[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

I listened to about 10 minutes of it. If I’m not someone who is already familiar with PWCC and the backstory there and issues that have already been brought up in this or other threads, what he’s saying doesn’t seem outlandish to me - but it also seems unnecessary. If we have no evidence on the card, then no “alteration” was done. Of course, if you get a card in with an erased pencil mark and you were not on hand to see the erasing being done, and it left no traces whatsoever on the card - even being viewed “30 different ways in 20 different lights and 10 different magnifications” or whatever it was he said - then no, you aren’t going to call that card “altered”. Not outing previous known card doctors that PWCC likely made a fortune with and things like that is outside the scope of what I can knowledgeably speak to. If I believe what I have read on Net54 and then listen to 10 mins of Brent, it seems like he is offering to address something that is not really the issue to whitewash a much larger problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I disagree to some extent. I believe, and people who know much more than I do I think can confirm, that if you look hard enough you can always find evidence certainly of stain removal with solvents, and crease and wrinkle removal. So his self serving proclamation is wrong. It could well be altered even if in ordinary circumstances you might not know it. That makes it skilled alteration, not an absence of alteration.

If this BS is good for the hobby, well you can have the hobby.