Quote:
Originally Posted by swarmee
Steve tried to authenticate out of his knowledge base, was challenged by real experts in that specific field, and was exposed for certifying a fake. It's that easy.[/URL]
|
This was my first thought as well but, after watching the video again, it's actually not that easy. Please listen to what I have to say objectively. If you will, you’ll realize it’s a lot more than that. I have used bold font for Steve’s exact words.
Steve says this is
“What I looked for” as he begins to give his reasons for authenticating the case.
”This tape is aged onto this case. This label too. The same embedded lines of the cardboard from age are in that label.”
Someone starts to ask a question, “There’s no evidence of tampering…" (is interrupted by Steve)
“One edge would look different” (finishes the question) "...in any way shape or form?”
Steve says,
“I did my diligence just like I do for a sports case.” This is the part that I have a problem with. Yes, we can agree that the product was out of his knowledge base. But the way he examined the product was the same way he’s going to examine any unopened case (the product inside is irrelevant). He said the tape was aged onto the case. Well, obviously it wasn’t because it had been re-taped. So if he doesn’t know how to tell if tape is actually aged onto a case or not, how many cases has he authenticated that were tampered with? How many wax boxes has he authenticated that were supposedly FASC (from a sealed case)? It doesn’t matter if he’s authenticating a case of 1985 Topps or 2000 (or whatever the year is) Pokemon, the methods for authentication are still the same - he admits that.
Y'all can defend him if it makes you feel better about the situation, but he blew it and it didn’t have anything to do with the product he was examining. It had everything to do with his examination methods.