to multiple businesses and individuals on this forum has it? I never have judged you or your passion about collecting, or for that matter even what you collect. Find one post where I pick apart your high-grade collection. I myself have bought and own a few high-grade cards. So how dare you make an assumption that I endorse or prefer a sloppy hobby! The only thing I’m guilty of regarding you Jim, is I have called you out many times on the way you come off as very arrogant, you I’m sure could say the same thing regarding your feelings towards me. But never once have I judged you and your collection. Have we disagreed sure, have we argued points sure that’s kind of the whole point right? The only difference is you play the martyr when you don’t get your way or feel your feathers have been ruffled, I just don’t care. So do me a favor and keep unfounded and general accusations of people’s motives about the hobby to the auction houses this week vs. aiming them at me. Also for the record if you interpret and come to conclusions from these auction houses responses or lack there of in the same manner you interrupted my very cordial post above. You clearly are not the guy to clear up the hobby, if in fact we need that guy at all?

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:16 PM

Posted By: Colt McClellandJim - I think a better use of time for you and yours would be to go into your card room and begin looking carefully at each and every card in your collection to find to altered cards where there is some trimming or a crease that has come back to life. Then, you can confront PSA about why they gave it an 8, determine the possible origins of the aleration, and report back to us as to the findings.

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:26 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethI think Dave's post was clear that IF he could detect "stuff" (a neutral word) such as Doug was describing as legitimate in his view, he would REJECT the cards for evidence of tampering. Those are his words, evidence of tampering. Here are Dave's exact words. The inevitable logic of what Dave is saying is that the practices Doug describes are unacceptable in SGC's view but usually they cannot detect them. In any case I don't know how else to interpret them. "When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal. These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable. When done properly, cards that have undergone these procedures can find there way into SGC holders, because as I mentioned, there is no way to detect that it has been done. Often these procedures are done improperly, they leave telltale signs that we consider to be evidence of tampering, and we reject the cards. Some of these telltale signs include but are not limited to a change in the cards texture, unusually flat surfaces, and at times there is a slight transfer of a foreign substance to a card."

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:31 PM

Posted By: AnonymousPeter, I feel like I am still at my old job, running my hedge fund, trying to parse through Greenspans Fed Speak. Charlie

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:31 PM

Posted By: BcDhow long have you been pretending to be Marshall Fogel ? BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:32 PM

Posted By: Todd Schultzis that they don't reject them, at least erasures. As has been pointed out, cards with erasures are graded downward, which I understand, but are not rejected outright. So it appears the inclusion of this type of "work" with others by Mr. Foreman was inaccurate.

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:44 PM

Posted By: Peter_SpaethCharlie, I hear ya. Todd, I hear you as well, and I saw Paul's (T206Collector) posts to that effect earlier, but that doesn't change the inconsistency between SGC's STATED policy and Doug's statement as to what he believed the grading services considered acceptable. Perhaps Dave will clarify, perhaps not.

Archive

11-30-2006, 06:45 PM

Posted By: JimCrandellWonka, You were unnecessarily nasty to me in your first post. If you have ideas to clean up this mess then please lets work on it together. In fact I don't care if I get any of the credit--lets get a half a dozen guys who really care about the future of the hobby and work on it as a group. What do you say? Jim

Archive

11-30-2006, 07:16 PM

Posted By: JohnJim, I would gladly offer any ideas I have as I stated above. I’m also not sure if we are even capable of “working together” if you found my above post to be “Nasty” towards you in anyway. Criticize you in a way on what’s transpired yes, but nasty no. There’s a fundamental difference between constructive criticism and what you call being nasty. Also if we were going to “work together” we cant have you getting your feelings hurt each time we disagree.