Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Washington Post article on the altered card scandal (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=271419)

bobbyw8469 07-18-2019 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tschock (Post 1900183)
Bobby can speak for himself, but free is not the same as worthless. And he never said worthless. Just that he wouldn't pay them any money. There IS a difference.

Thank you. I read political post. The Washington Post's liberal stance when I google certain political happenings get me riled up. I tend to read them, because I can't comprehend someone being that stupid. But I didn't want to make it (meaning my reply in this post) political. So yes, I am no longer allowed to pursue WP articles. And no, I won't be paying them. Just like I don't want to watch CNN. To each their own.

bobbyw8469 07-18-2019 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 1900209)
In your browser, press CTRL-SHIFT-N to open a new private/icognito window. Then paste the URL of the story into that window. Boom, done.

Thank you Chris.

rhettyeakley 07-18-2019 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bicem (Post 1900160)
Good point, I mean what's a little fraud between friends?

Lol! Seriously, how little personal integrity does one have to have to still be doing business with them!?!

"A Man is Known by the Company He Keeps" <——-THIS!

cubsguy1969 07-18-2019 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tabe (Post 1900211)
Since the items are newsworthy, wouldn't use of the photos fall under fair use?

I'm pretty sure not. If that were the case, a newspaper photographer could go out, take a photo of a huge news event, post it on the newspaper's site and then anyone could grab it because the event was "newsworthy." Whoever took the photo owns the rights to it. Or the person who paid that person owns the rights. You could run it in your newspaper if you want, but that person could send you a hefty bill for using it. This stuff happens all the time now online. People grab photos from sites and use them for their own purposes. Photographers are coming after these people hard. Pay me! As they should. It's their work. You can't just take it.

MULLINS5 07-18-2019 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jhs5120 (Post 1900175)
Honestly, selling on eBay sucks. I appreciate that some collectors do not regularly sell items, but I do. I would prefer to send it to someone who can reliably sell my items than spend my time doing it myself. I am not going to take time away from my life because of this scandal. If someone wants to come up with a similar platform, fine, I will consider switching. However, right now, PWCC has no viable counterparts.

I won't do business with PWCC, but I agree with Jason. PWCC has a great model for collectors to sell their cards. It's really amazing what Brent built, unfortunately it seems like it was built on fraud.

AustinMike 07-19-2019 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 1900225)
Thank you. I read political post. The Washington Post's liberal stance when I google certain political happenings get me riled up. I tend to read them, because I can't comprehend someone being that stupid. But I didn't want to make it (meaning my reply in this post) political. So yes, I am no longer allowed to pursue WP articles. And no, I won't be paying them. Just like I don't want to watch CNN. To each their own.

But you did it anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469 (Post 1900225)
Thank you. I read political post. The Washington Post's liberal stance when I google certain political happenings get me riled up. I tend to read them, because I can't comprehend someone being that stupid. But I didn't want to make it (meaning my reply in this post) political. So yes, I am no longer allowed to pursue WP articles. And no, I won't be paying them. Just like I don't want to watch CNN. To each their own.

My thoughts about you.

drcy 07-19-2019 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinMike (Post 1900362)
My thoughts about you.

My thoughts about both of you.

just kidding :D

AustinMike 07-19-2019 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drcy (Post 1900409)
My thoughts about both of you.

just kidding :D

I know, right?

Peter posts a link to an interesting article and despite the "no politics" rule on this forum, some d!ckwad decides to make a political statement. He does it knowing full well that it is not allowed (he did it a month or so ago in another thread where it was pointed out it is not allowed). He does it while insulting a large number of members of this forum. He does it while stupidly saying "I am no longer allowed to pursue WP articles" as he's pursuing a way to read the article. Then another d!ckwad comes along and points out his political post and his stupidity. At least the second d!ckwad made no political statement and only insulted one person, the original stupid d!ckwad. Not much of a defense, but it's all I got.

Peter, my apologies for adding to the distraction of this thread. I also want to thank you for all the information you've posted on this forum regarding PWCC, PSA, and Moser. I know the vast majority is from Blowout, but since I don't read that forum, I would have missed it.

Peter_Spaeth 07-19-2019 12:32 PM

Yeah, not sure what the Post's general leanings really had to do with an article by one of their sports reporters about baseball cards, but whatever.

Leon 07-19-2019 12:38 PM

You can't choose not to take a client? Please help me understand how you have been forced to take a client?
If you were a criminal defense lawyer would you defend pwcc? I am sure I am just not understanding.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1900182)
Actually, there are certain circumstances where the fact of representation could be a client confidence that an attorney could not reveal without the client's permission, so some attorneys might not be able to answer the question.

I also want to make clear that I have no problems with any attorney who is asked to advise or defend an accused against potential criminal charges. It's part of the system. I don't happen to have the stomach for criminal defense, but that's my personality rather than anything else. I've defended some pretty sleazy people over the years in civil cases. Part of the job: you can pick your nose but you can't always pick your clients. Or their noses.

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...t%20picker.gif


jimjim 07-19-2019 01:31 PM

When my Dad calls me to ask me about the baseball card scandal, you know it has hit the main stream. He knows nothing about the industry or hobby. He read about it in a local newspaper.

WhenItWasAHobby 07-19-2019 02:14 PM

Deja vu all over again
 
Good article and I'm glad the issue is becoming a widespread news story - although it's actually an old, ongoing problem with new evidence.

One part of the article that was newsworthy to me was the following statement:

The scandal started after a pair of online collectors began identifying and documenting cards that were allegedly improperly modified. They’ve identified 316 such cards, retouched by nearly a dozen “card doctors,” which sold for a combined $1.4 million.

I'm curious who these alleged dozen doctors are? Only one was alleged in the article by name. (Although I'm very sure there's far more than a dozen involved).

Peter_Spaeth 07-19-2019 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby (Post 1900472)
Good article and I'm glad the issue is becoming a widespread news story - although it's actually an old, ongoing problem with new evidence.

One part of the article that was newsworthy to me was the following statement:

The scandal started after a pair of online collectors began identifying and documenting cards that were allegedly improperly modified. They’ve identified 316 such cards, retouched by nearly a dozen “card doctors,” which sold for a combined $1.4 million.

I'm curious who these alleged dozen doctors are? Only one was alleged in the article by name. (Although I'm very sure there's far more than a dozen involved).

I told Jacob there were many and that Gary was far from the only one. I didn't give a number and I didn't use names. Now he MAY be getting it from adding up all the modern trimmers accused on BO? There are certainly quite a few that I have seen.

swarmee 07-19-2019 02:23 PM

http://www.sportscardradio.com/
There's a whole slew of them that blowout guys have discovered in the past year. And if the FBI casts a wider net to include the PSA submission records of auctionhouses, it might uncover quite a few more. I'd like to see them subpeona the records of Dick Towle.

And the IRS should definitely be taking a harder look at these guys.

cincyredlegs 07-19-2019 02:52 PM

I wonder how many people defending pwcc or what is going on is actually alts of the criminals. We already know Bobby has one or two alts where he defends vcp. There is no logical reason how you could defend it.

WhenItWasAHobby 07-19-2019 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swarmee (Post 1900477)
http://www.sportscardradio.com/
There's a whole slew of them that blowout guys have discovered in the past year. And if the FBI casts a wider net to include the PSA submission records of auctionhouses, it might uncover quite a few more. I'd like to see them subpeona the records of Dick Towle.

And the IRS should definitely be taking a harder look at these guys.

Interesting link. Some of the aliases made me chuckle. Thanks for laughs and I can assure you there are more than what was revealed on that website.

drcy 07-19-2019 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cincyredlegs (Post 1900485)
I wonder how many people defending pwcc or what is going on is actually alts of the criminals. We already know Bobby has one or two alts where he defends vcp. There is no logical reason how you could defend it.

If someone publicly posts that he still buys his cards from PWCC, I hope it doesn't surprise him when he turns to sell that others don't buy from him.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:51 PM.