I see this comment often, but how often does an auction house truly have something that is so rare that it overcomes a negative reputation? In all the years Memory Lane has been running auctions they only had one item that I had to have enough for me to hold my nose.

Goldin has never had an item that was so rare and desirable that I would win it from them.

Glad you both brought up this topic, because I had discussed a similar scenario with friends at a card show this weekend.

My scenario was an auction house wants to sell a signed Ty Cobb bat in the future. No current comps for that piece, so the AH puts a fake listing in their next auction to get a comp. The fake listing sells, the buyer doesn't get it, bingo, comp for a future auction. Again, from reading this thread, most would not have a problem with this, because legally, no one is harmed.

Concur, onto the next auction!

LOL. Not for me, but I wasn't bidding before either.

If the consignors aren’t made whole I hope there would be some reluctance to do business with them.

I would think there's very little chance ML is not going to make them whole.

I too think ML will make consignors whole. If they have to come out of pocket for this that price to pay is much smaller...I think...than if they decided to not make consignors whole and the hit they would take to their rep. However it appears there are many on here who might still do business with them in light of that.

Broadly speaking, yes. I spend a great deal of my time, professionally speaking, advising clients about things that may subject them to criminal or civil liability. The obvious ones are easy. There are many situations where the answer is less of a black and white and more of a risk-reward assessment. My job in those cases is to advise the client on the pitfalls of each approach. Either way, the client has the final say and does whatever he or she wants. In other words 'my lawyer told me to' is a cop-out defense. I see it all the time with insurers when they are sued for bad faith and they assert an advice of counsel defense. That might get you clear of some aspects that require intent, but even then there is a limit on how credible it is as a defense. I don't see many murderers getting by on an advice of counsel defense. ML might as well try the Steve Martin defense instead:

You say, “Steve.. what do I say to the tax man when he comes to my door and says, ‘You.. have never paid taxes’?” Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language:

“I forgot!”

How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don’t say “I forgot”? Let’s say you’re on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, “I forgot armed robbery was illegal.” Let’s suppose he says back to you, “You have committed a foul crime. you have stolen hundreds and thousands of dollars from people at random, and you say, ‘I forgot’?” Two simple words:

"Excuuuuuse me!!“

I am confused by the false equivalencies being posted.

How can people not understand the difference between intentionally operating in bad faith (posting a fake listing to drum up business, or create a comp point) and operating in good faith and having something go horribly wrong?

I don't think anyone credible is saying that the auctioneer was not operating in good faith and did not have something go horribly wrong. The disagreement is about what the auctioneer did after something went horribly wrong. The choice there was really simple: let bidders think they will get the cards they win or end the lots and not let bidders think they will get the cards they win. Me, personally, I choose the route that doesn't involve misleading innocent people. I don't see why that is a big stretch.

My thought's exactly...it's not a big stretch.

I think the one wrinkle is that maybe there was a chance that ML recovers the items before the auction ends, or shortly thereafter?

I realize that hope springs eternal, and hope is not much of a strategy, but it's not completely crazy to proceed on that basis. Of course, once you head down the road of not shutting it down, it gets a lot more exciting the closer you get to the end of the auction without having recovered the items.

A few years ago, in a thread regarding shill bidding, we discussed this notion of fake comps (items bid up by shill bidders who don't pay,) and then the general outcry was that everyone was harmed by the false value information it put into the market.

But now the standard seems to have shifted, for some, to "No harm, no foul."

Shill (fake) bidding is bad; phantom auction items are okay. And what's weird is, only half of us see the hypocrisy.

The no harm no foul was not proposed (at least by me) as some general overarching standard applying universally to every possible situation, and my answer to your hypothetical made that clear. It was proposed as a reason under the unique circumstances of this case what ML did in response to a no win situation was not "fraud." Was it a bad look, of course. As Scott writes, do people here really have no ability to see nuance and complexity and are able to think and live only in terms of black and white rigid rules and standards?

So your "gotcha" is a straw man as far as I am concerned. I'm more than content to take each situation on its terms, guided by general principles but not inflexible ones.

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

According to Emerson, little minds insist on a foolish consistency. You can characterize it however you want, to me each situation is different and sometimes you can't thread the needle with a perfect rule so you go by general principles, experience, judgment, and an innate sense of right and wrong. If you can't tell the difference between what ML did and ordinary shill bidding, I am sorry. That you can find some overarching words that apply to both is beside the point.

Thanks for telling me I have a little mind. And I'll confess, I've probably never sniffed $2 million in cards either. I mostly collect game flannels, but I don't sniff them much, either.

But frankly, I'm not seeing your superiority in defending the deception of hundreds of bidders in an auction.

You're the one who says "Stuff trumps all" and you are currently defending that credo with one small tweak. Your new motto should be: Stuff (and money) trumps all." And if a deception is run in the chase for stuff and money, so what? Nobody is damaged.

I will again end with the caveat that if ML continued the phantom lots at the bequest of law enforcement, I would certainly consider that to be a legitimate reason to do so.

I would love more info on why ML decided to move forward with the lots in the auction. To me, that is very relevant before anyone here can possibly conclude if their intent was pure or not.

Assuming it was, what they concluded was the best of all the choices might have ended up being misleading but it was not being done with an intent to deceive or harm others. And I do not see it in the same light at all as shill bidding which not only has measurable damages but is also clearly done with an intent to deceive.

As you wish. Feel free to mischaracterize.

The straw man army has come home to roost. People can come up with any number of scenarios to support their opinion. Except the one surrounding the issue at hand, it's too much of a stretch

Also, as I understand it from what someone said, if the cards are recovered, and assuming insurance issues can be worked through, the winning bidders still have an option to pay for and receive the cards they "won." Another indicator IMO this was not a "fraud" as I understand the term.

If you simply look at it from the point of view of the house, what did they have to gain by letting the auction go with 54 key lots that at the time the auction ended they could not ship? They were now going to have to tell 54 people, possibly, what happened. What is the upside there?

They allegedly told nobody outside of the company about the theft until the auction was concluded and they very well might not have insurance coverage for this and will be writing a check. Yes disappointing and it sucks to think you can win something that you cannot take possession of but I just see no advantage to them in having done so. It might not be the best look for them but they look awful shipping the box as they did. To me, the rest of it is moot.

What they gain of course is an infinitely easier path to reimburse consignors and deal with insurance issues. Otherwise, it's a hot mess as most of these cards do not have commodity values. Nothing at all sinister about this. Context matters unless you live by a dictionary.

That was my failed attempt at the point. It was done for their consignors. The house does not benefit at all from having done this.

I did raise the question the other day that Ryan and the house had already estimated the values of his consignments. Not sure if all 54 cards stolen were his but there was an agreement as to what they both felt the cards would sell for. I know that estimate prior to consignment being sent is not the same as the auctions having run their course but the house was not in total darkness about what those lots were worth. Turned out they were close to spot on. It begs the question if they really needed to leave the lots in there for valuation purposes.

I guess the only question in my mind is whether the parties went into it feeling that the estimates were high estimates or low estimates. And whether the parties would have attempted to revisit those original estimates based on no additional information. By letting it run, in theory, the potential for valuation disputes is reduced.

Their valuations on specific lots were all over the map according to what Ryan posted, they just happened to work out in the aggregate. Not sure insurance is going to just accept a pre auction estimate either as you point out.

I doubt they would take fake auction results either. If there is coverage.

“They” meaning the insurance company?

Or “they” meaning the consignors?

I suspect the consignors might be okay with using that valuation method.

The insurance company, if there is one or more providing coverage.

Though I very strongly disagree with Peter here, I don't see how he and Lorewalker can possibly be called blowhards. A blowhard is a talkative and boastful braggart, nobody here is bragging in this thread (except for Republican's repeatedly stated class warfare) whatsoever. Talkative, that is true of, I suppose, every poster who has posted in it more than once.

A person is independent of an idea. I have probably disagreed with Carter more intensely than anyone else in this thread historically [as Clementefan does not appear to have any real position in most threads beyond attacking people he doesn't like, frequently in ways demonstrably false, making it difficult to really disagree with any point he has as there is no point], but we are on the 'same side' here because the idea or claim is independent of the user ID. I oft agree with people I normally disagree with, or even dislike, and frequently disagree with people I like. I believe I have only insulted Republican over his very explicit classism and religious discrimination expressed in this thread (I would assume he is trying to get it locked because criticizing Memory Lane and Cohen is clearly one hell of a taboo and is not actually this disgustingly prejudicial). I suppose calling Cohen a fraudster can be considered an insult, but as he was found guilty in court, went to prison for it, and not even his army of fanboys here is pretending he was innocent and wrongfully convicted it is hard to see how this is not a simple fact, albeit unpopular and undesirable to be observed.


Well, I have learned that up is down, that intentionally lying to thousands of bidders is not deceitful, and that selling things you do not have and cannot deliver is just fine (as long as you are rich, rule not applicable to poors on the BST). I ca not wait for the next lesson I will learn in Cardland to expand my limited knowledge.

I thought one of the possible explanations for allowing the auction to continue with the stolen lots was to obtain a price for insurance purposes (whether or not proposed by the insurance company). Why do you think the insurance company wouldn't accept the auction results as legitimate values if there is no evidence of improper bidding?

The policy language will drive everything but when there is an insured loss valuation is typically a hot button issue, often involving competing experts. The results of a fake auction or any recent auction could be a data point in one side’s arsenal but, depending on policy language, would probably not carry the day.

I like that this thread has brought us closer. True story!

I often disagree with Greg but it's certainly not personal and I respect his intelligence and tenacity. And when you're having a discussion among people with strong views sometimes it takes some back and forth. That's the nature of a debate. We can't all be efficient in our posts like Trent, but then again when all you have to add is to demean people, it may not take many posts.

Wait, can we pause this thread for a day or two? It's going to take my little mind some time to digest all this.

I know fraudulent and fraud are similar words, but if someone had a fake auction, but didn't take any payment(s) for anything, they didn't commit fraud, correct?

I propose to all that want to drag this out until the end of time, schedule a conference, rent a banquet hall, lock it, and don't come out until all is settled.....for Christ's sake!

Ugh...you again?

Lol

So, 2 weeks ago you join a chat forum (where people discuss things - that's the general idea) and your contributions to the discussion are:





What is your purpose?

Consumer fraud is defined by statutes and some would have different definitions. Advertising goods for sale without the intention of selling them is defined as fraud in some jurisdictions.

The most important of all purposes. He and Clementefan are here to unite us all together again so we have something to agree on and remind us that however much all the actual posters might sometimes get on each others nerves or criticize ideas, we still have something we can unite around :)

I started to try to read through the last 2 pages of posts to catch myself up on this thread, but then I realized we’re talking about baseball cards and it never needs to get this serious.

Note to self, don’t mail cards to best western.

We exited the arguing phase and are now singing kumbaya around the campfire together, united again.

People are literally posting hypotheticals where an auction is acting in bad faith from the get-go and saying, "If what ML did was OK then this is OK too, right?"

I could make almost any proposition look wrong and inconsistent using the Socratic method. But so what? It's a useful exercise in some contexts and can be fun (not in the first year of law school when you're on the receiving end, perhaps), but at the end of the day it has significant limitations. These "gotcha" posts don't establish anything about the specific ML situation IMO. Life is complex, everything doesn't reduce to clean lines, deal with it.

Exactly. My hypothetical examples were meant to expand on the notion (which I inferred from your posts) that if nobody suffers measurable damages, there is no real problem.

The point I was clumsily trying to make with the comparison to the shill bidding thread of years gone by is that, at that time, the "damages" were the phony sales that were left hanging out there. Whether the bidder can't (or won't) honor the bid, or the AH won't (or in this case can't) complete the sale, the end result is non-sales looking like sales.

I was NOT in any way comparing what ML did, to the act of shill bidding and I'm sorry if that impression was given. I was aiming at the similarity of a party knowingly advancing the impression a sale was actually happening, when it was not. And, that in the previous discussion, this was seen as a decidedly damaging impact on the hobby.

Hopefully ML has retroactively removed those phantom lots from their auction results.

In short I was trying to establish whether deceit and phantom sales were ok, generally, if a lawyer couldn't bring suit (nobody hurt, no damages.) My journey down the slippery slope produced nothing conclusive.

My mind is big enough to recognize ML had to choose between a few bad options.

I would argue that as long as nobody shill bid on the 54 lots that had been stolen, and nobody who was bidding had any knowledge the cards had been stolen, then I would see no reason to remove those sales from results. If each winner had the intention of paying for those lots at the hammer price, then those are valid prices. The consignors are being paid based on that. Just that the money is 100% not coming from the the winners.

Even you are capable of rational thought, but your opinion still doesn't supercede legal advice....or matter to anyone in your delusional cardland or otherwise.


Peoples opinions are not equal. Some are wrong ,as they don't coincide with facts.

We have now seen we have plenty of people who should be on a 5150 hold, welcome to express their opinions as fact.

LOL, see they returned.:D:D:D