Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Scott, appreciate your insight. Since you are the only AH to comment on this thread, what would you have done if consignments in an upcoming auction were stolen?

I do want to avoid making comments that seem critical of other companies, ESPECIALLY not knowing all the details.

I can say that I have always personally traveled with consignments that are going to shows. Of course in my case that is, to date, larger amounts of lower value items than the ones in question. I've brought maybe half a million in consignments to the National, but it was a helluva lot more than 50 cards!

Of course just because I am with the items doesn't mean they couldn't be stolen, but most of what we sell has pretty easily established value unlike many of the items in the ML situation. So I doubt we'd "need" to let them continue at auction to come up with an accurate settlement. Even so I would obviously comply with whatever path my insurance company wanted me to take.

My preference would be to pull the items but if my insurance company (or lawyer or law enforcement) requested I do otherwise, I imagine I would do what ML is doing.

Our travel/transport rider is 600k I am sure ML's is significantly higher. When insurance companies have to start paying on bigger claims they call a lot of the shots. They are likely also involved in the investigation of the crime. They'd rather it be solved and resolved than paid.

There are no winners in a situation like this and I'm sure ML is trying prevent as many people as possible from feeling like they're on the losing end.

I don't personally know anyone at ML so anything I say is conjecture and shouldn't be taken as me having inside information.

[oldjudge]

Unless ML contacted the insurance company as soon as the cards went missing and was instructed by the insurance company to proceed with the auction I believe it was wrong to not remove those lots from the bidding. Values, I believe, could have been determined by other means.Hopefully, the cards will be recovered soon and this will become a non-issue for all involved.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Scott, appreciate your insight. Since you are the only AH to comment on this thread, what would you have done if consignments in an upcoming auction were stolen?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that Scott wouldn't have shipped 2 million dollars worth of cards to a Best Western via FedEx to be held for 3 days prior to arriving there.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Unless ML contacted the insurance company as soon as the cards went missing and was instructed by the insurance company to proceed with the auction I believe it was wrong to not remove those lots from the bidding. Values, I believe, could have been determined by other means.Hopefully, the cards will be recovered soon and this will become a non-issue for all involved.

I absolutely assume ML contacted authorities and insurance, not necessarily in that order, immediately. Those entities, and ML's counsel, were help making the decisions, would be my guess.
.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Unless ML contacted the insurance company as soon as the cards went missing and was instructed by the insurance company to proceed with the auction I believe it was wrong to not remove those lots from the bidding. Values, I believe, could have been determined by other means.Hopefully, the cards will be recovered soon and this will become a non-issue for all involved.

I think as a consignor you might want the auction to run on cards like these and as a bidder you would never want such a thing to happen. And I can see it both ways from an insurance companies point of view but what a length to go to to get FMV. YIKES.

Imagine if insurance companies added that provision to policies? One could never know if the item being offered is actually there to be bought or if it is to ascertain a value for an ins claim.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

I absolutely assume ML contacted authorities and insurance, not necessarily in that order, immediately. Those entities, and ML's counsel, were help making the decisions, would be my guess.
.

I don't consign. In the ordinary course, do a consignor and AH agree to the value of significant cards for insurance purposes, or is there a standard provision for determining value in the event of loss?

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Say it was held at FedEx for Joe to pick up— can't it get stolen there? Happened to me once.

Say Joe brought them in person, kept them in his room. Goes out for a burger. Can't the room safe get burglarized?

Say Joe kept the box on his person at all times. He can get robbed. Then what— the internet says he's dumb for carrying them, why didn't he put them in a safe or ask the hotel to put them in the management's safe.

Like you said, Peter: hindsight is 20/20. People on the internet can Monday Morning QB this thing a billion different ways. But thieves are gonna thief.

Obviously, any imaginable transportation scenario would yield some chance for loss, so utilizing the scenario with the least amount of risk would make the most sense. If ML picks up this package directly from the carrier an entire entity is eliminated (the BW) from the "chain of possession" which is going to significantly reduce the risk for loss.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't consign. In the ordinary course, do a consignor and AH agree to the value of significant cards for insurance purposes, or is there a standard provision for determining value in the event of loss?

In this case Ryan stated that he and Joe came up with the worst case, expected and best outcome as far as prices per card.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't consign. In the ordinary course, do a consignor and AH agree to the value of significant cards for insurance purposes, or is there a standard provision for determining value in the event of loss?

In the contracts I have signed, there have been approximate values put on the items, including when I sold my collection (or at least an aggregate amount, but it got there througha an estimated value of each lot.) Others might have different experiences.
.

[Aaron Seefeldt]

I'm curious to know if these cards were part of the stolen box:

D304 E Collins PSA 3 = $14,298
D304 Lajoie PSA 4 = $20,934
D304 Mathewson PSA 3 = $42,290
D304 Wagner PSA 3 = $50,339

An SGC 3 D304 Wagner sold in REA in August of last year for $11,700...

Curiosity killed the cat but the above prices made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

In this case Ryan stated that he and Joe came up with the worst case, expected and best outcome as far as prices per card.

That may or may not cut any weight with the insurance company though. That was more about managing consignor expectations (and I don't mean that in a negative way)

[Bicem]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

I'm curious to know if these cards were part of the stolen box:

D304 E Collins PSA 3 = $14,298
D304 Lajoie PSA 4 = $20,934
D304 Mathewson PSA 3 = $42,290
D304 Wagner PSA 3 = $50,339

An SGC 3 D304 Wagner sold in REA in August of last year for $11,700...

Curiosity killed the cat but the above prices made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

And a higher grade Matty was sitting on eBay for much much cheaper.

Maybe the thieves bid them up?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

That may or may not cut any weight with the insurance company though. That was more about managing consignor expectations (and I don't mean that in a negative way)

Right. I was simply answering the question posed. Ins cos will pay off most likely based off of comp sales which allowing the auction to go on unfettered.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Obviously, any imaginable transportation scenario would yield some chance for loss, so utilizing the scenario with the least amount of risk would make the most sense. If ML picks up this package directly from the carrier an entire entity is eliminated (the BW) from the "chain of possession" which is going to significantly reduce the risk for loss.

Worth pointing out is the fact that not all flavors of theft are the same from the perspective of the insurance company. Some forms of theft are much more likely than others, which is why they impose different maximum payouts for different scenarios.

If I brought my cards over to a friend's house and asked him to watch them for me while I went to Disneyland for a few days, I can assure you that my insurance policy is going to give me the middle finger if I were to file a theft claim after his meth-head cousin stole my box of cards. But they would honor my claim if I left them in my safe and my home was burglarized and my safe broken into while we were on vacation.

While this strawman scenario isn't the exact same thing, it's also not that different from what supposedly transpired.

I used to work for a major insurance provider. I wrote algorithms to detect fraudulent claims. Insurance companies are in the business of denying claims, not honoring them. Honoring a claim only occurs after every attempt at denying it has failed. It's all going to come down to the specific language of the policy that details the coverage limits, if any, for when you ship something worth $2 million dollars to a Best Western Plus and ask them to hold it for you until you arrive a few days later. Perhaps they have some sort of rider that covers such egregious acts of negligence, but I certainly wouldn't be as confident as some people here seem to be that ML's loss is covered should they indeed have to file the claim.

[Neal]

Couldn't 54 cards be carried onto a plane rather easily?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Bicem

And a higher grade Matty was sitting on eBay for much much cheaper.

Maybe the thieves bid them up?

I think someone said that one was gobbled up after the auction ran. That buyer might not be happy if the sale was one of the phantom ones.

[Jewish-collector]

How do the big Art auction houses transport/store high end material for Art shows & auctions ?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So don't ask hotel "management" to store the package, have it held at Fed Ex for Joe to pick up, or Fed Ex it to Joe and have him fly out with the cards? In any case, obviously hindsight is 20 20 and nobody will do it this way again I assume.

Not to mention, that Hotel was probably one of the biggest dumps I have stayed in since the 1970's. Best Western PLUS, they say. Plus what? Bed Bugs? It was like camping. There are no safes in the room. The hot water took 20 minutes to warm up on the top floor. That's only if you gingerly turned it on and the handle didn't come off. The Elevators were out both nights and the tiny staff reflected all of it.

That said, I had a great time but was somewhat apprehensive traveling there with cash and cards. Obviously for good reason.

I probably had one of the best times on this trip than I've had in a long time though. Especially where baseball cards are concerned. So much so, I want to go back next year. I was waiting in the lobby when the detectives were doing follow-up interviews on SAT Afternoon, talking about a "Package" and "video". Now it all makes sense.

I really enjoyed getting to know Joe T and he helped "hard sell" me on a card at Ashish's table before I left. Knowing that Bad MemoryLane is a local company, I bid pretty hard and won 3 great items. First and last time I'll use them. I just confirmed my lots were "not stolen" before I sent my fat check. I'm going to pick-them up in person.

Also, This is really the 2nd year I've utilized auction houses significantly. That said, I'm not overly happy with the entire experience of my losses or wins. My eyes are hurting...I CAN'T SEE giving these clowns 20% buyer premium. It is flat out gouging and not worth the service, IMHO. Get it down to 5% and I'll give them another chance.

I feel terrible for Ryan who has just a tremendous collection. At least he has faith in MemoryLane and is probably why he trusted his prized possession to them in the first place. If he's happy, I'm happy. Good luck Ryan.

Still I've made my last bid at Heretic, Bad MemoryLane and REA. cause I can't win anything @REA anyway.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Neal

Couldn't 54 cards be carried onto a plane rather easily?

Sent from my SM-G998U using Tapatalk

Was that NET54 cards

[Johnny630]

Am I the only one on this board that believes that the bidders on these cards Got a big middle finger from the auction house.

We are truly in a sad state in this industry.

Johnny Marsili

[GaryPassamonte]

How are auction winnings of this high dollar value transferred to the winning bidder? Are they usually mailed or picked up? I would think most winners of a $2 million dollar card would pick it up? I'm just curious.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Am I the only one on this board that believes that the bidders on these cards Got a big middle finger from the auction house.

We are truly in a sad state in this industry.

Johnny Marsili

+1 good luck to anyone trying to recoup cards they sold off in attempt to win something that wasn't there.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[UKCardGuy]

Wow... Just wow. A pretty incredible story. I feel for the consignors in this scenario. I hope you are all made whole.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Am I the only one on this board that believes that the bidders on these cards Got a big middle finger from the auction house.

We are truly in a sad state in this industry.

Johnny Marsili

ML seems to have been in a no win situation. I think most auction houses are going to err on the side of doing what's best for the consignors if that is different from what is best for the bidders.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

ML seems to have been in a no win situation. I think most auction houses are going to err on the side of doing what's best for the consignors if that is different from what is best for the bidders.

What's best for their eithical duties is to disclose it and end bidding on the stolen cards

Consignor and bidders have all been slighted it needs to be fair this has not been.

ML should have done the right ethical thing. I don't believe that was fully done in this case that's it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think most auction houses are going to err on the side of doing what's best for the consignors if that is different from what is best for the bidders.

In PA, our fiduciary duty is, indeed, to our consignors.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

What's best for their eithical duties is to disclose it and end bidding on the stolen cards

Consignor and bidders have all been slighted it needs to be fair this has not been.

ML should have done the right ethical thing. I don't believe that was fully done in this case that's it.

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

Peter i respect your views and commentary. This is black and white there is no gray area here for me. I'm not saying you're making defenses for them but doesn't their insurance cover the theft in itself right then and there? Not a sale of cards they do not have in their possession and the end of said auction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Peter i respect your views and commentary. This is black and white there is no gray area here for me. I'm not saying you're making defenses for them but doesn't their insurance cover the theft in itself right then and there? Not a sale of cards they do not have in their possession and the end of said auction.

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

If the auction was clean, and assuming the card was stolen during the auction, why isn't that as good a valuation point as any? Or are you saying you just did a fraudulent listing after the fact?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

Your case is completely different from what happened with ML. You never owned or had in possession these cards you listed on ebay. Getting insurance on items you never had and then claiming they were stolen to try get insurance reimbursement is fraud. ML actually had these cards in their possession at one point and took a blanket insurance on them. Of course, they would get reimbursed with the amount depending on the details of their policy. Nothing fraudulent there.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the auction was clean, and assuming the card was stolen during the auction, why isn't that as good a valuation point as any? Or are you saying you just did a fraudulent listing after the fact?

I’m saying the sale continued after the theft of said items that they no longer possessed.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I’m saying the sale continued after the theft of said items that they no longer possessed.

If you possessed a card that you were listing for auction, I would think that insurance would cover it if it was stolen during or after the auction was completed. If the auction is completed, that would seem to be a reasonable amount for insurance to pay (which appears to be what ML did). If not, then a fair value would have to be determined some other way, as others have said.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

Well, just to continue the discussion for argument's sake, what detriment?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, just to continue the discussion for argument's sake, what detriment?

Bidding, thinking it's an honest auction, then learning you've been used, is detriment enough. But consider the bidders who were shuffling assets around, selling things off, in preparation of needing money to pay for anticipated winnings. Could such a bidder "prove damages?" Maybe not. But being chumped is, again IMHO, not okay.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

I don’t believe that was their intent either Peter…I’m just saying the fact is they didn’t possess the cards at the end of the sale nor during parts of bidding, that’s it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

Imagine all the people who stayed up two extra hours though, Gary.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I don’t believe that was their intent either Peter…I’m just saying the fact is they didn’t possess the cards at the end of the sale nor during parts of bidding, that’s it.

I get it. It's not pretty. I am only saying that in the context of the mess created by the theft, it may have been a reasonable measure. Not like any bidders were massively defrauded. Just annoyed.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

It’s definitely more convenient to cover it up and hold a fake auction.

This is the only hobby I’ve been a part of where convenience is considered an appropriate reason to do the wrong thing, to cover things up, to lie, or to host frauds. I’m sure it’s not the only one, but my other hobbies have been so much cleaner than this.

That it is more convenient to do X is not really a justification for X, and we all would think that if I was the seller instead of an auction house many people like.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

When those cards went missing, those became phantom lots. They were auctioning cards they didn't have.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by glchen

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

+1

It was the best solution for a bad situation. What if the cards had been recovered before the close of auction? Unlikely but a possibility.

This way you have established current FMV on cards that would have been difficult to establish value otherwise.

You have established who the card belongs to if/when they are recovered.

You have established a solid value to compensate the consignors.

You have mitigated layers of litigation.

Yes it sucks and hindsight is what it is but I don't see a better solution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When those cards went missing, those became phantom lots. They were auctioning cards they didn't have.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

Again, who was hurt and how?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

I don’t

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s definitely more convenient to cover it up and hold a fake auction.

This is the only hobby I’ve been a part of where convenience is considered an appropriate reason to do the wrong thing, to cover things up, to lie, or to host frauds. I’m sure it’s not the only one, but my other hobbies have been so much cleaner than this.

That it is more convenient to do X is not really a justification for X, and we all would think that if I was the seller instead of an auction house many people like.

Sane question. Who was hurt, and how?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s definitely more convenient to cover it up and hold a fake auction.

This is the only hobby I’ve been a part of where convenience is considered an appropriate reason to do the wrong thing, to cover things up, to lie, or to host frauds. I’m sure it’s not the only one, but my other hobbies have been so much cleaner than this.

That it is more convenient to do X is not really a justification for X, and we all would think that if I was the seller instead of an auction house many people like.

Agree.