and what about Craig's comment
 

?? Dean did not address this, I don't think, but Craig seemed pretty clear as to what he was charging.

this needs more then popcorn, this needs beer! this one is making my head hurt!!!! We could get Michael Moore to do a documentary.... We could call it "Dizzy Dean"

It also wouldnt be the first time someone has bid on their own items and won. What better way then to throw off anyone questioning this!

Bob Slydell: Well, just a second there, professor. We, uh, we fixed the *glitch*. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it'll just work itself out naturally.
Bob Porter: We always like to avoid confrontation, whenever possible. Problem is solved from your end.
:rolleyes:

answer to peter spaeth question
 

I don’t know who Craig is. Six years is a long time ago but I just do not remember communicating with Craig or anyone about any Kalamazoo Bats card on eBay. I suppose it’s possible I bid on a Kalamazoo Bat card because I do like them but don’t remember ever actually doing so. If I bid on a card I liked that I didn’t win but after was kicking myself for not bidding higher, there were times I would ask the buyer if he would sell it to me at a small profit (years ago all buyer handles were available to see, making this possible). There is nothing wrong with this. There is also nothing wrong with telling a seller that if the buyer doesn’t pay, you are still there to honor your bid. That is what Craig is saying as I understand his post. But I don’t remember the communications Craig is claiming, or any similar communications with anyone on eBay that could have possibly been interpreted in a negative light. If I did have any communication as an underbidder with Craig about any card that he interpreted in a negative light, there is no doubt there was a miscommunication about my intent. Craig, if it was me, you could have called me or written me at any time to discuss the perceived indiscretion. Obviously, if I had been trying to get the seller to sell a card to me that was won by another bidder (something I would never do), it wouldn’t even make sense to contact the rightful buyer to discuss this. Something must have been lost in the communications, but I’m really at a great disadvantage in discussing as I don’t remember the incident. Craig, if we communicated about a card (perhaps it was a different card?) that I was an underbidder on and as the underbidder was expressing interest in buying at a profit from you, no harm was intended.

Sincerely,
Dean Faragi

Dean,
That is a pathetic attempt at an apology. You must have learned how to apologize from Mark Mcgwire.
Why don't you just man up, apologize and I'll consider it over?
email me privately if you wish.

So... If no one else is going to say it...

Welcome to Net54 Dean! How did your first day go?

;)

dan p- i agree with tom b 100%. tom was a little more ho hum with what he said. but you can take his point as a "stretch" a little further, like making an "acusation" about something you have no proof of whatsoever! if i am wrong by all means post some proof. if not dont post any ol "b**ls**t you feel. if it feels like i am coming to rob's defense i am. he is a friend, and runs a great not good great auction(s).

Without seeing the emails themselves, a textbook, he said, he said.

as a matter of policy
 

As a matter of policy names are to be known in these kinds of threads. Craig is Craig Lipman. I have known Craig for quite some time and would vouch for him. I am not getting involved in this situation as I have enough of my own situations to keep me going. This is a very open forum and people can always defend themselves if they want to, or not, if they don't want to. There won't be any kind of anonymity allowed, which again, is the general rule. best regards

I don't know anything about the K-bat situation, but as to the other part, I have sold cards off of ebay to people and then been able to buy them back for less when the people decided to sell them on ebay. It hasn't happend a lot maybe 3-4 times but it still has happend.

Jeez...
 

I'm going back to the memorabilia side where I belong. :confused:

LOL! Yeah, cause that stuff desn't ever have a stink to it!

JIM VB: "So... If no one else is going to say it...

Welcome to Net54 Dean! How did your first day go?"



Wow...tough crowd Jim.

DId you notice we have a "buy, sell, and trade" section....


I know, bad joke.. but i had to do it, just had to.....

Craig:

I just sent you a private message and email through the Net 54 board. I do not know if you received it because this is my first time using the system. Please let me know. Thanks.

Hi Dean,
I did receive it and emailed you back. I appreciate you trying to make this right.
I think it's best if we resolve this off line.
As I stated in my email in the grand scheme of things this was a minor transgression and not worth a flame war. That being said I don't think anyone appreciates third party interference in a completed auction but I will accept your apology

As far as REA is concerned the only thing they have to do with this is it was an employee of theirs. It would be a dream for me to work at a Major Grading company (SGC REALLY:D) or Major Sports Auction House. Why does this mean I have to give up collecting?? Who gives a crap if I grade and collect. If I send a submission in it should go through anonymously and be graded on my day off unknown to me. For that matter I would think it would not be possible for any employee to be able to have cards graded or auctioned from/by their place of employement. So I guess I need to work for PSA. May have a bright future there. I know enough to get by, but not enough to matter. May have a good shot at that senior graders position after all:D

Back to the thread though. Dean from what I gather has really not done anything wrong. I think this whole thing is stupid but this is JMO.

Not at all contradictory.

In one case, he doesn't win the auction, but contacts the winner of the auction to try and get the card. (fine)

In the other case, he doesn't win an auction, but then contacts the seller to try and get the card instead of the rightful winner. (not fine)

Dean sounds like he has his ducks in a row....welcome, Dean!

I agree with other posters that there is nothing wrong with working for a major auction company and at the same time buying cards or memorabilia for one's own collection. It's a benign activity, and if done discretely will cause no problems at all.

But selling cards on ebay, when invariably some of the people you sell to could be important customers of the firm you work for, is probably not so good. If anyone doubts that, just reread this thread.

If I were Dean, and he should listen to Rob before he listens to me, I would quit selling on ebay while working for REA. This has created a public relations mess for both REA and Dean, and never should have happened.

I just reread this and you are right JP. I will edit that out. Sorry for that.

I've officially started my morning with a migraine trying to catch up on all the posts since I went to bed last night. I wonder if I can get a sick day... ;)

Ok, I read through this. One point that has not been nailed down is that DJR claims that he contacted smgsmg1968 and Dean replied from this ebay account.

Dean denies this is his account. However, he doesn't deny using the account or replying to DJR from the account.

I think we need an answer from Dean on that question. If he denies it, then we can give DJR the opportunity to produce the emails he received.

I vote for letting this one go. It pretty clearly doesn't tie back to Rob no matter what, and that seems the only reason it was of possible interest to begin with.

Who is damaged?
 

So as a result of "blowing the whistle" on this, 1) the set registry guy doesn't get the cards he needs and wants, 2) Dean doesn't make a profit selling the cards to the registry guy and 3) the seller doesn't get a higher price by selling to Dean. Everyone is worse off.

It is hard to argue that Dean has a moral obligation to let the registry guy know the cards are on eBay without compensation. The opportunity for profit gave him an incentive him to take action that would make everyone better off. I really don't see a problem here.

It is nice of Rob to apologize, but I don't see why.

Sounds like all of this could've been avoided had Dean offered to buy the cards back from his friend outside of eBay.

I don't feel Rob needs to appologize for anything,he had nothing to do with this,other than being a nice enough guy to employ Dean.

I have been following this convuluted tale and must say I agree with Rich. I have never had any problems whatsoever with Rob or REA but this is disturbing.

I couldn't agree more and it's perplexing why Ebay would be in the middle of the transaction between Scott and Dean.

Maybe he likes paying fees.... we all do dont we?? what better way to decrease any profit you may be making!

I know if i sell a card to a buddy, ebay would be my first choice! :confused:

I dont know this Dean guy, but he does sound a little hokey to me.... sounds like same guy, two accounts, using a buddy to try to save face...JMO

Wow, who would have thought the voice of reason would come all the way from Boston? :) Seriously, we have enough problems/criminals in this hobby. I applaud the starter of this thread but I think at this point, 100 posts later, we should probably focus instead on those individuals and auction houses who are actually ripping us off -- and there are no shortage of them.

Words posted more than once by one of Net54's more valued members:

Trust no one.

(Of course, I'm not sure all of the original words were spelled correctly, but you get the idea.)

Wait, are you saying there is only "one" of them?

Now it's official.

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/jumpshark.gif

The question I posed several times in this thread, as was done by others, is how did DJR, David, know for certain that smgsmg1968 was Dean. He has yet to address that question. FWIW, as of the end of Feb 2010 the registered user on smgsmg1968's account was not Dean. I find that to be highly irresponsible for David to casually toss the shill bidding allegation into the mix absent proof.

Many who do not sell cards for a living fail to understand the impact it can have on those who do when making statements about their business practices on a public chat board. Comments which are framed as factual when really are nothing more than conjecture or opinion need to be avoided. I see this happen even by some of the more respected members of the board. Remember this is someone's livelihood you place at risk.

Just because you have internet access does not mean you should be using it. Think before you post, people. Really now. This board serves as a great watchdog service but does sometimes cross the line and become unfair and abusive.

Any reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion and assumed shill bidding. Dean told me via email he was smgsmg1968 and then used his hobbyguynj account to bid on smgsmg1968's auctions. I am only posting the facts and not opinions about what transpired. If Dean is not smgsmg1968, he is a proven liar (is this really debatable) and this is simply not my problem. As REA customers, this should rub us all the wrong way. Hopefully Dean learns from being exposed as a liar.

If Dean is / was so quick and comfortable lying for his and/or his 'friends' personal gain for a measly $100 or so, placing his reputation and REA's in jeopardy, one must wonder what other tactics are utilized when $1,000, $10,000 or $100,000 are on the line. Is it too much to expect REA employees to tell the truth? This is likely why Mr. Lifson felt the need to address this issue and apologize. Hopefully Mr. Lifson has taken the necessary steps to prevent REA employees from repeating these actions.

Greg, as we all know people can be sued for libel. Problem is, truth is a defense to any such action. If the sterling reputations of the scumbags who get trashed on this site are at risk, they can avail themselves of the legal system. I'm sure they won't mind if their bidding records are divulged during the discovery phase of the lawsuit, especially if they have nothing to hide. Problem is, they have plenty to hide as as we both know.

David--Rob runs a clean auction. What Dean did or didn't do is open to debate, but one thing is for certain; he did it for his own personal gain. Whether a lot sells for $1000 or $2000 in REA, Dean will not gain a penny. There would be no incentive to shill anything there (which he can't do anyway). The only concern you should have is if you don't trust Rob, who, as has been pointed out repeatedly, had nothing to do with this. I trust Rob and to me this is a non-issue.

Disagree
 

Sorry read earlier post, before later clarification.

Oriolesbb66- it's fine that you disagree with me but I have no idea why. Should I assume you changed your mind and deleted your post? No big deal either way, just curious.

Also, this thread is not about Rob. It's about an employee of REA who used bad judgment on ebay. I spoke with Rob today at length and it goes without saying he preferred this never happened. But he has spoken to Dean and considers it over with. I doubt that will put an end to this discussion, but I wanted to share my conversation.

Tim......love the animated gif........VERY APPROPRIATE