I have a tough time being humble, but I did it. Your responding like an ass made it a bit difficult to keep a humble attitude.
Either respond to the following or STFU.
"So, you knew all this stuff that Lance said, so that's why you were correct? Or did you get burned and found out they were fakes when you sent them in to PSA?
Seriously, you suggested that I bend the photo to see if it cracked or creased, and that would dictate whether or not it was real. Guess what? It would have cracked or creased.
You claim to have seen the photo in HA (front image only), and it looked so much like your blatantly fake 1960's print, that you KNEW it was fake automatically? Guess what - no one on this board would have known that it was a 1950's WWP based on the image shown in HA. You saw my back-scan on ebay, compared it to yours, and made a blanket assessment that because the stamps were the same, that it had the same problems as yours, and that it was printed at the same time, ignoring the obvious difference in frontal characteristics; i.e-lacking the skills to do anything other than ignore them. The Waner print front scan looked NOTHING at all like the ones you received. In summary, you were accidentally correct and now you want to gloat about how brilliant you are.
Gloat away. Basically, you learned nothing, but the rest of us did, so thanks for starting the thread. I'm not going to call you an idiot, because I don't call people names on the internet, but if I were going to label someone with that name it would certainly be you."
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
|