View Full Version : Memory Lane's Catalogue?
Archive
08-28-2007, 10:10 AM
Posted By: <b>Jack Richards</b><p>Have any of you noticed anything weird with the Catalogue for Memory Lane's Sept 15 Auction? <br /><br />I have only looked at it quickly -- and maybe I'm missing something -- but they seem to have vastly overstated the rarity of at least three fairly high priced cards:<br /><br />LOT 498, 54B Mays , PSA 9. They state three times that there is only one PSA 9 1954 Bowman Mays (" The Only PSA 9...The Only PSA 9 known...only PSA MINT 9 Bowman known..."). That's not even close. According to the current Pop Report, there are 18 1954 Bowman Mays graded PSA 9.<br /><br />LOT 705, 60T Wynn, PSA 8. They state that "No PSA known grades higher." In fact, there are 4 9's, each graded higher than Memory Lane's 8. <br /><br />LOT 736, 61T Groat , PSA 9. They state that this card is "a low pop 2." Again, this is not even close. According to the current Pop Report, there are 15 61T Groats graded PSA 9...with 2 10's.<br /><br />Am I missing something? If not, I don't understand how these kinds of errors could be made innocently. <br /><br />I have raised the issue with Memory Lane and have not yet received a reply. <br />
Archive
08-28-2007, 08:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Anthony</b><p>I"m betting you won't hear anything either. I emailed them a year or so ago when they were auctioning off 3 cards I had just won in Mastro, and never heard a word.<br /> Have you read the threads on JP's past history?
Archive
08-30-2007, 12:07 PM
Posted By: <b>D.C. Markel</b><p>I got the catalog today and noticed that it has numerous errors regarding the population. This reminds me of an eBay dealer many years ago that was notorious for doing this. He would put pop 1 or 2 in his auction descriptions, when they were really pop 10 or 20 and I finally confronted him on it and he said that he was using something like PSA's 2000 spring pop report (when PSA published a written book every quarter, before it was on-line) and was using that for his pop numbers in auctions three years later.
Archive
08-30-2007, 12:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>I think it is probably a mistake by his staff who can't read the pop report correctly.<br />
Archive
08-30-2007, 12:45 PM
Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>then why are the errors always in ML's favor? <br /><br />if it stinks like ****, looks like ****, sounds like ****, odds are it is ****
Archive
08-30-2007, 01:06 PM
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>what does **** sound like?<br />Is it a low grumble? or a higher pitched hiss?<br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />
Archive
08-30-2007, 01:11 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>If they were going to deflate pop reports why do it on these seemingly random cards only? After all if the target audience is guys who live in caves and don't read the pop report, why not try to fool them on more cards? It strikes me as a **** up not deliberate.<br /><br />I would still like to know how two people could have bid a PSA 8 Ernie Banks 1965 up to over 700 dollars in Goodwin's recent auction.