hypothetical major problem with well respected board member

[sflayank]

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

[jason.1969]

I am completely inexperienced with major auctions and big purchases, but the agreement itself seems contrary to fair play. Is this a standard practice? It feels like a form of collusion.

[almostdone]

Curious is this is hypothetical or "hypothetical". I've never come up with an agreement with someone to buy together except with close personal friends and never at this high of a level.
Seems like it isn't an actual legal contract unless it was written down and signed. For that amount of money the question arises if legal action is needed or chalk it up to finding out someone's true character and tough lesson learned.
Tough call either way.
Drew

[BlueDevil89]

Sorry, my friend. Looks like you got snookered. Your competition got you to stay out of the auction so he could steal it for a song, and burned you in your side deal in the process. Lesson learned.

If I were you, I would likely not have any further dealings with that board member.

Good Rule of Thumb: Assume that all baseball card collectors are pirates and thieves who would steal from their own mothers (---who would definitely steal valuable collections from widows for pennies on the dollar). Go into all of your transactions with this assumption, and you will likely never be taken advantage of in any of your dealings.

Now, I know such an approach is an overly cynical one. However, when it comes to dealing with people with whom you have no personal relationship, it is an approach that will ensure that you exercise the appropriate level of caution.

It's every man for himself out there. If you happen to come across a fellow collector with integrity, consider yourself fortunate. There are certainly plenty of them out there. But I would never make such an assumption about anyone, regardless of their reputation on this or any other board.

Remember what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Good luck enforcing an illegal contract.

[1963Topps Set]

Sorry, my friend. Looks like you got snookered. Your competition got you to stay out of the auction so he could steal it for a song, and burned you in your side deal in the process. Lesson learned.

If I were you, I would likely not have any further dealings with that board member.

Good Rule of Thumb: Assume that all baseball card collectors are pirates and thieves who would steal from their own mothers (---who would definitely steal valuable collections from widows for pennies on the dollar). Go into all of your transactions with this assumption, and you will likely never be taken advantage of in any of your dealings.

Now, I know such an approach is an overly cynical one. However, when it comes to dealing with people with whom you have no personal relationship, it is an approach that will ensure that you exercise the appropriate level of caution.

It's every man for himself out there. If you happen to come across a fellow collector with integrity, consider yourself fortunate. There are certainly plenty of them out there. But I would never make such an assumption about anyone, regardless of their reputation on this or any other board.

Remember what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."

Fantastic post and I agree completely. Stand on your own in your dealings.

[batsballsbases]

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

Funny I have had this also happen to me more than once . I also had a board member email me and ask if I was going to bid in an auction on a certain item and I said yes. My stance on auction bidding is If you want it and I want it may the best man win. Its that simple . These back room B.S. hand shake deals you dont bid and I will win it and split it with you never seem to work out! Someone always seems to get the short end of the stick! In this instance if the item or items were something you had looked for for a long time them I would have just bid on them. If you were willing to go to 20,000 that is double what it sold for than I would have bid to 20,000 and let the chips fall where they may. If he out bid you than so be it at least you would have had a chance. Now its a fight to try and get the items from him. If he is a board member you might want to say who it is so we can avoid him in the future.. Sorry you didnt get what you wanted but in the future just bid yourself in the auction will end up saving alot of misery later.

[KC Doughboy]

Obviously there was no contract, no legal grounds, but the person has shown their true colors.
I would not make personal comments or use adjectives to describe the person, but if someone were to enter into a verbal agreement, then not follow through, they have obvious issues with a lack of morals and values. I would post exact details and give the name of the member. Others should be aware of this persons unwillingness to honor their word.
I think sharing our experiences in a thoughtful and factual manner is helpful and constructive. People don't hesitate to share when they had a good experience.

[1952boyntoncollector]

right ..you took a chance and it not work out...who knows if you would of ponyed up enough money if bidding on the lot


if you really wanted the lot you buy it then sell the cards to the guy that wanted it...sometimes people will even say 'if you buy the lot I will agree to buy x and y cards' from you....then you buy the lot..and then they don't want to pay......so always assume you will have to sell at market value if the guy doesn't come through..and if comes through ..then great..its a fun experience ..if not ..who cares..

heck just on one on one deals..people negotiate for weeks..then they come to a price..then all of the sudden the buyer doesn't pay.......so the more exotic buy and sells are even more hard..

[vintagetoppsguy]

Obviously there was no contract, no legal grounds, but the person has shown their true colors.
I would not make personal comments or use adjectives to describe the person, but if someone were to enter into a verbal agreement, then not follow through, they have obvious issues with a lack of morals and values. I would post exact details and give the name of the member. Others should be aware of this persons unwillingness to honor their word.
I think sharing our experiences in a thoughtful and factual manner is helpful and constructive. People don't hesitate to share when they had a good experience.

I agree with every word of this post, with empahsis on the bolded text.

I see threads on the board quite often such as, "Looking for a partner on auction lot XX" and that's basically what you two were - partners in the auction. It doesn't matter who the bidder was or who paid for the auction, you were partners and he didn't hold up his end of the agreement. Obviously as others have said, there's nothing you can legally do about it, but he definitely needs to be outed as someone I wouldn't want to do business with. Please out this board member.

[Econteachert205]

I have talked with other members about possibly splitting an auction lot. There doesn't seem anything sinister in this. If it were a real auction and I was next to a friend who said I will bid on this and we can split the cost and cards, I would feel that is totally appropriate. As previously stated, if this story is true, the person who did this to you is lacking in my mind in ethics.

[freakhappy]

I have talked with other members about possibly splitting an auction lot. There doesn't seem anything sinister in this. If it were a real auction and I was next to a friend who said I will bid on this and we can split the cost and cards, I would feel that is totally appropriate. As previously stated, if this story is true, the person who did this to you is lacking in my mind in ethics.


I agree with this^


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jason.1969]

Makes more sense to me now. I'd be miffed too.

[Republicaninmass]

I've had it happen, but also have had the opposite occur. I asked a member about an auction, and he suggested if I didn't bid him up, he would give me the two cards I wanted FREE of charge. He won, and held up his end of the bargain.


I've also had former friends and board members who were emailing eBay sellers after auctions ended and offering a higher price on items I won! Consider yourself lucky you really are not financially hurt. He could have taken your funds, and not delivered the card. A thief is a thief no matter how big or little the sum is.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I agree with every word of this post, with empahsis on the bolded text.

I see threads on the board quite often such as, "Looking for a partner on auction lot XX" and that's basically what you two were - partners in the auction. It doesn't matter who the bidder was or who paid for the auction, you were partners and he didn't hold up his end of the agreement. Obviously as others have said, there's nothing you can legally do about it, but he definitely needs to be outed as someone I wouldn't want to do business with. Please out this board member.


Tough to know both sides of the story though...the guy can get 'outed' but what if the the guy that bought the lot says 'I was supposed to be paid x amount..and he wouldn't pay that' so not theres a big misunderstanding on what was said ...that's the problem with verbal deals......just could be 2 sides of the story..is all I am saying

[vintagetoppsguy]

Tough to know both sides of the story though...the guy can get 'outed' but what if the the guy that bought the lot says 'I was supposed to be paid x amount..and he wouldn't pay that' so not theres a big misunderstanding on what was said ...that's the problem with verbal deals......just could be 2 sides of the story..is all I am saying

There are always two sides to every story, but I would imagine this deal was agreed to either via email or PM and there is written proof of who is telling the truth and who is not.

[pclpads]

A verbal contract is only as good as the paper it's written on. :D

[Donscards]

I would out the other buyer on here (Even if he is a respected member) how much respect does he deserve. that is about the only thing you can do--Lesson learned It is a shame where you could have had the whole lot at half price.

[D.P.Johnson]

I agree with Eric and David on this one...As far as "outing" the guy though, I think that maybe Leon (or his designee) should take a look at both sides of the story first...I mean, if the guy is a well-respected member I think he should have the chance to defend himself in private before he gets thrown under the bus...It's a sad situation regardless...

[stlcardsfan]

Bush league

[bnorth]

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

Sorry to hear of you bad luck. I would just never do a deal with them again and let everyone know what happened.

I think these kinds of deals happen very often. Even for items on the BST section here. I know I have done several deals like the one described with 0 problems with 2 members on here.

[egbeachley]

Sorry to hear of you bad luck. I would just never do a deal with them again and let everyone know what happened.

+1

[NateMack]

I think that there should be some ethics involved in deals. I had made hundreds of trades with people in my groups through the mail and I have been very happy with the deals...

I do think that member should be outed so another member is not suckered into a similar situation. I would never be involved in a deal with that level of money, but there are obviously guys on this forum that do have that type of funds and hopefully they can be made aware...

Sorry for your troubles, at least no money was exchanged...

[brob28]

Larry sorry to hear of your situation. I think it would benefit everyone on the forum if we all knew who this person is. However, if I were in your shoes, I would think twice about outing this person if all I had was a verbal agreement, history tells that will just break down into a he-said / he-said argument and eventually the triple-dog-dare of the forum, threatened legal action. If you have emails, PM's or other proof, I would let it fly.

BTW - this might get better response on the mail board instead of the BST.

[111gecko]

Post who it is.

[1952boyntoncollector]

I agree with Eric and David on this one...As far as "outing" the guy though, I think that maybe Leon (or his designee) should take a look at both sides of the story first...I mean, if the guy is a well-respected member I think he should have the chance to defend himself in private before he gets thrown under the bus...It's a sad situation regardless...

if the guy is a well respected member? whats the definition of that....maybe we can get an icon by our username saying we are a well respected member...maybe after X amount of verified transactions.?

just interesting as to what a "well respected member" is...how about a respected member but not well respected...in that case he wouldn't have a chance to defend himself in private..cause he isn't well respected?

[xplainer]

I have to hear the other side before I go out on a limb. What if they had a agreement on the doubles, say $900, then when the buyer gets the lot for less than thought, the OP changes his buying price too? But the buyer insist they stick to the original price.That could be the case. They story is missing a lot of factual, concrete information.

I hope the buyer comes on here and tells his story. I'm not ready to bury the buyer at this point.

Everything is too vague at this point.

That is my take on this situation.

and I know you were waiting on my input....:D:D

[gnaz01]

There's well respected board members on here??? :D:D

[JollyElm]

Post the name of the other guy and also post anything you have in writing (PM's, etc.) that 'proves' your contention. Then the other fellow will have every opportunity to explain his side of the story. That way no one can accuse you of being unfair and/or a BSer.

If what you are saying is factual, then everyone here NEEDS to know who it is, so we can avoid being screwed in the future. Ignore all of the apologists who tell you to forget about it and move on. That's just pathetic.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If two SELLERS had colluded (for example by agreeing not to run the same cards against each other, to concentrate all the bidding on one) people would be screaming fraud. But two buyers collude to keep the price down, and thereby cheat the seller, and nobody seems to care. Interesting.

[1952boyntoncollector]

If two SELLERS had colluded (for example by agreeing not to run the same cards against each other, to concentrate all the bidding on one) people would be screaming fraud. But two buyers collude to keep the price down, and thereby cheat the seller, and nobody seems to care. Interesting.

Yeah I agree with your point..but there really is no honor among thieves..i really doubt this occurs....as you can already see the inherent problems with oral agreements...plus for large lots...the bid slots are so far apart ..if money is an issue ..then I realy doubt the 2nd colluder would of paid more than what the lot sold for..

[jason.1969]

My first read was that the agreement was unethical based on the harm to the seller. However, if I understand the further comments, it looks more like going halfsies together on a lot that had some cards each partner wanted. That doesn't feel wrong to me. Still, more detail and more knowledge about the rules and norms of auctions could change my mind again.

[BlueDevil89]

There's well respected board members on here??? :D:D

+1

P.S. --- Leon and crew: This thread should really get moved to the main board. It's a general enough topic that everyone should have the opportunity to see / read / respond. Thanks in advance.

[Econteachert205]

If two SELLERS had colluded (for example by agreeing not to run the same cards against each other, to concentrate all the bidding on one) people would be screaming fraud. But two buyers collude to keep the price down, and thereby cheat the seller, and nobody seems to care. Interesting.


Peter, I thought of it more as this situationally speaking. A lot is going to go for say 1000 dollars. I only want about half of the cards and would spend 500 but would not bid to 1000. Someone else is in the same position with the other cards in the lot, so we split payment on the 1000. If we didn't have each other neither would have bid on the lot, so isn't 1 bidder better than none?

[sflayank]

no need to mention the other party...the deal was outlined in emails
however since the items that he collects are limited to less than a handful of collectors the odds of him having any dealings on this board are very small
the only items he needs are extremely rare and only show up once in a blue moon in major auctions
i have no intention of legal action whatsoever after all its just cardboard
as far as those concerned of collusion...thats ridiculous...it was a 19 card lot of which he only needed 12...so offering to sell the dupes is perfectly ethical
it happens in every auction by bidders all the time

[jb67]

Nicely stated!!

[vintagetoppsguy]

no need to mention the other party...the deal was outlined in emails
however since the items that he collects are limited to less than a handful of collectors the odds of him having any dealings on this board are very small
the only items he needs are extremely rare and only show up once in a blue moon in major auctions
i have no intention of legal action whatsoever after all its just cardboard
as far as those concerned of collusion...thats ridiculous...it was a 19 card lot of which he only needed 12...so offering to sell the dupes is perfectly ethical
it happens in every auction by bidders all the time

Huh? You start a thread asking "What would you do?" and many of us told you that we would out the seller for the benefit of other board members. Why ask what we would do if you already knew what you would do? At this point, I don't understand the point of the thread. :confused:

[sflayank]

i read all your thoughts and came to that decision
whats to understand?

[vintagetoppsguy]

i read all your thoughts and came to that decision
whats to understand?

8 different members said here that you should out him. Unless I overlooked it, nobody said you shouldn't disclose the name. So how exactly did you come to that decision? What was your decision based on?

[ruth-gehrig]

no need to mention the other party...the deal was outlined in emails
however since the items that he collects are limited to less than a handful of collectors the odds of him having any dealings on this board are very small
the only items he needs are extremely rare and only show up once in a blue moon in major auctions
i have no intention of legal action whatsoever after all its just cardboard
as far as those concerned of collusion...thats ridiculous...it was a 19 card lot of which he only needed 12...so offering to sell the dupes is perfectly ethical
it happens in every auction by bidders all the time

If the entire deal was clearly outlined in emails and so obviously one sided, you shouldnt have any reason to not "out" this member.

[cammb]

What would I do? I would ignore your next post!

To.ny Biv.iano

[drcy]

I think there can be situations of bidder collusion to suppress prices, but there also situations of two friends who pool together their funds to win a lot neither could afford on his own. There are also situations of "I have no interest in all 150 of the cards in the lot and wouldn't place a bid, but if you win it I'll buy from you the three cards I need to finish my set." I don't consider the latter two examples of collusion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think there can be situations of bidder collusion to suppress prices, but there also situations of two friends who pool together their funds to win a lot neither could afford on his own. There are also situations of "I have no interest in all 150 of the cards in the lot and wouldn't place a bid, but if you win it I'll buy from you the three cards I need to finish my set." I don't consider the latter two examples of collusion.

Larry said he would have bid up to 20k, but reached an agreement with the other guy not to bid, so it doesn't sound to me like this is either of the latter two examples. At least that is how I interpreted the hypothetical. Fine line though.

[whiteymet]

Larry:

Sounds familiar..........

Seems to me it is the same thing as when someone contacts you with items you might want and you tell them that person to pick up the stuff for X dollars, then later when that person gets the items in question for you, you say you won't pay that much!

Agree?????

[drcy]

If this is a case of people making an agreement to lower the final price, the OP maybe should drop the issue. Some might call it collusion-- sort of a form of reverse shilling.

But, as earlier noted, with group lots it's not always clear cut because two bidders may want and not want different stuff from the lot and that may be an important part of the reason they make an agreement.

I'd never go in with multiple people on a lot, because it sounds too messy and confusing. Anything that requires a spreadsheet to document what goes where is something on which I'd pass.

[Jewish-collector]

Larry -

Why don't you just say what Joel Goodsen (Tom Cruise) said in the movie Risky Business. He said in one of the scenes, "Sometimes you gotta say WTF"

[ValKehl]

Larry, I like Daniel's suggestion (post #19) that you contact Leon, provide him with all the particulars, and ask him to contact this other Board member. I think this approach offers the best chance of getting this matter resolved amicably.
Val

[glchen]

Huh? You start a thread asking "What would you do?" and many of us told you that we would out the seller for the benefit of other board members. Why ask what we would do if you already knew what you would do? At this point, I don't understand the point of the thread. :confused:

OP is probably hoping the other party responds to this thread privately and works out an amicable solution.

[btcarfagno]

Reverse shilling was my first thought regarding the initial post. There seems to be a fine line between divvying up a lot (instead of of one person buying the lot and selling off the unwanted pieces) and two people conspiring not to both bid on a lot so that it goes cheaper (and then divvying up the lot). As a consignor I would feel as if I did not receive true market value either way.

If my original thoughts regarding the original post are valid, and both parties to this issue agreed not to "bid each other up", then I feel it is as bad as shilling. Justifying it by saying that it goes on all the time is just as bad as justifying shilling because " the buyer was willing to pay that much anyway so what is the big deal".

Just my worthless pair of pennies anyway.

Tom C

[JasonD08]

You are screwed. Just get over it and move on. No Val, Leon does not need to get into the middle. This is not a net54 issue. If it is a serious issue for you, you should out the member and get opinions once he pleads his case. If that does not happen you have no credibility whining about trusting some person's (we do not know) word that they would split a deal.

[Sophiedog]

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

I would have thanked you for not bidding and probably gave you the doubles....Some people are just greedy and take advantage...I think I would say who it is in this case

[Fred]

Wouldn't an agreement not to bid (because you were supposed to pick up the doubles) be like "partnering" in the auction? I see people posting that they'd like to "partner" up on a lot. What's the difference here>

Wouldn't the person that won the lot (and was supposed to sell the dupes) be stiffing the guy that "parnered up" in the auction?

Am I missing something here?

[Mountaineer1999]

I can't get past the $20,000.00. Or is that hypothetical too.

[freakhappy]

Is reverse shill bidding a real thing? Never heard of that before. Anyway, I don't think "reverse shill bidding" is any sort of offense. One person chooses not to bid on an item no matter what their intentions are afterwards...nothing stands out as a violation to me. I may be wrong, but I doubt this exact thing doesn't happen too often. I would think, like stated above, that teaming up on an auction is more common...which of course is fine.

[Wite3]

What bothers me more is that the OP seems to be protecting the other party...which to me seems worse than actually backing out of a deal somehow. Why? Because, the OP knows not to deal with this person anymore and the rest of us have to take our chances we will not get burned by that person. This, of course, is assuming everything you said is correct.

Just my two cents...

Joshua

[Republicaninmass]

Also, if the member is outted, would it really be surprising if there are more incidents with him.

[EvilKing00]

This forum, from what I have seen in the short just over 2 years I have been here, has been great. Buying on the bst, your trusting that sending $$ to a guy you probably never met or even spoke to will send you your stuff. Trading cards is the same we need to trust each other to get our packages. On this forum there has to be trust between members or the bts doesn't work.

Guys who share their wisdom & knowledge so complete strangers can learn. This board to me is like an oath of honesty, at least to each other. yea, yea sounds like im being ignorant, but to me so far, that's what its been. AND THATS WHAT IT SHOULD BE. On this forum there has to be trust between members or all the informative threads are not worth reading.

A guy FROM HERE, screwing another member is flat out wrong. I think it goes against everything this board is supposed to be about. Sure there are 3 sides to every story. Id post his name / user name along with all the proof, emails, pm's you have, and he can do the same & tell his side.

This way others can decide on the truth & not go through the same situation u find your self in. BUT id run it all by leon first.

[Sophiedog]

Also, if the member is outted, would it really be surprising if there are more incidents with him.

Excellent Point!

[iwantitiwinit]

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

A deal is a deal. There are few things lower than not honoring your word. Plain and simple. There are no excuses.

[Leon]

What would I do? I would ignore your next post!

What would I do? Tell this poster (CAMMB) to put his name in his post. You can say what you want to but if you want to poke or jab someone (on this board), put your name next to it.

and to add, I don't care to get in the middle of anything but if I can help I will always try to...but prefer for members to work it out themselves..

[Exhibitman]

Or what we all should behave as if we were...

The issue of whether a bidding partnership is collusive is a close one [my experience is that the partnerships generate higher bids overall by pooling resources on the lot] but entirely irrelevant. Gentlemen do and do not do certain things not because they are enforceable contractual obligations but because they are the right things to do when interacting with other gentlemen. A gentleman:

--honors his wagers.
--keeps his word.
--watches out for his friends
--never cheats his co-venturers.

I partner with others on auction lots all the time. Never had a problem so far. Is it enforceable? No. Nor would I try to enforce it if the bidding partner decided to renege. I figure once someone gives you a cheap lesson about who he really is, choose to believe it. If a member here chose to cheat another member and it is clear-cut I'd favor outing him and then suspending him for a time. Might not teach the offender anything about how to behave but it would prevent others from being harmed. That said, it is the OP's choice whether to do so.

I have heard of certain members here whose word is no good on deals such as the one referenced in the OP and have refused to partner with those people on auction lots. Whoever it is this time, don't think for a moment that word of your behavior won't get around off the front page, so to speak, and that there won't be consequences to it even if the OP refuses to out you here.

[vintagetoppsguy]

At this point, I think the OP is either a total nut job, or isn't telling the entire truth. He claims he don't want to give up the name, but he's never had a problem outing people by name before...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171975

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185189

[Peter_Spaeth]

Perhaps he doesn't want to out him because the guy would come back with another side of the story.

[ruth-gehrig]

At this point, I think the OP is either a total nut job, or isn't telling the entire truth. He claims he don't want to give up the name, but he's never had a problem outing people by name before...

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171975

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=185189

Appears he's been temporarily banned before as well.

[Exhibitman]

I've dealt w/the OP a number of times and always satisfactorily. I don't think he would just invent this wholecloth; he may not want to name names this time for some reason.

[Republicaninmass]

Perhaps he doesn't want to out him because the guy would come back with another side of the story.

I have wasted many a day pondering the thoughts and actions of others. In time, I realized this was one of my biggest wastes of time.

I would start this thread so the other party might reconsider the deal to avoid being outted. I'd think if he did "make" upward of 10k and he is a cheat, he doesnt care to be outted, as 10k is probably the biggest haul he is going to cheat this board out of.

edited: My cheat decided 7500 was a big enough risk to his reputation, and our friendship. Since I knew him personally, and the deal wasnt established on these boards, I decided at that time NOT to post about it.

[sflayank]

im not outing the other member because he contributes immensely to this board with his knowledge about certain areas of collecting....the likelihood of him ever having dealings with board members is virtually zero...he does not sell anything and what he buys are usually exceedingly rare cards that only a handful of people collect...i am not looking for a back and forth...this was simply..he needs 12 of the 19 in a lot and i would take the 7 doubles provided the lot didnt go over 20000...it went for 10000....he informed me he was out of the country the 1st month...the 2nd month he was visiting his children grandchildren etc the 3rd month ive gotten no response....all the years on the board we've exchanged information many many times...this lot came up for auction and i knew he would bid on it and knew there would be doubles
so we made this deal....like i said while the cards are rare...they are just pieces of cardboard...was just asking what board members thoughts on sharing a lot were and if theyve had any similar experience

[Republicaninmass]

what would you do?


im not outing the other member


So is your mind made up?


-------------end of thread--------------?

[vintagetoppsguy]

So is your mind made up?

I think his mind was made up before he even started this thread. He asks us what we would do, and many of us told him to divulge the name of the member, but he chooses to do otherwise. I still don't understand the purpose of the thread. What a waste of time!

[ramram]

Maybe I missed it somewhere above but, what cards were they?

[Fred]

what would you do?
suppose you and a well respected member of this board reach an agreement where 1 person would not bid on an item in a major auction and the other person would win the item and agree to sell you the doubles...you were willing to go upto 20000 if you were bidding...you dont bid and the item goes to the person you made the agreement with for 10000 which you consider a "steal"
the party who won the auction "a major contributor to this board and highly respected" has apparently decided not to sell you the doubles...3 months has passed and nothing but excuses and now no further communication

Well, it looks like you've asked for opinions and you've had quite a few responses to "out" the offender. The requests aren't to "out" him just so everyone can publicly shame the person, rather it's to protect other board members from the same situation. I see that point.

The appearance now is that your being a nice guy to someone that potentially screwed you out of thousands of dollars OR that there really wasn't much of an agreement between the two of you to begin with.

It'd be interesting if the person that you said screwed you responded to this post with a completely different story.

[batsballsbases]

Well back to selling on the BST!
Leon thanks for moving this thread even when it first came on it had no business on the BST.
I did give my 2 cents early on but got some change back!;);)
And Larry remember spend your own money that way you have no one to blame but yourself if the deal goes sour!

[frankbmd]

Jabberwocky

Up is down and left is right,
Right is wrong and termites bite.:confused:

Hypothetical is as real can be,
but the deal remains a mystery?

Well, respect me if you will,
for I shall never reverse a shill?

And while our members are highly touted,
a slip and fall can get you outed!

Does all this mean we've lost our marbles,
with rants and posturing with silly garbles?

"Bring the noose and hang 'em dead",
while I move on to another thread.:D

[Gradedcardman]

Sorry, my friend. Looks like you got snookered. Your competition got you to stay out of the auction so he could steal it for a song, and burned you in your side deal in the process. Lesson learned.

If I were you, I would likely not have any further dealings with that board member.

Good Rule of Thumb: Assume that all baseball card collectors are pirates and thieves who would steal from their own mothers (---who would definitely steal valuable collections from widows for pennies on the dollar). Go into all of your transactions with this assumption, and you will likely never be taken advantage of in any of your dealings.

Now, I know such an approach is an overly cynical one. However, when it comes to dealing with people with whom you have no personal relationship, it is an approach that will ensure that you exercise the appropriate level of caution.

It's every man for himself out there. If you happen to come across a fellow collector with integrity, consider yourself fortunate. There are certainly plenty of them out there. But I would never make such an assumption about anyone, regardless of their reputation on this or any other board.

Remember what Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify."


I'm with Chris here AND have been where you are standing !!

[bobbyw8469]

I agree with every word of this post, with empahsis on the bolded text.

I see threads on the board quite often such as, "Looking for a partner on auction lot XX" and that's basically what you two were - partners in the auction. It doesn't matter who the bidder was or who paid for the auction, you were partners and he didn't hold up his end of the agreement. Obviously as others have said, there's nothing you can legally do about it, but he definitely needs to be outed as someone I wouldn't want to do business with. Please out this board member.

David...they weren't technically partners. Rather than pony up the money together, they conspired to committ "bid rigging" which is just as wrong as "shill bidding".

Now, I have had people get locked out on a lot that I threw an early bid in on, that then wanted to go in half and we partnered up that way. But in the OP's instance, they conspired to "bid rig", win the item for a song, therefore ripping the consignor off, and now the silent partner is getting the shaft.

I am sorry, but I can't warrant any sympathy here.

[chipperhank44]

Good luck enforcing an illegal contract.

Someone stole my weed, I'm calling the cops.

[Runscott]

To follow-up on what David (Cycleback) and Adam had to say, collusion doesn't always cause the final bid to be lower;e.g-I agreed to go in with another board member on a fairly expensive large lot of cards. I ran the bidding end of things and bid it up fairly high. When it got to the point where it was too high for me, I stepped away. The take-home message is that I would not have bid at all if not for the other forum member agreeing to go in with me on the lot, so my bidding stimulated activity and possibly caused the lot to sell for more than if we had not partnered up. Sometimes neither of the 'colluders' would bid unless they had an agreement, so in those instances the final price has to be either the same or higher.

This case (if the $20K estimate is correct) might have yielded opposite results, but only because the pool of prospective bidders was much smaller.

I don't know about outing the other guy - there are two sides to every story, and getting into a massive pissing match is never pleasant for anyone but the railbirds.

[1952boyntoncollector]

Is reverse shill bidding a real thing? Never heard of that before. Anyway, I don't think "reverse shill bidding" is any sort of offense. One person chooses not to bid on an item no matter what their intentions are afterwards...nothing stands out as a violation to me. I may be wrong, but I doubt this exact thing doesn't happen too often. I would think, like stated above, that teaming up on an auction is more common...which of course is fine.

right you cant really prove the second guy really would of bid...people say they 'would of' done lots of stuff but they never do..

[Peter_Spaeth]

right you cant really prove the second guy really would of bid...people say they 'would of' done lots of stuff but they never do..

How is that different from a hundred other propositions that are proven (or not) every day by examining the evidence and drawing inferences? Someone admitting he would have bid seems like pretty competent evidence to me.

[68Hawk]

These cards weren't 'worth' $20000.
They were worth what they sold for - $10000.

If only one other bidder believes an item is worth double what it sells for in the majority, how is it 'worth' the higher number. At the higher number, the sale merely represents an overwhelming desire to own the item beyond logic and likely recompense, and clearly evidences over estimating the items worth.
Should the item be available for sale again, and the one other bidder who is willing to bid highly has found his itch scratched and is no longer looking.....the number at which most see value is the true worth of the item.
Everything else is sheer pride of ownership in its many guises.

Oh, and the guy who dudded you is a cad, as Adam pointed out in an earlier post.

[the 'stache]

Without commenting as to the specifics of the deal in question, here's how I feel. All you truly have in this world is your word. You are either an honorable man, or you are not. And it is in moments like these where a person's true character is shown. And to me, nothing I could ever buy, no matter how valuable, or rare, or how much I wanted it, would be worth sacrificing my integrity.

[SMPEP]

I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market. ;)

[glchen]

These cards weren't 'worth' $20000.
They were worth what they sold for - $10000.

If only one other bidder believes an item is worth double what it sells for in the majority, how is it 'worth' the higher number. At the higher number, the sale merely represents an overwhelming desire to own the item beyond logic and likely recompense, and clearly evidences over estimating the items worth.
Should the item be available for sale again, and the one other bidder who is willing to bid highly has found his itch scratched and is no longer looking.....the number at which most see value is the true worth of the item.
Everything else is sheer pride of ownership in its many guises.

Oh, and the guy who dudded you is a cad, as Adam pointed out in an earlier post.

There's often a "break" value in lots where the sum of the single items is greater than what the lot sold for. This is usually because collectors don't want to spend a whole bunch of money for a large lot where they only want 1-2 cards, and then go through the trouble of trying to sell the extras they don't want.

Here is an extreme example of a 53 card lot that went for ~12K in an REA auction: Link (http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2012/140.html), and then a single card out of that lot (the M101-6 Cobb) went for nearly 20K by itself: Link (http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetail.aspx?inventoryid=21777). There's no picture of the card in the Goodwin auction, but it was the same card as this was discussed as it went down here: Link (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=157373&page=2).

Again, this is an extreme example of a lot that obviously went under the radar, but it's fairly common where if you buy large lots, you can sell the cards individually and do quite well.

[ibuysportsephemera]

Sorry, but I disagree with the comments about bid rigging, reverse shilling, collusion, etc. I don't think these terms apply at all to this discussion. If the 2 bidders in this discussion were the only 2 bidders then all of those descriptions might apply. However, as I read the OP's first post, he said that 2 people agreed not to compete against each other in an auction that presumably could have had many more potential bidders. They did not control the rest of the bidders so there was not guarantee that their partnership would be successful. Just my 2¢.

Jeff

[ullmandds]

what'd I do? I did NOTHING wrong I say...NOTHING!!!!!!!

[7nohitter]

Name the moron you had the 'deal with' or there was no logical reason for this entire thread. Rube.

Am.D%%R&*(#$$$#e^^^&77w M99i99l09090909090le.....r

[Sophiedog]

Without commenting as to the specifics of the deal in question, here's how I feel. All you truly have in this world is your word. You are either an honorable man, or you are not. And it is in moments like these where a person's true character is shown. And to me, nothing I could ever buy, no matter how valuable, or rare, or how much I wanted it, would be worth sacrificing my integrity.

Well said Bill....True 100%

[Peter_Spaeth]

Sorry, but I disagree with the comments about bid rigging, reverse shilling, collusion, etc. I don't think these terms apply at all to this discussion. If the 2 bidders in this discussion were the only 2 bidders then all of those descriptions might apply. However, as I read the OP's first post, he said that 2 people agreed not to compete against each other in an auction that presumably could have had many more potential bidders. They did not control the rest of the bidders so there was not guarantee that their partnership would be successful. Just my 2¢.

Jeff

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

[Exhibitman]

I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market. ;)

Bitch-slaps at three feet would be more entertaining for the rest of us...

http://youtu.be/SNbup9-yj7c

[ruth-gehrig]

Name the moron you had the 'deal with' or there was no logical reason for this entire thread. Rube.

Am.D%%R&*(#$$$#e^^^&77w M99i99l09090909090le.....r

Im beginning to think this "hypothetical" situation isnt real :rolleyes:

[edhans]

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Exactly what is the difference between this "bid rigging" and two (or more) friends who agree to buy a lot and divide it up? If my friend an I each want a few cards in a lot, are we really obligated to bid each other up? Sorry to appear dense, but I'm obviously missing something.

[nolemmings]

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?
Agreed, although your analogy might be a little strained in the sense that the market in your scenario is probably somewhat small and thus having a large percentage of its bidders collude would have a greater impact on price. Still, I'm not going to argue with an antitrust lawyer, at least not just yet, until Happy Hour is over :)

Still, partnering as described elsewhere in this thread also somewhat artificially affects the market and price. If few or no individuals can financially participate in the upper-end bidding for a lot and pooling is required, haven't you in essence manipulated the market as well? At least you've pretty much set some barriers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Exactly what is the difference between this "bid rigging" and two (or more) friends who agree to buy a lot and divide it up? If my friend an I each want a few cards in a lot, are we really obligated to bid each other up? Sorry to appear dense, but I'm obviously missing something.

It's a fine line, as has been mentioned, and I think it depends in part on your intent. If the intent is to pool resources to buy something you might not otherwise have been able to buy, or wouldn't have wanted to buy, it's ok; if the intent is to keep the price down by ensuring you and someone else don't independently bid, then it's not ok. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Agreed, although your analogy might be a little strained in the sense that the market in your scenario is probably somewhat small and thus having a large percentage of its bidders collude would have a greater impact on price. Still, I'm not going to argue with an antitrust lawyer, at least not just yet, until Happy Hour is over :)

Still, partnering as described elsewhere in this thread also somewhat artificially affects the market and price. If few or no individuals can financially participate in the upper-end bidding for a lot and pooling is required, haven't you in essence manipulated the market as well? At least you've pretty much set some barriers.

Todd price fixing is still per se illegal, before or after Happy Hour, so the specifics of my example don't really matter. Hypothetically, because as we all know this would never be prosecuted, a showing of price impact isn't necessary, it's assumed.

[edhans]

. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.

Nigh on impossible, I would think.

[Econteachert205]

It's a fine line, as has been mentioned, and I think it depends in part on your intent. If the intent is to pool resources to buy something you might not otherwise have been able to buy, or wouldn't have wanted to buy, it's ok; if the intent is to keep the price down by ensuring you and someone else don't independently bid, then it's not ok. Now in practice it can certainly be hard to tell the difference.


I agree with this.

[kamikidEFFL]

Sorry to hear the bad news. But I agree with some people here, I feel he made you stay out of the auction. I would always look out for your own best interest. It stinks that you learn the hard way but you will know for the future.

[SMPEP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by SMPEP
I'm surprised the obvious answer hasn't been suggested:

Pistols at 40 paces. And if you're a good shot ... a great collection full of rare wonders will be on the market.

Bitch-slaps at three feet would be more entertaining for the rest of us...



Adam - I know better than to open that link! But I can imagine the entertainment.

[ibuysportsephemera]

I disagree, strongly. Even two buyers agreeing not to bid against each other is collusion and has a potential impact on price. Are you suggesting that if Ford and GM conspire to fix the price of cars, that isn't illegal because Toyota isn't in on it?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for me the comparison of Ford and GM has no bearing on this discussion. Ford and GM are not participating in an auction.

In the broad sense of the definition, collusion usually relates to an illegal act (but not always) for a dishonest purpose. I don't see anything wrong with 2 parties that are familiar with each other agreeing to partnership to save themselves money. As I stated, they were not the only potential bidders and there were no guarantees that they would be the high bidders (which is why this certainly isn't bid rigging).

If the 2 parties knew that they were the only bidders, then it certainly would be collusion, bid rigging, etc. But if this was a normal auction/ auction house, there is no way for the partners to know who the other bidders are or what the outcome would be.

Jeff

[ibuysportsephemera]

People have used the term bid-rigging. It really is an incorrect usage for this discussion. Typically the term is used when parties collude and the outcome of the bid is guaranteed. Because this was an auction with anonymous participants, there was no way to guarantee the outcome.

Jeff

[calvindog]

If two SELLERS had colluded (for example by agreeing not to run the same cards against each other, to concentrate all the bidding on one) people would be screaming fraud. But two buyers collude to keep the price down, and thereby cheat the seller, and nobody seems to care. Interesting.

Hey, there's honor among thieves. Doug was mad at Bill when he cooperated against him. Doug was mad at Rogers when HE cooperated against him. Shit happens.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Good luck enforcing an illegal contract.
Nothing illegal about the above mentioned agreement.

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Todd price fixing is still per se illegal, before or after Happy Hour, so the specifics of my example don't really matter. Hypothetically, because as we all know this would never be prosecuted, a showing of price impact isn't necessary, it's assumed.
I have never someone discuss price fixing on such a small level.

[nolemmings]

Todd price fixing is still per se illegal, before or after Happy Hour, so the specifics of my example don't really matter. Hypothetically, because as we all know this would never be prosecuted, a showing of price impact isn't necessary, it's assumed.

I didn't say it wasn't illegal, or that a certain element of damage or quantum of proof was needed. Your comment seemed to liken the two situations and as a practical matter they are worlds apart.

Nothing illegal about the above mentioned agreement.

Disagree completely.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I have never someone discuss price fixing on such a small level.

Your grammar is as flawed as your legal analysis. :D

The discussion is purely technical, as acknowledged repeatedly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Hey, there's honor among thieves. Doug was mad at Bill when he cooperated against him. Doug was mad at Rogers when HE cooperated against him. Shit happens.

Jesus is there nothing you can't turn into a discussion of Doug? :D

[Rollingstone206]

What auction and lot # was this deal on?

[Peter_Spaeth]

People have used the term bid-rigging. It really is an incorrect usage for this discussion. Typically the term is used when parties collude and the outcome of the bid is guaranteed. Because this was an auction with anonymous participants, there was no way to guarantee the outcome.

Jeff

Suppose 15 very low pop commons in 9 are available in an auction in individual lots, and the three top set registry guys, each of whom need them all, agree to allocate their bids so as not to bid against each other in the hope that each comes away with 5. Suppose there are also other anonymous people who will bid on some as well. Are you saying this is not collusive? (I don't care for and haven't used the term bid rigging.)

PS this isn't just a hypo. I have seen an email where a leading collector proposed just this to another collector, who to his credit ignored the proposal.

[vintagetoppsguy]

So Larry is guilty of collusion by NOT bidding?

[ibuysportsephemera]

Suppose 15 very low pop commons in 9 are available in an auction in individual lots, and the three top set registry guys, each of whom need them all, agree to allocate their bids so as not to bid against each other in the hope that each comes away with 5. Suppose there are also other anonymous people who will bid on some as well. Are you saying this is not collusive? (I don't care for and haven't used the term bid rigging.)

Peter...I was just mentioning bid-rigging in general...I wasn't pointing it at you.

I agree that the example that you are using above is definitely collusive. The more people that get involved, the more of an enterprise it becomes and then it certainly is limiting a sellers chance of maximizing his profits.

My comments are strictly related to the OP's description of 2 friends agreeing to partner-up to participate in an auction that they might or might not win.

I was once at a local auction house that had a bunch of sports memorabilia. Myself and 1 other person bid against each other on almost every lot. We cost each other a lot of money. Fast forward a few years and I run into this person again in Brimfield (he is a dealer). We recognize each other and laugh at how much money we cost each other. We agreed that if we ever saw each other again at an auction we would compare notes prior to the auction. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this type of agreement. As I stated earlier, there is the potential for others to bid and no guarantees of price in an auction setting.

Jeff

[sflayank]

i was just contacted by the winner of the auction...
here is the email...
Saw thread. Do whatever you need to do. I am not home. Was in Kentucky guiding
daughter through a divorce. My wife took it hard. It is our 40th anniversary and
after divorce was final I booked us on a Circle South American cruise on the
Oceania Regatta. You can check their web site. We won't be home until sometime
in April. Cards are still at home as far as I know. Not a high priority at the
moment.

[Fred]

Jeff, the one nice thing about your scenario is that you're both present and you'd be able to see if your abstaining bidding buddy was trying to screw you...:p

As mentioned before, I've see THREADS on the THIS BOARD asking people to PARTNER up on auction lots. Is that considered collusive? If so, then why would something illegal be allowed to occur so openly on this board?

[Sophiedog]

i was just contacted by the winner of the auction...
here is the email...
Saw thread. Do whatever you need to do. I am not home. Was in Kentucky guiding
daughter through a divorce. My wife took it hard. It is our 40th anniversary and
after divorce was final I booked us on a Circle South American cruise on the
Oceania Regatta. You can check their web site. We won't be home until sometime
in April. Cards are still at home as far as I know. Not a high priority at the
moment.

What auction were the cards in?

[Rollingstone206]

I could care less who the other party is I just want to see what baseball cards are causing this commotion ;)

[Econteachert205]

I could care less who the other party is I just want to see what baseball cards are causing this commotion ;)


Yeah after all this we should at least get to see the cards.

[Sophiedog]

3 month cruise....must have been some good cards

[sflayank]

it was an REA auction fall 2014

[calvindog]

What is the downside about outing the auction and other person?

[Fred]

Well Sherlock, the absconder of the cards:

• Is “a major contributor to this board”
• “highly respected” on this board
• has a daughter who lives in Kentucky
• is on a very long South American cruise on the Oceania Regatta
• has access to the internet on the vessel

Was it Colonel Mustard….? If so, in which auction and what cards were absconded?


Geesh, enough already.... the poor guy probably took the cruise to get away from all of us....:D

[Econteachert205]

One possibility...


https://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=32569

[steve B]

Peter is correct of course.

Smalltime collusion may be hard to prove if it's done quietly.
But it's still not allowed.

I was at a small estate type auction that ran once a month. Small enough that the auctioneer announced before each auction that the help were all independent dealers who were allowed to bid. Any other way and he'd have no help. They all specialized, and rarely bid even within their own specialty.

Anyway, one night there's a bag of coins. And it gets bid up a bit, to maybe $40. One guy in the front row turns to another and says "Let me have this one and you can buy the next" The auctioneer stopped, gave them both a stern reprimand about how he could lose his license and if they wanted to do that stuff to discuss it ahead of time outside. Restarted the item at 45, got a bid from a new bidder and 50 from the other guy for the sale.


On the bigger end of things, here's an article about the settlement with a group of stamp dealers who ran a collusive bidding ring for almost 20 years.

http://www.ag.ny.gov/press-release/settlements-announced-lawsuit-alleging-bid-rigging-conspiracy-postage-stamp-auctions

The sort of stuff they colluded on was similar, biggish to large lots where there would be limited competition from either collectors or from other dealers. Their ring made up a huge percentage of the buyers with both the interest and the funds to buy large lots regularly.

I have mixed feelings about small guys combining to buy a lot. It might sort of be collusion technically, but usually neither would be a serious bidder so the teaming up actually increases the competition a bit.

Steve B

[vintagesportscollector]

i was just contacted by the winner of the auction...
here is the email...

It's a little late now and can't be undone, but I don't think appropriate to post this guys response. I am sure with a little research his identity is easily discovered. I am sure he does not want his personal life aired in such a manner, nor want it to be known he is away for three months. I would delete, but again too late.

[vintagetoppsguy]

I am sure with a little research his identity is easily discovered.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I figured it out, but since Larry doesn't want it disclosed, I'll leave it alone.

[Fred]

no need to mention the other party...the deal was outlined in emails
however since the items that he collects are limited to less than a handful of collectors the odds of him having any dealings on this board are very small
the only items he needs are extremely rare and only show up once in a blue moon in major auctions
i have no intention of legal action whatsoever after all its just cardboard
as far as those concerned of collusion...thats ridiculous...it was a 19 card lot of which he only needed 12...so offering to sell the dupes is perfectly ethical
it happens in every auction by bidders all the time

Dennis, the link provided was for a 15 card lot (not 19 cards). Close with the $10K bid, but no cigar.

[Econteachert205]

Dennis, the link provided was for a 15 card lot (not 19 cards). Close with the $10K bid, but no cigar.

Fred, I know, I went through the entire baseball card section and couldn't find a perfect match, maybe I just missed it.

[ramram]

i was just contacted by the winner of the auction...
here is the email...
Saw thread. Do whatever you need to do. I am not home. Was in Kentucky guiding
daughter through a divorce. My wife took it hard. It is our 40th anniversary and
after divorce was final I booked us on a Circle South American cruise on the
Oceania Regatta. You can check their web site. We won't be home until sometime
in April. Cards are still at home as far as I know. Not a high priority at the
moment.



I would HIGHLY suggest you do NOT indicate who this person is now that you've indicated he's out of town for a long period of time and his cards are at his house!!!! Time to lock this thread Leon.

[Fred]

I would HIGHLY suggest you do NOT indicate who this person is now that you've indicated he's out of town for a long period of time and his cards are at his house!!!! Time to lock this thread Leon.

Holy crap, the most sensible thing imparted in this thread so far....

[vthobby]

I feel that not only posting that info about being gone that there is far too much personal info in there.

That is frankly not cool and I suggest immediate deletion of that personal information.

Where is the common sense in that?

Peace, mike

[JasonD08]

If this was indeed the Hocus Focus lot I am sure I know who the winner was….unless Larry is telling stories.

[ALR-bishop]

Leon was kind enough to unlock this thread for me.

I am the person Larry is referring to. I am currently in Brazil and have been out of the country since early January, and was not at home for most of December either for family reasons

Due to Larry's stress level on this matter, in the first part of February I had my house sitter open the package of cards in question. There were 19 different Topps 55 Hocus Focus baseball cards in the lot. I had 12 of the subjects in the lot but lacked 7 of them. I had the house sitter pull the 7 cards I did not have ( giving me 19 of the 24 in the sub set), and had her try to keep the best of the duplicate cards. She was pretty nervous about it all. She then mailed the 12 duplicates to Larry.

He got them, and posted to that effect on 54 on February 17, but did so in the Memorabilia Forum rather than this forum. Not sure why, but I was concerned that most of those who saw this thread, would not see or be aware of his thread in the other forum. Hence I asked Leon to let me post this in what had been a locked thread.

I have told Larry that if he wants to keep the 12 duplicates he can name the price he thinks fair. As he mentioned in the first post, the lot went for about $ 10,000. I also told him that since I would not be back home until mid April, he could wait until then to decide and pay if he wanted to keep them.

Hopefully that concludes this matter.

On another subject I can say that Tikal, The Panama Canal/Panama City, Machu Picchu, Torres Del Paine National Park, The Chilean fjords and glaciers Ushuaia ( The End Of The World ), The Falkland Islands and Iguazu Falls have been tremendous. Rio coming up

[4815162342]

Leon was kind enough to unlock this thread for me.

I am the person Larry is referring to. I am currently in Brazil and have been out of the country since early January, and was not at home for most of December either for family reasons

Due to Larry's stress level on this matter, in the first part of February I had my house sitter open the package of cards in question. There were 19 different Topps 55 Hocus Focus baseball cards in the lot. I had 12 of the subjects in the lot but lacked 7 of them. I had the house sitter pull the 7 cards I did not have ( giving me 19 of the 24 in the sub set), and had her try to keep the best of the duplicate cards. She was pretty nervous about it all. She then mailed the 12 duplicates to Larry.

He got them, and posted to that effect on 54 on February 17, but did so in the Memorabilia Forum rather than this forum. Not sure why, but I was concerned that most of those who saw this thread, would not see or be aware of his thread in the other forum. Hence I asked Leon to let me post this in what had been a locked thread.

I have told Larry that if he wants to keep the 12 duplicates he can name the price he thinks fair. As he mentioned in the first post, the lot went for about $ 10,000. I also told him that since I would not be back home until mid April, he could wait until then to decide and pay if he wanted to keep them.

Hopefully that concludes this matter.

On another subject I can say that Tikal, The Panama Canal/Panama City, Machu Picchu, Torres Del Paine National Park, The Chilean fjords and glaciers Ushuaia ( The End Of The World ), The Falkland Islands and Iguazu Falls have been tremendous. Rio coming up

Al, you do a great job in those commercials.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dos-equis-man-jonathan-goldsmith.jpeg

[bbcard1]

The Country Cookin in Christiansburg, VA is also nice.

[Jay Wolt]

Al, good hearing from you, have a safe journey. Sounds like fun!

[toppcat]

Al you've surfaced-sounds like you are having a blast!

[CW]

Al, you know how to travel and you know how to live. Wish you the best, my friend.

[Zach Wheat]

Leon was kind enough to unlock this thread for me.

I am the person Larry is referring to. I am currently in Brazil and have been out of the country since early January, and was not at home for most of December either for family reasons

Due to Larry's stress level on this matter, in the first part of February I had my house sitter open the package of cards in question. There were 19 different Topps 55 Hocus Focus baseball cards in the lot. I had 12 of the subjects in the lot but lacked 7 of them. I had the house sitter pull the 7 cards I did not have ( giving me 19 of the 24 in the sub set), and had her try to keep the best of the duplicate cards. She was pretty nervous about it all. She then mailed the 12 duplicates to Larry.

He got them, and posted to that effect on 54 on February 17, but did so in the Memorabilia Forum rather than this forum. Not sure why, but I was concerned that most of those who saw this thread, would not see or be aware of his thread in the other forum. Hence I asked Leon to let me post this in what had been a locked thread.

I have told Larry that if he wants to keep the 12 duplicates he can name the price he thinks fair. As he mentioned in the first post, the lot went for about $ 10,000. I also told him that since I would not be back home until mid April, he could wait until then to decide and pay if he wanted to keep them.

Hopefully that concludes this matter.

On another subject I can say that Tikal, The Panama Canal/Panama City, Machu Picchu, Torres Del Paine National Park, The Chilean fjords and glaciers Ushuaia ( The End Of The World ), The Falkland Islands and Iguazu Falls have been tremendous. Rio coming up

Glad this appears to have worked out well for all. Safe travels my friend.

Z wheat