 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12
05-12-2009, 08:08 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Hmmm. Not sure what to make of this. I've been neither a particular doubter nor fan of Kevin and what he has talked about in the past. But this - don't look good.
Random thoughts, struggling for order: The first thing that comes to mind is that Kevin has held himself out as a defender of the hobby against alterations. This isn't like Joe Schmoe said he was going to sneak altered cards into certain collections. It's not even Joe Schmoe that said he was a great card alterer. Kevin has particularly said that the reason for starting web sites and posting on various boards was to try to protect the hobby. How does that square with the comment about putting fakes in some collections? It's vaguely like (not exactly like, but similar) the t206museum offering COA's. Protecting the hobby against fraud. Another comparison to t206museum (just since it is on everyone's mind right now - not saying the two cases are directly parallel). t206 put altered cards out on a public website, for all to see and debate and pick apart - a visible attempt to snare whatever generic fish swam by. Kevin's claims of putting altered cards out there aren't broad and generic to the public. He specifically targets individuals that he feels have crossed him or pissed him off. Singling out specific persons seems shadier - or at least like a different motive. Could he have done it? Shoot, most of his posts have centered around his ability to alter cards in undetectable ways and fool even the most advanced and professional collectors, graders and dealers. So by his own words, he could have done it - at least as to the alteration part. I'm also having a hard time with the two explanations? First it was explained as a joke, then as a heated comment. From reading the email string, it seems like neither. Heated comments tend to be threats, not statements of a past act. Whether as a joke or heated comment, it seems like it would be more along the lines of "Well I could this that or the other thing to these guys, and maybe someday I will!" It doesn't seem really common to me that, as a heated comment, someone would claim to have already done something. It also doesn't seem to have been a heated discussion in general (assuming that all parts are there). I've seen Scott Elkins in heated discussions. He has a very passionate writing style that makes it impossible to miss when he is mad at something - using capital-letter phrases, and being very descriptive as to what has him pissed off. I don't see that Scott is at all heated in this chain. More like some side comments about others, but in general the context seems far more focused on the actual underprint card he and Kevin were discussing. And the one email that contains the comment doesn't seem to follow at all - the topic sort of comes out of the blue. Don't know what that means - just that it does not seem consistent with either a joke or a heated comment. I don't know what it all means, just that it doesn't look good for someone that has claimed (and backed it up with demonstrations) to be able to make undetectable alterations but has also stated repeatedly that it is to protect the hobby. The only thing that keeps me from thinking it actually happened is the practical problem of trying to steer one specific card into the collection of one specific person. That's the only loose thread left in my mind. Not good. Not a good week for the hobby. J 
|
|
|
Threaded Mode