Guy came on here claiming he had a Wagner to sell. Everyone called BS. He posted this photoshopped pic of himself. We had a field day. The paper towels in the background certainly didn't help his cause.

Folks then proceeded to photoshop him with everything from the Mona Lisa to who knows what else. It was damn funny.

I just tried to find the thread but to no avail - can someone better than me at searching on here find it??

Here's one of them.

The Nun's Wagner
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163800

And here's the thread that started it all. Said he'd had the Nun's Wagner in his family for a long time. :)

https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=163782

124. Ban of the Year Roast (also Adrianaline Rush)
A thread where people gleefully celebrate a certain member being kicked off of the site.

See also: Defrostracized - when a member is allowed to return after a temporary banning.

Interesting! Amazing how people rush to judgement without knowing all the facts, or being initially presented with only one side/version of a story.

Welcome back
 

My opinion.

funny but agree

I was originally on the fence about this. After giving more thought and his explanation I think a second chance should be in place. I am in his sig line as dealing with and that is correct. I had no problems with the transaction.
Bob

Thanks for sharing the Wagner story!

Looking at the pictures of Andrew holding the Wagner, does anyone else see a gap between his thumb and the slab? If he had actually been holding it that way, he would've dropped it.

i initially voted to ban...ive changed my mind

He probably hadn't used the paper towels at that point and it just stuck there.

member
 

Come back on probation

Ahhh, good times…..good times.

Now only if we can get a picture of that “archive” guy.

OK, that was funny!:

Just sounds like a new collector being overly cautious. If he buys the card again and adds $20 or whatever to cover shipping, I'd say all is forgiven.

+1

Let him stay. Simply a misunderstanding.

First and last, my thinking is I'm supportive of it being Leon's decision. That's a starting point and also a finish line for my thoughts on that. But in between the two, there's this:

That's a nice card. I sold one, through Mr. Brockelman, I think, some time ago. Mine was slabbed and was not that nice. ANYONE with the money to buy that card should have enough sense and experience to gently rub a... fingernail across that plastic and quickly realize that it's only tape. So, it seems like buyer's remorse, and I agree with what someone said about the fellow trying to sell that should get reimbursed some postal expenses. If someone doesn't have enough sense to realize a bit of tape on the edge of a slab is no big deal, then they probably have no business participating on the BST.

BST problems are likely to increase. I suspect more stuff gets sold through here now than 6 months ago, partly because of the way eBay rules and actions have changed. So, vigilance over what's happening over there will be needed more as time goes by. It's like that guy said on Hillstreet Blues, "Guys, let's be careful out there."

My experience is to be suspicious of zero tolerance policies. "Zero Intelligence comes my mind when I hear that. Whenever a zero tolerance rule appears, eventually some set of circumstances come along that begs for justified reconsideration.

The name thing, I don't think that's a death blow, as set forth, necessarily. If I looked at all applying new member USER ID's and NAMES, it would be immediately obvious if the two entries were identical. If the USER ID was something that looked to be a first and last name, then that wouldn't seem a red flag to me. But if both were DEUCE (the name of my slightly overweight Dalmatian), then it should be obvious that DEUCE isn't a person's first and last name. This leaves me with a lack of certainty at whether he had an intent to deceive. I don't like the idea that someone might hunt me down to try to break in and take what collectibles may be in my house. I've not gotten rid of them all, nor are all in safety deposit boxes. While I doubt someone attempting that would find much (hell, I can't find cards myself around here sometimes), I still have tried to stay off of the monthly pickup threads. That scares me. And it worries me when someone here emails me asking about some card, and eventually wanting to see a scan. Some of the folks I think I know are easily welcome to a scan (if I can find the card) and a discussion. But when someone I don't know or only recently knows has asked, it worries me. I don't think I've even looked at a monthly pickup tread in a couple of years... I'm afraid to even look.

Over the years I've seen/experienced a handful of Leon's decisions with which I did not agree at that moment. And in almost all of them, I've come around to thinking that he made the proper decision. Golly, my job is decision-making, and I think Leon's pretty good at it.

I didn't vote. I don't feel sufficiently well informed to make a sound decision. I think the decision should maybe be previewed to the fellow who sold that Cy Young card twice, suffering from an initial return. And I couldn't pull the I Don't Care trigger because I do care.

With all of that jammed in between my initial thinking and finish line as mentioned above, that's what I think. Along with an increase in scrutiny of new members and vigilance on the BST. I do think that scrutiny and vigilance is and has been occurring, thank you for that. I just think that Leon might benefit from a bit of help with that from a couple of board members (guys that already assist here, I'd think).

I wish you well with that, Mr. L.

I'm just kind of disappointed to find out Bobby Strawberry isn't someone's real name. :cool:

So buyer upon registration didn't want to enter his personal info. Seems reasonable and I wonder what a full member audit would show, no idea what I entered when joining. Suspect that data is not very accurate.

Continuing, buyer is a good member for a few years, posts under his real name and has consummated multiple deals. Thinks a slab is compromised and agrees to a return with seller. Seller, on last inspection, realizes it is actually tape. Instead of reaching out to buyer, contacts forum host to have buyer banned.

Seller doesn't look great here IMO.

I initially voted to ban him, but changed my mind. I thought his explanation was plausible, genuine and contrite. Moving forward, I do not think he will be a detriment to this forum, and would like to see him stick around.

All are plausible excuses.
If he was trying a scam, maybe not send the card back?
Intentionally damage the case?
Switch card out?

As far as the registration, sometimes I feel hesitant to put personal information on a random site that I just wanted to get a feel for. Then as time goes on you forget, or think what you registered was okay?

I voted let stay, but I voted after he responded.

FWIW , I loathe a cheat,liar,and thief. I do Not think that is what we have here.
And finally, I have never dealt with this person.
Thomas

Same here. Second chance with conditions sounds fair.

I don't have an opinion on banning either way - I'm just baffled anybody could think that was a crack in the slab. It seems obvious from the photos and you can see the tape hanging over and surely it would FEEL different than...plastic?

Maybe he’s just not comfortable feeling cracks.

I say let him back. The explanation provided seems plausible and I can understand the hesitance to provide any personal information to sign up for a bulletin board.

If "Dave" is good with this and Matthew has provided the real information required to sign up for the board, then call it square and let it be a lesson learned that Matthew realizes that this board is legit.

Just curious, who was the player in the slab?

I would vote for D, None of my business, but I voted B, No, because I've been on here since Yoda's board, and Bobby Strawberry is one of the few people that has ever agreed with one of my takes, I think it was in the Doncic card thread. Anyway, good luck, it looks like the tribe has spoken. To me, OJ's don't need to be graded, I don't see what purpose it serves, you look at the photo.

I have used fake names on websites I didn't originally plan to spend much time with - and I would call it an "alias" rather than a fake name. So that is plausible to me. I use Norton, and one of the websites I signed up with was hacked and my password used for that site is exposed. Fortunately for me, I use a different password for every site I sign up with, but some people don't. Anyway, it makes me tread cautiously when I want to explore a site new to me and right away I'm being asked a bunch of identifying questions.

Having said that, I fully understand why Leon needs to do this. And I wouldn't do deals with people without using my real name.

So... the registration issue is not something I'd hold against him, given his several problem-free transactions and the fact he later provided his real name.

The tape/crack is also a non-issue to me. Mistakes happen and no fraud or hint of it occurred. I'd let him stay.

I do not think this person should be banned.

The idea of using a different name to sign up and check the site out is definitely plausible as is not going back and changing it again. I don't see a hint of bad intent there.

Same with the story about the slab. Doesn't come across at all like there was any intent to deceive or do something dubious.

I think we can all agree that nobody, including everybody on here, is perfect. Let's not expect the same of someone else. If the user has multiple good deals in the past and this is the one hang up, then let him back in.

Yes and no. Most times the "aggrieved" party in a case like this isn't willing to come on and share their side of the story. The fact that he did, and is willing to take some lumps, speaks volumes about him. Life isn't a often doesn't provide perfect information, sometimes you have to make judgements with less than ideal info. Of course those judgements don't have to be irreversible. I would change my vote on this subject.

Dean that is way to funny. God I remember when Bruce wanted to sue archive:D:D:D:D:D:D

Whilst he was smart, he lacked some common sense. RIP Bruce.

Nobody did anything wrong. Leon asked for people's opinions and he supplied the information he thought was necessary.

Which Bruce are you referring to? I believe there were (at least) two.

Totally not true. The seller wasn't in a panic or have his panties in a wad. He didn't ask me to ban him at all., He was just giving a heads up which I always appreciate.
The problem I see, so far, is the lying on the registration. That is going to result in something punitive. I am awaiting one more piece of info before I make the decision.
Anyone lying, for any reason, on their registration is going to get reprimanded at minimum, and possibly banned. IF you don't lie it's not a problem. And I understand why he did it.
I will be contacting other members who, I have been told, are going by something other than their real name.
As for the slab issue, I am in the camp of a non believer but I could be wrong. There is an unwritten policy on the forum whereby if no one is out any money, and the situation isn't persistent, then there is leniency given.
I appreciate folks understanding on this matter.

ride a tricyle, a beanie hat, and a Net54 shirt while honking a horn at the national card show. --thats unless someone already volunteered for that.:D

I believe the buyer honestly thought the slab was cracked. He took pictures of the “crack” and I assume these pictures were to show the seller. If he was trying to pull one over on the seller, he wouldn’t have known the seller didn’t know it was tape.

Or worse, if he was a bad guy he could've taken a pliers and actually cracked the case to guarantee the return would be accepted.

I just can't see the tape/crack is an issue.

It's not an issue as I said. I just feel the tape was too easy to spot. Someone wouldn't at least feel the crack and see it's tape? Maybe not. That won't be the reason for anything done punitively.
.

When the day comes that I ever actually go to a national, put my name in the hat for this. Just make it a Knight Rider big wheel instead of a tricycle though. I never got to ride one of those.

Let him speak & give his apology at the Net54 dinner at the National and have the attendees there vote at that time on his Net54 status. :D

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...fbd313af77.gif

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

I've never sold a card but have enjoyed many deals on the BST for 1000's of $$$$$, I have never had anything but FANTASTIC experiences.

When a 4K Wagner Sporting life card was delivered falling out of the PSA holder, the seller had me send it directly back to PSA for Reholdering. I thought I could damage the card if I tried to move it as it was jammed inside the case, side to side. He got the card back from PSA in a week, took pictures and resent it to me. I was excited to get it back. Would you believe when I got it, the same exact thing happened and I could not pop the card back in.:mad::(:( He held my check the entire time, until I was happy which he didn't have to do in the first place. In the end, I just told him I don't think I could take it and it wasn't meant to be....AN EFFIN WAGNER, HONUS. With the Iconic Pastel Pose. F ME.

I sent the card back and he ripped up the check. I was devastated for the member, the card and not following through with the sale. I think we had a nice working history with about 20K worth of cards and $ changing hands, so there was a certain trust you only can get with the members here from the start.

After the response and excepting he was a moron, I could see myself doing the same thing on accident. I'd vote to keep BS. I wouldn't have sent the card back though. I would have just negotiated a credit and had it reholdered or just enjoyed the card the way it was. If I noticed it was tape at some point, I would have sent the negotiated amount credited back.

The BST board here is pretty sacred & respected and I certainly appreciate the ability to participate.

I only wish I had used it much sooner than I did.

Hi Scott,

Don't disagree at all, but you can understand how this looks. The fact that so many people were quick to jump to a decision based on only partial information, and then quickly changed their minds when presented with more input, is downright scary. This is exactly how a vast majority of people around the globe seem to operate in today's world with regard to half-truths, fake news, misinformation, and so on. They take what information they are given, and often make hasty, not well-informed decisions based on what partial or little they do know. I intentionally did not vote or offer an answer as I was well aware I possibly did not have all the facts, nor had a chance to have heard both sides of the story, before making a truly informed decision.

As you state, people do this all the time though, and it can very often result in extremely negative results, and even matters of life and death. Look at what is going on in Ukraine, and the supposed misinformation behind at least some of the reasoning for the invasion. Does anyone think the entirety of the Russian population really knows the whole, true story of what is going on? Thank goodness the issue of this thread has no such dire and real world consequences associated with it. But still, it is indicative of human nature and how people can rush to conclusions without taking the time to gather and look at ALL the information first (assuming they'll at some point actually be given all the information), and then actually think about what it all means and the consequences of their decision, before actually making a decision.

Granted, people don't always have the luxury to take their time to make their decisions, but that is certainly not true in this instance. And fortunately, there is no negative, lasting effect or dire consequences that result from people going back and now changing their mind in this particular case. But all too often, such quick and ill-informed decision making, when it isn't necessary, can result in much harm and damage to others, and may not be entirely reversible. I would pray that ALL people could be more cognizant of what they are doing and how they go about making such decisions, without possibly being too quick to decide, and end up making a bad decision as a result.

The saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged.", would also seem to be very apropos here. Or put another way, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I've often heard Ebay sellers complain when getting negative feedback that they were never contacted by the buyer beforehand, but wished they had been so they could have resolved the issue without it escalating further. I would hope that such thinking should go both ways.

and what was actually said...

Hi Matthew
Been a busy day. Sorry. Here is the photo of the crack you sent me...and the after picture. It was not loose, it was not cracked. It was a piece of packing tape that peeled right off.

I almost had sent the claim off to the post office too but wanted to snap one last pic before I did...glad I did.

Bad optic.
__________________________________________________ ____________
and the response

Hi "Dave",

Wow. I was sure it was a crack in the slab. It felt like one and looked like one from every angle. I wanted the card and was extremely disappointed at finding that it had evidently been damaged.

If you think I deliberately did that to mislead you, I don't know what to tell you. I don't know why, based on our previous exchanges, why you would immediately assume the worst about me.

It's quite unfortunate that instead of contacting me (I gladly would have taken the card back), you complained to Leon, and I guess he's going to ignore my message to him about what the heck happened.

Matthew
__________________________________________________ ____________


So that was a little spin imo.....not the end of the world but not what the seller said...
And for the record I never, ever ignore messages. Sometimes I need to find a few things out before I pm back..

Lastly, Matthew will get an infraction for the phony registration and we can move on. Happy collecting!


...LL

I disagree with this sentiment vehemently. I see little evidence of anyone, in the context you are speaking of, changing their mind about anything.

Not gonna lie, first time I read this I read Nut's Wagner....

B. T.

Hi Leon, just for the record, the part of my post that you underlined is from earlier in the chain of communication than the part you quoted from my and Dave's emails (this was after I had spoken to you and then got in touch in touch with Dave). Later in my comment, I quote verbatim from what you have just posted.

Thank you, Matthew

Ummmm, please go back and read posts 43, 48, 50, 61, 67, 72, and 74.

And similar things and instances can be, and are, happening around the world all the time, whether due to involuntary or self-elected reasons. Lots of countries/peoples are denied full and equal access to all knowledge and information due to outright censorship and attempts to control them and their decisions by the powers that be. In other instances, there are people that will only look to certain sources for their information and knowledge and voluntarily decide who and what to listen to, and what to ignore, before making their decisions. Thus in either case, often making their decisions prematurely and often without the benefit of getting ALL the available information AND both sides of a story/argument first, can most definitely lead to erroneous actions being chosen, along with inflicting often needless and senseless harm and damage to others.

Based on what was initially posted, people made premature decisions, and then later changed them. No one did anything inherently wrong or bad, or intentionally tried to force anyone's opinion. But simple human nature comes through once again in this particular case to show one of the downsides of being human where we can, and very often do, jump to what may turn out to be unfounded or undeserved conclusions. And that is what I meant and the context I was referring to when I mentioned how actions and outcomes like this can be scary. Not necessarily in this particular case, but in the infinite number of past, present, and future instances where humans will time and again exhibit similar premature decision making actions without the benefit of having all the pertinent information and facts, whether knowingly or unknowingly. Whenever possible, people should be sure to take their time and consider all relevant information and data, and strive to see that they actually have it all, before using all that acquired knowledge and evidence to then make logical and well informed decisions. To allude to another old, but extremely intelligent saying, "Measure twice, cut once!" If everyone at least tried to embrace and live by this concept, I think it would be a much better world we'd be living in.

And of course, this naturally segues right into another maybe not so desirable human trait, the dislike for many humans to admit they may have been wrong or in error, after the fact. To that end, I actually commend and thank those that openly changed their minds. I also commend and thank everyone involved for as Paul Harvey used to say, getting "the rest of the story" out there for everyone to see and better understand. Sadly, for countless other issues and situations in our world, it more often than not does not positively work out like things look to have done here in this thread, and with no real significant harm or dire consequences befalling anyone in the process.

And if you vehemently disagree with this, so be it.