Every slabbed card has a story, don't it?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

???

You were fine when Jolly soaked his Mays card. With all well-deserved respect, what is the difference here?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Darren used only water on a minor dent, and would disclose it. This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure. If you think that's the same thing, fine, but I don't.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Darren used only water on a minor dent, and would disclose it. This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure. If you think that's the same thing, fine, but I don't.

You're making quite a few assumptions here. First, I don't believe this card was even worked on by Kurt at all. I could be wrong, but I believe it was just a card that one of his followers sent him before and after pics of, and Kurt shared it because he thought it was cool. Second, you don't need Kurt's spray to achieve those results. He probably just soaked it in water. Why waste money on expensive "card spray" for a card that is worth less than the spray itself would have cost? Third, whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Snowman

… you don't need Kurt's spray to achieve those results. He probably just soaked it in water. Why waste money on expensive "card spray" for a card that is worth less than the spray itself would have cost? …

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

LOL, that is awesome. Someone used an expensive spray to soak a card in when just plain water will do the exact same thing.

[Yoda]

Back when Mastro was going full-bore, Doug Allen went very public stating that they would 'repair' any card with wrinkles and creases before submitting for grading. And look what happened to him.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Back when Mastro was going full-bore, Doug Allen went very public stating that they would 'repair' any card with wrinkles and creases before submitting for grading. And look what happened to him.

There is no way to really know. If we could find out I would bet the farm it is the majority that do it and not just a few. Card soaking is an accepted practice on here. It is by far the easiest to do and gives the best bang for the buck by a mile when it comes to making a card look better.

Didn't Doug get most of his time for being a moron after getting busted and not what he actually done in the card world?

[Yoda]

Peter, absolutely correct. I believe the FBI agent who interviewed him wore a wire and Doug perjured himself. I bring up the wrinkle erasing as an example of where his moral compass stood at the time. But he has served his time, and I hope he is rebuilding his life in a more productive manner.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You're making quite a few assumptions here. First, I don't believe this card was even worked on by Kurt at all. I could be wrong, but I believe it was just a card that one of his followers sent him before and after pics of, and Kurt shared it because he thought it was cool. Second, you don't need Kurt's spray to achieve those results. He probably just soaked it in water. Why waste money on expensive "card spray" for a card that is worth less than the spray itself would have cost? Third, whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results.

You start your post by saying someone made quite a few assumptions in their post, and then you proceed to make three assumptions of your own in your post. Based on the post after yours, it appears that your first assumption was correct but the second one was wrong. Hard to tell about the third.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by jayshum

You start your post by saying someone made quite a few assumptions in their post, and then you proceed to make three assumptions of your own in your post. Based on the post after yours, it appears that your first assumption was correct but the second one was wrong. Hard to tell about the third.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...here we go. Well it has been a week since the last rabbit hole.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by jayshum

You start your post by saying someone made quite a few assumptions in their post, and then you proceed to make three assumptions of your own in your post. Based on the post after yours, it appears that your first assumption was correct but the second one was wrong. Hard to tell about the third.

You seem to be conflating making assumptions with making predictions. There is a difference between making explicit claims without evidence based on assumptions and making predictions based on observable evidence and logic. There is also a difference in the language Peter used and the language I used above.

Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card.

I used qualifiers like, "I don't believe ...", "I could be wrong, but I believe ...", "He probably just ..." to make predictions about what I believed most likely occurred.

Even my third claim, which I phrased as a certainty, was based on observable evidence (a completely trashed card with nearly as many creases as I have responses in this thread). A claim that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with, as I said, "whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would-be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results."

If you want to argue that I couldn't possibly know his motives and that it is in fact likely that he was trying to "fix" that Mays in an effort to cash in on a payday, then you're being disingenuous. There's zero chance anyone here actually believes that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You seem to be conflating making assumptions with making predictions. There is a difference between making explicit claims without evidence based on assumptions and making predictions based on observable evidence and logic. There is also a difference in the language Peter used and the language I used above.

Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card.

I used qualifiers like, "I don't believe ...", "I could be wrong, but I believe ...", "He probably just ..." to make predictions about what I believed most likely occurred.

Even my third claim, which I phrased as a certainty, was based on observable evidence (a completely trashed card with nearly as many creases as I have responses in this thread). A claim that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with, as I said, "whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would-be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results."

If you want to argue that I couldn't possibly know his motives and that it is in fact likely that he was trying to "fix" that Mays in an effort to cash in on a payday, then you're being disingenuous. There's zero chance anyone here actually believes that.

Where did I say it was Kurt? I said "the dude", and as the Facebook post shows, "the dude" did indeed use a chemical bath. And if I had said Kurt, it would have been a reasonable assumption given that Kurt posted it.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Where did I say it was Kurt? I said "the dude", and as the Facebook post shows, "the dude" did indeed use a chemical bath. And if I had said Kurt, it would have been a reasonable assumption given that Kurt posted it.

You clearly believed and implied it was Kurt.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You clearly believed and implied it was Kurt.

According to you I made an "explicit" claim. Now you are talking about what I believed and "implied." You do know the difference between explicit and implicit I assume? And suppose I had "implied" that even though I obviously chose to use "the dude" rather than Kurt, even after I used Darren's name. Would that have been unreasonable given that it was Kurt who posted the before and after? Do you have a point here?

[G1911]

"This dude used some top sercret chemical bath on a shitload of major creases, and doubtless without disclosure."

The first cause is a claim to fact - and it appears undebatably true. The dude bathed it in Kurt's Spray, not water, according to the original source. Nobody seems able to deny this or offer any refutation, though one would like to.

The second clause is an opinion - the 'doubtless' denoting that it can not be proven but the poster has no doubt what will happen. Debatable, but it's a claim to future probability of what will happen with the card, "making predictions". A prediction is also a future speculation, not oft a claim to the past.

There's nothing to play logic with here. The assumption is that "the dude" = Kurt and the resulting false claim that "Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card", which does not seem to appear in the actual statement.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Snowman

You seem to be conflating making assumptions with making predictions. There is a difference between making explicit claims without evidence based on assumptions and making predictions based on observable evidence and logic. There is also a difference in the language Peter used and the language I used above.

Peter made explicit claims about what Kurt did to a card, without evidence, when it wasn't even Kurt's card.

I used qualifiers like, "I don't believe ...", "I could be wrong, but I believe ...", "He probably just ..." to make predictions about what I believed most likely occurred.

Even my third claim, which I phrased as a certainty, was based on observable evidence (a completely trashed card with nearly as many creases as I have responses in this thread). A claim that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with, as I said, "whoever did soak the card clearly didn't do it in an attempt to "scam" some would-be buyer. This was obviously just a science experiment. Someone was just having fun with the most trashed card they could find and wanted to share the results."

If you want to argue that I couldn't possibly know his motives and that it is in fact likely that he was trying to "fix" that Mays in an effort to cash in on a payday, then you're being disingenuous. There's zero chance anyone here actually believes that.

A prediction is something that you think will happen in the future not an explanation for why something happened in the past. Saying you "believe" something is an explanation of why you think someone did something which requires you to make an assumption about their motivation. You can't predict why someone did something after they did it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by jayshum

A prediction is something that you think will happen in the future not an explanation for why something happened in the past. Saying you "believe" something is an explanation of why you think someone did something which requires you to make an assumption about their motivation. You can't predict why someone did something after they did it.

All predictions are guesses, but all guesses are not predictions.