Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
This is a false equivalency though. This isn't a 'my opinion' vs 'your onion' question either. This is a verifiable claim that can be answered simply by looking at the data. We're specifically discussing the 3 sales of a Mayweather PSA 9 rookie card. Your claim is that they are representative of extremely suspicious behavior and that the hammer prices for those auctions are completely out of line with other commensurate sales of the same card.
An example of "spinning" a debate regarding fraud in this hobby would be if someone were to say that a card wasn't "trimmed" but rather it was "professionally restored by a curator to its original intended state". That would be "spin". I have done nothing of the sort in this debate. What I did was equivalent to saying, "no, that card is not trimmed and I can prove it" followed by a link to a YouTube video where the card in question was pulled in its current condition straight from the pack.
Your claim about the Mayweather card is false. I disproved your claim with data from all commensurate sales of this card which clearly show that the hammer prices of the auctions in question were all perfectly in line with the market and other commensurate sales of that time. You can't just call that "spin". You can say, "Oh, my mistake. I was wrong about this card." You can even follow that up with, "but it doesn't change my mind about PWCC" or something similar. That would be a perfectly reasonable position to hold. But you can't discard the evidence that disproves your claim and then recast it as "spin" without looking unreasonable.
|
Now you're the one using false equivalencies.
Showing that those listed (assumed) sales were around current market prices does not prove your point. Though most of us were not disputing that as part of the "suspicious" argument anyway.
Some of us feel that (given how people hate to take any losses, and especially quick ones) that it's odd that anyone would continue to sell that particular Mayweather when they did. Especially with a company that has no qualms about being pretty slimy.
You disagree and feel that it was simply people panicking.
These are not objective matters, and you're inaccurately trying to make them so and ignoring a key opposing point to falsely "prove" what you want to assume