[rats60]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Believe it or not (I'm sure most of you won't) I have no grudge or vendetta against Al or LOTG. I've never met the man. I've bid on a few of their auctions but never won anything. We may have had a brief conversation when I first signed up for LOTG, I honestly Don't remember. I've gotten into it with some guy who I believe used to work with him in a few threads. I think his screen name is Bicem. Something like that.

The other LOTG threads I've spoken up in just started with me sharing my opinion on the issue. These threads are always so one sided in their favor that I find it quite ridiculous. If I have any grudge or bias, it's with the attitude on this board that they can do no wrong, and not with the AH or owner personally. I do remember one in particular when I wrote a sarcastic prediction that something would be really messed up in an upcoming auction, which would be followed by several posts about how it's no big deal because Al's such a great guy. Both came true.

I did not go looking for these issues. Someone mentioned them to me, and I was initially not going to say anything because I knew how it would look given the timing and similarity between the alterations on the E95 Cobb and my T3 Cobb. I'm also aware of the perception that I'm out to get Al, and that this would only add fuel to that fire. I almost didn't start this thread because of this.

I am not trying to condone or justify how I handled the T3 situation. I did my best and don't really care if you or anyone else approves.

I knew if I didn't point out these two items, no one else around here would. I felt they were worth discussing. I think it's beyond ridiculous that they put out a statement acting like they're above the current controversy and would instantly pull any altered card, only to do the opposite in the next auction. If they hadn't put out the statement, I would have no issue with the disclosure on the Cobb, other that the ridiculous justification for the decision based on the alternation not being done with the intent to deceive.

That statement in the Cobb disclosure is what pushed it over the edge for me, and what drew the PWCC comparison in my mind. Maybe the rest of you disagree. PWCC was crushed on the forums for making up the conservation definition as a distinction from other alterations. I personally believe he's right, there is a difference between cards that have been conserved, vs more egregious alterations, and that the hobby will eventually accept that definition. But that isn't relevant to this discussion.

This is copied from the LOTG disclosure:

"While our policy is to withdraw items that are discovered to be altered, in this case we believe the alteration is visible enough that it is debatable whether or not it was done deceptively."

I think that is a bunch of BS. The alteration is visible because someone did a poor job, just like on the T3 Cobb. Whoever it was that did the alteration was most likely trying to deceive either the next buyer or grader, but failed in their attempt to remove whatever was there without a trace.

I haven't seen anyone else even mention this, so perhaps I'm the only one who cares. But I have a hard time believing anyone could think a stain or mark wasn't removed from the Cobb deceptively. There should be no debate.

My understanding is that some people here are upset with PWCC's statement on conserving because they don't disclose what was done to the card. LOTG has disclosed issues with items. If conserving is ok as you believe, then why isn't it disclosed when the items are sold?