Nash on Spence thoughts?

[Peter_Spaeth]

This probably has been discussed before, the Nash post is from 2013, but as a friend of mine just asked me about Spence, I found this on a search and hope to get some reaction from the experts here. Nash's research as always seems meticulous but I am aware of his reputation. If Spence truly has made so many major mistakes, how meaningful can his authentication be?

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=26228

[Klrdds]

Peter I have wondered the same thing for many years . Some of Spence's mistakes are so obvious and egregious that they are laughable at times .

[oldjudge]

I think Peter Nash is the most knowledgeable memorabilia person in the hobby.

[ooo-ribay]

Those guys are clowns. I just wish I had come up with this racket first.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I think Peter Nash is the most knowledgeable memorabilia person in the hobby.

He is also one of the biggest criminals.

[Peter_Spaeth]

His blog post is a remarkable document, whatever opinion you hold.

[commishbob]

The more I read about these authentication companies and 'experts' the less faith I have in anything in the signed memorabilia area. I have dealt with a couple of local dealers who have signings and/or I've known for many years and I will buy from them on the rare occasions I pick up a signed item. With very rare exceptions (things I sent to Bobby Shantz, Billy Pierce, etc) unless I see it signed I'm not spending $$ on it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

His blog post is a remarkable document, whatever opinion you hold.

Remarkable when you can figure out which is truth or lies or made up fantasies he is telling. He is total scum.

[hcv123]

I don't trust.

I can count on 2 hands the number of signed items in my collection - most are because I wanted the item and it happened to be signed. Nash clearly has some huge "integrity" issues. That said Spence (and other authenticators) likely does as well. To each their own - caveat emptor.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I don't trust.

I can count on 2 hands the number of signed items in my collection - most are because I wanted the item and it happened to be signed. Nash clearly has some huge "integrity" issues. That said Spence (and other authenticators) likely does as well. To each their own - caveat emptor.

I don't disagree with that. The only way I could ever collect autos is on very official docs or in person ones..

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't disagree with that. The only way I could ever collect autos is on very official docs or in person ones..

I understand your feeling that way. I generally stick with handwritten letters or the few players whose signatures I know well. It's very limiting, but I only enjoy those items that I can look at without questioning my purchase. Having a modern Mantle or Williams, for me is like having a PSA 9 T206. It has to leave the house as soon as possible because of the angst it causes me.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Leon

Remarkable when you can figure out which is truth or lies or made up fantasies he is telling. He is total scum.

Agreed...he flat out lied about me. I don't trust a single word he writes. He's yellow journalism. He uses a lot of "my sources say" BS.

[David Atkatz]

Which of the two has done the most "ripping off."
Hands down, it's Spence.

Every single CoA issued, right or wrong, is a ripoff, as he won't stand behind it.

[2dueces]

There are two people I trust in this hobby. Spence and Nash are not them.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Remarkable when you can figure out which is truth or lies or made up fantasies he is telling. He is total scum.

So are you saying the allegations in the link are made up?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So are you saying the allegations in the link are made up?

I didn't open it. I think the guy is a criminal and is full of crap. Why should I go there?
If someone is a complete fraudster, constantly lying and committing fraud and otherwise doing really bad things while living a morally corrupt life, why should I? No doubt some of what he says is true. That is what keeps the lemmings going....but a lot/most of it is made up and total fantasy. I know that for a fact.

btw, I guess it comes down to not believing someone that is doing bad stuff, and has for a long time, ratting on others supposedly doing bad stuff. Note the tense I use.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Leon

I didn't open it... but a lot/most of it is made up and total fantasy. I know that for a fact.

If you never read it, Leon, you don't know what's there. And if you don't know what's there, you don't know ("for a fact," or otherwise) what is (possibly) made up, and what isn't.

We get that you don't like the guy, and we know for a fact it's personal. But that doesn't have anything at all to do with the veracity of Nash's article.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I can't pretend to understand his psychology, I have never communicated with him, but it doesn't strike me as necessarily inconsistent that he could be both a fraudster himself and dead on in his assessment of others committing fraud.

EDIT TO ADD Just saw David's post above and agree.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I don't know him personally, but I know people who do. I get the impression that he is VERY knowledgeable (the better to fool you!) and that there is some truth contained on Hauls of Shame. The problem is the random mixture with personal vendettas basically invalidates all of the potential good HOS might do, and frankly motive means a lot to me. WHY did he start HOS? He is still running from the consequences of his earlier crimes so it's not like he's "reformed."

I have read much of the site. I know that the vast majority of the easily check-able stories are true. It's when he stops providing links, real sources, and hard data, and starts personally attacking people that he loses credibility. That makes it hard to determine what to believe and what to ignore which renders the site effectively useless.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

If you never read it, Leon, you don't know what's there. And if you don't know what's there, you don't know ("for a fact," or otherwise) what is (possibly) made up, and what isn't.

We get that you don't like the guy, and we know for a fact it's personal. But that doesn't have anything at all to do with the veracity of Nash's article.

I was talking about the site and not the link.
I have read the site and that is what I based my opinion on. Who else pleads the 5th when asked, under oath, where they got items they consigned? He has me on his site supposedly saying it's ok to steal unless you get caught. How can you take him seriously when he is such a loose canon and fraudster? Much of a big consignment he consigned was fraudulent and the trail began and ended with him and that was proven in court. As for the link and article, don't care to read it. It's hogwash if you ask me, written by a criminal that deserves to be in jail many times over, by all accounts.

[David Atkatz]

Once again, Leon. Nothing you've said has any bearing on the veracity of the article.

[hcv123]

Yowza!! I knew it was bad, but didn't realize it was that bad - The Sal Bando video makes JSA look utterly ridiculous and complete frauds!

[Runscott]

I know this sounds naive, but I would like to better understand what happened in the examples Nash gives, and if it really was lack of integrity or if the authenticators made honest mistakes and have learned from them, even if they were honest mistakes that we think demonstrated ineptitude. Also, how many of the examples are actually true or exaggerations?

[Peter_Spaeth]

A more recent (purported) expose from Nash.

http://autographplanet.com/forum/ope...ses-psa-jsa-au