Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />I listed the subsequent steps--you don't think its a worthy plan?<br /><br />Also I have consulted with the six smartest people in the hobby(outside of you) for ideas on next steps and they have come up with a lot of interesting ideas.<br /><br />Jim

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jim- forgive me, but I have read so many different posts that I can't even remember them anymore. But if you think you can still gather more useful information on the subject, then I support you. I may be a little tired of all this now (and I think I will shut my computer for the night) but anything positive that comes out is good. So go for it!

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Check my post on this thread at 8:40pm and tell me what you think.<br /><br />Jim

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>“Maybe people like Colt and Wonka like a sloppy hobby where card alteration and restoration run rampant--you must because you have never done anything to combat it and any suggestions you have are frankly lame.”<br /><br />Hey Jim, In fact if you read my post above it wasn’t that I disagreed 100% with what your doing, just thought you were going about it in the wrong way. I even offered to give some insight into a proper format for your quest.<br /><br />I even said my thoughts were on the table and I would gladly discuss my suggestions in private email or via phone. I have no emails in my inbox from you or Peter, so like you I will chalk up your lack of response and assume you’re just a self-serving guy with a hidden agenda. <br /><br />Did I just jump to conclusions unfairly about you perhaps, but that hasn’t stopped you from doing the same to multiple businesses and individuals on this forum has it?<br /><br />I never have judged you or your passion about collecting, or for that matter even what you collect. Find one post where I pick apart your high-grade collection. I myself have bought and own a few high-grade cards. <br /><br />So how dare you make an assumption that I endorse or prefer a sloppy hobby! The only thing I’m guilty of regarding you Jim, is I have called you out many times on the way you come off as very arrogant, you I’m sure could say the same thing regarding your feelings towards me. But never once have I judged you and your collection. <br /><br />Have we disagreed sure, have we argued points sure that’s kind of the whole point right? The only difference is you play the martyr when you don’t get your way or feel your feathers have been ruffled, I just don’t care. <br /><br />So do me a favor and keep unfounded and general accusations of people’s motives about the hobby to the auction houses this week vs. aiming them at me. <br /><br />Also for the record if you interpret and come to conclusions from these auction houses responses or lack there of in the same manner you interrupted my very cordial post above. You clearly are not the guy to clear up the hobby, if in fact we need that guy at all?<br />

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>Colt McClelland</b><p>Jim - I think a better use of time for you and yours would be to go into your card room and begin looking carefully at each and every card in your collection to find to altered cards where there is some trimming or a crease that has come back to life. Then, you can confront PSA about why they gave it an 8, determine the possible origins of the aleration, and report back to us as to the findings.

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>I think Dave's post was clear that IF he could detect "stuff" (a neutral word) such as Doug was describing as legitimate in his view, he would REJECT the cards for evidence of tampering. Those are his words, evidence of tampering. Here are Dave's exact words. The inevitable logic of what Dave is saying is that the practices Doug describes are unacceptable in SGC's view but usually they cannot detect them. In any case I don't know how else to interpret them.<br /><br />"When it comes to restoration of cards, we break the issue down into three categories. The first category includes things like erasing light pencil marks, wax/gum removal, corner flattening, album/glue removal, and wrinkle removal. These are examples of procedures that, if done carefully and properly, are unfortunately undetectable. When done properly, cards that have undergone these procedures can find there way into SGC holders, because as I mentioned, there is no way to detect that it has been done. Often these procedures are done improperly, they leave telltale signs that we consider to be evidence of tampering, and we reject the cards. Some of these telltale signs include but are not limited to a change in the cards texture, unusually flat surfaces, and at times there is a slight transfer of a foreign substance to a card."

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Peter,<br /><br />I feel like I am still at my old job, running my hedge fund, trying to parse through Greenspans Fed Speak.<br /><br />Charlie

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>BcD</b><p>how long have you been pretending to be Marshall Fogel ?<br><br>BcD <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>is that they don't reject them, at least erasures. As has been pointed out, cards with erasures are graded downward, which I understand, but are not rejected outright. So it appears the inclusion of this type of "work" with others by Mr. Foreman was inaccurate.

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Charlie, I hear ya.<br /><br />Todd, I hear you as well, and I saw Paul's (T206Collector) posts to that effect earlier, but that doesn't change the inconsistency between SGC's STATED policy and Doug's statement as to what he believed the grading services considered acceptable. Perhaps Dave will clarify, perhaps not.

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Wonka,<br /><br />You were unnecessarily nasty to me in your first post.<br /><br />If you have ideas to clean up this mess then please lets work on it together.<br /><br />In fact I don't care if I get any of the credit--lets get a half a dozen guys who really care about the future of the hobby and work on it as a group.<br /><br />What do you say?<br /><br />Jim

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Jim,<br /><br />I would gladly offer any ideas I have as I stated above. <br /><br />I’m also not sure if we are even capable of “working together” if you found my above post to be “Nasty” towards you in anyway. <br /><br />Criticize you in a way on what’s transpired yes, but nasty no. There’s a fundamental difference between constructive criticism and what you call being nasty. <br /><br />Also if we were going to “work together” we cant have you getting your feelings hurt each time we disagree.<br />

Goodwin & Company's Stance on Hobby Issues
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am going to lock this one too. If you guys can come up with some kind of team effort we can start a consolidated, single thread.....Again, these locks are only intended to try to get back to what many folks want NOT to curtail the talks totally. I just want them in more of a consolidated nature...thanks again...