My exceptional PWCC pickup.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Brent admitted the Mantle was worked on prior to it being sold by him. Now Jesse is claiming that Brent is lying?

My reading of his statement was an acknowledgment that the card appears to have been worked on, but not to a degree that would qualify for an altered grade. I didn't see anything that would indicate he had knowledge the card was altered before the auction.

I did not go to law school like some of those commenting. But it seems to me you guys are making assumptions and accusations that even if very likely to be true haven't been proven to be true. And you're stating them as though they're facts.

If more evidence comes out tying pwcc to card doctors and showing they knowingly defrauded customers it may bring the company down. Or it could turn out there isn't any proof and this will all blow over. If I had to place a bet today, it would be on the latter. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

[Leon]

Jesse, great post.

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

My reading of his statement was an acknowledgment that the card appears to have been worked on, but not to a degree that would qualify for an altered grade. I didn't see anything that would indicate he had knowledge the card was altered before the auction.

I did not go to law school like some of those commenting. But it seems to me you guys are making assumptions and accusations that even if very likely to be true haven't been proven to be true. And you're stating them as though they're facts.

If more evidence comes out tying pwcc to card doctors and showing they knowingly defrauded customers it may bring the company down. Or it could turn out there isn't any proof and this will all blow over. If I had to place a bet today, it would be on the latter. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

Jesse, great post.

IMO you just don't want to acknowledge reality, Leon. Everyone else here, except Jesse and maybe Martin, sees it plain as day.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

IMO you just don't want to acknowledge reality, Leon. Everyone else here, except Jesse, David and maybe Martin, sees it plain as day.

Throw my name in there too, Peter. I, too, have yet to see any evidence that Brent knew any cards were altered prior to going to auction.

From the Alteration vs. Conservation Defined thread: "you are innocent until proven guilty." Wouldn't that same statement apply to Brent too, or am I way off here?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Throw my name in there too, Peter. I, too, have yet to see any evidence that Brent knew any cards were altered prior to going to auction.

From the Alteration vs. Conservation Defined thread: "you are innocent until proven guilty." Wouldn't that same statement apply to Brent too, or am I way off here?

You make a worthy addition David. My apologies for not including you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Throw my name in there too, Peter. I, too, have yet to see any evidence that Brent knew any cards were altered prior to going to auction.

From the Alteration vs. Conservation Defined thread: "you are innocent until proven guilty." Wouldn't that same statement apply to Brent too, or am I way off here?

You're a smart guy David. If I tell the world that from now on I won't rob any more banks, what does that convey about my past?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're a smart guy David. If I tell the world that from now on I won't rob any more banks, what does that convey about my past?

A more relevant analogy would be what if a bank said they'd stop accepting deposits from money launderers, drug dealers, etc. Maybe they knew where the money was coming from, maybe they suspected but didn't ask any questions, or maybe they had no idea. But enough people on the banking forums were complaining, so they put out a statement saying they will work to prevent such deposits in the future.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

A more relevant analogy would be what if a bank said they'd stop accepting deposits from money launderers, drug dealers, etc. Maybe they knew where the money was coming from, maybe they suspected but didn't ask any questions, or maybe they had no idea. But enough people on the banking forums were complaining, so they put out a statement saying they will work to prevent such deposits in the future.

Uh huh. So how does the bank know who to stop accepting deposits from in your example unless it knows they're money launderers and drug dealers? And why did it ever take their deposits? Anyhow, read Jeff's post about evidence he has seen.

PS read the words. It doesn't say suspected, it says proven track record. "PWCC will officially cease working with any individual who has a proven track record of consistently hurting trust in the marketplace, the brand of PWCC, or the reputations of the grading companies upon which our market is based."

PPS if they're clean, why not release the identity of all the cards from such people they have sold in the past, instead of leaving it to the collectors to figure it out.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're a smart guy David. If I tell the world that from now on I won't rob any more banks, what does that convey about my past?

Peter, you're a smart guy, too. And you have the legal background that I don't. The statement to which you are referring to is not an admission to any previous guilt.

"PWCC will officially cease working with any individual who has a proven track record of consistently hurting trust in the marketplace, the brand of PWCC, or the reputations of the grading companies upon which our market is based."

It's simply an admission to "working with" which could mean a lot of things. If I told you "I'm going to stop working with drug dealers, money launderers, and human traffickers" would that imply that I was involved in any of that? It would sure sound like it, huh? But then what if I told you I was a parole officer? That would change the context of my statement, right? Do you see where I'm going here?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Peter, you're a smart guy, too. And you have the legal background that I don't. The statement to which you are referring to is not an admission to any previous guilt.

"PWCC will officially cease working with any individual who has a proven track record of consistently hurting trust in the marketplace, the brand of PWCC, or the reputations of the grading companies upon which our market is based."

It's simply an admission to "working with" which could mean a lot of things. If I told you "I'm going to stop working with drug dealers, money launderers, and human traffickers" would that imply that I was involved in any of that? It would sure sound like it, huh? But then what if I told you I was a parole officer? That would change the context of my statement, right? Do you see where I'm going here?

Context, David. Response to posts on Blowout showing numerous cards purchased by a certain individual with a certain reputation in one grade (in many cases from PWCC) and then consigned to and sold by PWCC in a higher grade. An individual who Brent has done business with for a decade or more (actually closer to two I think). Same individual who is the subject of the emails Jeff mentioned. Anyhow, I'm not going to convince you, so believe whatever you choose.

[Goudey77]

Brent speaks on this matter that’s been hotly debated here.

https://youtu.be/_f3k5VSqVt4

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

My reading of his statement was an acknowledgment that the card appears to have been worked on, but not to a degree that would qualify for an altered grade. I didn't see anything that would indicate he had knowledge the card was altered before the auction.

I did not go to law school like some of those commenting. But it seems to me you guys are making assumptions and accusations that even if very likely to be true haven't been proven to be true. And you're stating them as though they're facts.

If more evidence comes out tying pwcc to card doctors and showing they knowingly defrauded customers it may bring the company down. Or it could turn out there isn't any proof and this will all blow over. If I had to place a bet today, it would be on the latter. It will be interesting to see how it plays out though.

Read what Jeff posted about evidence he has seen in the thread started by PWCC. Read what PWCC ITSELF said. Not about Mantle, about no longer affiliating with card doctors. My God, dude, take off the blinders.