How to get ripped off by SCP Auctions & Sotheby's [Archive]

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:12 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffSTEP ONE: Bid on and win an auction item. STEP TWO: Pay for it. It's that simple. At least it was for me. I posted on the vintage memorabilia board a week or two ago about an item I won from Sotheby's/SCP Auctions. Here's a link to that thread: <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/567138/thread/1187655256/last-1187720131/Should+it+stay+or+should+it+go+now-+1927+Cuban+Stars+panorama" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/567138/thread/1187655256/last-1187720131/Should+it+stay+or+should+it+go+now-+1927+Cuban+Stars+panorama</a>. The item was lot #93 "1927 PANORAMIC PHOTOGRAPH OF EASTERN COLORED LEAGUE OPENING GAME WITH DIHIGO, OMS, MESA, POMPEZ AND OTHERS." in their last auction. I paid $9,816 ncluding BP and shipping. Here is a link to a page I created that has tons of pictures of what I received. You can click on any of the images on the page to see higher resolution examples. These photos tell the story by themselves: <a href="http://cubanbaseballcards.com/SCP-SothebysBastards.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cubanbaseballcards.com/SCP-SothebysBastards.html</a> The bottom line is that they have decided to rip me off by telling me "There's nothing we can do for you." I was told that yesterday by Dan Imler at SCP. I'd been talking to him for the last week or so and had thought I was close to having the whole thing taken care of. When he asked me what I wanted or what I had in mind as far as compensation I told him I was thinking somewhere around $3,000 or $4,000 (30 or 40 percent) seemed fair to me based on the obvious damage on the item I received that was not on the image in the catalog or website. I even said I'd be willing to take that in auction credit. Here's a small example of the catalog photo vs. what I received: <img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/panorama-comparison.jpg"> The item I received had been framed and matted, even though this was never mentioned in the description. I still have no idea why. But I left it in the cheap, crappy frame that it was so carelessly framed in (no way was this framed by a professional) until yesterday when I was told "There's nothing we can do for you." I had honestly expected Imler to call me and say it was a done deal, check's in the mail. After he looked at the images I e-mailed him of the item I received compared to the one I bid on, he agreed that there was considerable damage on the one I had that was not visible in the catalog. He just said that he needed to discuss it with the powers that be and he'd get back to me. I assume the "powers that be" are the one(s) who masterminded the "nothing we can do for you" plan. I should probably mention that I have no interest in pursuing any legal action here, nor did I ever. I don't even care what the legal case would be here. I think the justification that was used when they decided to screw me was that the auction was June 5th, the consignor has been paid, etc. Whether it's legal for them to screw me or not, it still isn't right. I was not looking for anything more than a fair resolution and truly thought that would happen, but that's just not the way things went. I'd been holding back and a little reluctant to post because a friend of mine who I like and respect is affiliated with the company, but had absolutely nothing to do with this deal. I'm pretty sure he's disappointed by how this has gone, too. Anyway, once I took the photo out of the frame it became clear to be that this was more fraudulent that I originally thought. When I suggested the possibility that the defects had been photoshopped out of the catalog image, he assured me that there absolutely no possible way they had been photoshopped. After seeing the back of the photo, I can't see how that is possible because many of the creases and cracks appear to have been there for a while and several of the tears have even been repaired. My point is, I was ripped off by Sotheby's/SCP Auctions and I figured other board members might like to know who they're dealing with when they bid in those auctions. What you see is absolutely not what you get. At least not for me. -Ryan Christoff

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:18 PM

Posted By: Kenny ColeThanks for letting us know how SCP and Sotheby's takes care of non-disclosure problems. Given your experience, I will not be bidding in their auctions.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:21 PM

Posted By: MattFirst of all, thanks for posting this - it's great information for all of us to keep in mind. Secondly, I feel really bad for you - there's nothing worse then being taken advantage of. Thirdly I would suggest you do indeed pursue legal action - even if you don't care about the outcome (you'd probably get all of your money back), it would force them to be more careful next time, knowing that they might have to fight lawsuits off if they pull more of this crap in the future.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:29 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaSorry to hear it Ryan. I have never bid with Sotheby's before, but this will give me great pause to ever do any kind of business with them. How come the auction catalog photo is Sepia toned?

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:33 PM

Posted By: leonAs I told you on the phone I think they handled this very poorly. I will be very careful IF I bid in their auctions. One thing I can say about most auction houses is that when they make a mistake they fix it very professionally. We all will make mistakes....it's how we handle them that matters....Thanks for posting this..

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:36 PM

Posted By: Jason Lin doing honest business in this industry/hobby?! Ryan, very sorry to hear about this. This doesn't look like the same picture at all. toning, creases, bends, tears, wrinkles...there's just way too much wrong with it to be a fair representation of the same product. I will not bid in SCP Auctions, and I will encourage others to similarly avoid their events if asked. Honestly, I don't care how much money you have, you still don't have the time or inclination to deliberately chance spending it with as poor results as this. Edited to add: Leon, I don't know that you could call this a "mistake" because the two pictures so vastly different. This might be correctly categorized as something else.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:36 PM

Posted By: David BowdenAlso notice how the two different pictures are cropped.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:37 PM

Posted By: Dave FMaybe just my eyes but it looks like you can see a bunch of the creases in the top photo...especially the one at the top where the word eastern is down below...definately appears anyway some doctoring would have been done here.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:42 PM

Posted By: Jim VBI agree with Matt. You should take legal action. You have been sold an item that is not as advertised. The pictures in the catalog have clearly been retouched (perhaps they do not technically use Photoshop, but the used some photo editing software.) Your decision to sue, or not, will impact their actions in the future. Those actions impact all of us. I'm curious as to what their explanation for the differences is. They need to explain the damages, sepia tone, the framing and the repairs, among other things. I don't understand companies that don't try to reasonably accommodate their customers.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:47 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI think we all know from experience the power of this board. Hopefully in the end you will get some restitution.

Archive

09-07-2007, 02:55 PM

Posted By: Jim VBRyan, One more thing, Sotheby's, being a publically traded company, does have other avenues of recourse. I'd begin a professional letter writing campaign to the Board of Directors. <a href="http://www.sothebys.com/about/corporate/as_corpboard.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.sothebys.com/about/corporate/as_corpboard.html</a> Following that, I'd be talking to my local FBI agents. They seem to be interested in fraud in the collectibles industry. Am I mistaken, or are you in Southern Florida? (edited to add the link)

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:00 PM

Posted By: Ricky YWow I recall seeing that piece in the catalogue and I agree it looks nothing like the item received. Given the magnitude of the discrepancy and the dollars involved this should be resolved to the satisfaction of the bidder. I think Ryan's counter proposals are more than fair. Best wishes in getting this resolved. Ricky

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: JosephIn the previous thread (which everyone should read) I'd wondered whether the sepia toning of the catalog pictures was used to mask problems. Ryan, just to be sure, the photo you've received is NOT sepia toned, right? If it's not, then we might be dealing with a case of fraud rather than non-disclosure. Sotheby's should be ashamed of themselves for allying with a company that allows such practices...but then again, I guess Sotheby's is beyond shame these days. Take a look at the upcoming SCP/Sotheby's auction....in addition to some fine lots, there's some dubious ad pieces in there. Outrageous!

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Did he offer to give you a full refund if you returned the item?

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:06 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffNo refund of any kind was offered at any point. The photo is NOT sepia. -Ryan

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:08 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Then I think you gotta sue. $10k is enough on the line to at least retain an attorney and send a threatening letter to get them to negotiate.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:08 PM

Posted By: Peter ThomasRyan - very sorry to hear and SEE this. Clearly same item with image doctored. Jim - Ryan is in Colorado

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:10 PM

Posted By: Phil GarryRyan: I agree with you 100%. How did they explain the vast differences between their scanned version of the piece as compared to the actual item that you won? I also had a problem with another of SCP's recent auctions where they had a Negro League Team Photo as one of their lots and it was identical to a fake that I had recently encountered online elsewhere. When I called them and questioned the item's authenticity, they stated that they are unsure about its authenticity and a couple of other people have brought it to their attention. A couple of weeks later, and about one week before the conclusion of the auction, the lot was withdrawn. This was one of the first times that I encountered a major auction house not being aware of a counterfeit item like that.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:10 PM

Posted By: Anonymous.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:13 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Joe, which ad pieces are fake? I have already bid on several.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:17 PM

Posted By: Cobby33Unfortunately they're not the only auction house with these unlawful policies.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:19 PM

Posted By: JosephWait a minute, maybe you shouldn't tell O'Keeffe about it: he may do a piece on your ordeal and the panorama will end up selling for 15 grand in six months!! Just kidding. You should try that avenue. A phone call from the Daily News to one of the individuals you dealt with might work wonders. We are so with you Ryan.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:22 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaAaron, the Gehrig Ken Wel sign is dubious at best.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:24 PM

Posted By: Seth B.Ryan, good luck. The picture was clearly misrepresented, and the fake sepia tone just screams photoshop to me. What I don't understand is this: someone who is willing to spend 10,000 on an auction is likely willing to purchase something again. This isn't like losing a $150 customer here; a simple reimbursement or a chance to reauction the item would have done such a good job here at smoothing things out. Hopefully this thread does something for you, keep us posted...

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:24 PM

Posted By: peter chaoRyan, Was the auction conducted from their main office in California? Another possibility is contact the local district attorney's office, they normally have a consumer fraud division or something similar to that. Keep us informed on your progress. Peter C.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:30 PM

Posted By: JKUnbelieveable. I had planned to bid on a couple items in this auction. I wont be doing so now. I also think its worth pursuing further.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:32 PM

Posted By: Peter SpaethYikes, this defense lawyer is having a hard time coming up with a defense here given the photos. Cole wins this one hands down.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:35 PM

Posted By: Paul MossDisgraceful, utterly disgraceful.

Archive

09-07-2007, 03:44 PM

Posted By: leonI just looked at their current auction and I would have definitely bid on some items....I will be sitting this one out.....

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:00 PM

Posted By: barrysloatePeter- the photo appeared in their last live auction in NYC. Sotheby's has no case here. The one thing they do have is the power of being a billion dollar company. But they've done a lot of damage in the way they handled this. A few thousand dollars for them is in their petty cash box. They spend more on champagne and hors d'oeuvres to regale their fat cat clients.

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:08 PM

Posted By: Steve DawsonLet's see..... SCP just made a few hundred G's on the PSA 8 Wagner... So..... Seems to me that they ought to be wiring $10K of that to Ryan!!! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> JMO Steve

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:35 PM

Posted By: RichardSorry to hear of your problems dealing with SCP as well. I will not be bidding either.

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:37 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanDisgraceful. Ripping Ryan off for 10K is costing them how much now? I hope they make this right soon.

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:38 PM

Posted By: Robwhat gets me most in the differences in photos is #4, where the catalog photo shows a complete square corner, and in reality a chunk of the corner is actually MISSING. i hope you are able to get your money back and these guys will pay even more in the long run due to bad rep. Rob <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:43 PM

Posted By: Paul SIt's a shame. Especially considering your graciousness at offering to accept at less value something you may not even have otherwise bid on. The full amount is peanuts to them. Good luck!

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:50 PM

Posted By: John SRyan, Very sorry to hear of this...as others have stated I will not be bidding in any future SCP auctions. These are the types of stories that really cast a poor image of our hobby.

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:55 PM

Posted By: barrysloateWell, they saved a few thousand dollars and lost about twenty potential bidders. Not a good trade off as I see it.

Archive

09-07-2007, 04:59 PM

Posted By: David DavisI just e-mailed Dan Imler at SCP/Sotheby's and wrote that when it is time to sell my collection I will not be considering them because of this issue. Not bidding in their auction and their having less items to sell are two ways to hurt them.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:04 PM

Posted By: Al C.risafulliThat sucks, Ryan. What sucks worse is that in a case like this, it's actually more difficult for a company to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right one. -Al

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:06 PM

Posted By: leonI do need to ask folks to put their names by their posts in this thread. The rules are always the same in these cases. Say what you want to but you need to be known...and an email address is required too...This protects everyone.......Thanks for the understanding.....

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:15 PM

Posted By: Steve MurrayMake that 21. (And I just perused the auction and there are some pretty neat items that I will not be bidding on.)

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:18 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI know Steve. This is bad stuff...and Ryan didn't even ask for a refund, he just asked for an adjustment.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:18 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI presume that someone from SCP reads this forum and will do the right thing; after all, there is a lot of cash to be spent by our members. In the end, the bottom line is the bottom line and any remotely competent businessman will come to realize the financial significance of this forum.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:27 PM

Posted By: Dan KravitzSomeone should forward this to anyone who cares at SCP. I was going to bid strong on 5 items, and I have decided not to give SCP one cent until this issue is resolved.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:31 PM

Posted By: Greg SonkI've been lurking here for a few years, but never before felt the need to post. I just wanted to thank Ryan for calling this to the community's attention. Speaking as someone who has undertaken the transition from modern to pre-war in the last few years, I can honestly say the open sharing of knowledge on this board has proven invaluable. I, too, will not be bidding in any of their upcoming auctions. Everything else aside, I sincerely hope they make this right by Ryan, as he has clearly been wronged. I hope my grammar meets Mr. Sloate's standards. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:31 PM

Posted By: David SmithDo you think Sotheby's REALLY cares about we baseball card collectors? I mean, what little they lose as far as Commisions from us not bidding on their items is inconsequential to them. So some people on this board "say" they are not going to bid. That doesn't mean it is true. That also doesn't speak for everyone on this board. Nor does it speak for collectors who have never heard of this board. I am not going to bid on anything for the simple fact that I do not have the money to do so. But just because "we" don't bid, it isn't going to make a bit of difference to Sotheby's bottom line. Look, if their auction grosses $5 million and they get a 20% Buyers Fee, that is $1 million dollars. If the people on this board don't bid an Sothebys only grosses $4.5 million, then that is only $100,000 lost as far as Commissions go. Not really a big deal in the scheme of things. What WOULD make a dent and a difference is if a baseball card or sports memorabilia collector ALSO collected art and REFUSED to bid on or consign something like a $30 million dollar painting. THAT would send a clear signal that messing over a sports memorabilia collector DOES have negative consequences. David

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:31 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Barry, I often think it's harder for an auction house to make an adjustment than it is to offer a full refund. It's hard to quantify what the adjustment should be (bidder and auction house could have very different ideas) and sets up a precedent that most auction houses would like to avoid (otherwise they could be inundated with winning bidders requesting incremental adjustments based on varying degrees of disparity between the item's description and what was actually received). But in cases such as this where an item is so grossly mischaracterized (to me just the mere fact that a B/W photo was shown sepia-toned is enough of a material difference to warrant a full refund) a full refund should be offered. That way the winning bidder is made whole, the auction house can still re-offer the item, and the auction house knows that the winning bidder wasn't just trying to squeeze a discount out of them.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:38 PM

Posted By: jay behrensThere are around 1100-1200 regulars to this board, according to Leon. My guess is that about 10% of that is regular contributors. Now multiply by 10 the number people who have come forward saying they won't bid and you have pretty good idea of what impact this is having. Jay The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:42 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanDavid, I usually share your cynicism but not in this case. Perhaps baseball cards are not a big part of Sotheby's business but it is still part of their business. Bad news can still infect the larger part of their auction business because a loss in revenue one year is lost forever.

Archive

09-07-2007, 05:53 PM

Posted By: leonthe last few days of Unique IP addresses....since Monday was a holiday for most I feel it is a good indicator of how many folks look at the board. On regular work days folks might use 2 computers (home and work) so that would be 2 Uniques.....If I were a consignor I would be very unhappy.... Sun, Sep 2..... 1,020 Mon, Sep 3..... 1,103 Tue, Sep 4..... 1,278 Wed, Sep 5..... 1,332 Thu, Sep 6..... 1,115

Archive

09-07-2007, 06:03 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusMy take is Sotheby's very well may not care, but SCP will. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Moral of the story though (and in saying this I share the disgust of the Board over what has transpired), NEVER bid on a photographic item based soley on a catalogue depiction/description. Too often they omit/misrepresent material details (often innocently, though sometimes not). If on-site inspection is not possible, then call someone at the auction house, ask them to take the item in hand, and then ask your questions. EDITED for spelling (thanks Barry)

Archive

09-07-2007, 06:06 PM

Posted By: barrysloateGreg- welcome to the board, and I didn't know my pedantic ways are so well known, even to lurkers. I better watch myself! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Aaron- I've had a few situations recently where a customer has had an issue with something he won in my auction and I have had to make an adjustment. It's basically a negotiation, finding a dollar amount that both sides can live with. Maybe the buyer wanted a little more and I preferred to send him a little less, but we came to a compromise.

Archive

09-07-2007, 07:00 PM

Posted By: Fred CRyan, You're kidding right... this is something Rod Serling couldn't have concocted or thought of... wow, that is just flat out WRONG and bad business. Sotheby and SCP I sure hope you guys look at what $3K (or so) is going to cost you guys in the long run.

Archive

09-07-2007, 07:02 PM

Posted By: Jason Leinberger...

Archive

09-07-2007, 07:23 PM

Posted By: Steve fI hope they do the proper thing to make this right. Although you recieved a markedly "different" item, I sure would be unhappy if a return was the only settlement. That is one fantastic shot. SCP, don't mess up twice.

Archive

09-07-2007, 07:29 PM

Posted By: JayBecause of their association with Sothebys, SCP already operates at a competitive disadvantage relative to other major auction houses in that they must charge tax to winning bidders from virtually every state. I would think that they would not want to compound this disadvantage with bad publicity. Perhaps I was wrong.

Archive

09-07-2007, 08:08 PM

Posted By: Marc S.I feel like I'm in a grown-up version of those picture games you used to play as a kid. The ones with two pictures, and you had to identify all the differences between the two. What gross misrepresentation. It is truly pathetic that they have treated you like they have -- were I in your shoes, this would be one of those situations whereby I would have happily come to some sort of agreement, but at this stage would litigate for the principle alone. Marc

Archive

09-07-2007, 08:14 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffThanks for all the responses. I appreciate everyone taking the time to read about this, even though it still feels a little weird to have to start this kind of thread knowing the kind of impact it might have on a company. Having said that, I have absolutely zero sympathy in this particular case. Not because I'm the one they're getting over on, but because this was so easy to prevent. If there had been an ounce of integrity involved in their decision they would have made this right, whether it cost them a few thousand dollars as an adjustment or the full $10,000 to buy it back. Either way, they would have gotten a bunch of that money back right away from the stuff I would have been bidding on in their current auction. But even with zero integrity, all it would require is a shred of business sense to see that it would have just been good business to make it right, especially when not doing so could have such easily predictable negative consequences. Think about some of the larger auction house whose business practices have come into question lately. Do you think any of them would have allowed this situation to get to the point where I posted on the board about it? No way. They’re smarter than that. When Dan Imler said he talked to the powers that be and told me there was nothing they could do for me, all I said to him was “Well, you’re making a big mistake.” and “You’ll regret it.” Not only was it an incredibly short-sighted decision, but they could have ended this a few weeks ago when I first brought it up. Had they offered me a full refund two weeks ago, I doubt I would have taken it. And that would be that. They would have done the right thing by offering a refund, even if I didn’t take them up on their offer. I bid on this photo because I want to keep it. I never asked for a refund. In fact, I never asked for a partial refund or any kind of adjustment. In the conversations I had with Dan Imler all I said I wanted was something that was fair. Whatever he and I decided that would be. Later, when he asked what I had in mind, that’s when I said I was thinking something in the $3,000 to $4,000 range and let him know that I would have accepted it in auction credit if they didn’t want to give me any money. Never once was I offered any kind of refund or compensation at all. I simply asked that Dan Imler look at the pictures I e-mailed him and then tell me if he thought the item I got was in the same condition as the item in the catalog. After seeing the pictures, he agreed with me that there is, without question, damage that simply was not there, or was made to look like it was not there on the catalog image. In case it was hidden in my original post, all of the pictures of this item can be seen here: <a href="http://cubanbaseballcards.com/SCP-SothebysBastards.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cubanbaseballcards.com/SCP-SothebysBastards.html</a> I appreciate all the suggestions for ways that I can pursue them to get a refund, but you’re all forgetting the fact that I WANT THIS PHOTO! The way this all happened was absolutely not fair and I equate it to being stolen from, but this is a special piece and I want to keep it. It turns out that I wound up paying closer to $5,000 more than I should have, in my opinion, which I only realized once I took the photo out of the frame. Had they offered to give me $3,000 as an adjustment it would not have been enough, but I didn’t know that at the time and would have taken it. I collect Martin Dihigo cards and photos. This photo pictures him in 1927 as a member of the Cuban Stars just entering the absolute prime of his long and illustrious career. He was only 21 years old!!! HOFer Alejandro Pompez is also there in his nice clean suit, in charge of a team that also had Alejandro Oms, Champion Mesa, Bernardo Baro and other Cuban greats alongside Dihigo. Their opponents were the great Nip Winters and the rest of the Hilldale team, standing there ready battle the foreigners. Here are the boxscores from the two games they played, plus a little blurb about Dihigo's home runs, courtesy of the Baltimore Afro-American: <img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/panorama-boxscores1.jpg"> <img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/panorama-boxscores2.jpg"> <img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/panorama-boxscores3.jpg"> That's what Dihigo did on that day, probably a few hours, or maybe a few minutes, after posing for this amazing panoramic photo. The truth is, if this photo arrived cut in half, I still would have wanted to keep it. I just wouldn't want to have paid for a nice, uncut photo, only to receive a poor condition photo in two pieces. But I would gladly have paid the poor condition, cut in two pieces price. I think the only way I would consider returning it would be with the assurance that it would be auctioned off again, so I could bid on and hopefully win it again. But that doesn't work, either, because there is no way in hell I'm bidding on an auction run by those thieves. So there you have it. I don't want to return it and get my money refunded, but at least they haven't offered that. It would only complicate things and make me have to spend more time thinking about this ugly mess. -Ryan

Archive

09-07-2007, 09:26 PM

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)Ryan, sorry to hear about this mess. It sounds like your are stuck between a rock and a hard place since you really want to keep the photo. Out of curiosity, did you ask them about the condition of the photo? I ask this since their write up clearly states that there was damage, "...structural damage that includes mutltiple creases( one resulting in a small area of separation) and a small piece of the lower left corner missing." I am not in any way suggesting that they are not 100% at fault, just that the discrepancy of their description compared to the photo would have raised concerns with me. I wish you the best in getting an amicable resolution.

Archive

09-07-2007, 10:20 PM

Posted By: JayRyan--Your last post begs the question: if you knew the actual condition of the photo would you have bid as high as you did? If the answer is yes, and the possibility exists that the "underbidder" was the reserve, then I could see an arguement where you are not entitled to any refund.

Archive

09-07-2007, 11:27 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffJay, No, I would not have bid as much had I known the actual condition. There were several other lots I would have focused on instead. There were some truly amazing Negro League photos in that auction. I still might have gotten it, but if I'd won any of the other lots I would not have been able to afford bidding as much, even if I wanted to. Harry, I thought those flaws that were mentioned in the description were all visible in the image they posted. I noticed multiple creases, mostly near the left edge and left top border. I was also not bothered by the corner damage since it was barely visible in the image I was looking at. I had no idea they'd actually cropped that whole flaw completely out of the image in the catalog and on the website. I did factor all of those flaws into my decision on how much to bid. -Ryan

Archive

09-08-2007, 01:54 AM

Posted By: Dustan HedlinI am by no means a big player in auctions run by auction houses (hell, I just signed up for Sloate's auction and that's the first one I've ever been a part of), but I will also think twice before ever bidding on anything offered by this company. I'm sure my money is just a drop in the bucket for them, but bad reps spread; unfortunately much faster than good reps sometimes.

Archive

09-08-2007, 03:29 AM

Posted By: PaulSorry to hear that Ryan. Also, I cant even get the SCP auction to load to see what I'm not going to bid on.

Archive

09-08-2007, 07:07 AM

Posted By: Eric BI do not normally bid on items in the auction houses but I do plan on selling through them. I have about 6 one-of-a-kind items. Since many of you will avoid purchasing through them, I will NOT use SCP/Sotheby's.

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:07 AM

Posted By: johnMy first post here, always lurked and learned lots by simply reading. In any event....not that it makes any difference but.....The panoramic photo that is being discussed was without a doubt in the same low grade as Ryan has posted at the live event BEFORE the auction. I remember the photo because I initially had every intention of going after it. I just pulled my catalog from the sale and noticed I had written "DO NOT BID, VERY LOW GRADE-MUCH WORSE IN PERSON". Again, not that it makes in difference if you weren't there live, just some info. I can guarantee you that David is not aware of this because he is top notch all the way in matters like this.

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:13 AM

Posted By: JKThe fact that it was in the same low grade condition at the live event only supports the prevailing theory that the photo was altered to remove evidence of the defects or lessen their significance.

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:22 AM

Posted By: johnI seriously doubt anyone with SCP or Sothebys did anything to defraud the public. I can't imagine that you would intentionally alter the photo but then diplay it for all the public to see. Most digital scanners have the feature that filters out any faults and color corrections. If that feature was activated when scanning, the obvious faults would not show in the catalog. Probally a case of nobody editing the catalog. I am sure that david will take care of this. One thing I thought of.....why is this just now coming to light? The auction was in early June. I paid for and had my items in mid June. We are in September now. Did Ryan just notice this after 3 months?

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:28 AM

Posted By: JKI think you need to go back and read ryan's previous post - he stated that he has been trying to work something out for several weeks. Unlike some, he has chosen to post as a last resort - after he was told by SCP that they would not do anything to make this right. As to the scanner presets - most scanners will eliminate spots, dust, etc. No scanner will correct for creasing and no scanner crops photos to eliminate torn corners. You should really take a look at the link provided by ryan to the photos/scans that he made and you will see just how dramatically different they are from the scan in the catalog.

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:31 AM

Posted By: boxingbaseballgolf33What a mess, this maybe the worst year for careless actions from auctions and the hobby from eBay fraud to all the Mastro posts and now issues like this seem to be coming around more often. Sorry to here news like this, but keep your head up, there are great things about this hobby including this board and what I have learned. We all make mistakes, but when negligence takes over the hobby we have to ask what next and why? Take care Jimmy

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:45 AM

Posted By: barrysloateJohn- first, welcome to the board. But I have to disagree with you. If you have a scanner that's built to filter out faults, that works great if you are putting together an album of family photos, but not something that should be used for an auction catalog. I have someone who scans or takes digital pictures of lots for my own auctions. I give him a simple instruction: do not alter the color or tones of an image in any way. His goal is to capture the piece exactly the way it is; if it has flaws, the bidders need to see these flaws. It is clear that the photo in the catalog did not match the actual lot. And that's a very significant issue.

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:56 AM

Posted By: johnBarry-i agree 100% that using a scanner that filters out faults is not acceptable. We use a Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro that, contrary to what JK posted, will take out ANY fault including rips, tears, missing corners, etc. It retailed a few years ago for $4,000 and is not your run of the mill scanner. With a simple mouse click, you can activate the filter/fault correction mode. I would assume this is what happened as it would make no sense to purposely do this and then display it at the live event for all the world to see. Has Ryan spoken to David personally? I would be shocked if he has and received the same response. He would be the only one to deal with on this.

Archive

09-08-2007, 09:17 AM

Posted By: AlanHi Ryan - It was a great pleasure meeting you at the National. Sorry to hear about this with SCP/Sotheby's. Alan

Archive

09-08-2007, 09:43 AM

Posted By: Jim VBJohn, Welcome aboard. I think before you get too deep into this thread, you may need to go back and read all the posts in this and the attached threads from Ryan. Also look at his web site. This didn't start yesterday. He has been negotiating with SCP for months. Quietly, at first. Almost a month ago he posted here to get some ideas on what else he could do. Up until the last day or so, he assumed that it would be worked out one way or another. SCP (Dan) finally told him there was nothing they would do. As far as the scanner issue, sure your way is plausible. Another option is that the picture was re-touched by the printer. In either case, SCP is responsible, no one else. I have 30 years experience in the retail business. If you sell something through a catalog and it is not pictured as the item exists in real life, the seller is responsible. If that's the case, SCP should fall on their sword and make the customer happy. The avenue they have chosen says to Ryan (and the rest of this board) that his future business with them is not worth a couple of thousand dollars. That is very shortsighted thinking for a company that hopes to remain in business long term. The only other possibility is that the auctioneer was deliberately trying to fool the bidders. I agree that is not likely. I refuse to believe that anyone could be that stupid. If that could be proven, it would be a criminal case. In no instance can I see Ryan being at fault. He bought an item based on the catalog representation and that representation was misleading, at best. He deserves better.

Archive

09-08-2007, 10:04 AM

Posted By: johnJim- I agree that Ryan should be refunded, no question about it. Their is an obvious misrepresentation here. I saw the photo in person and it was not what appeared in the catalog. I had the benefit of being their live and did not bid due to the condition. I just hate to see posts where claims are made that their is some intentional fraud being conducted. I know David and that crew personally and they are first calss all the way. Again, I will be shocked if David is aware of this and has refused a price adjustment. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water either in terms of not bidding. There are some nice items that I know I'll be bidding on.

Archive

09-08-2007, 10:07 AM

Posted By: BobI wouldn't take this lying down, Ryan. You can add me to the list of people who won't be bidding in SCP/Sotheby auctions in the future unless this is amicably straightened out.

Archive

09-08-2007, 11:10 AM

Posted By: leonHow can you defend their actions? You yourself said it was a misrepresentation. OK, lets say that it was just an oversight and mistake. I will even give them that. Then, after the fact and seeing everything, they still say "nothing we can do"? That's kind of hard to swallow...and btw, if David K doesn't know about this yet then he might want to get a better handle on his business. My guess is that he does know about the issue. IF he doesn't then someone at his company should be reprimanded.

Archive

09-08-2007, 11:17 AM

Posted By: Cobby33It doesn't matter whether this was brought to SCP's attention in June, September or next June. If he was ripped off, he was ripped off. The only applicable limitation of time is the applicable statute of limitation in the jurisdiction which has authority over the transaction.

Archive

09-08-2007, 11:34 AM

Posted By: peter chaoI don't know who the consignor for the photo was, but I would think he/she would also have some responsibility in this matter. The consignor is looking at the photo in the catalog and sees that it has been touched up, he should bring it to the attention of the auction house that there probably will be bidders that will be misled. Peter C.

Archive

09-08-2007, 12:18 PM

Posted By: Keith ConfortiDeplorable actions by an auction house that I would have considered above such actions... very sorry that you got snookered. But, to the comment that an image correction/retouch filter was automatically run on this image does not cover all the retouching done on this image... those filters are remarkable at filling in scratches, dirt, spots, etc, but only user retouching could have "repaired" the missing corner in the lower left.

Archive

09-08-2007, 12:45 PM

Posted By: sagardThe missing corner was cropped by the matting and framing.

Archive

09-08-2007, 01:49 PM

Posted By: JimBFor what it is worth, the auction description does say, "The image quality of the photo is impressive in spite structural damage that includes multiple creases (one resulting in a small area of separation) and a small piece of the lower left corner missing." I would ask to speak to David Kohler personally if it were me, not someone who gets their marching orders from the "higher ups". I have personally have had only the best interactions with SCP. Clay is really great guy too. JimB Edited to add: Ryan, I am sorry that you are having to deal with this. I hope it works out in a way that you are happy with in the end.

Archive

09-08-2007, 05:18 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffJohn (nyyanksghr), I know you said you'd be shocked if David Kohler knew about this and refused a price adjustment, so you might want to be sitting down before you read this: David Kohler knew about this and refused a price adjustment. David was the one who made the decision. Had it been up to Dan Imler, it sounded to me like this would already have been resolved, but once Dan talked to David...well, that brings us to where we are now. Sorry to burst your SCP bubble. If this weren't the case, can you see any reason SCP (Kohler or Imler or some other employee) would not address this thread? -Ryan

Archive

09-08-2007, 08:14 PM

Posted By: Robert {Bigb13}I was also eyeing a couple of items in there current auction but now will sit this one out. To bad no one from SCP reads this board and can tell us what went on here. Rob

Archive

09-08-2007, 11:53 PM

Posted By: MartyWhat I see is the catalog photo is missing the bottom portion of the photo and the whole photo is held flat, thus masking issues with the top. I can still see most of the flaws and I am wondering if the flaws that I can not see are due to being flat. I am also wondering if the top photo is taken through glass, maybe tented, since there is some shin on the left side. Maybe the photo was not altered, but a photo of the phote taken in a method to hold the picture flat and thus mask the flaws. Cropping the photo, either through soft ware or by excluding it in the picture is intentionally deceptive IMO.

Archive

09-09-2007, 09:54 AM

Posted By: E, DanielWas following and planning to bid vigorously on 5 SCP items, am now suspending indefinitely all activity with this auction house. Daniel

Archive

09-09-2007, 06:28 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffOkay lawyers, I just read through this thread again and, after giving it some thought, am now leaning toward possibly pursuing this further. I have a few questions for the many legal eagles we have on the board: 1. How much more time would I have to waste if I did decide to sue them. Is there any compensation for that? I consider any time lost which I could have been spending with my kids to be valuable. 2. Would they have to pay for my lawyer fees when I win or would I win a settlement and then pay lawyer fees out of my pocket? 3. If I did sue and win, would the only recourse for me be to return the photo and get my original money back? Would it be possible to keep the photo and sue for the amount of value I've lost due to the damage it has? I do have an idea of about how much less it's worth compared to what I won it for, but that's only an opinion on my part. Thanks in advance for any advice or opinions anyone can offer. One of the main factors that is pushing me in the direction of pursuing this is the fact that I haven't received as much as a phone call or e-mail from anyone at SCP Auctions or Sotheby's about this, let alone a response to this thread. I don't care how busy they are with their Wagner sales and Bonds balls and current auctions. My guess is that they're consulting with their legal team before they respond. Not to seek guidance as to what would be the right thing to do, but to find out how to cover their asses, which is probably how they define "the right thing to do" in the first place. -Ryan

Archive

09-09-2007, 10:23 PM

Posted By: peter chaoRyan, Actually, in an earlier thread, Barry pretty much said it all. In most cases as a practical matter it's not worth pursuing litigation. Unfortunately your situation is one of them. You cannot get your attorney fees back. A better tactic is to go to the District Attorney in New York or the FBI. If you put pressure on them, they may give in. Why spend good money and make your losses more substantial? Peter C.

Archive

09-09-2007, 10:35 PM

Posted By: Jason MishelowHello Ryan I practice in Wisconsin so the local rules may be a bit different but here's a general attempt to answer your questions 1. It is very unlikely that you will be able to sue for lost time or lost wages incurred as part of figting the case. I think that attorney fees are a possibility. the general rule concerning fees is that you recover your fees if the court finds that the other party basically took a postion that had no legal merit. So its not just that you win the case but that judge decides that the auction house was justing wasting time. 2. If you come to some settlement with the auction house the parties can pretty much agree to anything that they want to- it could include atty fees, a partial payment, a credit- rarely would a judge fail to approve a stipulation that the parties present 3. As far as a dimished value type claim I think that you are correctly noting that the main issue is going to be presenting evidence as to value. You will most likely need a expert which may cost money 4. The most pressing problem however may be an issue concerning jurisdiction. This is way to complicated for this forum but to give a cliff notes version there are rules as to where a lawsuit can be commenced. These rules are even more complicated when dealing with corperation. i don't know where you live but it may be required that you sue the auction house in the auction houses home state. this is an issue a lawyer would need to do a fiar amount of research on So in sort it is not going to be that easy to sue but you may want to call around becuase this is the type of case that lawyers like to take if they feel that they can make some headlines In any event good luck- and ignore the spelling in this post- I am a much better lawyer then speller Jason

Archive

09-09-2007, 10:44 PM

Posted By: JKRyan, Recovery of attorney's fees will generally depend on jurisdiction and on the cause of action that you are pursuing. For example, in NC, deceptive conduct such as this could form the basis of a claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices (among others). This statute specifically permits the recovery of attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff as well as an automatic tripling of damages. Most states have statutes similar to NC's deceptive trade practices act, but as noted above, your options will depend on where the suit is brought.

Archive

09-10-2007, 06:33 AM

Posted By: Kenny ColeRyan, Pull out your Sotheby's/SCP catalog and look in the section setting forth the rules. I think it is very possible that it will contain a choice of law or forum selection clause setting forth which state's law will apply or where suit must be filed. If it does, and assuming that those provisions are enforceable, you will then be in a better position to determine your potential remedies and the answers to some of your other questions. Good luck. I hope you nail them. Kenny Cole

Archive

09-10-2007, 06:53 AM

Posted By: Joe D.But oh my! I am going to think twice about bidding in any SCP Auction. Actually to be a bit more blunt - I most likely will avoid them altogether. Looks like an obvious attempt to deceive. And then - the "nothing we can do for you" thats pretty bad stuff.

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:14 AM

Posted By: Solomon CramerA general note on negotiating a refund/adjustment request. I have generally found, both as buyer and seller, that requesting a full return/refund gives you more credibility. You're asking to reverse the transaction, be made "whole", and receive no benefit to the situation. I have often felt, as a seller, that when someone begins by asking for an adjustment, they are trying to renegotiate the price after the fact. I usually offered to take the item back for a full refund. Reading this thread, it sounds like Ryan still wants the item - he even asked if he'd have to return it if legal action was taken - but he wants to pay less. I understand his reasoning as a collector, and I think he is entitled to consideration from what he's presented. But from a seller's perspective, it can appear that he's trying to get a better deal on an item he doesn't want to return. Assuming there is nothing unknown, if he had contacted me in a reasonable amount of time after the end of the auction, my tendency would be to offer a full refund but not an adjustment, and let him make the decision if he wanted to keep the item. I had a similar case in my current business. I sold someone three F150 King Ranch, and he sent a truck to pick them up. When he got them, he said there was some undisclosed damage on them, and wanted an adjustment (about $3000 I think). I told him I'd pick them up (about 600 miles away) and give him a full refund. He refused...it was clear he'd already sold them, and was looking for a way to steal a few extra bucks. Again I recognize that Ryan isn't looking to profit from this, but in this industry where the line between collector and dealer is at best a faint one, the auction house may not make a distinction. FWIW, I never had any problems with SCP or Dave Kohler, though I had a more personal relationship with them when Kevin Struss was there 5+ years ago.

Archive

09-10-2007, 09:33 AM

Posted By: peter chaoRyan, As an attorney I'm trained to look at all the facts and I'll give you my reasons why I do not think there's fraud here. As JimB pointed out earlier, in the catalog description you were informed about the creases and the missing portion of the photograph. Also, the photograph is available to be inspected. Under common law (here in CA) there is a higher standard of proof in order to prove fraud. If you were able to show fruad, you would be entitled to attorney fees. Peter C.

Archive

09-10-2007, 09:40 AM

Posted By: JimBCan I request a couple lots in particular that people should not bid on? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> JimB

Archive

09-10-2007, 10:14 AM

Posted By: Joe D.As an attorney you are trained to look at the facts... so - here is a fact: SCP chose to crop the image in the EXACT place that would omit the flaws in the photograph. Why? Why was the cropping done just like that? Why was the cropping done in those exact places? The way I see it.... To make the item appear better than it actually is. TO DECEIVE. That description that was written or approved by SCP.... and that cropping that was created or approved by SCP - together they expemplify an intent to deceive. And why was the color punched up a bit? Punching up the color, creative cropping.... I'm not an attorney - but I don't think words in a description can make up for a deceptive photo. Do words in a description excuse a deceptive photo? edit to say: Solomon - very well said. I agree. Asking for a partial refund does muddy things up a bit for this transaction. Especially since the underbidder might very well (happily) take the item. A full refund or no refund makes sense. What bothers me is the "nothing we can do" answer - and the way the photo was presented to all bidders (in my opinion and obvious attempt to deceive).

Archive

09-10-2007, 10:38 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPeter, I'm curious who trained you. Really. Seriously. This is a layup for Ryan should this ever get in front of a jury notwithstanding Peter's training. Juries on planet Earth usually hate deep-pocketed corporations that screw the little guy out of relatively small dollars. That being said, due to the small dollar amount in question, legal fees will quickly dwarf the subject amount. There may be some civil lawyers on the board that would carry the spear, so to speak, for Ryan at least to the point of negotiating a settlement. Edited to add: while the picture may have been available for perusal and the description indicated some damage, just look at the actual picture compared to that which was included in the catalogue. Case closed.

Archive

09-10-2007, 10:55 AM

Posted By: barrysloateI disagree with the opinions that this is an all or nothing matter- that Ryan should either keep the photo for what he paid or return it for a full refund. If a few thousand dollar refund would make Ryan feel like he came out whole, and Sotheby's likewise agrees that that is the most logical route, then the matter is solved. I don't see why a compromise can't be the answer to this, if it makes both sides happy.

Archive

09-10-2007, 11:01 AM

Posted By: Joe D.I was not ruling out a compromise. If that makes both happy - that is great. Only... I do see Solomon's point... and if SCP were to offer Ryan a full refund for return of the product (instead of a partial refund) - I could understand their reasoning for wanting to do so. Then it would fall on Ryan to either accept or deny what I consider is a fair resolution. edit to say: and regardless of how this is resolved - it will not excuse the willful deception with regard to that photo.

Archive

09-10-2007, 11:53 AM

Posted By: barrysloateAnd I agree that an offer of a full refund is an acceptable resolution, but offering nothing at all is clearly an unacceptable one. P.S.- Joe, could you send me a quick email that I can respond to as your internetville one always gets kicked back. Thanks.

Archive

09-10-2007, 11:56 AM

Posted By: peter chaoJeff L., And where do you get your legal training from? In general, auction bidders are very sophisticated. I doubt that Ryan would get much sympathy. Also, this photo is probably pretty rare a finder of fact may very well think that Ryan got a bad deal but paid an amount that was within the ballpark for the photo. Also traditionally auction sales are "as is." Furthermore, the key reason why litigation would be prohibitively expensive is the need for an expert witness. The witness alone would probably charge around $5,000. I say that we help Ryan out. Let's start an internet boycott of SCP. The news will spread like wildfire and SCP would be quick to give in. Peter C.

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:07 PM

Posted By: barrysloatePeter- my auction rules are all sales are final; but if I grossly misrepresent something I'm going to have to bend my rules. I have no choice.

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:12 PM

Posted By: Joe D.Please answer this question: Legally, does a worded description excuse a deceptive photo? This photo was creatively cropped and the color was artistically adjusted to make it more appealing. Worse yet - as I examine it further.... There very well may have been some photo retouching (cloning / erasing of flaws) that was done.... look at the date under the player\'s feet on the right side. See that clear white crease line in Ryan\'s \"Actual\" depiction. Where is it in SCPs photo? Many of the creases have been dulled down a bit... but this particular crease is a complete mystery. Where is it?

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:25 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJoe D., I'm on Ryan's side, I'm just trying to save him some money on legal fees. If Ryan came into my office I would explain to him that lawsuits are all about money. It doesn't make any sense to sue over $10,000 unless there are potentially huge damages. I just don't see it. All I see is negligence on the part of SCP, here's what their attorney would argue. Most people would say that an auctioneer like a retail store has the right to display their items in the most favorable light. Perhaps SCP went overboard, but that is simply negligence and nothing more. Also, the fact remains that you need to show intent to decieve by preponderance of the evidence. This is higher than the "more likely than not" standard of torts. I just don't think Ryan can meet the standard of proof. Peter C.

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:30 PM

Posted By: barrysloateIf Ryan doesn't have enough proof here I am going to start buying Vg cards and offer them out as gem mint. Hey, I'll just tell the judge they looked gem mint to me.

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:33 PM

Posted By: Bob PomillaThe difference between the actual item and the way it is presented in the catalogue, is "simply negligence"???

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:41 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPeter, your responses are so consistently and mind-numbingly wrong that I acutally question whether or not you are even a licensed attorney. Negligence?

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:47 PM

Posted By: barrysloatePhotoshopping a photograph is not negligence. It is done deliberately to enhance an image so it looks better than it actually is. And I'm not even a lawyer.

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:50 PM

Posted By: ZinnPeter Chao, Attorney at Law, Chao & Lopez, 807 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94133 P.S. You really should give him some slack. JMHO

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:50 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanYes, Barry, but unlike Peter you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:53 PM

Posted By: barrysloate<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-10-2007, 12:57 PM

Posted By: Solomon CramerBarry, Obviously, any compromise that the two parties would reach that would satisfy both of them (or, in the spirit of compromise, if they were both unhappy!), would be fantastic. And I've made partial adjustments at times. In the case of disposable products or services, it is often the only solution - when someone is selling their time and expertise, they can't "take it back" and issue you a refund. My primary business is car rental - if someone rents a vehicle for a week, and wasn't happy with it, all I can do is make some sort of adjustment or offer of future credit. But equally, I've had cases that the person wasn't happy at the beginning of the transaction, and I told them to make a decision now, because we're not going to renegotiate later. Best example was during prom season, when kids would come in with their parents and demand a discounted rate because the car wasn't the color they wanted (despite the fact we don't gaurantee colors). In this case, if I were the seller, I might even prefer to offer an adjustment vs. a full refund - better to make 1/2 as much commission as nothing at all. But if I offered a full refund, and the customer refused and insisted on an adjustment - frankly I'd tell the person to pound sand. Again, the above is not really specific to Ryan's case. The only question I'd have is how long was it from the time of sale to when Ryan contacted SCP that there was a problem.

Archive

09-10-2007, 01:03 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanSolomon's points are well-taken. Ryan, perhaps you should give them a call about this on Monday or after their auction has ended. Perhaps after the public airing of this mess they will be more likely to realize that their refusal to provide you any relief was done in haste.

Archive

09-10-2007, 01:32 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaI'm no lawyer and maybe that's why what Peter Chao is saying seems logical to me...even though it seems clear to all of us that SCP was deceptive here I certainly wouldn't trust a jury or judge to rule in Ryan's favor in large part because SCP described the damage in their description. If Ryan is going to pursue this legally I think he needs to be damn sure that he's going to win the case. What may seem like a "slam dunk" here on the board may not be what happens in the real world. I'd just hate to see Ryan lay out a lot of money for a lawyer and travel and have him lose the case.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:15 PM

Posted By: Tom NievesI've been unable to locate SCP's Terms for this auction, but I suspect that you will likely find something in there similar to this excerpt from Memory Lane's Auction Terms: 8) Inquiries concerning condition are strongly advised. Internet and/or catalog pictures should NOT be used to determine condition or grade as in some instances pictures have been cropped or enlarged in order to provide the best possible representation of an item within the scale restrictions of the medium. We will be happy to provide detailed telephone descriptions as well as photocopies of lots upon request. Lots are also available for viewing, by appointment only. Telephone inquiries regarding condition as well as viewing appointments must be made prior to the auction closing date. Due to the heavy volume of calls on the auction closing date, condition inquiries will NOT be considered on the auction closing date. If so, Ryan has no case. Actually, even without that, I don't believe Ryan has a case here. What are the damages to Ryan? Look no further than Ryan's 10:14 PM post from September 6, 2007 to determine the damages. Ryan wrote: "Had they offered me a full refund two weeks ago, I doubt I would have taken it. And that would be that. They would have done the right thing by offering a refund, even if I didn’t take them up on their offer. I bid on this photo because I want to keep it." If Ryan was not interested in taking a full refund for this item, he is essentially saying that he would prefer to have this item (as is) instead of his 10k. Therefore, the damages to Ryan are zero. The unfortunate irony of this situation is that there could possibly be a case here -- a libel/defamation case against Ryan.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:16 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusOn this one I happen to agree with Peter C that the claim would be for negligence, not for fraud. In my experience catalog cropping of photographic images is VERY common, perhaps to the point of being the rule, not the exception. Yes, what was cropped happened to be the worst part of the creasing, but aside from that it did not cover any other salient features of the image. While I am aware what I just wrote is a huge "aside from that", but from the perspective of the Sotheby's catalog guy preparing thousands of images for catalog depiction, I would attribute the cropping more to an innocent mistake, not a conscious intent to defraud. This is truly nickel and dime stuff to Sotheby's/SCP. The innocent oversight explanation makes much more sense to me than either company risking trashing its reputation over a very minor item. In regard to the change in photo tones, on that one I did make a point of looking up the image in the Sotheby's catalog to see how it was depicted. The difference in photo tones in my view is well within the range of customary catalog transformation. With all this said though, I am surprised SCP has not offered to quietly settle the matter. Ryan does have merit to his position and I wonder if perhaps there might be a bigger issue involved (i.e., does SCP's arrangement with Sotheby's prevent them from settling the matter?) From Sotheby's perpsective, if precedent is set here, what happens the next time a guy buys a $50 million painting that he feels was not accurately depicted in the catalog. The last thing Sotheby's might want is to give such a guy legal ammunition by him arguing that hey, you settled with Christoff, what about me. Again, this is just supposition on my part, but I am a bit surprised at SCP's stance.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:35 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanCorey, first off, it was quite convenient that Sothebys' picture cropping left out the most significant damage in the picture. As Ryan showed, the real picture and the one in the catalogue are significantly different -- and not just in the cropped areas. Tears do not appear in the catalogue pic that appear in the real picture. That Sotheby's may claim that 'this is the way we do things' will hardly sway anyone. It may be the way they do things but it doesn't make it right. A jury (not that it would ever get that far) of regular people would be appalled, in my opinion, of the differences in the two pictures. I agree that Sothebys will make it right once they are pushed; I'm amazed, frankly, that the bashing they've taken out here hasn't caused them to pick up the phone and call Ryan already.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:41 PM

Posted By: PASIs negligence not actionable in California? In particular, negligent misrepresentation?

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:46 PM

Posted By: Joe D.look at how SCP displayed the product and look at the actual product. please.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:49 PM

Posted By: peter chaoSure it is. But such an action would not be commercially feasible because of the limited damages you would receive. To make this case worthwhile, Ryan would have to show fraud. Peter C.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:54 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI don't think that the photo enhancement that appears in the catalog is just the typical kind of cropping that is done as a rule, and not an exception, to paraphrase Corey. As Joe and I were discussing, a printer and photographer have an extra obligation when preparing an auction catalog that features collectibles. If you are printing a cookbook and you want your red peppers to look a little redder, go for it. You're not in the business of selling red peppers anyway. But in an auction catalog it is really important to make sure the object being photographed is as close to real life as possible. When I scan my auctions lots I tell my catalog designer not to darken light photos, and not to photoshop blemishes out of an image. It's very important to depict the object as it is. I don't agree it's acceptable for Sotheby's to do anything to the image other than to leave it exactly as it is, warts and all.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:55 PM

Posted By: PASPeter, you said, "Also, the fact remains that you need to show intent to decieve by preponderance of the evidence. This is higher than the "more likely than not" standard of torts. I just don't think Ryan can meet the standard of proof." Sorry I cannot let this one go. These are the SAME thing. Preponderance means more likely than not. What you mean to say, I believe, is that you have to prove fraud by CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence which is a higher standard than preponderance.

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:57 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPeter S, good point. While I'm just a country criminal defense lawyer, the standards are: preponderance of evidence (51%), clear and convincing (more) and beyond a reasonable doubt (most).

Archive

09-10-2007, 02:58 PM

Posted By: peter chaoYour right, Peter S., I don't do this type of litigation so I did not state standard correctly. Thanks for correcting me. Peter C.

Archive

09-10-2007, 03:00 PM

Posted By: PASPete C., no problem, just wanted to set it straight in case anyone is paying attention to us lawyers. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-10-2007, 03:08 PM

Posted By: Steve Murray"just a country criminal defense lawyer" <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Thank you for not saying "poor".

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:19 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusOn this one we'll just agree to disagree. Jeff, if you look at what I wrote, in no way do I say or imply that what Sotheby's did is right and they should not be held accountable. I did say Ryan has a meritorious action for negligence. I said only that in my opinion based on my experience I do not believe the cropping was done with intent to defraud. I might also add that I am arguably as skeptical as anyone on this Board as to Sotheby's auction ethics. I have even gone so far as to publish an article accusing them of fraud in a prior matter. So I have no love lost for that company. But I do try to be as objective as I can and look at all angles, and I just have serious doubt that for a nickel and dime matter such as this one they are using photoshop or cropping with fraudulent intent. Barry, while I respect very much your expertise/experience and the care you put into your catalogs, the fact remains that given the small nature of your business compared to Sotheby's, I don't think its fair to say that just because Barry Sloate takes/has the time to personally inspect the cropping (or lack thereof) on all the items in his catalog, that Sotheby's, a worldwide company with literally hundereds of thousands of items that it prepares for depiction in its catalogs, takes/has the same time. Arguably they should and hence the credible case here for negligence. But I'm just having a hard time believing that this was a deliberate attempt to defraud. I'll also add that while I have tremendous sympathy for Ryan's plight and while I think his case has merit, I do not think it is a slam dunk. The catalog description does make specific reference to structural damage and multiple creasing, and Sotheby's will undoubtedly argue that any prospective buyer should therefore be sufficiently put on notice to ask for more information. The lot description also states that the item is sold as is subject to the terms and conditions of sale. While I do not have handy these terms and conditions, it would not surprise if they say to the effect that the catalog shall not be a representation or warranty as to condition and that any prospective buyer should physically inspect the item prior to bidding.

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:22 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanCorey -- how can you explain the tears and damage to the picture that are not in the area that was cropped? Isn't that the difference between purported negligence and intentional action?

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:30 PM

Posted By: barrysloateI don't think Sotheby's had a staff meeting and decided to crop Ryan's photo, but I think they might have a policy that instructs their catalog designer to enhance pictures somewhat, particularly those that don't look so great to begin with. Perhaps in this case they just went too far. The nature of the cropping is what concerns me, not that it just happened to be enhanced.

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:38 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanI think the problem here is that some people presume that just because this sort of (somewhat) subtle altering of pictures done in an attempt to make items look better (which serves to misrepresent the actual item in a material way) has been done regularly in the industry means that the practice will be forever given a pass. It won't be. For an example, the price fixing alleged by the NYS Attorney General against the insurance industry (AIG, Marsh, etc.) simply exposed a practice that had been allegedly going on for years. Eventually criminal charges were brought against the brokers alleged to be involved in this behavior and the firms fined zillions of dollars. There is no way, at least to me, you can pass off the Sotheby's picture in the catalogue compared to what it truly looked like as just a modest improvement. There are material differences designed, solely, to inflate the bidding. This is fraud any way you look at it. Edited to add: And if anyone thinks Sothebys would let those two pictures be the basis of a very public lawsuit, they are dreaming.

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:41 PM

Posted By: barrysloateCorey- I'm leaning towards Jeff on this one. There is just too much of a discrepancy between the way it is and the way it is depicted. It's not subtle, but more of a sledgehammer.

Archive

09-10-2007, 07:43 PM

Posted By: Joe D."But I'm just having a hard time believing that this was a deliberate attempt to defraud." If this was not deliberate then it is the most incredible, fortuitous, luckiest cropping, color enhancing, crease fading, and crease removal I have ever seen for an item that was scanned (or photographed) to be printed in a catalog. I am a printer by occupation. In fact, I am second generation printing professional. I have been around the profession since childhood. I have personally scanned thousands of images for printing, have handled thousands of other customer supplied scans for printing. Have seen retouching / cropping / color enhancing for many many years. I have a very hard time believing that anyone can look at the SCP photo and think the result was not DELIBERATE.

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:05 PM

Posted By: E, DanielI think this is purely an attempt to force one over a buyer, largely because of the belief the item being sold can be argued to be difficult to photograph and thus is open to interpration visually, and further that the hobby doesn't speak with one voice. Imagine this were a large Imari vase being sold with exactly the same damage, but the photos didn't reflect the description. The inference to be taken as an interested buyer using the catalog for reference, is that a zealous employee was over stating the damage in the written description in an effort to be assiduously accurate, and that visually the flaws were hard to detect and the piece had great eye appeal. I don't think for a minute that if the vase then turned up cracked far worse than shown, missing a chunk larger than photo'd, and altogether was hardly representative of the catalog image - that Southebys would think they could force such damaged goods on a buyer. To me, it speaks of incredibly arrogance and lack of respect for our field/hobby, and a belief you can make the little guy eat s#%t because of the perception that it won't hurt the auction houses reputation. Wrong, wrong, and just plain dumb wrong. Daniel

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:07 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusAside from the tears, there is nothing in the cropped area except grass. Auction houses typically have a policy of depicting the salient features of a photograph and cropping out the portion deemed to be of insignificant interest to perspective bidders. This policy both allows the salient features to be shown in greater detail as well as saves valuable catalog space. The act of cropping is an intentional act. I agree with that. But going back to Ryan's photo, as long as Sotheby's can make the case the cropping was done as part of standard procedure without thought of hiding salient features and misleading prospective bidders, I don't believe it qualifies as fraud. And I do believe the cropper was focusing only on the grass, not the creasing (which appears elsewhere in the image and is mentioned in the catalog description and so therefore was not deemed material enough to keep in). Was the cropper stupid/careless? Yes. Hence the action for negligence. Also, Ryan makes mention that he received the item matted and framed. That leads strong credence to the notion that all that was cropped out was the frame, which certainly in the eyes of Sotheby's was not a salient feature. And why you might ask should they not mention the item was framed so as to give a prospective bidder further notice that the depiction might be omitting important details? Answer--arguably they should have, which will be a further part of the negligence action. Fraud is a much stronger term than negligence, and it just blows my mind that Sotheby's on such a trivial item (to them) as this would commit fraud and risk so much.

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:12 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanCorey--look at the tear below the word "May"; that is more than just a crop job.

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:18 PM

Posted By: Aaron SeefeldtSeveral years ago I sold a couple of big ticket cards thru SCP: 1932 US Caramel Lindstrom T206 Cobb with Cobb back I will never consider bidding/consigning/dealing with them again. I recommend others follow suit. They will feel it if enough of us boycott/ignore... Ryan, I hate when collectors get ripped off. I am shocked as I have always thought David Kohler (pres. SCP) to be a stand up guy. I am surprised he has done nothing about this! -Aaron Seefeldt

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:19 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffCorey, The following comparison photos illustrate the difference between what was you would have been able to view if you were at the live auction vs. what you would have actually gotten. The one on the left is what it looked like in the frame. Neither of these views mattered to those of us who weren't there because they were both cropped entirely out of the catalog photo. I suppose it was just coincidence that it was matted this way? Same thing goes for defects on the right edge that were matted out. In both cases, portions of the players were matted out in order to cover defects. Interested to hear your explanation. -Ryan <img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/panoramaBottomCornerComparison.jpg">

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:28 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusI need first a bit of clarification as to what you are saying. Was the item framed by SCP/Sotheby's or the consignor?

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:36 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffCorey, I have no idea who framed it or why. If it was framed by the consignor, are you suggesting that the auction house shouldn't be responsible for taking it out of the frame to know exactly what they're accepting on consignment? I don't understand what difference it would make who framed it. There was never any mention it being framed in the catalog. I had no idea I was bidding on a framed item. -Ryan

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:39 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAaron- since I originally sold that Lindstrom card, I am curious- what happened when you resold it that turned you off to the company? I know it was a down market at the time but that wasn't their fault.

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:41 PM

Posted By: leonI probably have more of an issue with the creases/tears that are evident in person, and weren't in the catalog picture, than another 1/2 inch or inch tear, to a tear that is already there, and doesn't disturb anything material in the photo (that I can tell)....I am not sure it's uncommon to crop out through framing some inconsequential problems (ya'll know better than me) .....Though as a purist I would rather know exactly what I am buying ...

Archive

09-10-2007, 08:49 PM

Posted By: Aaron SeefeldtBarry, I guess my post was a bit confusing (sorry)... I won't deal with them anymore after this incident with Ryan. I threw my SCP/Sotheby's auction cat. in the garbage today and I am going to call them tomorrow and tell them to take me off of their mailing list. The point I was trying to get across with the Lindy and T206 Cobb/Cobb is that they stand to lose alot of business going forward...

Archive

09-10-2007, 09:16 PM

Posted By: Joe D.Corey, I hate to sound like I am picking on you - because that is not my intention.... You are expressing your opinion wonderfully, but we are still on opposite sides of the fence on this one. lets move past the cropping which we both seem to agree is an intentional act. Please explain how it is possible (without a person intentionally taking care of it) for every single crease and tear to be much less noticeable in SCPs image than it is in Ryan's? Please explain where the evidence of the tear (hilighted below) is in the SCP image. I bet you could give anyone, including SCP, 100 tries to scan or photograph that image and make it come out just "as good" (without changing color settings or altering the image) -- and that person would not be able to do it. To steal an argument from the great litigator Vincent Gambini...... Was this a magic scanner (or camera)? Did SCP buy the scanner (or camera) from the same guy Jack bought his beanstalk beans? <img src="http://www.internetville.com/stuff/huh.jpg">

Archive

09-10-2007, 09:19 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanJoe -- exactly. That doctored picture is an attempt to deceive the bidder.

Archive

09-10-2007, 11:10 PM

Posted By: JimBI am not sure it is a doctored image so much as when the picture is pressed flat, the tear is less apparent and offensive than when it is not flat. I am not taking sides on this, just playing the devil's advocate because there is often a pack of wolves tendancy on this board. As I stated before, I like Ryan and I hope this all concludes in a way that he is happy with. JimB

Archive

09-10-2007, 11:57 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusI believe who framed the image has a lot to do with it. My experience is that auction houses often (maybe even usually) do not take items out of frames when photographing for catalogs, and that statement applies to some of the most respected auctions houses in our hobby. If what happened here is that Sotheby's received the item framed from the consignor, photographed it as is and then cropped out the frame/matting, I simply do not see the fraud. Also, I raise the issue whether the act of photographing a photograph under glass (at least under the commercial standards by which auction houses do their photographing) could lessen the appearance of the creasing. Also, when I look at the image Sotheby's provided (and if you go onto their website to look at the image, they provide a zoom-in feature that allows close inspection of any desired specific area of the image), I CAN see the imperfections, though not as well as in Ryan's out-of-the frame images. So I don't believe photoshop manipulation was done. As regards the issue whether the auction house should have taken the item out of the frame, even on this one I can sympathize with their reluctance, both for economic and legal reasons. In regard to the economic, it would substantially increase the photographing/cataloging costs to unframe each framed item and then reframe it. Also, many items are very fragile and are framed under strict conservation standards. Auction house would reasonably be reluctant to incur the risk of damaging a fragile item and/or reframing it in accordance with the precise standards under which it was originally framed. I think Ryan's best argument under a negligence cause of action would be the omission in the description that the item was framed. However, the more I reflect on it my view has gravitated now to believing that the disclaimer in the description that the item is sold as is subject to the terms and conditions of sale will give SCP/Sotheby's adequate legal shield.

Archive

09-11-2007, 02:17 AM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffCorey, I believe that Dave Kohler looked into the legal aspects of this before he decided to screw me and decided that he (they) were sufficiently covered. That still doesn't make it right. You're arguments have been solely based on the legal side of things, which I think speaks to a larger issue that the "hobby" is experiencing right now. Auction houses will get away with whatever they can, whether it's ethical or not, as long as their legal team can find a loophole to make it legal. I realize that business is business and that's just the way things work in this world. That doesn't make it right to treat people like that. We have never done business together, but I can promise you that I would NEVER treat someone like that, even if it were legal to do so. By your logic, assuming they have done nothing illegal (whether or not I agree with you on that) are you saying they have done nothing wrong? It sounds like that's what you're saying, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. By the way, in the first post where I show the catalog image and the one I took, that photo I took is of the item IN THE FRAME, UNDER GLASS, exactly as I received it. If you look around the edges you can see where it's been matted. If they took a photo of it in the frame, it should look similar to the pictures I took. Also, I don't have an anti-sepia feature on my camera. The color of the image you see above is what it actually looks like. By the way, that tear under the word "May" is 2 1/2" long and has had repair work done to it that is visible on the reverse. You don't think a 2 1/2" repaired tear merits being specifically mentioned? I think Jim is right about the tear being less visible when pressed flat, which would mean they did have it out of the frame, whether they took it out or it came that way and was framed later, when they scanned it. A huge factor in my decision to keep the photo or return it (prior to having that decision made for me) was how I felt about it when I looked at it. Would I see the 1927 Cuban Stars with a young Martin Dihigo towering over his teammates? Or would I see all the extra money I paid for an item that was not at all what I thought I was bidding on? At this point, I look at it and see myself standing there like those old cartoons where the character does something stupid and turns into a lollipop that says "SUCKER" on it. That's what I get for bidding in an SCP/Sotheby's auction.

Archive

09-11-2007, 04:58 AM

Posted By: barrysloateWe can continue speculating on how Ryan has gotten to where he is now, but one unassailable fact is that the picture in the catalog does not accurately match the object, and that it looks cleaner and reveals less faults in the catalog. How and why that happened is still the point of debate.

Archive

09-11-2007, 05:08 AM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusTo be crystal clear on this point, I do NOT believe that if an auction house has done nothing illegal, then it has done nothing wrong (ethically). I do not believe I have said anything in my previous posts inconsistent with that statement. In fact from my previous posts on other threads, I would have thought it was clear how I feel about auction ethics. I have been a vocal proponent of the view that the failure of an auction house to disclose prior grading history constitutes fraud, and the failure to disclose that a statistically significant percentage of graded cards are altered is ethically wrong and very well might constitute fraud. I also have characterized the practice of auction houses to place house bids on behalf of consignors to be "legalized fraud" (i.e., it might be permitted by law but it is still reprehensible and done with intent to mislead). I fully understand and sympathize with your frustration, and I truly hope the matter works out to your satisfaction. However, I don't think I or any other attorney would be doing you any favors by opining what a great case you have, inducing you to spend significant legal fees and then having you both lose the case and be out-of-pocket the legal fees. EDITED for spelling

Archive

09-11-2007, 05:50 AM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffCorey, "Legalized Fraud" is a perfect way to sum up these kinds of deals. I appreciate the responses I've received from you and others in the legal profession, both here and via private e-mails. I've read and given thought to all of them. It's pretty clear to me that I'm in for a huge hassle and possibly very little gain once attorney fees are factored in, should I pursue this in the courts. I expected as much, which is why I wasn't inclined to go that route. I'm probably about as far from the litigious type as you'll find on this board. There are almost always other ways of resolving things, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm going to lie down and let myself get taken advantage of, however. It's not an open invitation for anyone I do business with to steal from me. I don't plan on letting it go, but I doubt I'll pursue it through our court system. What's really annoying is that by treating me this way, they only created a lose-lose situation. I'm guessing they thought screwing me for a few thousand bucks was a win-lose in their favor, maybe? It's obviously going to cost them a lot more than that in lost business. I'm still not sure what the logic was there, but yes, any frustration you're sensing from me is very real. -Ryan

Archive

09-11-2007, 05:57 AM

Posted By: ChadThere is no way you can make that middle tear disappear by pressing the picture flat, etc. Either the scan was altered or the picture was damaged after the scanning somehow. Either way, SCP screwed the pooch here. I know nobody likes a mob, but it defies explanation to think SCP was up front regarding the condition of this item. I don't bid in their auctions now, but I finally have a job where the potential exists for me to bid in the future, but I don't see now why I would. Baseball cards aren't worth more than my sense of right and wrong. The sad thing is, nobody runs a more honest or accomodating auction than Ryan. You'd think he'd have enough positive karma going for him that this kind of crap would never happen to him. With this and the Aguilitas auction on ebay ending early, I'm in a real sour mood about the hobby today. --Chad

Archive

09-11-2007, 06:06 AM

Posted By: Jason DuncanI think evey one of us who plan on never to use SCP again should make a phone call to let them know why. It could help Ryan out and we should do it as a small community. Let us each step up and help out our brother. If they get 50-100 phone calls from various vintage collectors thenmaybe they will make things right in an attempt to win back some future bidders. Jason

Archive

09-11-2007, 09:37 AM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanChad, I agree regarding the missing tear on the scan. SCP might as well put up for auction a card in a PSA 8 holder and then deliver a PSA 5 card; they can claim later that the buyer should have come to visit the card in person because they should not be held accountable for pictures in the catalogue.

Archive

09-11-2007, 09:54 AM

Posted By: E, DanielI think arguing anything other than misrepresentation is ridiculous. The item delivered quite clearly does not look anything like the goods offered for sale in the catalog. And lets face it, appearance is everything in our and most collecting interests. In terms of Southebys being too busy to take accurate photographs - being so overwhelmed with all their auctions and 'more important' items for sale, hogwash! That's why people give such auction houses their items, because of the implied AND stated efforts to display all pieces to advantage (that is, great light, shot with superior equipment, in a catalog layout that screams classy, and a blurb that translates the better qualities of the item) and before an audience that trusts them. Similarly buyers are told they can trust the company for their expertise in describing all pieces materially accurately, and that where they get it wrong - they should make good. If you want/can expect crappy scans and sh@#*y customer service for your memorabilia, I will happily open a business to supply said service. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Daniel

Archive

09-11-2007, 12:50 PM

Posted By: PSHere are SCP's terms: "AS IS The authenticity of the Authorship of property listed in the catalogue is guaranteed as stated in the Terms of Guarantee (below) and all property is sold “as is” without any representations or warranties by SCP Auctions, Sotheby’s, or the Consignor as to the merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, the correctness of the catalogue or other description of the physical condition, size, quality, rarity, importance, medium, provenance, exhibitions, literature, or historical relevance of any property and no statement anywhere, whether oral or written, whether made in the catalogue, an advertisement, a bill of sale, a salesroom posting or announcement, or elsewhere, shall be deemed such a warranty, representation, or assumption of liability. SCP Auctions, Sotheby’s, and the Consignor make no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to whether the purchaser acquires any copyrights, including but not limited to, any reproduction rights in any property. SCP Auctions, Sotheby’s, and the Consignor are not responsible for errors and omissions in the printed catalogue, on-line catalogue, or any supplemental material or in regards to the failure of the auction program to execute any bids on behalf of the bidder." Now to a point I understand this, but I have to wonder how effective it really is to disclaim the correctness of your own catalogue description? This essentially appears in two places, first in the "without any representations or warranties" clause and second in the "not responsible for errors and omissions" clause towards the end. I don't know California law in this context, but from what I know of it generally I would be surprised if this sort of disclaimer would nullify any claim based on inaccuracy of the catalogue.

Archive

09-11-2007, 12:55 PM

Posted By: ChadWith guarantees like that I wonder why ANYBODY would ever bid in their auctions. --Chad

Archive

09-11-2007, 12:55 PM

Posted By: peter chaoThe disclaimer protects SCP from virtually everything except for intentional misrepresentation. The next paragraph to check for is the applicable law and forum clauses. You need to know which law applies and where you are going to litigate. Peter C.

Archive

09-11-2007, 12:56 PM

Posted By: PSBy bidding in this auction, the bidder consents to the application of the laws of the state of California without application of conflicts of laws and the jurisdiction of the state of California in the county of Orange.

Archive

09-11-2007, 12:58 PM

Posted By: PSWith due respect you admitted yesterday you did not practice in this area, and you were flat out wrong about federal law not applying to price fixing by auction houses, so I hope you are giving us accurate information this time.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:02 PM

Posted By: peter chaoI do not concede the point on federal law. I would very much like to know the federal law that is applicable to this situation. Peter C.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:05 PM

Posted By: PSRead the end of the thread.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:08 PM

Posted By: PSIf you want a citation, it's the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 outlawing conspiracies in restraint of trade. Price-fixing is a per se offense, and I am unaware of any exemption for auction houses. If there was one one expects Sotheby's execs would not have done jail time.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:13 PM

Posted By: peter chaoAre you serious about applying the Sherman Act in this context? Peter C.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:15 PM

Posted By: PSYes and so was the Department of Justice apparently. Look it up, it was in 2000 and involved Christie's and Sotheby's, I believe Max W. provided a link last night.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:16 PM

Posted By: PS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2000 WWW.USDOJ.GOV AT (202) 514-2007 TDD (202) 514-1888 SOTHEBY'S AND FORMER TOP EXECUTIVE AGREE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO PRICE FIXING ON COMMISSIONS CHARGED TO SELLERS AT AUCTIONS Sotheby's Agrees to Pay $45 Million Criminal Fine WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sotheby's Holdings Inc.--one of the world's largest auction houses--has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $45 million criminal fine for fixing the price of commission rates charged to sellers of art, antiques, and other collectibles at auctions, announced the Department of Justice today. The company's former president and chief executive officer, Diana D. Brooks, has also agreed to plead guilty to price fixing charges, and will cooperate with the Department's ongoing antitrust investigation. In separate one-count felony charges filed today in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Sotheby's and Brooks were charged with participating in a conspiracy lasting more than six years, from April 1993 to December 1999, to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices in violation of the Sherman Act. The conspirators also agreed to limit or eliminate other inducements to sellers, such as interest-free loans and charitable donations. Sotheby's and Christie's International, its chief competitor, control more than 90 percent of the world's auction business. They provide substantially the same services to sellers and, prior to the introduction of the fixed, non-negotiable commission rates, they competed primarily on the basis of price, undercutting each other's offers to sellers. As a result of the conspiracy, sellers lost their principal bargaining tool. "Those charged today were engaged in classic cartel behavior*price fixing, pure and simple," said A. Douglas Melamed, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. "These are serious crimes, and the Antitrust Division will prosecute them wherever they occur." Today's cases, the first to arise out of a federal investigation into auction house collusion, charge that Sotheby's, Brooks and their co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by participating in meetings and conversations in the United States and elsewhere to discuss sellers' commissions. At those meetings the conspirators: agreed to raise pricing by fixing sellers' commissions; agreed to publish non-negotiable sellers' commission rate schedules; agreed to the order in which each co-conspirator would publish its non-negotiable sellers' commission schedule; issued sellers' commission schedules in accordance with the agreements reached; exchanged customer information for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the non-negotiable seller's commission schedules; agreed not to make interest-free loans on consignments from sellers; and agreed not to make charitable contributions as part of pricing to sellers. This pricing scheme impaired the ability of sellers to achieve the best price terms through negotiation, as had been possible under the conspirators' previous commission structures. The Department also confirmed the announcement by Christie's International, one of the world's largest auction houses, that it has been cooperating with the investigation under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program. Under the Leniency Program, a company may qualify for protection from criminal prosecution if it voluntarily reports its involvement in a crime and satisfies certain other criteria. Sotheby's and Brooks are charged with violating Section One of the Sherman Act which carries a maximum fine of $10 million for corporations, and a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment and a $350,000 fine for individuals. The maximum fine for both corporations and individuals may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine. Sotheby's $45 million fine, which is payable over five years, is subject to court approval. Brooks' sentence will be determined by the court. Sotheby's Holdings Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York and provides auction services worldwide. Its revenues from sellers' commissions during the period charged in the court papers were in excess of $225 million in the U.S. The ongoing investigation of the auction business is being conducted by the Antitrust Division's New York Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Anyone with information concerning collusion in the auction business should contact the Antitrust Division's New York Office at (212) 264-0650 or the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at (212) 384-1000. ### 00-591

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:20 PM

Posted By: JimBPeter said, "Now to a point I understand this, but I have to wonder how effective it really is to disclaim the correctness of your own catalogue description?" I don't think the catalog description is the issue here since it stated there are multiple creases and a tear. JimB

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:22 PM

Posted By: PSJim I was thinking though that the photo was part of the "description." But in any event I was also thinking more generally about whether one can disclaim an inaccurate description, even if assuming for argument's sake this particular one was accurate.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:23 PM

Posted By: leonI sort of agree but the catalog picture (look) is quite different than the picture received. So in that regard the catalog is mistaking. I can't believe you could indemnify yourself, or company, by only saying you aren't responsible....but I am no lawyer.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:25 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanPeter S, as I said earlier why can't SCP simply sell a card pictured as a PSA 8 in its catalogue and then deliver a PSA 5 version -- and claim that the buyer can't rely on its catalogue? Of course they can't. And I'm still trying to figure out how the tears in Ryan's picture, which were not in the corners, were not intentionally removed?

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:29 PM

Posted By: PSAnyone who buys PSA 8s gets what they deserve. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:30 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanHa! Fair point.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:37 PM

Posted By: Joe D.good luck ryan - keep us posted (edited to take out the whole message and replace it with my last one on the subject)

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:45 PM

Posted By: PSIt was pointed out to me that the online terms I quoted from SCP's upcoming auction in California are different (though perhaps not materially) from the ones that governed the June auction originating in NY. Those terms also apparently provided for NY law to govern. It's still a valid discussion I think, but apologies for getting the facts wrong.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:55 PM

Posted By: JimBI agree. Although I am not a lawyer, I would not think that disclaiming an inaccurate description would NOT insulate them from responsibility if the description was dramatically different from the item. Why bother with a description if that were the case? Then Jeff's point about writing up a PSA 8 and sending out a PSA 5 to the winner would make sense. JimB Edited to add: "NOT" I typed too fast last time.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:56 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusThe description reads to the effect "T206 McGinnity in the absolute positive most deplorable condition imaginable. PSA 1 grade would be way too good for this monstrosity. Imagine the most disgusting card you can, and that still can't approach what this thing looks like." The depiction then shows a gorgeous card in a PSA 8 holder. You make no inquiries and buy the card for a price indicative of an 8 McGinnity but receive the -1 McGinnity. Couldn't it be said you had a duty to make an inquiry given the obvious discrepancy between the description and the depiction? EDITED to add that the point I am trying to make is not that in this scenario there would not be grounds for rescission, but that discrepancies between description and depiction can reasonably put a prospective bidder on notice to ask for more information, and the failure to do so could materially impact his legal remedies.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:56 PM

Posted By: barrysloateAfter reading Sotheby's terms it appears they have a license to do pretty much anything they want. I guess it's good to be rich and powerful. Edited to add Corey posted the same time as me, and he brings up a very important point: when you plan to bid on a significant item in an auction, and you can't view it in person, pick up the phone, have them take out the object, and ask them as many questions as you can.

Archive

09-11-2007, 01:59 PM

Posted By: Joe D.Is the responsibility on me to make that inquiry? Or is the responsibility on the seller to not have such a poor representation of their product? Maybe I should inquire. Maybe I am shy and I just want to buy a card... and heck it looks pretty in the catalog. I'm not a smart buyer I guess. But not being a smart buyer is different from being a deceitful seller. (edit to say: darn! I jumped back in even after I said I would post no more on the subject <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>)

Archive

09-11-2007, 02:08 PM

Posted By: Eric BSo Ryan is at fault for not asking if the picture is an accurate representation of the item? Maybe every bidder should call about every lot they are interested in and have them pull it out and describe it to see if the picture is accurate. I'll bet they get tired and say "Look at the Picture!"

Archive

09-11-2007, 02:12 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusIn certain instances it can be, yes.

Archive

09-11-2007, 02:20 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusThe absolute positive moral to this saga is that EVERYTIME you are interested in bidding on a photograph and cannot physically inspect it or have someone do it on your behalf, you MUST call the auction house, ask them to take BOTH the item AND the catalog in hand, and THEN you should with your catalog in hand ask them very specific questions as to how the actual piece compares to the catalog depiction. I do this all the time with every auction house in which I bid. Caveat: Do not use the on-line image. They may vary depending on the monitor used. Always have everybody refering to the catalog depiction when making your inquiries.

Archive

09-11-2007, 02:21 PM

Posted By: barrysloateEric- to answer your question, it depends what you are bidding on. If you are buying a T206 Ty Cobb in an SGC 40 holder and there is a picture in the catalog, you're probably safe placing your bids. But when you buy a panoramic photograph that's partly hidden under a mat and it has considerable condition issues, a phone call is just a way to protect your own interests. In no way am I blaming Ryan, as he is the victim here, but he could have saved himself a lot of grief.

Archive

09-11-2007, 02:23 PM

Posted By: barrysloateCorey- we keep posting simultaneously. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-11-2007, 03:25 PM

Posted By: Ryan ChristoffMaybe we can lock this useless f#@%ing thread now that it will only be lawyers debating lawyers about disclaimers and the Sherman Act. This is my last post in this thread. SCP/Sotheby's have had plenty of time to respond or comment and they have declined to do so. I don't care how busy they claim to be. I am not going to sue. It doesn't matter how good or bad their legal case is. They've won. Done deal. Congratulations, scumbags!!! Have fun spending my money. -Ryan

Archive

09-11-2007, 03:42 PM

Posted By: Todd SchultzVery sorry to learn of your ordeal Ryan. Hope you get satisfaction of some type in the end. I also hope Leon honors your request and locks this thread, so you don't need to see it rising to the top over and over--he said while posting, causing the very thing he hopes won't happen <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-11-2007, 03:45 PM

Posted By: E, DanielCorey, I had been thinking the entire reason for having a truly representative picture was to get away from subjective descriptions, whether written or stated in person/over the phone? If I ring up person A and ask about the actual condition of an item, how many different questions do I have to invent to cover every possibility? Do I have to rely on just one person's opinion, or should I ask for a second to get on the phone? Eg. Person A calls it a 'medium' crease with light surface wear, Person B would call the exact same condition a 'heavy' crease and medium surface wear. Perhaps Person B also notes stains because of better background in looking for such flaws, while person A misses this entirely. So after all these calls I bid, get the piece and it does not reflect their oral description.....should I have tape recorded the conversation so that there can be no dispute over words used??? What if they just flat out lie? It gets ridiculous, which is why as has been said innumerable times on this forum, a successful auction description is one that posts large, clear pictures and leaves descriptors to an absolute minimum. And if you screw up the pictures, take another one or be prepared to accept the item back. The words, whether written or spoken, just get in the way of making a good and clear decision as a buyer. Daniel

Archive

09-11-2007, 03:52 PM

Posted By: barrysloateDaniel- you are correct. In a perfect world a photo in a catalog should be an accurate depiction of the item. But in an imperfect world asking a few questions might help you to decide whether or not to bid. There's no downside.

Archive

09-11-2007, 03:57 PM

Posted By: E, Danielthat the questions are answered incorrectly? That the description they give does not match what you yourself see? And thus, you end up bidding on what they say and not what is pictured......with all respect, I trust my own eyes better than yours or anyone elses to determine whether or not the item is attractive to me and warrants a bid. Even though I like you alot <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. Daniel

Archive

09-11-2007, 04:06 PM

Posted By: barrysloateYour personal affection for me aside, thank you, you make a good point. A nitwit on the other end of the phone could make matters worse. But if he's holding the object in his hand while you speak hopefully he can be of some assistance.

Archive

09-11-2007, 05:08 PM

Posted By: leonIf I lock this thread then we don't get to see a nice, appropriate title about the auction house.....Ryan- if you really really want this locked let me know and I will honor your request as I would any other board member...regards

Archive

09-11-2007, 05:22 PM

Posted By: Jeff LichtmanRyan, why not let this thread run through SCP's upcoming auction?

Archive

09-11-2007, 05:54 PM

Posted By: Bruce BabcockAs the saying goes, "take care of your customers, or someone else will." I can't imagine why they don't simply make this right for Ryan.

Archive

09-11-2007, 06:16 PM

Posted By: Corey R. ShanusYou make some great points but as Barry said, we do not live in a perfect world and any system will have its imperfections. The guts of what I collect is photography. I can only tell you that I have never had a problem knowing what questions to ask, and I have never had anything but honest answers from all the auction houses. Also, here's another problem with expecting the main basis of description to be the catalog depiction. If that is to be our standard, what happens if, despite everyone's best good faith efforts, the end result still does not capture the essence of the item. Does the auction house then cancel/delay the auction out of fear of legal liability that the depiction is not an accurate enough portrayal of the items? This is not a hypothetical question. I know of actual instances. The point is that inconsistency between description and depiction will always occur despite sincere good faith efforts and there can never be eliminated some duty on the part of prospective bidders to make independent inquiry to ascertain the true condition of an item.

Archive

09-11-2007, 06:25 PM

Posted By: Steve This auction house is deceptive, clear and simple. Also, SCP/Sothebys lack of communication is disgraceful. Why anyone would patronize such swindlers is beyond me. I will certainly not bid, nor ever look at their sales. Ryan, I hope you allow this thread to continue.

Archive

09-11-2007, 07:46 PM

Posted By: E, DanielAnd I can't argue the essence of what you are saying either Corey, which I believe is to avail yourself of as much information as possible including direct contact with the Auction House. I just think it really isn't too much to ask that a catalog picture represent the item at hand - in fact with the money spent it's an absolute minimum, otherwise as has been intimated why offer one? I've always found the pictures Southebys use for artefacts, art, antique pistols, vintage jewellery, and all sorts of other items I find myself perusing (<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) are usually beautifully shot......this instance was just an absolute shocker. And it's not like they rely on a non-expert photographer with a $200 minolta to photograph items in floodlit rooms. They know what they're doing, and all it would have taken if they didn't want to re-shoot/scan would have been a small notation in the blurb stating that differences in tone and extent of damage may be more evident when the item was in hand. Continuing my vase analogy from earlier, this piece was like seeing a blue ming vase in the catalog and receiving a green one at the door <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. Daniel

Archive

09-11-2007, 10:19 PM

Posted By: Dan Bartenbakeri won the 1909 pittsburg pirate pocket mirror in sotheby's halper auction and was charged $100 for shipping,totally outraged i paid it any way to get my item,then proceded to tell them that the standard shipping fee for an item this size is always around $5.00. it took them a year to refund my $100.00 also historic auctions in st.pete,fla. had for auction what they said was a 1934 team composite of the 1934 detroit tigers,not being the right size i thought maybee thephotography studio back then made another smaller size,much to my dismay i found when i recieved the item it was a photocopy off the original,complete with lines where creases should be and was glued to a mat so i left as is,called,and called,and called but the right guy james was'nt never in,so i got lucky and tracked him down at national in cleveland and made sure i got paid in person. the trend here is that some auction houses are not taking the time to authenticate certain items and are taking consignor's word that it is original,thus leaving bidder holding the bag. i won't be bidding in another of there auctions again,thanks for taking time to read this.

Archive

09-22-2007, 08:36 PM

Posted By: Jim ClarkeRyan did they ever fix the problem or at least call you on it after this thread?

Archive

09-22-2007, 11:33 PM

Posted By: Fred CMaybe I just don't get this. Nobody wins here. SCP looks like a bunch of uncaring morons because the image that was used for bidding on the item is pathetic. Ryan gets a substandard item and he's not happy about the situation (I wouldn't be either). The only thing Ryan accomplishes is to expose SCP's poor decision to not "take care of business". SCP will lose more than the amount that they would have compensated Ryan. I just don't get it. Are people just that ignorant and uncaring? SCP - wake up! They might save a few dollars by not dealing with Ryan but in the end I think they've really blown it because they've probably lost Ryan's business and more - and for what? I get the feeling that if this was a large reputable auction house that things might have been handled differently. Does anyone believe that there's still time for SCP to do the right thing?

Archive

09-23-2007, 07:45 AM

Posted By: Jason LIs there some sort of metric or record kept of returned items? Some measurement that is kept in the industry (or perhaps monitored by the FBI in their probe of the memorabilia industry?) that makes returned auction items a red flag of some sort that is far more damaging than simply returning Ryan's money? I have no idea, ...probably assumes more oversight than is possible, but it's just a thought that crossed my mind...

Archive

09-26-2007, 12:04 PM

Posted By: peter chaoJason, None that I know of, maybe if you check with the local chamber of commerce. A friendly bump to see if we can get an update. Peter C.

bobbyw8469

06-10-2010, 02:18 PM

Update?

joeadcock

06-12-2010, 05:31 AM

Ryan

Thanks for the invaluable info.

Frank

Posted By: E, DanielAnd I can't argue the essence of what you are saying either Corey, which I believe is to avail yourself of as much information as possible including direct contact with the Auction House. I just think it really isn't too much to ask that a catalog picture represent the item at hand - in fact with the money spent it's an absolute minimum, otherwise as has been intimated why offer one? I've always found the pictures Southebys use for artefacts, art, antique pistols, vintage jewellery, and all sorts of other items I find myself perusing (<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>) are usually beautifully shot......this instance was just an absolute shocker. And it's not like they rely on a non-expert photographer with a $200 minolta to photograph items in floodlit rooms. They know what they're doing, and all it would have taken if they didn't want to re-shoot/scan would have been a small notation in the blurb stating that differences in tone and extent of damage may be more evident when the item was in hand. Continuing my vase analogy from earlier, this piece was like seeing a blue ming vase in the catalog and receiving a green one at the door <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. Daniel

ichieh

06-12-2010, 11:31 AM

I will join the strike and not bid SCP auction

jbsports33

06-12-2010, 12:18 PM

I did not see this post, I cannot not believe they are the same image or are they? just another mess for collectors to turn there heads at this hobby - very sorry this had to happen

Jimmy

Peter_Spaeth

06-12-2010, 12:38 PM

Chao lives!!

ElCabron

06-12-2010, 12:54 PM

How dare this board speak ill of Dave Kohler and his ultra-ethical auction house, SCP Auctions?!!! How many times do I have to state that Dave Kohler is absolutely NOT a huge scumbag running a shady auction house that defrauds its customers?

How dare you, sirs!!!!

-Ryan

slidekellyslide

06-12-2010, 01:21 PM

calvindog

06-12-2010, 03:16 PM

You guys are really being tough on SCP and Dave. Can't you talk about positive things in the hobby? These are really good friends of mine and I've never had a problem with them. I know you're laying out pretty strong circumstantial evidence, Mr. Archive, but I need to see more. Like an arrest, a conviction and unsuccessful appeal and consecutive habeas corpus petitions. Until then I think you're just using this board to further your agenda.

Rob D.

06-12-2010, 03:36 PM

Everyone in the hobby is great. I don't have a problem with anyone. Just my opinion.

Jewish-collector

06-14-2010, 12:18 PM

I actually like & respect Dave Kohler a great deal. He's got a hell of a collection of vintage Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers memorabilia.

Jim VB

06-14-2010, 12:36 PM

I actually like & respect Dave Kohler a great deal. He's got a hell of a collection of vintage Minneapolis/Los Angeles Lakers memorabilia.

Alan,

I can almost understand the "like" part. But, after the way they handled Ryan's situation, how can you ever get to "respect?"

They took a good customer, willing to pay big bucks for a photo, and told him to go pound sand! The picture in their catalog and on their web-site was clearly enhanced and demonstrably different in appearance than the one they shipped to him. Since this was a one of a kind item, the only conclusion possible is that they photoshopped it.

Can you "like" a guy like that? I guess... maybe, if he's never done anything to you. Can you "respect" someone who would do that, and then tell the customer that they won't work to resolve the problem? I will never be able to respect that. And what does having a "hell of a collection" have to do with anything? That's not the kind of thing that commands respect.

Wesley

06-14-2010, 02:32 PM

Leon

06-14-2010, 02:48 PM

It's about time Leon reinstates Peter Chao's posting privileges.

registered the first day of the new board.......I have the email to prove it:)

1. Net54Baseball.com Username... Calvindog
2. First & Last name... Peter Chao
3. Daytime ph# (might be called for verification)... 212-xxx-xxxx

cfc1909

06-14-2010, 03:05 PM

this thread will go way higher than #211 now

that was funny:eek::D

Rich Klein

06-14-2010, 06:03 PM

To this board

I actually miss him

Rich

sports-rings

06-15-2010, 07:06 PM

Perhaps this is off topic but maybe it's not.

In the current Leland's auction (you can see the items online as the catalogs have not all been delivered yet) there were three fake rings.

I would like your opinions on this matter.

I am a championship ring collector and have accumulated a large database of rings. This database is a valuable tool in helping to determine if a ring is legit. It's amazing how many fake rings there are out there and now there is a disturbing trend where fake rings have bogus markings inside of the rings with manufacturer's markings to make them look real.

I emailed Leland's about the three rings but I get the feeling they think I am more of a pain in the neck than someone trying to help them and trying to help fellow collectors.

I sent them pictures of three Braves rings and detailed how the three were different than their offering. All they could say was that they would check it out with their "ring expert". Well they did remove the fake ring today.

I alerted them to two Yankee rings that were made by someone who ring collectors know all too well. These two fake rings, with "Balfour" stampings are not real.

I emailed Leland's with pictures showing the differences and Lelands changed the descriptions of both lots from claiming the rings were "exactly what the players received" to an update that says "This is not an exact duplicate. It varies slightly from those that the players received. This ring was made at a later date. "

Please look at my picture and let me know if you feel I am being too picky, or if you feel Lelands is not acting in the best interest of collectors. I would really appreciate the thoughts of others in our hobby. By the way,although Turner's ring is a '55 and Leland's is a '57, the ring molds on the top of the ring are supposed to be 100% identical.

The differrences between Jim Turner's ring and the Leland's ring:

Jim Turner's real ring has three stars below the stones in the hat. All the fakes made lack these stars. Some of the sellers who sell this junk claim Balfour lost the mold and had to recreate the molds. Balfour would never leave something as significant as stars out. Also, notice how big the faux stones are in the Lelands ring. they do not fit in the ring as nicely as the real ring and the stones in the hat are also poorly placed in the Lelands ring.

Look at the shape of both hats. Turner's is much nicer. Notice the "Y" and the stone in the Leland's ring, they are way too close.

Maybe the Lelands ring is kind of close, but should'nt this be classified as a ring copy and not a real Balfour Ring?