|
You don't say.
|
USED to be REA's big fan ---not any more Reply to Thread
it may have been better to keep it short with your post, you lost me at the half way point!
Jimmy |
Bill
If you refeunded the buyers of your cards more than they paid for them you have a gripe. If not you are just a hypocrite and a jerk. just my opinion.:cool:
|
I'm trying to think of a tactful answer....
to the above comment------of course, if glynparson got different cards than he paid for, we all know that he would graciously accept it , keep his mouth shut, and figure that it's OK to be offered less than the value he paid several times before reaching an agreement.
|
Rea
Big reputation in the hobby: slipshod handling of what was offered for auction. The rest of it is secondary.
|
I notice you keep dodging the question
Did you offer those that purchased the wrong graded cards from you more money than they paid? Since you are not answering I have to assume you did not so you therefore must be a jerk. I never said I would take it, learn how to read buddy. I was just pointing out you did the same thing as REA but somehow you think it's ok that you made a mistake but it is not ok for Rob and his crew? Sounds like a hypocrite so I guess you must be both a hypocrite and a jerk like I stated before.
|
Rea made it right (end result)
REA made it right,with the buyer. The buyer ACCEPTED the offer that REA gave him. BUYER should have NO complaints. REA is TOP NOTCH !!!!!!
CHRIS |
LET's PRETEND FOR A MOMENT (to simplify for some simpletons)
that several Net 54 members, among those Glynparson, Chris Agard and a few others buy a T206 set in an REA auction
The set contains a Plank PSA 6, recently sold for $188,000 They pay $350,000 for the set calculating the above value for the Plank, and $162,000 for the rest of the set, totaling $350,000 which is $410,000 INCLUDING buyer's premium Y'all get the shipment with the Plank being a PSA 5,and call REA You are told that the consignor made a mistake and sold the PSA 6, replaced it with a PSA 5 but didn't change the registry and that the auction was mistaken as well. You then get told that the SMR value of the set is $485,000 and since you paid 85% of that you would get 85% of the SMR value of the Plank which is ONLY $135,000 in PSA 6, SMR being a lousy guide at best THAT MEANS YOU GET OFFERED $114,750 FOR WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PLANK PSA 6 WHICH YOU VALUED AT RECENT SALES OF$188,000 THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO ME--I WAS OFFERED 85% of SMR and other ridiculous insulting offers even before the discussion of taking the set back ever happened. So I guess you/y'all would have said , "Fine, we;'ll take the $114,000 and return the Plank PSA 5. If you say that you would have accepted that, you're a liar.(s) All I expected was to be treated fairly from the beginning--not having to haggle over $300.00 which they did for days on end after I had spent over $60,000 on different auction lots...and for those who pointed out that most of that goes to the consignor, almost $10,000 went to REA-- bill |
Simpleton 1 present !!!!!!!!
First of all if you were not happy with what you said would FIX the problem don't OFFER !!! What more can a guy do but offer you a FULL refund. Sorry my fault REA was supposed to give you the cards for free !!!!! He did exactly what you asked of him,and you still have the NERVE to BIT-- !!!! I would understand if you didn't agree to a settlement. Only thing i can think of is you wish you would have asked for more. It's better to be needy than greedy
|
REA partisans
I understand a lot of people on this board are loyal to REA, and for good reason considering some of their competitors.
But if you look closely at Bill's last note where he cogently takes us through the transaction using the T206 Plank analogy, I think his point is pretty compelling. No buyer would be satisfied in that situation. And it is crazy to me that REA would balk at $300 given the amount Bill had spent with them, if that is what happened. There also seems to be a disagreement about when the "full refund" offer was made. Bill is adamant in saying that it wasn't offered until well along in the negotiation. Obviously none of us really knows the full story on that issue as we were not there, but if that's true I can understand why he would be upset. And frankly, while a full refund is a stand-up offer to make, as we should expect from a company like REA, you can't reasonably claim that it completely erases the auctioneer's initial mistake, which clearly had the potential to cost the buyer (whoever he was) a lot of time, effort, and even money. The analogy there is this: you spot the #1 card on your wantlist on an Ebay BIN. You are incredibly excited and you BIN it. Then the seller tells you, oops! he made a mistake and can't supply the card -- but of course he will refund your money! Are you saying you wouldn't be furious despite getting your money back? Don't think so. |
From REA's Perspective #2
Someone else might say “Wow, REA thought I wanted too much and maybe I did, but they gave me what I wanted anyway. What a great company! Thanks!"
Mr. Latzko did not jump through any hoops or experience any delay at all. There seems to be an impression or assumption in some posts that we made him wait. We immediately checked with the consignor (to see if by chance he had the card in question – sometimes it can get pretty confusing with graded registry sets when collectors upgrade or downgrade). This took one minute. We then came up with plans to address the error including taking the set back. I spoke to Bill Latzko for 10 minutes. He was extremely rude and unreasonable and belligerent in my opinion. In the very same conversation (the one and only with me regarding this issue), since we could not have any meeting of the minds, I gave him what he demanded. It was during this conversation that he finally, when pressed, told me that the reason he refused send the set (that he was so unhappy with) back was because he had sold some of the cards. He still had the cards in hand but insisted he wanted to make the sale as it was a good sale to a good customer of his. So I just gave him what he wanted even though it was more than I thought fair and reasonable, all the more so in light of the fact that he refused to return the set for a full refund. As far as I was concerned, REA gave him $1800 (the amount demanded by him) for a card that in my eyes he paid $1260 for (SMR of $1500 x 84% = $1260). He saw things differently. So we went along with how he saw things even though we didn’t agree. I paid him what he wanted. Which makes his posts here all the more curious. In addition, Mr. Latzko did not mention that he paid for his $63,751 invoice with an unreasonable number of small denomination bank checks purchased with cash over a two week period which were a burden for us to even deposit. One or two or even three checks for whatever reason is fine for payment of any invoice (99%+ pay with one check), but this set a record. This was crazy. In addition, Mr. Latzko has failed to mention that he paid his auction invoice late - and without prearranged terms to do so - and that we did not give him a hard time about this and we waived his late payment fees. Sincerely, Robert Lifson Robert Edward Auctions, LLC |
...
|
USED to be REA's big fan
Thanks Rob for clearing this up and explaining your side, it really seemed confusing
glad you responded to this post Jimmy |
Thanks for the private message Mr. Latzko
I will gladly say it to your face come see me at the national.
|
Quote:
|
I don't think Bill's example using the T206 Plank was a good one because for many bidders that may have been the sole reason they were bidding on the lot. Maybe they only wanted the Plank and were prepared to sell the other 520 cards just to get it. So if you expected a 6 and got a 5 you may not have wanted the lot at all.
In the case of the 1956 Topps set, the misgraded team card was an important one because of its low pop, but it wasn't a Mantle rookie or a card of that caliber. So it would be easier to come up with a solution there. The only area here that I felt REA was remiss was counting on the registry report and not examining the set card by card. Unfortunately, as time consuming as that is, you have to do it. At the end of the day, the auction house has to write up the description and stand behind it. By counting on the registry listing they were ceding control of that step to someone else. That's a no-no and I am sure Rob and company realize they can't do that in the future. Other than that he gave Bill as much as he could have hoped for so I don't understand why this thread was even started. Like I said in Scott's post about SGC, both sides need to be a little more flexible in resolving an issue like this. I don't think Bill exhibited any flexibility at all. It had to be his way period, and Rob actually agreed to it. End of story. |
Rob lifson--your omissions & misrepresentations = = lies
In addition, Mr. Latzko did not mention that he paid for his $63,751 invoice with an unreasonable number of small denomination bank checks purchased with cash over a two week period which were a burden for us to even deposit. One or two or even three checks for whatever reason is fine for payment of any invoice (99%+ pay with one check), but this set a record. This was crazy. In addition, Mr. Latzko has failed to mention that he paid his auction invoice late - and without prearranged terms to do so - and that we did not give him a hard time about this and we waived his late payment fees.
Sincerely, Robert Lifson Robert Edward Auctions, LLC __________________________________________________ _____________ __________________________________________________ _____________ Dear Rob, It is one thing to make a mistake in your auction--which your consignor and you BOTH did. It's one thing to haggle with a customer who spent $60,000 over a few hundred dollars to fix YOUR mistakes--which you did But it's quite another to come on the NET 54 forum and blatantly LIE and MISREPRESENT what happened--which you are doing FACTS: I called you right after the auction Rob, explained that I had the $63,000+ IN CASH , preferred not to make a huge deposit in my checking account at one time and offered two ideas 1) I offered TO DRIVE FROM ATLANTA for 12/13 hours with the cash and asked if you could have someone drive 3 hrs to meet me since I couldn't physically do 15 hrs at a stretch. You thanked me for the offer, stated another "local" winning bidder had dropped off cash earlier that day but you only had 3 people and you couldn't "spare one for the day".which I understood 2) I then asked if I could--over a 2 week period-- do Money Orders for approx $5,000 each . YOU SAID YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT!!!! I mentioned I would send them Fed Ex and you GLADLY gave me your street address instead of the PO Box. You certainly didn't say that it was a BURDEN to deposit money orders, you didn't object to the two weeks, and I told you I'd probably send 50% in 1 week. YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT TOO!!! YOU EVEN KNEW ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY ORDERS I WOULD SEND AND THAT WAS OK WITH YOU AS WELL!! 3) I overnighted approx $32,000 a week later (8 money orders)---I followed up the next day to make sure you received it-----Y'all thanked me and I said I would send the balance FEDEX within the next week.--which I did.(6/7 money orders for the $30,000 balance) You can do all the $10,000,000 auctions you want, you can have the most beautiful catalogue and consignments in the hobby, and certainly be one of the leader's in the BB card hobby,which makes you perhaps somewhat "believable" to some people. But your misrepresentations of our conversations is despicable to say the least. Why is it all of a sudden a BURDEN to deposit a number of money orders which YOU WERE FINE WITH WHEN WE SPOKE?? Why is it all of a sudden late payment WHEN YOU WERE FINE WITH IT WHEN WE SPOKE??? You are correct that I didn't pre-arrange this but if it was a burden or an objection, you could have mentioned it then---Someone initially offering to drive 25 hours round trip to deliver in cash isn't an unreasonable person!! I won't bother to address further the issue of compensation of the missing card---I'll repeat that for you to use a % of SMR to justify your attempt to short-change someone in your initial offers is nothing short of being an unethical (albeit rich) businessman.--and you sure as hell can't say that your INITIAL offers which you failed to address here were fair!!! Peace |
Rob lifson--your omissions and misrepresentations==lies
Leon--I realize I responded to rob in the other thread but feel this is egregious enough to warrant a new post/thread please
__________________________________________________ ________________ In addition, Mr. Latzko did not mention that he paid for his $63,751 invoice with an unreasonable number of small denomination bank checks purchased with cash over a two week period which were a burden for us to even deposit. One or two or even three checks for whatever reason is fine for payment of any invoice (99%+ pay with one check), but this set a record. This was crazy. In addition, Mr. Latzko has failed to mention that he paid his auction invoice late - and without prearranged terms to do so - and that we did not give him a hard time about this and we waived his late payment fees. Sincerely, Robert Lifson Robert Edward Auctions, LLC __________________________________________________ _____________ __________________________________________________ _____________ Dear Rob, It is one thing to make a mistake in your auction--which your consignor and you BOTH did. It's one thing to haggle with a customer who spent $60,000 over a few hundred dollars to fix YOUR mistakes--which you did But it's quite another to come on the NET 54 forum and blatantly LIE and MISREPRESENT what happened--which you are doing FACTS: I called you right after the auction Rob, explained that I had the $63,000+ IN CASH , preferred not to make a huge deposit in my checking account at one time and offered two ideas 1) I offered TO DRIVE FROM ATLANTA for 12/13 hours with the cash and asked if you could have someone drive 3 hrs to meet me since I couldn't physically do 15 hrs at a stretch. You thanked me for the offer, stated another "local" winning bidder had dropped off cash earlier that day but you only had 3 people and you couldn't "spare one for the day".which I understood 2) I then asked if I could--over a 2 week period-- do Money Orders for approx $5,000 each . YOU SAID YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT!!!! I mentioned I would send them Fed Ex and you GLADLY gave me your street address instead of the PO Box. You certainly didn't say that it was a BURDEN to deposit money orders, you didn't object to the two weeks, and I told you I'd probably send 50% in 1 week. YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT TOO!!! YOU EVEN KNEW ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY ORDERS I WOULD SEND AND THAT WAS OK WITH YOU AS WELL!! 3) I overnighted approx $32,000 a week later (8 money orders)---I followed up the next day to make sure you received it-----Y'all thanked me and I said I would send the balance FEDEX within the next week.--which I did.(6/7 money orders for the $30,000 balance) You can do all the $10,000,000 auctions you want, you can have the most beautiful catalogue and consignments in the hobby, and certainly be one of the leader's in the BB card hobby,which makes you perhaps somewhat "believable" to some people. But your misrepresentations of our conversations is despicable to say the least. Why is it all of a sudden a BURDEN to deposit a number of money orders which YOU WERE FINE WITH WHEN WE SPOKE?? Why is it all of a sudden late payment WHEN YOU WERE FINE WITH IT WHEN WE SPOKE??? You are correct that I didn't pre-arrange this but if it was a burden or an objection, you could have mentioned it then---Someone initially offering to drive 25 hours round trip to deliver in cash isn't an unreasonable person!! I won't bother to address further the issue of compensation of the missing card---I'll repeat that for you to use a % of SMR to justify your attempt to short-change someone in your initial offers is nothing short of being an unethical (albeit rich) businessman.--and you sure as hell can't say that your INITIAL offers which you failed to address here were fair!!! Peace |
Way past unnecessary now.
|
oy
Oy....why do I get to have to deal with these situations? I want a raise!!
|
Leon no one will object if you double your current salary...:D:D
|
thanks
Quote:
|
Rob lifson--your omissions and misrepresentations==lies
Leon,
I think we have to move on here, we heard from both sides, lets get back to talking baseball cards Jimmy |
Agreed....I appreciate hearing both sides of the story. However, it does not affect my dealings with them whatsoever. I will continue to consign and continue to bid on their stuff.....now back to regular bickering.
|
I agree
Guys, I agree.
Unless there is some overwhelming reason the other mods, or I, don't like to lock threads. That goes against the philosophy of how the board is managed(which everyone knows, like it or not). That is, in a Laissez-faire as possible way, while trying to maintain focus and civility. It's a job where you literally can't make everyone happy. :) Now back to my Motrin. ...... |
I just can't believe someone would complain about the burden of depositing checks. A strong indication that it's time to get back in touch with the rest of the world.
And while this isn't about any one auction house, does it seem a bit ironic that they all tout record prices but run to the shelter of SMR when it is to their advantage? |
The plot thickens. It doesn't really matter though. As a bystander, there's really only one issue that stands out for me.
I don't care if the buyer was unreasonable or not. For a company to haggle over $300 with someone who spends tens of thousands of dollars with them, over a mistake the company made, is just plain stupid. And the point the OP is trying to make is that even though he got what he wanted, he shouldn't have had to twist their arm to get it. I agree. I guarantee this fiasco will cost them way more than $300 in the future, from this buyer alone. |
Quote:
|
" . . . and without prearranged terms to do so."
I think what Rob meant by "prearranged" in his email is that the request for alternate payment options did not take place before the auction. The buyer says that he contacted Rob right after the auction. It's one thing to say "In the event my winnings total in the mid-five figures, would you consider some unusual payment options?" It's another to bring this up after the auction is over. Further, why should the fact that a winning bidder "preferred not to make a huge deposit in (his) checking account at one time" become the dealer's problem? 99% of winning bidders paid with one check within the time frame. Rob worked with this bidder, with no late penalties. To call out Rob as a liar on a public forum because an email was mis-interpreted seems unreasonable. |
Where does one get $63,000 in cash?
Why does one make a large purchase of an easily liquidated item (and, in fact, begin such liquidation even before receiving it) with cash, or MOs in under $10k denominations? Just askin'. |
"...It was also the smoothest running auction in all respects, including collecting the money. You'd think that there would be a few delays here and there in collecting money and getting it in the hands of consignors when you're talking about ten million dollars. There weren't. And all consignors were paid in full, 100 cents on the dollar with no adjustments due to nonpaying bidders, and in record time."
|
lock the thread?
Quote:
|
No point locking this one unless you lock the other one too.
|
Can we ask who requested it? That said, we really only need one thread at most discussing this matter.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I have been a buyer and a seller to REA and usually do not say much on the board as I am more of a lurker, but this thread is ridiculous. If you really read the email that Rob sent I believe he humored this guy as long as he could before the little things go a bit out of hand.
I have had nothing but a red carpet laid out for me every time I call the office and I don't do a ton of buying or selling, just enough to consider myself a collector. It seems that you were given about a dozen options from them for rectification and none were suitable. Eventually the customer ceases to be right. Let it go man life is too short. |
If we agree that we don't need two threads on the same subject, then this one should be shut down. But do you leave the other one open?
I feel this discussion has been exhausted on both threads, but it's not really my call. |
For a number of fairly obvious reasons this thread should be deleted (the other one as well). And it should be done immediately.
|
Quote:
Doesn't look like anyone "haggled." REA made an offer. The OP didn't like it. They negotiated and REA gave him EXACTLY WHAT HE ASKED FOR! Then the OP started, not one, but two different threads, complaining about REA's handling of the situation. How do you guys ever complete any deal without negotiating? Yes, the problem should have, and could have, been avoided, but it wasn't. The buyer admits that he made the exact same mistake himself on the flip. I hope the guy he sold to doesn't come on and start a thread ripping him! |
Doesn't look like anyone "haggled." REA made an offer. The OP didn't like it. They negotiated and REA gave him EXACTLY WHAT HE ASKED FOR!
Then the OP started, not one, but two different threads, complaining about REA's handling of the situation. How do you guys ever complete any deal without negotiating? Yes, the problem should have, and could have, been avoided, but it wasn't. The buyer admits that he made the exact same mistake himself on the flip. I hope the guy he sold to doesn't come on and start a thread ripping him! PERFECTLY SAID JIM END OF DISCUSSION !!!!!!!! SAME AS I SAID !!!!!! |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
No threads should be deleted. I'm late to the party and find this rather fascinating...fascinating enough to endure it all at 2:45 A.M on a Saturday night.
I honestly don't think we have gotten to the bottom of this (it's over anyways) and perhaps REA didn't really care for the beligerant behavior of this gent (so he claims) and that's why he insulted him with a $100 from his own wallet, and the guy has the set and doesn't want to return it because of backroom deals? Either way, nobody wins here. And SMR on a 56 Topps set is what? $43K? In 2002, I won a lot of high-grade cards from a dealer on eBay and of the 20 cards sold to me, 5 had tape stains on the back. When I called him on this, he was very rude saying that I got a good deal any way (I think he said I got them at half of what he wanted) and told me that the 15 cards should be good enough for me (and even said I was a dealer and would understand this) and I was outraged at his behavior and he offered to do nothing for me. I left him negative feedback and he left me negative feedback and I was pissed for about a week and then life goes on. Will I ever deal with him again? No. But life goes on. DanC |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:00 PM. |