How about some answers for this? Where are you Peter Nash?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Another post that Travis will conveniently ignore. And that "Sources say" crap is yellow journalism 101. He also likes to claim the "FBI is closing in..."...they're really taking their sweet time "closing in".

Agreed on all counts. Any claim that Nash makes along the lines of "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed" got ZERO credence, and there are a number of them in his posts.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Agreed on all counts. Any claim that Nash makes along the lines of "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed" got ZERO credence, and there are a number of them in his posts.

+1

And how is this for ironic, Travis you post on here ranting on and on, over and over again about how PSA and JSA never divulge or specify who looks at and authenticates a particular autograph, yet you apparently gladly give Nash a pass when in his stories he always uses ambiguous terms such as "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed". Why can't Nash specify who these sources are and who these experts he spoke to are?

But again as always, you won't answer ANY direct questions posed to you about Nash. You'll ignore them, picking and choosing to reply to only certain questions directed at you. Why? Are you afraid that your responses to these questions might impinge upon Nash's "good" name?

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by markf31

+1

And how is this for ironic, Travis you post on here ranting on and on, over and over again about how PSA and JSA never divulge or specify who looks at and authenticates a particular autograph, yet you apparently gladly give Nash a pass when in his stories he always uses ambiguous terms such as "sources say" and "experts we spoke to agreed". Why can't Nash specify who these sources are and who these experts he spoke to are?

But again as always, you won't answer ANY direct questions posed to you about Nash. You'll ignore them, picking and choosing to reply to only certain questions directed at you. Why? Are you afraid that your responses to these questions might impinge upon Nash's "good" name?

He won't answer them because he doesn't really care about fraud in his "beloved" hobby. There's something else going on here.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

He won't answer them because he doesn't really care about fraud in his "beloved" hobby. There's something else going on here.

And you're shocked......

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

And you're shocked......

No, not really.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

No, not really.

I know....

[sago]

Is there any chance that the auction houses that initially offered what turned out to be forgeries, such as the trophy balls, Jennings SS ball, and other high-end items, would reveal the names of the consignors?

If the item was resold I would not expect to find out who. But whoever consigned the items in the first place to Christie's, Mastro, etc., will know who the forgers likely are, if they are not themselves the forgers. HIPPA, lawyer-client, and confessional issues do not apply here.

It's probably rhetorical to ask, but it seems like the major auction houses know who the forgers are, but their buyers are not allowed to.