Quote:
Originally Posted by Jlighter
|
A pure horse* response from Chass.
"
2. Does any of this change the fact that so many of the ‘vintage’ jerseys Halper sold to MLB for them to donate to the HoF were fakes? (And that Halper’s stories of provenance could not possibly have been true?)" - Valid point.
"
Reader No. 2 chose to ignore Nash and his crooked schemes and question the honesty of Barry Halper" - What reader 2 pointed out are facts (first sentence). While the implication
might be there, the reader isn't claiming Halper intentionally did this. Halper's stories could be simply mis-rememberences? (benefit of the doubt)
"
In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t know Nash, talked to him on the telephone once, and knew Halper, though I had no knowledge of his memorabilia activities."
Really? So what he is telling us is that he has no knowledge yet is going to "report" on it like he does? One would think at this point that Chass would then go on to investigate something he doesn't know anything about, but he doesn't do this. The rest of the article is fluff in an attempt to bolster Halper. Nothing wrong with backing someone you know/like, but don't offer what is presented here as hard-hitting proof of anything. It's just another way to "slam" Nash.
As questionable of a character as Nash is, he sure seems much better at reporting on fraudulent activities than Chass. Maybe it takes one to know one.
"
People like Nash, however, make the memorabilia business more suspect." - Maybe it should be. And why again is that a BAD thing? While nothing to do with actual fraud, a good example on how the memorabilia business cannot simply rely on faith or even provenance.
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/page...o-clemente-bat