Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by neilv | Hacker News Reader

I'm not going to speculate on the truth of allegations of fraud here, but two side points:

* A few times skimming this, I didn't understand some of the assertions and logic. For example, I couldn't say just by glancing at the photos that the card wasn't filled out on an IBM Selectric II (introduced in 1971, before Apple was founded). For another example, I see people commenting on VAT tax missing on the receipt from the German Red Cross, and also the confusion over whether it was bought on eBay or from the German Red Cross, but no mention of whether that invoice might be something that the German Red Cross adapted to work with early eBay doing the payments (at least in the US, sales tax for online purchases was very murky, and eBay punted). Also, the author seems to be ignoring cross-cultural differences, in their psychoanalytic speculation about subtleties of seller's behavior, such as seller's perceived earnestness in composing a photo.

* This article is going out of its way to publicly defame someone. If they have strong evidence of the counterfeiting and fraud that they allege, they should be going to a legal authority. Given that they decided to get Internet Points out of it, they'd better hope that their allegations are correct, and also that they can prove it sufficiently if sued in some jurisdiction. I would guess that glomming onto mob behavior ("We did it, Reddit!") won't be a good defense.

* Chris says it's not a picture of Sherry

* The issue date of the badge for employee number 10 predates that of employee number 8

* The German invoice uses American comma separator

* The German invoice is also missing the invoicing entitiy's legally required information, is missing VAT and uses American terms.

Also, "Wir danken Ihnen für Ihr Unternehmen?"

Really?!

> they should be going to a legal authority

I'd really hope legal authorities have better things to do than act as arbitrators of provenance of niche-interest historic artifacts. Without being the person who "won" the auction, I doubt you'd even get your foot in the door.

Yes, there are worlds in which a huge series of accidents and coincidences explain how this person isn't a scammer. They're just unbelievably unlikely to the point of being able to disregard the possibility entirely.

The picture in the ID is not a photo of Sherry Livingston (says Chris, who knows Sherry)

If you look at the employee #8 badge it has an issue date of 3/17/77. So how is employee #10's 3/10/77? There's lots of holes.

> * If you look at the employee #8 badge it has an issue date of 3/17/77. So how is employee #10's 3/10/77? There's lots of holes.*

For "lots of holes", I think that's not a great one to single out as an example.

This is a tiny company, in California, in the 1970s..., and we're assuming, ahem, German precision, around when they can get a nerd to sit for a photo to laminate an ID card?

Again, like I said upfront, I'm not commenting on the truth of the allegations -- just commenting on the weak Internet detective work.

The article says:

> When in doubt, Engage The Internet®

The Internet can be dumb as snot. Have doubt.

> The Internet can be dumb as snot. Have doubt.

Yeah, that’s sort of the point of the original post. Have doubt.

One of the central rules of the internet (and outside the internet. But especially on the internet.) is that people are often fucking liars. This is especially true when it comes to memorabilia.

This seller’s history is littered selling so-called authentic things like business cards and concert tickets and based on this incident, I personally think every single one of them is fraudulent.

You might like playing contrarian to defend the honor of an obvious forger, and that’s your right. But it isn’t defamation to call a liar a liar. Truth is an affirmative defense.

Someone with an actual Apple badge from that era said the badge is fake. The text doesn’t match that person’s badge. The photo use for Sherry is obviously both a stock photo and too high resolution to be used on an employee badge from a tiny company in California in the 1970s. The badge is too well-preserved, even for a relic that the seller claims to have purchased in 2001 (or was it 2003 or 2004, seeing as their own story kept changing). There are so many red flags when looking at this thing that it doesn’t matter if one of the proof points doesn’t live up to your standards. This is a fake item.

You’re the one trying to score internet points, not the author who was sharing an interesting exchange he had with a seller who was not only selling a fake item, but probably also forged receipt documents related to the fake item.

I said from the very start that I was commenting only on the side points I mentioned, and not on the truth of the allegations.

The article, and now these comments, are littered with recreational half-butted thinking.

That's what I was commenting on.

The employee #8 badge, which we know is real, is typed in a completely different font from the #10 badge, has different dimensions, different photo dimensions, and the photos were clearly taken with dramatically different cameras and lighting. None of these differences makes any sense if the #10 badge (supposedly made within a week of the #8 badge) is real.

That's not necessarily a hole. Maybe Employee #8 was hired before #10 but had a later start date, hence a different issue date.

Yeah, it’s an “issue date” someone just didn’t go across the room and get it. Also, the early employee numbers are famously semibogus. Jobs was 0 because he hated coming after Woz, who was 1.

If you find this kind of detective work up your alley, you might like Papers Please.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/239030/Papers_Please/

An amazing game that is secretly propaganda to make people respect and appreciate bureaucracy.

Glory to Arstotzka!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com