Blog post about VSP4945

Originally Posted by RichJohnston
The only difference is that I might have got a response when I first approached them(CGC).

Originally Posted by RichJohnston
just wanted to add, CBCS was contacted for comment well before publication, without response

Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:

Originally Posted by RichJohnston
The only difference is that I might have got a response when I first approached them(CGC).

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichJohnston
just wanted to add, CBCS was contacted for comment well before publication, without response

Unfortunately this is the most believable part of the story. Sad Panda :/

Originally Posted by RichJohnston
Fair point. Maybe they just don't think they have. They did say that their signatures were fake. And I do think it's disingenuous for CBCS to say they only certify the signatures when a) the creators say they are fake and b) the sketches they are attached to are so clearly fake that it seems bizarre to believe they wouldn't have had some impact on the CBCS certifying process.

Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tedsaid
Quote:

Originally Posted by shrewbeer
Quote:

Originally Posted by robertofredrico
But the label header says: "Authentic Signature & Artwork

This is precisely why Americans should use the Oxford comma, always.

“Authentic Signature, and Artwork”

Ow, ow, ow! It hurts!

Yes on using the Oxford comma. I'm all for it. But no, that's not an Oxford comma. Sorry.

As for putting a comma there, it's probably acceptable in informal writing to do that ... to remove the ambiguity as to which words are being modified by "Authentic." But I don't think it is generally correct to do that.

How about "Authentic Signature with Artwork?" Or just "Authentic Signature," and let the marketplace figure out the art itself isn't authenticated? I think that's how I would do it.

Curious, how is that not an oxford? It clearly serves the purpose of separating authentic from artwork, used before the word “and”.

Without the comma, artwork is encapsulated within the umbrella of authentic; authentic signature and artwork.

With it, we have clear separation; authentic signature, and artwork.

Your idea of simply swapping “and” for “with” solves it better though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocBrown
Correction is good, no matter how old.

Unless the correction is simply for the sake of correction, and said correction is only opinion disguised as fact (not talking about your post @Tedsaid)

Originally Posted by Redshade
Oh my word! This takes me back 50 years to my Grammar School where my English Master was a Cambridge man.


I was taught the list was : Yellow and Green and Blue and Red.

The comma was used instead of "and" : Yellow, Green, Blue and Red.

The "and" meaning that we have come to the end of the list

The Oxford comma was redundant tautology.

I know that proponents of both systems can invent convoluted sentences where THEIR usages can only be used and the other systems are shown to be fabricated.

The Oxford comma makes me shudder as much as a
misplaced apostrophe: I love comic's.