How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by hugginsandscott

I have largely tried to stay out of all of this, however this one I cannot let go. Nash spewed BS in a variety of stories relating to us (and me) and items that we have sold. He went so far as claiming "sources told him that an autographed piece we had originated from a deceased employee of ours, Barry Malkin." This was 100% bull shit. He had no source; he had no basis; it was 100% made up on his part and he tried to drag a decorated Washington, DC Police Captain's name through the mud by saying he purchased stolen material. As someone who writes a public blog, I would expect a better journalistic protocol from him - but alas, he has proven once again that he is, as many of you have called him, a scum bag to the n-th degree.
Sorry - that is all I will say on this matter.
Josh

Another post that Travis will conveniently ignore. And that "Sources say" crap is yellow journalism 101. He also likes to claim the "FBI is closing in..."...they're really taking their sweet time "closing in".

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Another post that Travis will conveniently ignore. And that "Sources say" crap is yellow journalism 101. He also likes to claim the "FBI is closing in..."...they're really taking their sweet time "closing in".

Agreed on all counts. Any claim that Nash makes along the lines of "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed" got ZERO credence, and there are a number of them in his posts.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Agreed on all counts. Any claim that Nash makes along the lines of "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed" got ZERO credence, and there are a number of them in his posts.

+1

And how is this for ironic, Travis you post on here ranting on and on, over and over again about how PSA and JSA never divulge or specify who looks at and authenticates a particular autograph, yet you apparently gladly give Nash a pass when in his stories he always uses ambiguous terms such as "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed". Why can't Nash specify who these sources are and who these experts he spoke to are?

But again as always, you won't answer ANY direct questions posed to you about Nash. You'll ignore them, picking and choosing to reply to only certain questions directed at you. Why? Are you afraid that your responses to these questions might impinge upon Nash's "good" name?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by markf31

+1

And how is this for ironic, Travis you post on here ranting on and on, over and over again about how PSA and JSA never divulge or specify who looks at and authenticates a particular autograph, yet you apparently gladly give Nash a pass when in his stories he always uses ambiguous terms such as "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed". Why can't Nash specify who these sources are and who these experts he spoke to are?

But again as always, you won't answer ANY direct questions posed to you about Nash. You'll ignore them, picking and choosing to reply to only certain questions directed at you. Why? Are you afraid that your responses to these questions might impinge upon Nash's "good" name?

He won't answer them because he doesn't really care about fraud in his "beloved" hobby. There's something else going on here.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

He won't answer them because he doesn't really care about fraud in his "beloved" hobby. There's something else going on here.

And you're shocked......

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

And you're shocked......

No, not really.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

No, not really.

I know....