Quote:
Originally Posted by David Atkatz
Truth is truth, Dan. The moral character of the source notwithstanding.
If we ignore the Lifson references, is what Nash has been saying true?
Yes. It has.
Has an ungodly amount of material--much of which has been appearing on the market--been stolen from the HoF Library and the NYPL? Yes.
Has much of the high-end Halper material purchased by MLB and donated to the HoF been shown to be counterfeit? Yes.
Have many of the stories put forth by Halper regarding the provenance of items in his collection--including different, contradictory stories about the same piece--shown to be blatant lies? Yes.
Has the HoF made little-to-no effort in reacquiring its stolen material? Yes.
Has PSA and JSA made mind-numbing "blunders," without once owning up to their errors? Yes.
And so on.
|
agreed, salient points.
the red herring by the people who wont accept the proof offered by haulsofshame is that they would somehow be on board and accept the proof if someone other than Nash were presenting it. this is of course nonsense. they are just using nash to misdirect from the problem of stolen property, some auction houses doing little to vet the items instead relying on TPA's to do the authentication that doesn't hit the mark on many ocassions.
The resistance to this information being made public is NOT nash - even though they would have you believe so. They just don't want this laundry out there because it shows the system currently in place, warts and all, and a lot of people want the warts covered up so the status quo can continue. It benefits too many for it to be dismantled, even in favor of something better (for the end consumer and the hobby).
Right now it doesnt get much better for the tpa's and those hooked in with them. You can authenticate as much material in secret with as few authenticators as you want. Spread your authentication teams out incredibly thin (up to 4 teams at once out on weekend shows). Not sign the loa's or sign them on 'behalf' of the company. not have to tell the customer just exactly who looked at and authenticated an autograph. not give a guarantee or anything. Just give excuses that it's an 'opinion'., Not show exemplars, and cash a boatload of checks for these nameless, anonymous coa's. what a great system, right?