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.
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.
The article, and now these comments, are littered with recreational half-butted thinking.
That's what I was commenting on.
Glory to Arstotzka!