PDA

View Full Version : T5 Jackson - $47,853 vs. $182,425


Archive
08-20-2006, 04:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Two T5 Jacksons are auctioned within a few months of each other -- one has a reported price realized of $47,853 (Mastro Auctions), the other $182,425 (Mile High Auctions), almost four times more. Yes, I recognize the one in the Mastro Auctions had some issues with the photo, but the photo quality was outstanding and the mount had no meaningful flaws. Anybody else scratching his/her head on this one?

Archive
08-20-2006, 05:00 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Talk about timing...Wow, that's quite a difference. Thin market on some items. Maybe the top 2 people really wanted one last time and drove it that high. This one comes up on it's heels with the person willing to pay the most for one out of the game. The 3rd person only wanted to go to around 40k....so the last auctions runner up should have got this one for where the current market is. Timing......and congrats to whomever won both of them....regards

Archive
08-20-2006, 05:07 PM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>Not quite as dramatic, but did anyone else notice that a PSA7 McPhee (the highest graded by two notches, I believe) sold in Mastro's auction for $8166? Previously, a 4 sold for $13K plus juice and I think a very nice 2 with some writing on back sold for over $10K. One thing is clear to me. The direct, immediate, and certain cause of this precipitous drop in price is the fact that I finally own a McPhee.

Archive
08-20-2006, 07:43 PM
Posted By: <b>Greg Ecklund</b><p>This post would fit in well with the "Cards as Investments" thread. Definitely an example of how volatile things can get at the high end and for me an example of why it should always be a hobby first.

Archive
08-20-2006, 07:52 PM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Timing, timing, timing...<br /><br />I'd be willing to bet that the consignor for this T5 is singing the blues but that's just the way it works out sometimes. One thing for certain is that the consignor did choose a good auction house and probably figured on a similar result. <br /><br />

Archive
08-20-2006, 08:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>I am 99% sure who won the card in Mastro's auction and he was not even the underbidder in the Mile High auction.<br /><br />Maybe the fact that Mile Hile called it the only know example had something to do with it. If the person paid $180,000 partially based on the assumption that it was a one of a kind Jackson card, he is surely disappointed. Does anyone know who won the card?<br /><br />REA sold the exact same card that was in the Mile High auction a while back for $5,000 or so. That has got to be a record for greatest return on a single baseball card in a relatively short period of time. How would you like to be the person that originally sold the card and only got $5,000 or so for it?

Archive
08-20-2006, 09:50 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Two points/questions:<br /><br />1-Has anyone ever heard who won the Jackson in the MHCC auction? <br /><br />2-The McPhee in Mastro may have had a higher numerical grade but it is inferior to the one in REA by alot. Forget the number, look at the card. The Mastro example had a faded photo and the REA one had a sharp photo.

Archive
08-20-2006, 10:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>The REA and Indy Find McPhee cards have much nicer images than the SGC84 McPhee in this last Mastro.

Archive
08-21-2006, 08:54 AM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p><br />While we're on the "who bought it" topic, anybody know who landed the 1914 Boston Garter Jackson from that same Mile High auction? That one touched down at $102,974.

Archive
08-21-2006, 12:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>"a mysterious, wealthy newcomer to the hobby"<br />If true, he obviously inherited it.<br /><br />They eat folks like that for lunch in coins, stamps and horses,<br />but they usually show up with a splash, not anonymously.<br /><br />If the cards didn't really trade, why bother running them up to absurd levels?<br /><br />The whole episode is bizarre.

Archive
08-21-2006, 06:47 PM
Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>Does the auction house have motivation to do so?

Archive
08-21-2006, 07:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>To respond, for the dishonest-inclined, there is signficant motivation for both the consignor and auction house to run levels up to absurb levels. The consignor would benefit by establishing a much higher market value for his/her card. So the consignor would then take it back, hold it for a period of time, then reconsign it (hoping to piggyback on the "new" market value). For the auction house, in addition to any "fee" the consignor might pay it to participate in such a scheme, it would be salivating as it imagines its next ad trumping how it generates higher prices than its competition.

Archive
08-21-2006, 09:03 PM
Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>Corey - I do not know who won the Boston Garter, but I am pretty sure that they both came from the same consignor.

Archive
08-21-2006, 10:34 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Harry, that's my understanding as well.

Archive
08-22-2006, 08:13 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I've been in the hobby long enough to know that when something does not look right often it isn't right. At the very least, it shows how two determined bidders can skew the price of an item. However, if the bider who paid $180K thought it was unique, he must be pretty upset right now. Unique is a dangerous term in the hobby, because a second one or more is always potentially around the corner.

Archive
08-22-2006, 08:22 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The cards in Mile High did come from the same consignor, and he is an honest long-time collector.<br /><br />Thus, I do NOT think he was pulling the old "bid on your own item and run up the price" trick.<br /><br />I think someone with more money than sense thought they were buying a "one-of-a-kind" item and got burned when another one surfaced.<br /><br />How many more may still surface??<br /><br /><br /><br />

Archive
08-22-2006, 08:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Hal--How do you know this?

Archive
08-22-2006, 08:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>All I know is the consignor.

Archive
08-22-2006, 09:28 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Something similar happened with the T206 Doyle NY Nat'l. About 6 or 7 years ago a PSA 2 sold in a Ron Oser auction (before he joined Mastro) for 170k. Then about 4 years ago a PSA 3 sold for something like 58k in a Mastro auction. These sales were a bit more spread out timewise. I don't think there was anything fishy. I just think it is sometimes a matter of timing. Also, in a thin market when one agressive bidder is eliminated, it can make all the difference.<br />JimB

Archive
08-22-2006, 09:48 AM
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>After the Mile High auction, a forum member posted that he was underbidder on the T5 Jackson in that auction. Hopefully he won the one in Mastro at the discounted price.

Archive
08-22-2006, 12:02 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>The exact same T5 Jackson in the Mile High Auction sold in July 2000 for $6,412. The auction house was REA, at that time a division of Mastro Auctions. The $182,425 reported price realized by Mile High means that in six years the card increased in value by 2,745%. Since that time, the highest other price appreciations in the vintage card market to my knowledge have been the T210 Jackson and the Baltimore News Ruth, each appreciating perhaps 900%, and even that might be stretching it. So what this means is that for the T5 Jackson to have been legitimately sold by Mile High at that price, TWO disinterested bidders with no connection to the consignor or the auction house had to have been ready, willing and able to buy at a price reflecting a price appreciation about three times greater than any other vintage card has known to have appreciated in the same time period. Is this possible? Yes, but to call it extraordinary could only be described as an understatement. For me I would be a lot more comfortable with the whole thing if I knew who the buyer and underbidder were. I also would be a lot more comfortable if it were confirmed that the underbidder was the winning bidder of the T5 Jackson that Mastro Auctions just sold.

Archive
08-22-2006, 12:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Here is the thread about the T5 Jackson when it was auctioned by Mile High.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1150391723/last-1150509696/T5+Pinkerton+Joe+Jackson" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1150391723/last-1150509696/T5+Pinkerton+Joe+Jackson</a><br /><br /><br />The last time a T5 Jackson was for sale, people were talking about how the card was obviously going to break six figures or more.

Archive
08-22-2006, 12:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Wesley,<br /><br />That thread examines the card's value from the perspective of foresight, no doubt influenced in part by the card's astronomic rise as the auction was nearing its close. I'm now looking at the situation from the perspective of hindsight, seeing how a comparable T5 Jackson sold two months later for a fraction of the price. It is that subsequent sale which to me raises questions about the first one. Had the second T5 Jackson broken the 6-figure barrier, I don't think we'd be having this discussion.<br /><br />

Archive
08-22-2006, 01:33 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Corey, <br />You wrote:<br /><br />"Wesley,<br /><br />That thread examines the card's value from the perspective of foresight, no doubt influenced in part by the card's astronomic rise as the auction was nearing its close. I'm now looking at the situation from the perspective of hindsight, seeing how a comparable T5 Jackson sold two months later for a fraction of the price. It is that subsequent sale which to me raises questions about the first one. Had the second T5 Jackson broken the 6-figure barrier, I don't think we'd be having this discussion."<br /><br />To further the debate let me say a few things. First of all the underbidder, in the Mile High Auction, has been on our board saying he was the underbidder. That underbid price, with juice, would have been $165,800.00 (or there abouts). Let's take out the top bidder who did win it and is happy with it, I believe. So we have someone willing to pay $165,800 for THAT particular card. You said comparable but I would argue we don't know that the underbidder in Mile High thought the Mastro one was comparable. The mount was a different color and not like any I have seen, the image was not as good, and the border didn't look right being that it's larger and white......Maybe those things led to less bidders on the Mastro one and especially the underbidder(s). I would be a little careful about crying foul without all of the facts....For the record I don't think there was any funny business going on I just think the bidders on the Mile High card didn't all bid on the Mastro one. I am also NOT saying that the Mastro one isn't legit but it is obviously different....<br />You can look at the two pictures and tell that...easily....best regards<br />

Archive
08-22-2006, 02:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />To use your terminology, I'm not "crying foul without all the facts". The main reason I put up this thread was to get facts. Also, in one of my posts I distinctly leave open the possibility that everything about the Mile High sale was legit. Yes, as you and other have noted, there are sensible reasons why the two cards could trade at such different prices. However, I believe the facts surrounding it (including the simulataneous sale of a restored 1914 Boston Garter Jackson from what I have been told is the same consignor for $103K) raise a legitimate basis for discussion. I've been around long enough to know that just because an auction house announces a card/item sells for a certain amount, that doesn't mean eventhing by definition is kosher about what went on. Indeed some months ago when the T210 Jackson from the Halper sale was put on eBay, the thread this Board had about that auction had no shortage of posts speculating as to what shenanigans might be happening. Also, while not singling out any particular auction house, I think it would be very naive to believe that shill bidding does not take place in this hobby, or that all reported sales actually took place. I think questioning things and not assuming that all is sanguine is healthy.

Archive
08-22-2006, 02:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>I would like to know the history with the Milehigh card. If memory serves my correct, TIK had one for sale at around 15K not too long ago? Not sure if the same one. I do not think most people would think that the Jackson Cabinet was a one-of-a-kind item. I would bet there are 10-15 of them in collections or attics. I think the Milehigh Cabinet was a GREAT item and the price might be a steal 10 years from now. When did the Wagner T206 card break 6 figures? I bet people had the same debate...<br /><br />JC

Archive
08-22-2006, 02:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>Different T5's, I think the mount for the Mastronet T5 was fine. I won a lot of about 12 or so T5's from a Mastronet auction--mostly minor league Toledo cabinets in about 2000 or 2001 and about 1/2 of them were on this cream color type mount. For comparison purposes.......The gray mounts were much more prevalent I think........have seen other mounts but like Leon, I was suspect on those including a brown mount on a horizontal T5. It had MUCH larger margins that any of those pictured below.....<br /><center><br /><br />Jacksons that sold in Mile High and Mastronet...<br /><br /><img src="http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i91/autograf99/soldjacksons.jpg"><br /><br /><br />Eddie Plank on a similar cream mount.....<br /><br /><img src="http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i91/autograf99/plank.jpg"><br /><br />A Blair New York Player cabinet from the lot I'd won....<br /><br /><img src="http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i91/autograf99/blair.jpg"><br /></center>

Archive
08-22-2006, 03:06 PM
Posted By: <b>scott brockelman</b><p>The Mastro item appears to be correct in respect to the other one. I have a few T-5's, some with different color mounts and cream is common, However none that I have nor the ones posted above, have been cropped to the photo image. All have a small white border. Also as i recall someone in the other thread mentioned the MHC had the entire photo glued down, when issued only a very small strip at the top actually was glued to the mount(someone has told me that they have seen ones with a strip at top and bottom, but I have not).<br /><br /><br />Other than that, the prices realized could certainly be 100% legit, BUT, if the 1sat buyer renegged in Mile High, why wasn't the underbidder offered the item, this is standard protocol for most auction houses, I mean you have a ready and willing buyer. I know that if I was after it and got 2nd and then offered a chance to buy it after the winner fell through I would certainly have jumped on it, UNLESS the Mastro T5 was already on the block. I am unsure of the exact timing.<br /><br />Random thoughts and facts.<br /><br />Scott

Archive
08-22-2006, 03:08 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I feel the need to state that I DO think the Mastro T5 is a good card and is a great looking Jackson. Many T5's have borders, their pics can have different clarity, and the mounts can be different colors. That being said these 2 being talked about do look different when you look at them. I would love to own either one.....best regards

Archive
08-22-2006, 03:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>It's been brought out that the underbidder on the Mile High T5 Jackson admitted such on this Board. That's all well and good. However, that same underbidder hours before the close of the auction posts on that same thread that he expects the card to go for around $150K. The thread started when the bidding was at $89K. Three hours later the underbidder made that prediction. About seven hours after that the bidding was at $131K. While I don't know exactly where the bidding was when that prediction was made, it was obviously betwen $89K and $131K, probably closer to the $89K based on the usual custom of the bidding to sharply accelerate as the auction nears its end. Now why would a person who intends to bid aggressively on an item with hopes of buying it possibly want to make a public pronouncement telling everybody how undervalued the item is?

Archive
08-22-2006, 05:05 PM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Good question. Also, after examining many more T5's in the last few hours most do have the white border. I guess the mounts I remember were all darker but the ones I have seen today, here and elsewhere, are all over the board in color. Suffice it to say I probably spoke a little bit out of turn on the physical characteristics and was only going from memory. I have learned more though, which is good.....And Corey's question(s) still remain.....

Archive
08-22-2006, 05:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>I have e-mailed the Mile High consignor and will let you know if he chooses to speak on this topic.

Archive
08-22-2006, 05:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The consignor tells me that he received full payment from Mile High and is very happy with results and his timing!

Archive
08-22-2006, 06:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>(hope it wasn't asked already) Did the high bidder of the MHC Jackson know of any other Jackson's or did he/she rely heavily on all that 'due diligence' that MHC did that identified theirs as the only one?

Archive
08-22-2006, 07:26 PM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>As was mentioned by a couple of members, I was the under bidder on the MHCC T5. Prior to their securing the item, when asked, I told them I could see the card selling for 150K or more based on what I had seen in recent auction results for cards of similar scarcity and importance. Being an avid Jackson collector and never having seen another example I made a bid hoping to own the item. I suppose it was a blessing to me to have only come in second when the following day I learned that Mastro had secured one. And raising the question as to how many more are out there.<br /><br />I hope I am not stepping on toes when I tell you that the T5 was offered to me by Matro prior to their placing it in the auction. My offer for Mastro's example was too far off from their asking. My offer was based solely on the fact that the photo had the horizontal flaws and more importantly the item was certainly not unique and I had questions about how many more are out there. Making the value I placed on the item significantly less.<br /><br />I did not win the one in Mastro due to other issues, the foremost being bad timing and not being able to liquidate investments to pay for the item. I had already committed all available cash on hand to two large card deals and was between a rock and a hard place and was not about to start putting myself in a bind for hobby purposes.<br /><br />While this may not be anyone's business and many of you probably do not care but due to a couple of people who have posted even after knowing this entire story but decided to post their suspicions and fuel the fire and more importantly, Corey's recent post in which he has all but called me a shill for MHCC, I felt people should have some more facts before they go off with their various conspiracy theories as is so popular here.<br /><br />Greg<br /> <br /><br />

Archive
08-22-2006, 08:57 PM
Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p><font color=blue>But Greg, the conspiracy theory was far more interesting than the one you just told us.</font><br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Archive
08-22-2006, 10:51 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Greg,<br /><br />It's precisely facts that I focus on and that continue to puzzle me about what you've said. The first is that an experienced dealer, which is how you've been described, would believe the card is unique and base such a significant amount of its value on that attribute. None of the T5/Jackson collectors I've spoken with thought another one would not turn up, especially with the publicity generated by a high realized price. In fact, some of these same collectors said they already knew the card was not unique before the Mastro one was announced. All that uniqueness stuff MHCC was trumping about the card is something perhaps a novice would fall for, not an experienced dealer. I've come to learn that most anything is liable to pop up, and I've never regarded that knowledge as divine revelation.<br /> <br />Second, and this is what troubles me the most, why would you announce to this Board hours before the close of the auction that in your view the card still had a ways to go before the bidding stopped? Your post instead addresses what you privately told MHCC. It has to be the most peculiar bidding strategy to publically annnounce hours before the close of an auction that an item you wish to purchase still has a significant ways to go before it reaches its market level.<br /><br /><br />Edited twice for spelling/grammer

Archive
08-22-2006, 11:54 PM
Posted By: <b>Richard Masson</b><p>If the underbidder was real, which we knew, and the consignor got paid the full amount, a new fact, then someone bought the cards.<br /><br />The only mystery is who.<br /><br />Maybe Jay won the lottery.

Archive
08-23-2006, 12:46 AM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Not this Jay. I'd be corning the Thorpe market if I won the lottery.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive
08-23-2006, 12:57 AM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Corey,<br /><br />I am not sure how to answer your questions, clear up your confusion or address your insinuations. I appreciate those who describe me as an experienced dealer, that is a vast improvement to what is usually said about me, but years in the business does not equate to knowledge of the business. Maybe it is news to you but I have virtually no contact with any of the advanced collectors. <br /><br />I did not feel the post I made at 1PM PST on the day of the auction was in anyway going to influence the bidding or create a situation that would end up in my being beat. That was what I felt the item was worth, what it would bring and what I was willing to pay for it at the time under the circumstances. Since you feel that was, in all probability, a stupid thing to post after having more information from me, then I guess I will not be able to convince you that I am not so stupid as to post what I did at 1PM PST if I was intending to be a shill.<br /><br />I do not recall off hand how many bids I made on the MHCC T5 but I can assure you there were several different people who had bid in excess of what Mastro's ended up. Maybe Brian Drent will come on here and post more detailed information as to this auction since his credibility is also being called into question. <br /><br />Not sure this clears up anything for you. You seem to be convinced that there is foul play and I just do not agree. If people want to add stupid and shill to the list of adjectives for me there is not a whole lot I can do about it. <br /><br />Greg<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <br /><br />

Archive
08-23-2006, 06:13 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Since Greg (the underbidder on Mile High) did NOT win the Mastro T5...<br /><br />then who did??

Archive
08-23-2006, 06:13 AM
Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Or for that matter...<br /><br />who won Mile High?<br /><br />We still don't know either winner. <img src="/images/sad.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
08-23-2006, 06:15 AM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Greg,<br /><br />Thanks for the response. I've never said there had to be foul play. I'm just saying the circumstances surrounding the sale of the T5 Jackson look pretty strange and legitimately raise questions. I hear what you've said and let's just say at this point I don't know what to believe. I will add, though, having reread the thread put up the day the MHCC auction closed and on which you posted, one of the posters hours before the auction closed emphatically stated that the card was not unique. I guess you either missed that or questioned the accuracy of what the poster said.<br /><br />Putting the situation in the light most favorable to MHCC, let me add the following. A siginficant amount of the value of the card was based on the underbidder's belief the card was unique. Another one now having publically turned up, if the one MHCC sold was to be reauctioned, it would almost certainly sell for considerably less. So by MHCC trumping an attribute (uniqueness) of an item that hours after the auction's close was confirmed to be bogus, a good faith winning bidder was forced to pay considerably more than he/said would otherwise have had to.

Archive
08-23-2006, 07:11 AM
Posted By: <b>WP</b><p>Corey,<br /> Would the winner be able to take action against MHCC for misrepresentation?

Archive
08-23-2006, 08:12 AM
Posted By: <b>Millerhouse</b><p>In Scott Brockleman's post, he recollected from the earlier string regarding the Mile High T5 of Jackson that it had been stated that the photo had been fully glued down to the mount. He is, in fact, recalling my post on the card in which I questioned, based upon the appearance of the card from the photo supplied by Mile High, whether the photo was fully glued down. I don't know, one way or the other, and no one responded to my post to verify or deny this.<br /><br />However, I continue to suspect that this is the case, and the posts in this string focusing upon the border of the card make it appear even more suspicious to me.<br /><br />I invite any long-time T5 collectors, if there are any others out there, to respond. My experience with these has long demonstrated that the photos, as issued, were only glued down to the mounts with a small strip of glue at the top border. Thus, whenever I have seen one fully glued down, my alteration radar has gone off immediately. (It suggests to me that someone who does not know any better had remounted a Pinkerton photo onto a mount from a lesser valued player or a mount with a seriously damaged photo.)<br /><br />To me, it seems far more horrifying that someone may have paid a fortune for a significantly altered card than the possibility that the bidding itself may have been skewed. Can anyone verify whether the photo was fully glued down?<br /><br />Dan

Archive
08-23-2006, 09:41 AM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>At the National, Terry Knouse mentioned to me that he previously owned the T5 Jackson that Mile High auctioned. (He regretted selling it just a little too early). If someone calls his attention to this thread, perhaps he can shed some light on whether the picture was fully glued down.

Archive
08-23-2006, 11:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>WP asks if the winner would be able to take action against MHCC for misrepresentation.<br /><br />Here is what MHCC said about the uniqueness of the card: "It is not often within the organized hobby of Sports Collectibles that one can be nearly assured that an item is one of a kind or unique, but after performing our due diligence in regards to research, we are confident that this is the one and only example of a 1911 T5 Pinkerton cabinet of Joe Jackson extant.....As previously mentioned, we thoroughly researched the item, as well we discussed the item with many collectors and long time hobbyists and have come to the conclusion that this is the only example known of this extremely rare card."<br /><br />My answer to WP is I don't know, though I imagine it will become an issue exactly how MHCC performed its due diligence as well as whether the winnning bidder and underbidders relied on MHCC's representations of uniqueness in deciding how high to bid. Perhaps some of the attorneys on this Board might have further insights. I will add, though, that if I were the winning bidder I would be VERY unhappy in light of the underbidder publically stating that the only reason he valued the card as high as he did was because of his belief the card was unique. I would be going to MHCC asking that they refund the portion of the winning price in excess of the amount one bid higher than what the highest underbidder who bid in nonreliance of MHCC's representations of uniqueness was willing to pay.

Archive
08-23-2006, 11:31 AM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Corey,<br /><br />This will be my last post on this thread.<br /><br />You are correct you never said there was foul play but you have inferred it countless times in your obsession on this matter. I saw the post by Zach and one person posting on a message board claiming he knows MHCC is not the only example is not going to do it for me especially in light of the discussions I had with Brian Drent. I was wrong and Zach was right. I do not know Zach at all and have never even said a single word to him. Was not going to base something he posted determine whether or not I bid. Was there a part of my last post in which I wrote that I did not really have hobby connections that you did not understand? If you want to call me sometime I would be more than happy to bore you with those details.<br /><br />A significant amount of my decision to bid as high as I did was based on not having ever having had the opportunity to add this item to my collection and having an abundance of unspoken for available funds in which to do it. Your following statement is inaccurate, "only reason he valued the card as high as he did was because of his belief the card was unique." The reason I did not chase the one in Mastro with the same intensity and desire was due to financial constraints, the condition of the photo and it was now the second of how many more. You have all of these hobby connections, it seems. Can you tell us who else had bid on the MHCC example or at least why they did not make an effort to go for the Mastro copy? I placed very few bids on the MHCC example so this was not about two people wanting that item. There were many bids after the 50K level. <br /><br />Corey, I understand your confusion. Well I don't really but I understand that you are confused or skeptical or suspicious or all three. I think your time would really be better served if you were trying to find who really killed JFK. <br /><br />Greg

Archive
08-23-2006, 11:39 AM
Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>While T5's generally have a single line of glue at the top of the photo, it is easy to see why many would be fully glued down today.<br /><br />I think that many of the original owners did not like the fact that the photo was not adhered well to the mount and took it upon themselves to fully glue it down. Most all of the other cabinets cards up to that time has their photos entirely glued donwn. I do not seen any advantage to not doing it at the time. <br /><br />I am sure that many of the photos started to curl over time and could only be displayed properly if they were totally glued down.

Archive
08-23-2006, 12:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Reading this thread makes me feel like a blind man walking past the Fulton Street fish market late on a hot sunny day.

Archive
08-23-2006, 12:36 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>To answer a question, I don't know all the people who bid on the MHCC T5 Jackson. And that's part of the problem. I'd be lying if I said the circumstances surrounding the sale of this card do not make one reasonably wonder whether at some level all these different bidders you make reference to ever existed, and that is why the Mastro one sold for what it did. Or if they did exist their existence was predicated on some factually incorrect representation by MHCC as to the uniqueness of the card. <br /><br />Also, how can you now possibly say that I was inaccurate in my statement that the only reason you valued the card as high as you did was because of your belief the card was unique. Here is what you said: "I suppose it was a blessing to me to have only come in second when the following day I learned that Mastro had secured one. ....My offer for Mastro's example was too far off from their asking. My offer was based solely on the fact that the photo had the horizontal flaws and more importantly the item was certainly not unique and I had questions about how many more are out there. Making the value I placed on the item significantly less." You'll forgive me but I continue to read these comments as saying that the high value you placed on the card was based on your belief that the card was unique. I do thank you though for confirming your reliance on Brian Drent's representations about the card's uniqueness, or am I being inaccurate again in saying that? <br /><br />Let's leave it then that each person can read the various posts on this thread and form his/her own opinion.

Archive
08-23-2006, 12:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>While I would have advised Brian to word it differently, so long as he didn't actually guarantee that it was the only one in existence (which he didn't) and so long as he didn't actually KNOW of another one, I would think he could successfully defend against any claim of misrepresentation on a couple of grounds, one, he technically didn't make any false statements of FACT other than to report the results of his due dilegence (although admittedly it comes fairly close), and two even if what he said could be read as an affirmative representation that the card was the only one of its kind, it probably isn't reasonable to rely on such a statement because if you think about it there is no way for anyone to know that is true to a certainty (one can only know it is false). In other words, it's hype, puffery, etc.<br /><br />Now that said, it would not be an entirely frivolous claim on the other side, and I can see the arguments (my friend Hal being a plaintiff's attorney could probably make them quite cogently) but I think Brian would have the better side of it.

Archive
08-23-2006, 01:10 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>"I'd be corning the Thorpe market if I won the lottery."<br /><br />Uh, not what you meant? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
08-23-2006, 01:14 PM
Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Jay--Would it be too much to ask you to change your name...perhaps Nigel

Archive
08-23-2006, 04:41 PM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Obscure 1980s new wave day, I guess. <br /><br />

Archive
08-23-2006, 09:03 PM
Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Jay, I would change it to Nigel, but that is my son's name. I think they should jsut call you O-J <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Archive
08-23-2006, 09:08 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Koteles</b><p>Corey-the Jax garter , i believe was a 1913. The price was<br />quite surprising to say the least ,and not to mention it did<br />have a couple of problems. I have a few questions about garters<br />to you. EMail me whan you get a chance. thank you !

Archive
08-23-2006, 10:23 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>I think the winner of the MHCC card could get pretty far asserting that either:<br /><br />(i) MHCC didn't "thoroughly research" the card's population (a material misrepresenation) (heck, if MHCC had merely posted an inquiry on this forum, a poster would have told them there was at least one other T5 Jackson); or<br /><br />(ii) MHCC must have known there was more than one such card (fraud) (e.g., find a T5 collector who would testify that "all respected T5 collectors know there is more than one Jackson out there").<br /><br />I'm not saying MHCC did anything wrong, and I know little about T5s, but I can see it coming down to a battle of the experts and the winner would only need to prove (i) or (ii) by a preponderence of the evidence.

Archive
08-24-2006, 08:07 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Agree it would be an interesting case. Would make a good law school exam question too. Hopefully the buyer is happy with his purchase and nothing more will come of it.

Archive
08-24-2006, 09:03 AM
Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>Hey Mark, I thought we'd get the tax implications from you for the consignor and the auction house. Hope you haven't switched practices <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br />Max

Archive
08-24-2006, 09:23 AM
Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>Max: I am considering switching to litigation after comparing the quality of our collections to that of the Lewis and Spaeth Collections.

Archive
08-24-2006, 09:24 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>This is an issue that concerns me too and Corey and I have discussed it at length privately. Actually, this may never fully be solved (assuming we need to solve it) and part of the problem is the price is so off the charts related to what it is really worth and we don't know what the winning bidder was actually thinking. I'm going to assume it sold and that the winner thought it was unique. He may be upset now or not even care. All crazy prices look funny, but I know I have sold things myself for multiples of what I thought they were worth. Sometimes collectors just can't let it go, that's just the psychology of collecting.

Archive
08-24-2006, 12:08 PM
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>what the term 'due diligence' REALLY means to MHC as it is pretty apparent from this (and the other) thread that it was well known by no less than a few people that this was not a unique card.....

Archive
08-24-2006, 07:48 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>One would think that if it was uniqueness that drove the price, and we don't really know that although it is certainly a fair inference at this point, then anyone considering spending that amount of money likely would have had private conversations with Brian and probably others rather than just relying on a rather vague statement hyping the auction about unspecified due diligence. Wouldn't they?

Archive
08-24-2006, 10:09 PM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Peter, thanks for your posts analyzing the various legal issues. I find them very informative.<br /><br />I would like to probe a bit further on one aspect. Let's assume we are correct in our inference that the high price was fueled by the perception the card was unique. And let's also assume it can be proven that that perception of uniqueness was created solely by the MHCC catalog description and subsequent conversations with MHCC personnel. Are you saying that MHCC could more likely than not mount a successful defense to an allegation of misrepresentation on the grounds that bidder reliance on these MHCC assertions of uniqueness was unreasonable? While I understand your point about hype, puffery, etc., in this instance it still seems strange to believe a court would look sympathetically on an auction house's defense that even though the bidders were lead to believe solely by the actions of the auction house precisely what the auction house wanted them to believe, they acted unreasonably in believing it.

Archive
08-24-2006, 10:47 PM
Posted By: <b>Daniel Bretta</b><p>I think anyone who has been around in this game long enough should take any claim of "unique" with a grain of salt. There are so many secretive high end collectors out there with fabulous collections that we have no clue really. I don't think we should assume that the winner of the MH Jackson bid this high because he thought it was unigue. Perhaps he figured this to be his one legitimate shot at picking the "card" up. We'll never know unless he/she wants us to know.

Archive
08-24-2006, 11:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>I said this earlier in a post regarding a similar issue, and will reiterate it here -- if the buyer had a beef and I was representing him/her, I would allege constructive fraud. Assuming that the seller had a duty to disclose the true facts, which I think is a reasonable inference when you are talking about an auction description of a card as "unique" when it is not, at least in Oklahoma even an innocent misrepresentation (i.e., no intent to deceive) can be constructive fraud if the buyer is misled to his/her detriment. IMO, what that means is that saying something is "unique" when that statement is demonstrably false, even if that statement was made in the belief that it was true, may be grounds to avoid the contract IF the buyer can show that the untrue description of the item as "unique" was the basis for the decison to purchase it.<br /><br />A finding of constructive fraud generally has the same legal effect as a finding of actual fraud. Theoretically, I suppose that means that damages could be awarded. However,I've never seen a constructive fraud case that resulted in anything other than avoidance or reformation of the contract. There may be one, but my take on the situation is that if constructive fraud could be proven, the buyer could probably make a pretty compelling argument for undoing the deal and getting his/her money back.<br /><br />As a by the way, Mark, don't give up your day job as a tax lawyer just yet. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> The burden of proof in a fraud case is clear and convincing evidence, not a preponderance. However, practically speaking, I don't really think it matters all that much if you have to try the case -- if the jury is pissed off at what the defendant did, you probably get a verdict, regardless of the theoretical proof standard. If they aren't, you don't. It's just as simple as that.

Archive
08-25-2006, 12:29 AM
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>I have dealt with Brian Drent several times and found him to be a very honest and straightforward guy. I doubt he knowingly or intentionally misled on this one.<br />JimB

Archive
08-25-2006, 06:37 AM
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>First off, obviously, I am no lawyer so what I say might not make legal sense but I want to go ahead and make a post concerning some thoughts. I have had numerous conversations with Brian Drent the last few days. He has no idea I am posting this. I am convinced he thought this was a uniquely known card when selling it. I am not sure of the due diligence put into the investigation of the rarity of the T5. I do believe there was a buyer for the card that is not totally inside our niche. I believe he is a card collector but maybe is working his way back in time, as far as collecting, as so many card collectors do. I don't believe there was any fraud committed. There is obviously a motive to sell something for more money (higher fees). So let's say he thought the card would bring 50k, which is an approximate value, and obviously about where the next one ended WITHOUT all of the bidders. SO there was an extra 100k. Nowadays consignors with high end material know that consignment fees can be all but waived (and with really nice stuff like this waived altogether). Let's assume there were no sellers fees. The extra 100k in price netted the auction about 15k. IS that motive enough to ruin your reputation, business, and career? I don't think so. One could argue that dumber stuff has been done but I don't think that it would be worth it to try to make an extra 15k. Also, for the record how many of us have paid way more than we should have for something? And 100k to one person might be like 1k to another. As for taking all of this to court and proving anything, with the price of those darn lawyers, the card price might be the lowest ticket item vis a vis the attorney invoices. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive
08-25-2006, 09:04 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Certainly what you are saying has a certain logic and persuasive force. However, there are certain alleged misrepresentations on which a buyer in a transaction may not reasonably rely or which just can't form the basis for a fraud/misrepresentation claim in the first place. For example, statements of opinion are (with certain exceptions) generally not considered actionable. <br /><br />Here, assuming for the sake of argument Brian actually represented the card was unique (and I think he stopped short of that) how can any sophisticated purchaser really rely on that to conclude the card was in fact unique? As Dan Bretta alluded to, it is not a statement that can be proven true, only one that can be proven false. Brian Drent cannot possibly have examined every collection in the country to determine that, as a factual matter, there was no other T5 Jackson. Noone considering spending huge bucks on the card could possibly have believed Brian Drent was in a position to know for sure there was no other T5 Jackson. So all you have, at the end of the day, is a presumably truthful representation by Brian that he believed based on his research there wasn't another one out there. That to me doesn't mean a hell of a lot, no disrespect to Brian. I can certainly see the logic of what you are saying, and I don't think by any means this is an open or shut case and a plaintiff represented by a good advocate such as Kenny Cole could make out a sympathetic case. But in my view, no buyer could reasonably rely on a representation about the uniqueness of a card.<br /><br />Now having said that, I also believe Brian didn't really represent that it was unique, he only represented that based on his diligence he BELIEVED the card was unique, and that statment presumably was truthful. Leaving aside the reliance issue, if he overstated the extent of his diligence, or if his diligence was so obviously below a standard of care, then the statement could form the basis of a negligent misrepresentation action -- but again I see a reasonable reliance problem.

Archive
08-25-2006, 09:15 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Here is what I think the best plaintiff's case would be IF certain facts were proven, and as I sit here I of course have no idea what Brian did and didn't do. Anyhow, here is the best case scenario as I see it. I, the plaintiff, did not rely on Brian to conclude the card was in fact unique. However, based on what Brian said about the extent of his due diligence, it certainly in my mind made the chances that it was unique a lot stronger, so I was willing to pay a lot more for it. That was reasonable, as Brian has a lot more expertise than I do and claimed he had done thorough research into the matter. In fact, although Brian represented that his due dilgence was extensive, it wasn't -- he didn't do x y and z which a responsible dealer would have done before making the claims he did. Therefore, while I have no reason to believe Brian KNEW there was another T5 out there, he had no business suggesting there wasn't -- in other words, he made the representation negligently, with no reasonable basis for doing so. As a result, I overpaid by x, and want part of my money back -- or I want to rescind the deal altogether.<br /><br />EDITED TO ADD: Leon, you don't necessarily need fraud, a claim can be brought based on NEGLIGENT misrepresentation, where the seller makes a statement without a reasonable basis for knowing whether or not it is true. <br /><br />

Archive
08-25-2006, 09:50 AM
Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>In regard to the issue of uniqueness, I have never had reason to doubt that MHCC really did not know of the existence of another one when they wrote their catalog description. While at the end of the day I think they could have performed their due diligence a bit better and been a bit more careful in how they described the card's scarcity, their actions in this regard is not what triggered this thread. I also agree with you that one would think that bidders, especially those prepared to pay that kind of money, should reasonably know that there is really no way of knowing how many are out there and that another one could turn up at any time, especially with the publicity generated by a staggering reported realized price.<br /><br />My agreement that a bidder would not be acting reasonably by believing the card is unique, coupled with a poster on this Board coming out before the close of the auction and flat out saying he knew of the existence of another one, is one reason I responded so skeptically to the underbidder, an experienced dealer at that, using the uniqueness argument as a principal justification for going as high as he did in the MHCC auction but then rejecting the opportunity to buy the Mastro one when it was privately offered.

Archive
08-25-2006, 10:04 AM
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Corey,<br /><br />It seems that Greg has very clearly explained himself. Either you believe him or you don't. Either way, I don't see the purpose of rehashing your perspective of his (faulty) thought process...<br /><br />What am I missing?

Archive
08-25-2006, 11:33 AM
Posted By: <b>Patrick McMenemy</b><p>The T5 Jackson w/o the white border and the gray mount was lot #187 in the Copeland Collection (March 1991). The damaged bottom left corner is a match.<br /><br />Patrick

Archive
08-25-2006, 11:36 AM
Posted By: <b>Bottom of the Ninth</b><p>Corey<br /><br />In order to have meaningful and constructive communication with people it is essential that both parties be able to listen and understand what the other party is saying or writing. You seem to really be struggling with this one. Your obsession of MHCCC or me is obviously preventing you comprehending this situation. You are placing words in my mouth and totally disregarding what I have written. <br /><br />I am going to ask you nicely this one time to please refrain from making further insults and disrespectful comments towards or about me. You do not know me and where I come from this is entirely inappropriate. If you want to be a man and take this off of the board I would be more than happy to discuss this with you via phone or email. If you want to continue to spin your theories and be disresptful I would be more than happy to introduce you to another side of me.<br /><br />Greg<br />

Archive
08-25-2006, 12:20 PM
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Beyond a reasonable doubt is a criminal term, preponderance of the evidence is a civil term, at least in this and most other states. Misrepresentation, a civil creature, in our bailiwick, does not require intent to deceive thus there would be no need to prove the seller/auction house had intentionally tried to deceive the buyer in to believing the card was unique and one of a kind. I recognize the "puffery" argument but I think a strong case could be made for recission of the contract and/or damages based on the facts set forth above. The plaintiff need only show that the statement was false and that he relied upon the statement by a bare 50.1% showing of proof. The auction house would be held to a higher standard than that of Joe Blow who operates a mom and pop junk shop or Fred Cardboy who sells used clocks, appliances and a few refractor cards from the 90's. The statement that MHCC thoroughly investigated the situation and found that based on that investigation that it could state the card was unique, is damning. I am assuming MHCC probably is relying on the civil law of remedies in the state in which it is incorporated but it should thank its lucky stars it isn't located in this State because I think the buyer would have plenty of ammunition to pursue the redress of a civil wrong under our laws IMHO.<br />Caveat- I am a criminal defense attorney, not a civil litigator, but I did sleep in a Holiday Express last night <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />

Archive
08-26-2006, 04:47 AM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>I am not a lawyer and I know very little about the law. But as a betting man, I'd be shocked if Mile High loses a court battle on the T5 Jackson.

Archive
08-26-2006, 06:55 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Civil fraud is one of my main areas of practice. <br /><br />Normally, an auctioneer has disclaimers in its rules. MHCC has some:<br /><br />"While we as a firm perform due diligence in order to maintain the integrity of our auctions, we encourage bidders to use every resource available to them to draw their own conclusions. As a firm we will make every effort to help in the process. Because of our efforts to ensure the authenticity of the items within the catalog as well as the opportunity we offer bidders to confirm our findings as well as that of our experts and third party authentication, it is our policy that all sales will be considered final. "<br /><br />"USER EXPRESSLY AGREES THAT USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT USER'S SOLE RISK. THE SERVICE IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS" AND & "AS AVAILABLE" BASIS. THIS AUCTION SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND"<br /><br />Oddly, they don't have a limitation on returns of non-graded items, Their returns poliy is: "Returns - Returns of graded cards are not allowed. We will make every effort by the above means to describe as accurately as possible any graded card in the auction for you. The emphasis, therefore, is on the bidder to ensure that the lots are satisfactory and are not returned." This is a lousy clause. It is a negative pregnant; by covering only graded cards, it implies ungraded items are open for returns.<br /><br />In my state, the "as-is" language, claims that sales are final, and the disclaimer of warranties [not quoted here] would not trump all misrepresentation claims and the hole left in the returns policy would give a plaintiff a shot at rescission. The issue would center around (1) what did they really do as due diligence to let them say the card was unique, (2) did they really flat out say it was unique or did they say something else that could be construed as a non-actionable opinion.

Archive
08-26-2006, 08:29 AM
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>Their description starts with :<br /><br />"It is not often within the organized hobby of Sports Collectibles that one can be nearly assured that an item is one of a kind or unique, but after performing our due diligence in regards to research, we are confident that this is the one and only example of a 1911 T5 Pinkerton cabinet of Joe Jackson extant. "<br /><br /><a href="http://auction.milehighcardco.com/displayitem.php?item=2&category=Closed%20Auction" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://auction.milehighcardco.com/displayitem.php?item=2&category=Closed%20Auction</a>

Archive
08-26-2006, 09:21 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>In California wouldn't reasonableness of reliance also be an issue? I still think irrespective of how you construe the operative language in the auction that King just cited (and I agree with you, the key issues there are how close does it come to a guarantee and what due diligence did Brian actually do), a flaw in the plaintiff's case would be that it was unreasonable to assume Brian Drent whatever he claimed was in a position to know for a fact that the T5 was unique. How on earth could he be? You can't prove a negative, at least not this one. That said, I can see a claim that the buyer paid more than he might otherwise have because Brian's assurance increased his confidence that the card was unique although it didn't give him an absolute belief that it was, as mentioned in my prior post.<br /><br />This really would be an interesting case, no question.

Archive
08-26-2006, 09:53 AM
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Reasonableness of reliance is always an issue for the jury (proving reasonable reliance is one of the elements of the tort), but is relatively easy to overcome in a situation where a purported expert makes a material representation of fact supposedly based on his thorough investigation of the facts. In this case it would be less of an issue because the basic cause of action would be rescission, which could be for misrepresentation or material mistake. If the card isn't unique, the materiality of the mistake is apparent.

Archive
08-26-2006, 10:43 AM
Posted By: <b>Peter_Spaeth</b><p>Adam whle I generally agree with your assessment of reasonable reliance in the context of a representation by a purported expert, I think it is a much harder question given the highly unusual nature of the representation at issue, namely that there are no other cards on earth of the same type as the one for sale. Expertise seems to me to give way to common sense here: what rational person, especially a presumably sophisticated buyer, could reasonably believe such a representation? Would anyone here have relied on Brian Drent for the proposition that the Jackson was unique, for example?

Archive
08-26-2006, 10:56 AM
Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>If this Jackson is ungraded, and therefore no presumptive way to have an objective catalogue, i.e. the PSA Pop report, to track the number of issues available, how can anyone make the claim that this card is one of a kind? <br />I mean, isn't it possible that there are several more of these Jacksons stored in safes, boxes, desks, drawers, all over the country? MH, or any auction house for that matter, seems to have no way to tell that the card they offered is the only one in existence. <br />And as we have discovered, it is not.<br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

Archive
08-26-2006, 01:59 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>Josh, you are right, but which way does it cut is the interesting question. Does it mean Brian had no right to make the statement, or does it mean noone could reasonably have relied on the statement? Or both?

Archive
08-26-2006, 02:41 PM
Posted By: <b>Josh Adams</b><p>Peter, <br />I think the reasonable prudent person in the buyer's position (who happens to have $100K to spend on a baseball card) should probably know that just because the auction house says the T5 is the only one out there, doesn't exactly make it so. <br />Is this just puffery by the auction house? I don't think so, because as king put it, the first line states as fact that this card is the only one in existence. If the auction house said "it's the only known Jackson as of the date of this printing" then this whole problem could have been avoided. See, it's all about the drafting.<br />In the end, I think it's a question of reliability for the jury to decide! <br><br>Go Go White Sox<br />2005 World Series Champions!

Archive
08-26-2006, 02:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Spaeth</b><p>So true. I cannot count the number of cases I have been involved in that resulted from ambiguously worded contracts. Brian also could have said, based on my due diligence which included the following, to the best of my knowledge it is the only one in existence. But I guess this is all hindsight, and at the time it probably seemed highly unlikely anything would come along to show that the more aggressive statement (if one interprets it as a factual statement that the card was unique) was false.

Archive
08-26-2006, 06:17 PM
Posted By: <b>Gilbert Maines</b><p>the item description could have misled a somewhat educated buyer

Archive
08-27-2006, 10:11 AM
Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>The lot description specifically recognizes the fact that cards usually cannot be deemed "unique." But it then goes on to say that this case is the exception and the seller has done the research to prove it. I'd say that's a huge point in the buyer's favor in any lawsuit, even though I agree that any buyer who believed the description was guilty of a little wishful thinking.<br /><br />I also think that the fact that T5s typically are NOT unique is another point in the buyer's favor. If an auction house said that an Alpha or an Allegheny was unique, every sophisticated buyer knows exactly what that statement is based upon, and knows that there is some small possibility of duplicates showing up. But there is no similar story of uniqueness behind the T5 set. So the seller's claim of "due diligence" adds something to the equation. It tells buyers that the seller has done some research on this specific card that is not widely known and that this research has led the expert seller to the conclusion that the card is unique.

Archive
08-27-2006, 10:49 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Unique is a tricky area. If I say there are 4 or 5 known of something and it turns out there are 7, nobody cares. But if I call something unique and there are two, then it becomes sticky. Of course, what is the definition of due diligence when there are collectors who own things they keep secret and don't want others to know about. If there are ten T5 Jacksons and the nine other collectors have kept that private, you can be sure a reported price of 180K will shake a few of those out. I don't think the buyer has any recourse, if the auction house genuinely was not aware of other examples. If they were deliberately holding back information and it could somehow be proven, that is something else.

Archive
08-27-2006, 07:53 PM
Posted By: <b>Preece1</b><p>Since I have been asked this question by over a dozen collectors over the last 2 weeks, I wanted to let everyone know that I DID NOT purchase either of the T5 Jackson cards. I am primarily a 19th century guy <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>