What Brent Huigens' mindset TRULY is during this scandal

[sportscardtheory]

I thought this deserves it's own thread, because it really exposes the mindset of Brent Huigens/PWCC during all this. Not humbled, not empathic, not sympathetic, not helpful, no acceptance, just outright defiance.

In response to a return request based on lack of consumer confidence in PWCC items in light of recent revelations -

"The message boards have many things wrong. This card was not consigned by Gary Moser (just FYI). More importantly It also shows no signs of alteration, and as such this isn’t a card we can directly enforce our return policy.

These boards are out of control in many ways, and are defacing cards for little reason and I’m sorry for this slander against a card you own. If you’d like you can certainly always send the card to PSA for their reconfirmation of the grade and it’s accuracy. Soon we also hope to have a program in place where we can facilitate this review for cards which have been slandered on the boards. If you’d like to check back later this month we hope to have that option in place." - Brent Huigens

These altered cards are "slandered". SLANDERED. Let that wording sink in.

[ullmandds]

what a DicK!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Ping pong. PWCC says go to PSA. PSA says go to the seller.

[T_Hamilton]

Sh!t happens right? It happens to everyone... but people make it right. PWCC hasn't. For those of you who have kids, think about the lessons here.

If PWCC refunded me, i would have no problem. If PWCC communicated with me AND proved that the card was not submitted by Moser and was unaltered, I would have no problem.

But the lies have added up... Huigens' word holds zero water. He is obviously in survival mode as his business is probably losing money by the minute and he is treading water to stay afloat.

Its time for us to band together, and fight the system or our hobby will be tarnished forever.

[sportscardtheory]

I love how he states "no signs of alteration" when this entire scandal involves cards that were deemed by PSA and BGS to have no signs of alteration. What is he even saying here. He can tell by looking at the card (so he knows better than PSA and/or BGS?), or that he knows Moser or someone else never altered it?

[Exhibitman]

If you are within the eBay return time frame, send it back under that program. As for Brent's response



Mr. Chow's hand is getting tired dealing with all of the BS from PWCC and PSA.

[T_Hamilton]

He obviously thought his response would make me go away...

it will not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I love how he states "no signs of alteration" when this entire scandal involves cards that were deemed by PSA and BGS to have no signs of alteration. What is he even saying here. He can tell by looking at the card (so he knows better than PSA and/or BGS?), or that he knows Moser or someone else never altered it?

Or worse, he thinks other cards DO show signs of alteration but he still sold them?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by t_hamilton

sh!t happens right? It happens to everyone... But people make it right. Pwcc hasn't. For those of you who have kids, think about the lessons here.

If pwcc refunded me, i would have no problem. If pwcc communicated with me and proved that the card was not submitted by moser and was unaltered, i would have no problem.

But the lies have added up... Huigens' word holds zero water. He is obviously in survival mode as his business is probably losing money by the minute and he is treading water to stay afloat.

Its time for us to band together, and fight the system or our hobby will be tarnished forever.

yup!

[mordecaibrown]

"The message boards have many things wrong. This card was not consigned by Gary Moser (just FYI). More importantly It also shows no signs of alteration, and as such this isn’t a card we can directly enforce our return policy.

So, then one can infer he knows exactly what cards were submitted by Moser! And could start regaining that trust by releasing that list so people would know the cards that have a high probability of being affected.

@ndr3w k3nn3dy

[Collect Equity]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I thought this deserves it's own thread, because it really exposes the mindset of Brent Huigens/PWCC during all this. Not humbled, not empathic, not sympathetic, not helpful, no acceptance, just outright defiance.

In response to a return request based on lack of consumer confidence in PWCC items in light of recent revelations -

"The message boards have many things wrong. This card was not consigned by Gary Moser (just FYI). More importantly It also shows no signs of alteration, and as such this isn’t a card we can directly enforce our return policy.

These boards are out of control in many ways, and are defacing cards for little reason and I’m sorry for this slander against a card you own. If you’d like you can certainly always send the card to PSA for their reconfirmation of the grade and it’s accuracy. Soon we also hope to have a program in place where we can facilitate this review for cards which have been slandered on the boards. If you’d like to check back later this month we hope to have that option in place." - Brent Huigens

These altered cards are "slandered". SLANDERED. Let that wording sink in.

Out of curiosity, what card is it that you are returning, how do you believe it was altered, and how long ago did you buy it?

I do believe that any card that is within the eBay buyers window should be able to be returned for any reason. Also, I do believe that any card that is shown to be altered should be able to be returned. However, I would not think that PWCC should be required to accept returns on every card they have ever sold based upon this scandal.

As such, I was just wondering if you can give us more info (and ideally photos) about the card in question, so that we can judge his response accordingly.

[ruth-gehrig]

Originally Posted by sportscardtheory

I thought this deserves it's own thread, because it really exposes the mindset of Brent Huigens/PWCC during all this. Not humbled, not empathic, not sympathetic, not helpful, no acceptance, just outright defiance.

In response to a return request based on lack of consumer confidence in PWCC items in light of recent revelations -

"The message boards have many things wrong. This card was not consigned by Gary Moser (just FYI). More importantly It also shows no signs of alteration, and as such this isn’t a card we can directly enforce our return policy.

These boards are out of control in many ways, and are defacing cards for little reason and I’m sorry for this slander against a card you own. If you’d like you can certainly always send the card to PSA for their reconfirmation of the grade and it’s accuracy. Soon we also hope to have a program in place where we can facilitate this review for cards which have been slandered on the boards. If you’d like to check back later this month we hope to have that option in place." - Brent Huigens

These altered cards are "slandered". SLANDERED. Let that wording sink in.

I think this leads credence to the idea of Brent NOT having legal counsel. I would assume legal counsel would tell him to stop posting on message boards and freshen him up on the meaning of "slandered" and its usage.
I'm not an attorney but at least know he isn't using that word appropriately

[drcy]

"You got chocolate in my peanut butter."
"Well, you slandered my baseball card."

[drcy]

I predict this will a future Net54 catchphrase: "You just slandered my baseball card."

I officially call trademark for T-shirt and coffee mug purposes.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by drcy

I predict this will a future Net54 catchphrase: "You just slandered my baseball card."

I officially call trademark for T-shirt and coffee mug purposes.

T-shirts, mugs and F Face cards for everyone at the National!!!!!!!

Look for the variations on the F Face cards too!!!! Collect them all!!!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Serial number them so they can be tracked in the future.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Can a slandered card sue an anonymous poster?

T227 Cobb vs. 312

[Leon]

There are no anonymous posters on this forum (at least that I am aware of). There are some anonymous cards though...

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can a slandered card sue an anonymous poster?

T227 Cobb vs. 312

(not mine any longer but probably not trimmed)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

There are no anonymous posters on this forum (at least that I am aware of). There are some anonymous cards though...



(not mine any longer but probably not trimmed)

Decent candidate for trimming though.

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can a slandered card sue an anonymous poster?

T227 Cobb vs. 312

Originally Posted by Leon

There are no anonymous posters on this forum (at least that I am aware of). There are some anonymous cards though...

I took the comment to be possibly a take-off on the old episode where The Bruce's wanted to sue the anonymous archive post, for slander or something.

Didn't the archive post turn out to have been from The Bruces to begin with? Meaning they were going to sue themselves?


Steve

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Can a slandered card sue an anonymous poster?

T227 Cobb vs. 312

Only until the card dies. After that, the slander claim goes away.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Only until the card dies. After that, the slander claim goes away.

In laboratory tests, Murder erased Slander nine times out of ten.

Brian

[Peter_Spaeth]

Reminds me how some of the names of forfeiture cases are hysterical.

Such as
United States v. One Lucite Ball Containing Lunar Material (One Moon Rock) and One Ten Inch by Fourteen Inch Wooden Plaque

United States v. Article Consisting of 50,000 Cardboard Boxes More or Less, Each Containing One Pair of Clacker Balls

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

I think this leads credence to the idea of Brent NOT having legal counsel. I would assume legal counsel would tell him to stop posting on message boards and freshen him up on the meaning of "slandered" and its usage.
I'm not an attorney but at least know he isn't using that word appropriately

Just because a lawyer tells a client something doesn't mean the client listens.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Just because a lawyer tells a client something doesn't mean the client listens.

Amen.

[MULLINS5]

Maybe he can go back into the antique restoration business.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by MULLINS5

Maybe he can go back into the antique restoration business.

Interesting to see how that "restoration business" translates across various businesses. But don't worry, all is fine.

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by ruth-gehrig

I think this leads credence to the idea of Brent NOT having legal counsel. I would assume legal counsel would tell him to stop posting on message boards and freshen him up on the meaning of "slandered" and its usage.
I'm not an attorney but at least know he isn't using that word appropriately

Are there any grammarians out there? Is it appropriate to say that an inanimate object has been slandered?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bram99

Are there any grammarians out there? Is it appropriate to say that an inanimate object has been slandered?

My cards have feelings and reputations, don't yours?

[tschock]

Well I for one certainly wouldn't want Mr Chow slandering all over my cards?