I am the only one who talked about sanctimoniousness, which was featured in your post. Whether or not I was the only one you were addressing, you clearly meant to include me.

Any of those entities advising to continue a phantom auction seems a bit dubious but perhaps that’s wrong. How do you know the actual fact?

Of course I am; because while I have the wrong ideas I'm not quite bad enough to host fraudulent auctions to test the hypothesis. If I put up a nice card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, you would say I did the best and right thing and defend it? Really?

Are we not against failing to disclose altered cards and lying in auctions? Why is it okay to lie about having the card at all? This makes no logical sense without a circus argument that lying is actually just fine and contradicting so many other hobby debates here.

I agree 100%.

Yes the auctions of the stolen cards "screwed" the winners (and arguably many underbidders) but ultimately it was the best way to determine definitive values of items for their consignors. Who they are paying in full.

That's really all that matters in my mind, regardless of all the made up scenarios I've read so far (I'm at post #179) in this thread.

Bravo to Memory Lane.

I find it extremely surprising that so many are so confident that ML has an entirely unique insurance policy nobody else in the world does that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value the items. Also seems odd their lawyers would say to host a fake auction and violate California consumer laws.

Easy way to tell a bad take is to look at how absurd the arguments given to defend it are. These are really bad arguments that make no sense at all.

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people. Context, nuance, can matter. It's a very weird, possibly unique situation.

Instead of addressing my point -that it would be unacceptable behavior for most of us - you choose to parse my comment? Well, okay, I apologize for suggesting you are one of the folks who likes ML.

Now... what do you think would be the response if one of us deliberately offered for sale items we don't have? I see newbies getting bug-zapped out of here almost daily for offering things they (probably) don't have.

Maybe they are innocently trying to determine values? In any case, if nobody gets scammed, nobody gets hurt, right? Isn't that your standard?

Lawyers give appallingly bad advice every day, I wouldn't place much stock in that.

I think it is more than reasonable to use a reliable company like Fed Ex to deliver 2 million or more worth of valuables as long as the person shipping has the authorization, by their ins carrier, to use Fed Ex as a means of shipping and maintain full coverage.

That is moot though because Fed Ex delivered the box. Unless we hear the box they delivered was empty and was therefore thrown out and explains why they cannot find it.

This is all on the co who shipped the cards--they sent them in care of a $75 a night motel who had no involvement with the contents.

Oh they are not the same. Untruths (technically, not relevant here - the issue is not that somebody said something that turned out to be incorrect; it is a very blatantly intentional lie. Untruth is quite a softening) are bad.

The truth = good
Lies = bad

Not all lies are the same degree of bad. It's not really right of me to tell my aunt her cooking is just the bees knees when I want to spit it out. It's more not right to lie by ommission and not disclose material facts about a card. It's even more not right to completely lie about having the card at all and hosting a completely fake auction for it.

Dishonesty is a bad thing. It is bad whether I do it, you do it, a company does it, somebody I like does it, or somebody I don't like does it. I'm not seeing how thinking companies should not completely lie to customers is sanctimonious; it's a very low minimum bar of behavior being stated here. Really, this bar is basically laying on the ground, it's not hard a high standard to not host illegal fake auctions.

Sure, people would get zapped, but I doubt there would be the type of extenuating circumstances we have here.

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

But you might tell your aunt that because there are other factors at play, no?

Bingo!

So they can spend the cash on the next big card. Cry me a river. :cool:

Yes, for she is surprisingly strong and that wooden spoon she has is surprisingly heavy.

A little white social lie, it's not right, but it's worth muttering the expected pleasantry rather than taking the question seriously. Does that make it the right thing to do? No, it's just a minor sin, being more convenient does not make it right. In fact, being most convenient is very rarely right. Covering up a theft to host a fake auction is far past that.

Because the auction continued. That is a fact. They didn't go against the advice of their lawyers and insurance agents. They just didn't. Was I there? No.

Yes, perhaps you are. Or, perhaps I am wrong.

But the auction continued.

Obviously I get what you're saying, it just strikes me as a unique and uniquely bad situation where there are countervailing considerations that make it a more nuanced question.

One point that hasn’t been brought up yet. The winners of the stolen cards got screwed. But I would also say that ML consignors of the non stolen cards also may have been screwed at well. What if a bidder wanted to go for two cards, one non stolen and one stolen, and picked to go hard after the stolen card.

I am sure some consignors in ML are none too pleased to read this news story.

Let's hope they did not go as far as to liquidate a retirement account too as several have suggested is a great idea to free up money for cards.

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

If ML had pulled these high visibility items from the auction, as at least a few here feel they should've, do you think that would've been a positive or a negative for the remaining auction items.

I know what I think.

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

Most of the complicating factors are not present in that hypothetical. That you would owe money to a consignor, that the card was very hard to value, that it would disrupt a major auction to pull the card when it was stolen, etc. etc. Get closer to what really happened here and I might say what you did was excusable. Then again, it's hard to analogize a single sale to a major auction with hundreds or was it thousands of lots.

So the determining factor of when it’s okay to lie to bidders is based on if the card is mine (which makes it not okay) or if I am selling it for someone else (the lying becomes okay).

As the hypothetical just used an expensive unspecified card, hard to value or not is difficult to read into that and use as an excuse to justify the lies

And your third criteria there we have the obvious real point. Rules for big auctions, rules for everyone else. If you own an auction house, lying to hundreds or thousands of people becomes okay.

As I said before, clearly it would have been a gut punch and bad news for consignors. Oh, sorry, our top 50 cards aren't here after all. I imagine the hits on the site would have nosedived.

To be fair, his argument may be reductionist, but you're begging the question. You're starting from the premise that there's "no harm" to bidders and underbidders, because you're assigning zero value to their time and opportunity cost. Others might reasonably disagree with your premise that financial harm and property loss are the only things that matter.

If you want to argue that Memory Lane, acting as a fiduciary, made a difficult but rational choice to use bidders as pawns for the benefit of consignors and hypothetical insurance requirements, then that's fine. But to suggest that the bidders have no cause for complaint because Memory Lane did what was best for Memory Lane is a hot take.

Not different rules, just a different context and different competing considerations and consequences. ML is running a business. It has both bidders and consignors. Whatever it decides has consequences that it has to assess and weigh. It may be getting advice, even bad advice. It may not be as simple as, I couldn't do X on the BST therefore what ML did is wrong.

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

Yes, the auction house stands to lose more. Rules for them, rules for everyone else. It’s different when they do it (and okay, because $$$).

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

I feel like you may be able to work this into your small claims court case against them (seriously, not joking).

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

I won a couple of lots with bids that held up in ML, but I spent 6 figures on Goldin earlier that night and felt it might be best to exercise some self-control with ML. And no I don’t represent ML and never have.

Edited to add: I would have possibly run up some cards in ML that I already own but I didn’t want to get caught holding the bag and have to buy those cards if I wasn’t outbid. You know how that goes, no fun at all.

Seems to me he was saying show me a policy that requires X. That sounds like a focus on the terms of a policy.

Parsing again. His larger point is as I stated. Insurance companies do not use phantom auctions to determine loss value.

What did you win, Jeff?

Could it just be as simple as they ran the auction as such as a hedge in case the cards showed up? It was a 2 week period so maybe they though they had enough time.

If so, quite a gamble that clearly did pay off.

On what basis other than his words can I deduce his true meaning?

I understand him. Do you understand what my previous post said? It's a simple concept.

It's only hard to understand what he's saying when you don't want to.

Just a couple of T206s in ML; but in Goldin I won the three Cherokee Parks Final Four and National Championship rings. I went to Duke so those were pretty special to me.

And for what it’s worth, I was mostly aghast at the theft of the Cobb Mello Mint that you had won. Of all the cards stolen, that was the one that made me nauseous as I know how rare that card is for your set. Really hoping it turns up for you. For the longest time no one knew if the card even existed.

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

Greg is a very precise person. If he had meant to make the larger point, I think he would have. I could be wrong.

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

Wow, that’s awesome! Congrats! And many thanks, Jeff. I really appreciate it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There’s a transcript we both have, and I replied to the most recent rendition of the ‘insurance told them too’ bunk, even though no policy known to man has terms to use fraudulent auctions to determine values of claims and no credible insurance company is going to ask people to do such blatantly shady and what seems to be illegal things. How is who said it first relevant or any kind of refutation? I don’t remember every post by now lol.

I was just curious how that got started, is all. Was too lazy to look back, thought you might remember.

First mentioned here...https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...7&postcount=10

Not blaming Phil as he was only making a suggestion but other respected posters jumped on board validating the choice.

And seems another leap from there to the proposition that the insurance company required it.

It looks like it started with affirmation from a lawyer that running the auction without disclosing that the items were stolen was the best way to establish insurance value, and then Ryan drove it home by stating that consignors are the only real stakeholders, and that running the auction without the cards in hand was the best way to make sure consignors get a reasonable appraisal for insurance purposes.

Again, here is what I replied to, making the claim that the insurance company told them to do it and ML followed the advice. What people said four pages ago and the leaps since is not really relevant to the quote and refutation now.

Again, no insurance policy is ever going to have this as a term to determine value. No credible insurance company is ever going to tell a claimant to commit a crime or engage in lying to all of their customers to value stolen goods. There are other, normal mechanisms. That would be hugely embarrassing and potentially incriminating to themselves to tell a claimant to do this. This is not realistic, it is a fictional fantasy explanation that makes no real sense.

Would people feel differently if, instead of being stolen, the cards had been destroyed in such a way that there was zero chance of recovery?

For everyone's sake - consigners, ML, auction winners and the hobby in general - lets hope the cards are recovered unscathed and do not go that way that Yogi's rings did after they were stolen. Melted down and sold by the ounce.

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

Ok Here is what I dont get...(but I guess lawyers advised them not to do this for some reason?)

They know about the theft before the auction starts correct?

Then why not cancel the auction until the items are recovered and then have the same auction at a later date?

Also until the cosigners are paid out I would not be signing anyone's praises either...they can say they will do a lot of things but until the money is in hand they haven't done anything.

If we are talking about hypotheticals...Image a cosigner who has to sell his loved collection to pay for medical treatments right now...but now their payout could possible take years of litigation...

Sort of. If the AH truly-but ultimately wrongly-thought they would get the items back in time it’s slightly more defensible to run the auction. It would still be running an auction on items it currently does not possess which just seems bizarre. But my thinking on this comes back to the police officer in Big Lebowski investigating the stolen car—essentially laughing at the idea they would recover stolen goods. Perhaps there’s information we don’t know that these items will be found but even the consignor said he’s sad for the hobby because they are probably gone forever. Agreed.

Auction opened April 11. Isn't the theft after that?

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

How drunk do I need to be to read this thing from start to finish in one sitting?

Extremely would be a good start.:D

If you browse past 2-3 users on some pages, pretty fast read.

Maybe I misread the article then...that makes it a little less the obvious thing to do but still I think that would have been the best course of action.


Addendum:
Also...all the items already had a market value, and values for insurance purposes already I would assume (in case they would have been lost in the mail or a fire at the warehouse/auction house)...so logically running the auction to establish a value for insurance purposes is unnecessary ... isnt it?

IMO the best course of action would have been to close the auction once they knew of the theft, informed all cosigners of it asap and offer to return the items not stolen if they wanted them back at no cost or offer to hold them over for the next auction with zero fees taken in by ML for the consignment.
The cosigners who had items stolen would be in limbo, which they are anyway, but at least would be in the loop from the start that their items were stolen and could get updates on the case. ML could offer to pay the full market value up front or after a period of time if the cards are not recovered (giving the option to wait to see if the cards will be recovered)

If they werent recovered within the first 2 weeks I seriously doubt they will be recovered at all or at least any time soon...I hope I am wrong

Likely scenarios are these in no particular order:

1. Robber knew ahead of time what the package was and had already fenced the items before stealing them...thus the robber doesnt have them and they are absorbed into a shady collectors collection not to be seen until their death or some day long after the statute of limitations.

2. Robber quickly found out how impossible it would be for them to sell or get rid of the items bc they were easily identifiable...this leads to two options
2a. Robber sits on the items for a long time, possibility of them never resurfacing, or selling at an auction house10+ years down the road when people have forgotten about the theft (much like library collections have been stolen from and sold years later at some major auction houses) 2b. Robber trashes them to get rid of the evidence...destroyed never to be seen again and always a mystery what happened to them.

None the less...If they werent recovered quickly I seriously doubt they will be...if it was some idiot who did it they would have already showed up on ebay

Total speculation but I could see some employee opportunistically/impulsively taking the box, panicking once he realized the FBI was involved and this was a big deal, and destroying the evidence. Hard to see how this could have been an inside job especially given another box of catalogues from a different AH apparently was also tampered with.

Awesome summary...Once upon a time...oh sorry.

Anyway, odds seem very unlikely there will be any insurance company involved in covering this but as Ryan stated, there is more to the story and it is none of our business.

On this line of thinking...since the auction ran that created a whole alternative line or lines of possibilities...as others pointed out pages back several items were bid way up from recent previous comps...yes I know that happens all the time but think of it this way as pointed out previously...what if those were the stolen cards...then the FBI has to investigate the bidders of those cards and the cosigners I would imagine wouldnt they? If they had nothing to do with this mess then that is wasted time and energy

Again the best course of action would have been to immediately cancel the auction and inform the parties involved.

Thomas Saunders

Hello FBI
 

...also what is the probability that the FBI is monitoring this thread as we speak...

Or we could look at it an alternative way, from a baseball card collector perspective.

We've heard from two bidders who won two of the 50+/- cards that were stolen.

Powell Miller who's reaction is Stoic as hell, especially after the Boston Garter shitshow, he's someone I would like to meet and have a sandwich with sometime. He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price

Daryl owns the only Mello Mint Cobb, (congrats Daryl) that card belongs in his collection and he owns it.

I don't see him complaining about the the stuff that rabbit hole central is complaining about, he just wants his card, he owns it now and is a fantastic addition to his set, just because he doesn't have possession yet is immaterial.

I'm a little hesitant to prioritize the opinions of folks that aren't in the 50+/- crowd and have no skin in the game, a lot of pearl clutching outrage on this sub.

I'd like to hear the perspective of bidders who actually own the cards in question.

What do they own?

Nothing. But that’s a silly rabbit hole detail.

They own the cards they won in the auction and do not need to spend any money until they receive their cards, how is that not a collecting win?

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

Which gives the high bidder all the power, No?

It's a contingent contractual right, but realistically the contingency is unlikely to materialize.

Maybe, is there a chance these significant cards don't show up and end up in some Russian Oligarchs collection? Of course, but if they do show up the ownership provenance is ironclad.

If the thief is sophisticated, or passes the cards along to someone sophisticated, they'll show up in different slabs (or raw), perhaps slightly damaged to avoid detection, etc. etc. I would not say ironclad.

From a different angle...
 

So far this discussion has mainly been focused on establishing value, for insurance purposes and to make everybody whole (after it's determined where liability lies.)

Here's a hypothetical: Since the cards were mailed from out of state, and it's a large sum, suppose the FBI is, indeed, running the investigation. Maybe it was THEIR idea to run the auction as though nothing had happened.

If it wasn't public knowledge that cards were stolen, and more importantly, exactly which ones, maybe it was an FBI-initiated "sting" operation to try to identify unusual bidding behavior. For example, some person, or group, bidding up only the stolen cards, to inflate their perceived value. Or, hoping some bidder might somehow reveal knowledge unknown to the public, like asking unusual questions, etc.

IF this is generally what happened, then I would have to change my mind and say that ML did the right thing in working with law enforcement to solve the crime.

Another package was tampered with, but not taken. I wonder if fingerprints were obtained that could be cross-checked against employees or others with access to the package. Maybe this is the reason for their stated "optimism."

So... If it was done to establish value, I think that was wrong. If it was a key part of the investigation, under direction of law enforcement, I would unquestionably change my mind completely.

Daryls Mello Mint Cobb is unmistakable.

1/50+