PWCC's 1936 Goudey World Wide Gum DiMaggio PSA 7

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

Took you like 5 minutes to find it. I bet when you buy a card you will know the history of it. Looks like that card was soaked and not ripped in half and no razor was involved. I bet a tidy profit was made. The buyer of the card may of known about the alteration as well. Not sure what you are proving except that soaking is commonplace and never disclosed.

Now it's the buyer's fault. Cortney should have figured it out for himself. Yes indeed. I deceived you, but it was your fault because you should have figured out I was deceiving you.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Now it's the buyer's fault. Cortney should have figured it out for himself. Yes indeed.

For once we agree on something. Personal responsibility is not a bad thing. No reason to buy Title insurance when you buy a house. Just take it how it is, it cant be the buyers fault when buying anything.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

For once we agree on something. Personal responsibility is not a bad thing. No reason to buy Title insurance when you buy a house. Just take it how it is, it cant be the buyers fault when buying anything.

No we completely disagree obviously, I was being sarcastic.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

No we completely disagree obviously, I was being sarcastic.

and I wasnt?

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Philip may not be a lawyer but as one who is, I must say I am impressed with the cogency and simple logic of his arguments here.

Right anyone who agrees with you is someone you are impressed with.



I just have more of a problem with the shilling then the arguable accepted practices of what to disclose and how a card can be soaked/altered.

If there are more people out there that implicate PWCC with colluded shilling that would be interesting...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

and I wasnt?



Right anyone who agrees with you you are impressed with.

I suspect that you were, but it can be difficult to decipher your Delphic posts sometimes.

[Cliff Bowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I suspect that you were, but it can be difficult to decipher your Delphic posts sometimes.

Being a $20 post war collecting non lawyer and non dentist that should know his place and not even look at the pre war forum, I will readily admit that I had to look up 'delphic'. Cool word.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Cliff Bowman

Being a $20 post war collecting non lawyer and non dentist that should know his place and not even look at the pre war forum, I will readily admit that I had to look up 'delphic'. Cool word.

He could of used ambiguous or vague as well but Phillip would make note that they simply arent the same word as they are just 'nearly the same' Using those words would change the meaning totally.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 1952boyntoncollector

and I wasnt?



Right anyone who agrees with you is someone you are impressed with.

Not at all. I am equally impressed by people who disagree with me if they state their arguments well.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not at all. I am equally impressed by people who disagree with me if they state their arguments well.

Same here my friend. Still waiting for you to be impressed with someone that disagrees with you though. (saying someone now is too late, you would have to have posted in previously for it to mean anything)