PWCC Altered Cards Callout Thread - 1952 Topps Mantle etc - Page 268

Onepocketj · 04-29-2020, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Shouldn’t have bumped the thread.

Really? Plenty of people don't go to the basketball forum that read this thread. I think it's important and don't want to see this thread locked but wanted people to be aware of it. Whatever

qdoggmets · 04-29-2020, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip

Instead of posting a stupid emoti, why don't you do 10 to 15 minutes of research and correct your erroneous statements? I'm not a fan of Lichtman but by defaming him like that you accomplish nothing.

https://nypost.com/2019/01/13/el-cha...ing-drug-lord/

https://www.univision.com/univision-...ican-drug-lord

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/pros...cell-call.html

Next.

pip · 04-29-2020, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qdoggmets

https://nypost.com/2019/01/13/el-cha...ing-drug-lord/

https://www.univision.com/univision-...ican-drug-lord

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/27/pros...cell-call.html

Next.

None of those articles support ANY of your spurious claims about Lichtman. You can't be this stupid, can you?

KB81 · 04-29-2020, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip

None of those articles support ANY of your spurious claims about Lichtman. You can't be this stupid, can you?

KhalDrogo · 04-29-2020, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Onepocketj

Really? Plenty of people don't go to the basketball forum that read this thread. I think it's important and don't want to see this thread locked but wanted people to be aware of it. Whatever

I don’t care you bumped it. But you’re smart enough to know what the ensuing posts would be.

qdoggmets · 04-29-2020, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pip

None of those articles support ANY of your spurious claims about Lichtman. You can't be this stupid, can you?

You clearly can't understand English.

MoreToppsPlease · 04-29-2020, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Which is why I said what I said three sentences later. Maybe there’s a $500k offer out there. If there is, the damages = original offer - new offer. Maybe there’s someone willing to pay $1M. Then there are no damages anymore, and we can all move on.

It’s all nonsense.

The “asset” (assuming this refers to the card) isn’t being attacked, just Beckett’s opinion and credibility. Technically, PWCC doesn’t even have standing, does it?

Furthermore, Beckett’s opinion can easily be discredited with this “asset” or with many other misguided opinions of theirs.

PWCC bringing this to trial would only serve to further discredit grading, but this time in a public forum. I say bring it, I’ll chip in for fees.

ThoseBackPages · 04-29-2020, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

It’s all nonsense.

The “asset” (assuming this refers to the card) isn’t being attacked, just Beckett’s opinion and credibility. Technically, PWCC doesn’t even have standing, does it?

Furthermore, Beckett’s opinion can easily be discredited with this “asset” or with many other misguided opinions of theirs.

PWCC bringing this to trial would only serve to further discredit grading, but this time in a public forum. I say bring it, I’ll chip in for fees.

any comment from The Buyers Group?

KhalDrogo · 04-29-2020, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

It’s all nonsense.

The “asset” (assuming this refers to the card) isn’t being attacked, just Beckett’s opinion and credibility. Technically, PWCC doesn’t even have standing, does it?

Furthermore, Beckett’s opinion can easily be discredited with this “asset” or with many other misguided opinions of theirs.

PWCC bringing this to trial would only serve to further discredit grading, but this time in a public forum. I say bring it, I’ll chip in for fees.

Why would PWCC bring this to trial?

MoreToppsPlease · 04-29-2020, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Why would PWCC bring this to trial?

Exactly. Beckett’s opinion is at the center of all this.

salthill · 04-29-2020, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Exactly. Beckett’s opinion is at the center of all this.

Neither Beckett nor PWCC would “bring this to trial”. Only the asset’s owner would have standing for an action.

salthill · 04-29-2020, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Which is why I said what I said three sentences later. Maybe there’s a $500k offer out there. If there is, the damages = original offer - new offer. Maybe there’s someone willing to pay $1M. Then there are no damages anymore, and we can all move on.

I didn’t stop reading. What you said three sentences later is irrelevant.
You’re starting from the position that the potential buyer’s offer determines the value of the card and another offer needs to be brought forward to counter that. I’m saying the potential buyer’s offer is inherently compromised and isn’t the starting point for anything.

KhalDrogo · 04-29-2020, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salthill

I didn’t stop reading. What you said three sentences later is irrelevant.
You’re starting from the position that the potential buyer’s offer determines the value of the card and another offer needs to be brought forward to counter that. I’m saying the potential buyer’s offer is inherently compromised and isn’t the starting point for anything.

Say this moves forward. Who determines the current value to calculate the damages?

salthill · 04-29-2020, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

Say this moves forward. Who determines the current value to calculate the damages?

The judge.
And I’m not being facetious. PWCC’s mystery buyer’s valuation may be one data point brought forward by the owner, but that’s all it will be. It’s not definitive.

MoreToppsPlease · 04-29-2020, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by salthill

Neither Beckett nor PWCC would “bring this to trial”. Only the asset’s owner would have standing for an action.

Yet PWCC felt the need to get involved by sending a letter.

Perhaps Brent is a prospective buyer, LOL.

KhalDrogo · 04-29-2020, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MoreToppsPlease

Yet PWCC felt the need to get involved by sending a letter.

Perhaps Brent is a prospective buyer, LOL.

The card was in the PWCC vault. Doesn’t take a leap of faith to assume PWCC was brokering the sale.

rcmb3220 · 04-29-2020, 07:34 PM

Where is the man in the yellow hat when you need him?

ThoseBackPages · 04-29-2020, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rcmb3220

Where is the man in the yellow hat when you need him?

he's wearing tin now

rcmb3220 · 04-29-2020, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

he's wearing tin now

Well he needs to come get his monkey.

pingbling23 · 04-29-2020, 08:49 PM

They did a great job at setting a new price for the card. Nice that it increased a few hundred thousand in a few months with the economy in a downward spiral. This whole ordeal is a joke. Shame on several companies.

MoreToppsPlease · 04-29-2020, 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KhalDrogo

The card was in the PWCC vault. Doesn’t take a leap of faith to assume PWCC was brokering the sale.

“We offer a complete range of services to make you rich at a reasonable percentage. Just don’t ask any questions about our methods”

corndog · 04-30-2020, 01:57 PM

Post #1 was one year ago today.

Happy Anniversary Brent Huigens!

pip · 04-30-2020, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corndog

Post #1 was one year ago today.

Happy Anniversary Brent Huigens!

Brent is behind the biggest fraud the hobby has ever known. He has no interest in helping others except where it directly benefits himself. I've never seen anyone so filled with lies and so consumed with greed. Why any collector would ever spend another dime with him is inexplicable. In the rare occurrence that any card he sells is original and unaltered, there's a reasonable expectation that shill biding has taken place.

superdan49 · 04-30-2020, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by corndog

Post #1 was one year ago today.

Happy Scamiversary Brent Huigens!

Fixed

Treadstone · 04-30-2020, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post - note from that other forum

You'll have to be more specific; that could apply to dozens of hobby parasites.

As for Blowout, the owner folded in the face of an obvious bluff. They should have told whoever sent the demand letter to go f^< k themselves. A case against Blowout for something a poster wrote has no merit because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives interactive online services of all types broad immunity from defamation claims stemming from content created by others:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

The threat is so lacking in legal justification that after the lawsuit is thrown out of Federal court, BO could sue the attorney stupid enough to file the case for malicious prosecution. In state courts in Cali and some other states with anti-SLAPP laws (laws that punish the use of frivolous lawsuits to stifle debates about issues relevant to a segment of the public), the case would be disposed of in the initial pleading stages as well, with sanctions against the plaintiff for bringing it in the first place.

All BO has now done is to geld the board: anyone who is angry at anything posted just needs to send a lawyer letter and it will be censored.

04-30-2020, 01:57 PM	#6697
corndog BODA Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: From a table in McDonalds, with lovely fake flowers on it. Posts: 17,708	Post #1 was one year ago today. Happy Anniversary Brent Huigens! __________________ He has no rival, He has no equal.

04-30-2020, 07:43 PM	#6700
Treadstone Member Join Date: May 2019 Location: North of DC, south of Canada Posts: 183	Locked thread - bluff or actionable??? Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post - note from that other forum You'll have to be more specific; that could apply to dozens of hobby parasites. As for Blowout, the owner folded in the face of an obvious bluff. They should have told whoever sent the demand letter to go f^< k themselves. A case against Blowout for something a poster wrote has no merit because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act gives interactive online services of all types broad immunity from defamation claims stemming from content created by others: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." The threat is so lacking in legal justification that after the lawsuit is thrown out of Federal court, BO could sue the attorney stupid enough to file the case for malicious prosecution. In state courts in Cali and some other states with anti-SLAPP laws (laws that punish the use of frivolous lawsuits to stifle debates about issues relevant to a segment of the public), the case would be disposed of in the initial pleading stages as well, with sanctions against the plaintiff for bringing it in the first place. All BO has now done is to geld the board: anyone who is angry at anything posted just needs to send a lawyer letter and it will be censored.

04-29-2020, 07:34 PM	#6692
rcmb3220 Member Join Date: Jun 2014 Posts: 4,136	Where is the man in the yellow hat when you need him?

04-29-2020, 08:49 PM	#6695
pingbling23 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 15,944 pingbling23	They did a great job at setting a new price for the card. Nice that it increased a few hundred thousand in a few months with the economy in a downward spiral. This whole ordeal is a joke. Shame on several companies.