$400 an hour for a company is not $400 an hour to one person.

Disgusting precedent to set.

Poor form for an auction house to reach out IMO.
Not knowing what the collection is
Details are sketchy at best
Advance was given in good faith...even if not cashed

Everyone, including me, is speculating with a ridiculous lack of facts.

Having said that, based on the consignor's claim of receiving a surprise bill for 16% interest, I wonder if your last comment about the advance being given in good faith passes the smell test.

Again, all speculation with the facts so murky.

Good point on the 16% vig. Clean Sweep and Steve Verkman have a pretty good rep in the business. But business, is just that

Also stated that the cost of authentication will be shared with the consignor… important to note is that not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked… seems like a pretty hefty consignment fee to pay for only the good stuff.

Took me a couple of days to realize this thread was moved.

I guess I should thank Leon for keeping my very 1st post on the main page, in spite of it being a public shaming of an AH that also happens to be an advertiser on the forum. It's been a few years, but thanks Leon. (In case it's not clear, I promise this isn't sarcasm.)

Of course, in that situation, I provided more details and pics at the request of the other posters here, and there were plenty of people who still jumped to support the AH, in spite of the fact that the AH auctioned off a fistful of clear and painfully obvious fakes. So much so that some of the backs of the items were clearly identified as Kodak photo paper. Luckily for the AH, when they listed photos of the items in the auction, they happened to leave off the backs that were on Kodak photo paper. I suspect this means that James and I are mostly in agreement about the strong affinity for AHs among a subset of the posters here, although since almost all of my collection is in slabs, this is probably an uncomfortable position for James.

And while it might sound like I take a dim view of AHs in general, being in the professional services industry, I'm actually pretty supportive of the role that AHs play and the amount of work that it must take, particularly on high volume, relatively low-value per item, disorganized consignments.

On the other hand, I can empathize with the OP in wanting to share his experience, and by so doing hope that the collecting community can learn from it. The fact that it was his first post is probably as much a function of finally having a big enough motive to get into the game.

In terms of whether this was a bad deal for the consignor, I'll agree that it's really hard to tell without knowing more about the details. But it's certainly possible that it could be a fair deal. Or it could be highway robbery. Clear as mud, sadly.

+1

Also, as stated above, no chance any legitimate auction house would make that commitment not having any idea of the volume or value of the collection sight unseen.

Maybe cherry picked because it would not all fit on the two trucks and auctioning the better valued items first would be a great help to the consignor who was looking for cash. Sure, the auction house benefits as well but since a $15K advance was given in good faith, they would certainly want to recoup that as quickly as possible. Any business would want to do that.

Obviously, just a guess but the consignor did not state that they were not eventually taking all they committed to, just that they cherry picked on the initial load.

It's still pretty unclear exactly what was taken. The OP said not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked, but he never really said how much was taken or how much of the 2 trucks that showed up were filled. There's a lot of unknowns still, and the OP hasn't bothered to come back and answer any of the questions or provide any more information about exactly what was taken.

I could not possibly agree more with what you say here, absolutely spot-on. And while you do have a collection of great cards in slabs, the way you have it so tastefully displayed is simply awesome!

Maybe the OP can't find the thread.

Also, not clear why the OP felt so pressured to enter into this agreement w/o taking the time to "shop" his collection around to other AH. In the scheme of things, what would a few more days be...does not appear any of his products have even been sold yet, two plus months later.

Well...I never thought I'd see the day when you'd say something nice about slabbed cards! Sadly, it's not on the main forum page, so many will miss seeing it...

But maybe this will give Leon an excuse to move this thread back to the main page!

;)

And thanks for the praise. In spite of my unhealthy penchant for graded cards, I promise that I also have a great appreciation for those who collect raw, and I have definitely enjoyed seeing pictures of your collection that you've posted on the forum.

Indeed. And at least two major auction houses are in his area, and perhaps others I am missing. Even a phone call to get ballpark reactions to the first proposal.

Just hit the "New Posts" link at the top of the page! That's the first thing I do when I look at this site.

I always wondered what would happen if I hit that button.

Of course, clicking it now, it does appear that there are a lot of posts around here, most of which aren't particularly exciting to me. Almost seems like it could be as functional as a key word search these days on eBay.

I'd agree if it weren't for the 16% interest rate.

Isn’t the point of an advance to be a good faith pre-payment, to be deducted from the proceeds down the road? Is charging interest a common practice?

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing a multimillion dollar auction house is trying to squeeze $200/month out of a consignor until $15K comes through the auction process to cover the advance when they expect to get a $40K take in the end if indeed the consignment is worth at least 6 figures.

Could be the conflict got out of hand and both sides have dug in but the pittance of $200 a month makes no sense although I assume it could be true.

I’m also unfamiliar with how these arrangements work, so I’ll speculate wildly based on my general experience in analogous situations from my professional life.

But having said that, I don’t get why they would be hassling him about the interest now. Just tack it onto the amounts you deduct from the 60% paid to the consignor. Seems a lot easier to just wait until the items sell, collect the payments from the winners, and then net the advance plus interest out of the amount you pay to the consignor. Shaking down the consignor for a few hundred bucks in interest now seems like an exercise in futility.

I think the contract indicates authentication would be on their dime with the "No additional fees", but this contract is so... poorly written that its difficult to be certain of much.





The OP proved some of his claims by producing the contract, but other claims by him and his surrogates need to be proven, like this cherry picking claim and the 16% interest bill. IF these are true, they are easy to actually prove - there is an inventory list and there is a bill which can be produced to prove. The OP made a poor decision to sign a contract of what appears to be of his own free will at the time, and was wrong about the BP split (that part is understandable, seeing this vague contract and its unprofessional back of the napkin phrasing).

The other side has responded only with a vague statement that specifically only denies the BP split (on which they appear to be correct from the odd contract), delivered via a proxy who then moved the thread to the watercooler to lessen visibility and then made a provably false claim that a history of doing this with things that might end up not reflecting well on Lelands is' made up crap'. Unusual response if there is nothing to see here, but the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim. IF the collection was cherry picked for only the high value items, then 60/40 is absurd and IF he is getting billed for ridiculous 16% interest rates with a contract that mentions no interest rates at all, then Lelands is horribly in the wrong, but that's not proven. OP has shown evidence for half the claims, but should prove the other half or they do not have much of any validity.

Why does he need to prove his claim here? From his first of two posts, his apparent primary purpose was to try to find a lawyer to help him. That he has not returned suggests he does not care about the court of public opinion, and maybe he shouldn't, what good will it do him?

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

-
What Would Rusty Do?
-

He'd sell me that jersey. :)

Well yes of course, if his objective is to convince people. But perhaps that was not his objective.

It would look great in your collection Mark. Who knows maybe it's in OPs collection and coming to market soon.

It's fully functional and useful indeed. A member then just needs to quickly scan down the page to pick out the three or four threads in which he might have some interest. That's what I've been doing for twenty years on various boards.

;)

1962-64 Colts home jerseys, like that, are very scarce. I'd expect it to go for $8,000 to $10,000 and maybe north of that if it's in decent, original condition.


And frankly, I might be willing to pay that.


[Mark wonders if somebody's old man has one available...]

Okay. I’m going to stick with an evidentiary basis to believe things.

I only use New Posts, or on Tapatalk I read "Timeline."
The world is full of bastards, the number increasing rapidly the further one gets from Missoula, MT.

This is my first post on this thread. Quite a read!

There is just a complete lack of professionalism displayed. Crazy to think the AH walked away with uncatalogued truckloads. That screams liability red flags to me. Their insurer needs to read this thread.

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

Maybe people see you as calling them a liar with your demands for proof. Could also be you have absolutely zero to offer in return for info many know. Many have this info because they can tell a real story of what happened but are smart enough to not add names. Why are you so "special" that you believe you deserve proof?

It's probably pointless to observe that requesting proof of a claim is not claiming the claim is a lie, and that asking for the proof of a claim made publicly to be shown publicly is not making me special in any way.

If one makes a public claim, I think one should show the proof publicly. Normally, this would be non-controversial common sense. If I say "X happened!", it is reasonable for someone to look at evidence to see if X did, in fact, happen. If I publicly made a claim that would be easy to prove and someone asked me for the proof, would you also start whining that they asked for that proof? Of course most things get hijacked into agendas that have little, if anything, to do with the actual claims.

Some would argue that the world is flat, there was no Holocaust, that Apollo 11 astronauts never walked on the moon. They'll offer up all kinds of discussion and denial. Proof? My father in WW2 as a combat infantryman with the 99th Infantry Division, wounded in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, was involved in the "liberation" of one of those concentration camps. He would be ready to fist-fight any ignoramous who stated there was no Holocaust in his presence.

Many are arguing it right now on social media. Unfortunately, these platforms lack a presence like your father to set them straight.

There are of course Sandy Hook deniers too. There are some really ugly, evil people out there, fortunately they are (I think) a very tiny minority.

Since we are having fun and the OP hasn't been back.

I guess I see things different. Say you are in a room full of people all talking and sharing stories. Then after you tell a story about something you have done someone then asks if you have any proof you really done that. Wouldn't you think they are basically calling you a liar?

Plus I just find it weird in life when someone is asking for proof fairly regularly.

Evidence that he is asking for proof fairly regularly? :D:eek:

I think it's a little different when you're publicly accusing a company of mistreating you. In that case, showing proof of what you're saying was done is probably a good thing to include with your claims.

Telling stories is one thing. In this case, the reputation of one of the biggest and longest-running auction houses is on the line.

Asking for evidence, as I see it, isn't meant to answer the question whether the OP is being truthful. I see it as putting fresh eyes on the evidence. For example, the details of the cryptic "contract" that was posted. The "no additional fees" statement, followed by the ambiguous "60/40 split for auth."

Some of us, like me, look for inconsistencies. Some of us look at things through the eyes of an attorney experienced in contract law. Some look at it from the perspective of frequent consignors, comparing to their own experiences. Some from their work running auctions, or other similar businesses.

Basically, thinking people want more information to analyze, to more fully, and accurately, understand the full scope.

In short, this isn't sitting around a campfire telling stories. This is a subject that could shed light on the way a major auction house is currently doing business, for better or worse.

Upon deep reflection, I now realize I was wrong. A reasonable man must, it seems so obvious now, believe any and every claim made against a company and never look at evidence to see if it is true. When there is a dispute about a contract or a bill or a list of items, it is akin to denying the holocaust to look at the document in question. Shaping my opinions around evidence, as I used to do, is much inferior to knee-jerk whining about whatever opinion people I'm butthurt about from completely unrelated long ago threads posted. Evidence, the most basic parts of western logic, seeing if things are actually true, these are the real problems. I learn so much from our wise men here.

Hopefully the enlightened wise men who reject the concept of using an evidentiary basis as reasonable are never accused of anything. By their principles, everyone would have to just believe it is true without any evidence at all.

Wow - I have absolutely nothing to add about the thread topic, BUT, I will say that I've enjoyed reading all the posts!

I'm especially interested because the originator has only posted twice, and rejoined Net54 not to add something positive about our hobby, but complain about how they were treated on a business deal! Absolutely crazy.

To originator, I'm sorry for your medical issues and monetary problems associated with them and hope for your recovery.

For the parties in the AH's, I'm sorry that you have (in some small way) been insulted, accused and humiliated in a public forum.

The best-case scenario would have been for all parties to work these things out civilly or legally if necessary.

This thread has taken a life of its own, and I can continue to look forward to all the drama that will follow in the next few days and then hopefully disappear.

Now that I've interrupted, please continue with all the insults, conspiracy theories and all else that one can think of surrounding the "Golden Ticket Contract" and mud slinging. Remember "No Quarter" because everyone is absolutely correct with evert post they make.

Oh, what the hell
 

Late to the party, but it seems like this is a good situation to throw out Hitchens’ razor - and I think it applies to both sides on this one:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

On one side, you have someone who, by accounts posted here, is an experienced, educated collector who came here with delayed regrets and allegations of deceitful practices by long-standing auction professionals. On the other side, a denial of said deceit, albeit through a third-party, but without further clarification beyond a contract that looks like it was drafted by a first year law student (who would’ve gotten a crap grade on it).

Looks like none of the parties to this s-show care to further elaborate.

Yes, the Leland's name has been around for a long time but I believe the company was recently purchased by Verkman. I don't know how many of the old crew are still there or how much say they have in how things are done, but I think it would be wrong to attribute past pluses or minuses about the company to the new group. If I am off on this I would appreciate being corrected.

I agree. That's why it's important to understand their current method of operation.

I have spoken with Steve and he explained in some detail what went on with this transaction. As per Steve, there is no interest being charged, there was no cherry-picking, and representatives of Lelands, including Steve and his son, spent 20+ man hours at the consignors house reviewing the material. Also, the collection included things other than sports memorabilia. After hearing this, and some other facts, I think this has gotten completely blown out of proportion. Thanks to Steve for clearing this up.

Thanks for providing more information. Did Steve say how much was actually taken? Did it fill 2 trucks?

But was the check cashed?:)

We have so little as it is.

Why do you have to take away all of our fun with speculating endlessly about these events and the relative honor (or lack thereof) of the participants?

At least we can still demand proof for the veracity of these assertions.

Maybe we can set up a link where each disputant can upload supporting documentary evidence or at the very least sworn declarations.

20 plus man hours is a Very nice way of saying four guys showed up with 2 trucks took some items they were supposed to but some they were not authorized to take. Left 5 hours later without giving the consigner a list of everything they took and without his signature agreeing to anything. Then one guy left behind with the " contract" for him to sign. Basicly he if he didn't sign that he would have literally been left without his stuff or any proof they had taken anything.
I too am glad Steve cleared that up for us.
If representatives for the "New Lelands " think this is the right way to do business then they should have no problem everyone knowing about it. Exactly like Google reviews so next potential customer can make an informed decision.