1936 Joltin' Joe

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Bram99

I like a good crime mystery but I am having difficulty understanding why the original poster would have been looking for this exact card back in 2017 and then almost a year later the same person finds that the card has been auctioned once since, then sliced up and re-graded. The fact that SGC missed the alteration is troubling. I don't know what to think about the rest of the story. We are part of a group of strange individuals.

I think it was sliced up before it graded an 84, no?

[Bram99]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it was sliced up before it graded an 84, no?

I guess so. But why would this poster chase this card and post about it after the auctions...and why is Leon calling him a criminal? Weird story.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Bram99

I guess so. But why would this poster chase this card and post about it after the auctions...and why is Leon calling him a criminal? Weird story.

I said my guess is he is a criminal, (fraud or troll.) I don't know for sure because he(or she) fraudulently registered on this forum. Some of this posters posts, as I read through them, reminded me of someone trolling. Maybe I am wrong but why would this poster email and say he is going to sue me (what does that make, about a thousand of those threats?) instead of giving good registration info?

.

[timn1]

Are we talking about Renne, who has posted 92 times and been on the board for almost two years?

Tim

PS: I don't doubt what you're saying at all - just trying to keep up with this very strange story...

Originally Posted by Leon

I said my guess is he is a criminal, (fraud or troll.) I don't know for sure because he(or she) fraudulently registered on this forum. Some of this posters posts, as I read through them, reminded me of someone trolling. Maybe I am wrong but why would this poster email and say he is going to sue me (what does that make, about a thousand of those threats?) instead of giving good registration info?

.

[Leon]

Yes. Apparently you missed the fact that this exact same sort of thing happened recently with the T206 autograph forger thread. Manny (Setbuilder) is banned for bad registration info too, after 7 yrs and over 600 posts. It doesn't matter how long or how many posts someone has done, bad registration info always gets the boot. If it is corrected they are reinstated. Neither of these members wanted to give good contact info instead of staying banned...It is their call, not mine. I didn't have anything against either one, whomever they are.

Originally Posted by timn1

Are we talking about Renne, who has posted 92 times and been on the board for almost two years?

Tim

PS: I don't doubt what you're saying at all - just trying to keep up with this very strange story...

[timn1]

I agree, bad registration info is definitely grounds for banning- thanks-

T

Originally Posted by Leon

Yes. Apparently you missed the fact that this exact same sort of thing happened recently with the T206 autograph forger thread. Manny (Setbuilder) is banned for bad registration info too, after 7 yrs and over 600 posts. It doesn't matter how long or how many posts someone has done, bad registration info always gets the boot. If it is corrected they are reinstated. Neither of these members wanted to give good contact info instead of staying banned...It is their call, not mine. I didn't have anything against either one, whomever they are.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by timn1

I agree, bad registration info is definitely grounds for banning- thanks-

T

Hi Tim
I denote a bit of sarcasm, but maybe not. At any rate I don't feel someone should be a allowed to out a fraudster while being a fraudster. Somewhere it is called a clean hands doctrine. In this forum world you have to have clean hands to combat fraud yourself. No fraudsters allowed to detect other fraudsters. And if nothing else their registrations are fraudulent. I watch too much Judge Judy. Wouldn't it be something if one of these really was Nash? One of the biggest fraudsters the hobby has ever known fighting crime. Sweet....

,

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think it was sliced up before it graded an 84, no?

To clarify: The cert# on the 60 in the original post is later than the cert# on the 84 in that link from 2017, meaning the 60 was graded after the 84. The 84 looks like the same card as the newer 7 everyone thinks is trimmed. it could be that the old 84 was re-holdered into the newer style 7. This would mean that the 60 isn't the same card as the 7 = 60 not trimmed into a 7.

The backs of the 60 and the 7 look very similar though. Do some Joe D. backs from that set have the same printing imperfections from a crappy printing plate?