![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimCrandell
Barry, |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: barrysloate
Jim- forgive me, but I have read so many different posts that I can't even remember them anymore. But if you think you can still gather more useful information on the subject, then I support you. I may be a little tired of all this now (and I think I will shut my computer for the night) but anything positive that comes out is good. So go for it! |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimCrandell
Barry, |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
“Maybe people like Colt and Wonka like a sloppy hobby where card alteration and restoration run rampant--you must because you have never done anything to combat it and any suggestions you have are frankly lame.” |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Colt McClelland
Jim - I think a better use of time for you and yours would be to go into your card room and begin looking carefully at each and every card in your collection to find to altered cards where there is some trimming or a crease that has come back to life. Then, you can confront PSA about why they gave it an 8, determine the possible origins of the aleration, and report back to us as to the findings. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
I think Dave's post was clear that IF he could detect "stuff" (a neutral word) such as Doug was describing as legitimate in his view, he would REJECT the cards for evidence of tampering. Those are his words, evidence of tampering. Here are Dave's exact words. The inevitable logic of what Dave is saying is that the practices Doug describes are unacceptable in SGC's view but usually they cannot detect them. In any case I don't know how else to interpret them. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Anonymous
Peter, |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: BcD
how long have you been pretending to be Marshall Fogel ? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Todd Schultz
is that they don't reject them, at least erasures. As has been pointed out, cards with erasures are graded downward, which I understand, but are not rejected outright. So it appears the inclusion of this type of "work" with others by Mr. Foreman was inaccurate. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: Peter_Spaeth
Charlie, I hear ya. |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: JimCrandell
Wonka, |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: John
Jim, |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Posted By: leon
I am going to lock this one too. If you guys can come up with some kind of team effort we can start a consolidated, single thread.....Again, these locks are only intended to try to get back to what many folks want NOT to curtail the talks totally. I just want them in more of a consolidated nature...thanks again... |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Memory Lane's Stance on Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 23 | 01-06-2007 08:11 PM |
SCP Auctions(Sports Cards Plus) Stance on Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 35 | 12-01-2006 05:13 AM |
Mile High Card Company's Stance on Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 96 | 11-30-2006 08:41 PM |
Andy Madec Sportscards Stance on Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 4 | 11-29-2006 08:58 PM |
Clean Sweep's Stance on Larger Hobby Issues | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 24 | 11-29-2006 10:56 AM |