USED to be REA's big fan ---not any more
 

First of all, before a few members criticize this as being “negative”, I have run it by Leon and he
has no problem with my post as long as it is not anonymous—

An introduction to the situation is as follows::: I was the winner of the 1956 Topps set in the REA auction, all PSA 8’s with a Mays 8.5 and 30 PSA 9’s. The price was $35,000 and with 17.5% premium the total for this set was $41,125. Because I won more lots than I thought I might, I decided to sell the PSA 9’s after replacing them first with PSA 8’s and at some time sell a 100% PSA 8 set. In the two weeks following the auction , I was able to get 28 PSA 8’s, including the Mays. Only after receiving the set 2-3 weeks after the auction ( the delay was my doing in switching funds etc, not REA’s ) did I then email a few fellow collectors asking if they would be interested in upgrading some of their 8’s to PSA 9. One responded immediately and we worked out a transaction for 9 of the PSA 9’s..A few hours after I then discovered that one of the three PSA 9’s for which I had not yet found a PSA 8 The Pirates Team Card #121 , was in fact NOT a PSA 9 as the registry indicated and as REA had listed in their description of the set.(this was not part of the 9 card transaction)

A few facts about this card. It is a TOUGH card in PSA 9; it has not been indicated as being sold on VCP since 2007; it sold 4 times in 2006/2007, from $1600-2300.00. I calculated the card at a MINIMUM of $1500 plus buyers premium when I evaluated all the cards in the set. The SMR which in my opinion is a poor guide at best in general has a PSA 8 at $315 and $1500 in PSA 9. I contacted REA in regards to this problem and spoke with Dean who told me he would contact the consignor and get back to me---Here is what happened after that!!

Consignor admitted selling the PSA 9 some time ago and did not remove it from the registry
Obviously REA went by the registry since they advertised it as a PSA 9 and sent a PSA 8 to me instead
Consignor offered $1000 which I refused. When I spoke with Dean again, I was told that I paid 85% of SMR and so the card is only worth 85% of 1500.00 ---another offer was $1500 and I would return the PSA 8---I refused that since I would no longer have a complete set AND the card is worth more than that AND I also paid the buyer’s premium.

REA then told me the consignor would give me a Snider PSA 9 if I would PAY THEM $500.00 and my Snider PSA 8 in the set. VCP Snider 9 ==$1900 less my $500.00 less my PSA 8 Snider approx $300.00.I still felt that was not fair since that is an $1100 value for a card worth a lot more than that. I felt that $1500.00 was fair and I would keep the PSA 8.

REA offered to take the set back and when I explained my transaction , I was told I should have discovered THEIR error before making a transaction even if it did not involve that card. I pointed out that SMR is way off in many cases; the common PSA 9’s that sell for $250-$300 are the SAME SMR as the low pop commons that sell for $1200-$1500—that’s it’s a guide at best and it shouldn’t matter what %% I paid.

I was then given the opportunity to speak to Rob at which point I basically was told all of the above again and that if hypothetically all cards were shipped 1 grade lower than they advertised and they “refunded me in the manner I am requesting” then I would MAKE a profit of $10,000. Well, I guess that comes from the logic of 85% of SMR and I’m not smart enough to follow how all of a sudden I’m “hypothetically MAKING $10,000……I was told by Rob that he would (and this is a direct quote) “take $100.00 OUT OF MY OWN POCKET in addition to the $1500.00 and you return the PSA 8”. I lost my cool and raised my voice since it seems to me that if I spend $63,751.25 IN WINNING SEVERAL LOTS IN HIS AUCTION of which OVER $9,000 is buyer’s premium why the heck are they quibbling over $300.00----do they think my money comes from trees and his $100.00 is the ultimate sacrifice??? It seems to me that his $100.00 out of HIS pocket just might be part of MY $63,000+ that went into his pocket in the first place!!! This conversation deteriorated in “quality” at that point---I would told I was making him upset with my comments ( as if I shouldn’t have been upset by their penny-pinching?????) , that Rob had to get back to work and that he would write me out his own personal check for $300.00.

Follow-up---I did receive the $1800 after returning the PSA 8 and the person pointed out that the PSA 9 Miranda I sent in the 9 card transaction ($1250.00) was really an 8!!!!!!!!!!!!! I missed that REA sent me another PSA 8 instead of a PSA 9----one of the lowest pop PSA 9’s in the entire set missing as well. And no, I am not going back to REA about this

bill latzko

Can someone post the cliff notes version??

Lost...
 

What are you asking for?

a) return the whole set for no money lost; or

b) the difference in value between what you thought you bought and what you did buy?

I don't think you're entitled to anything else. And if we're just talking about (b), then what is the difference between what you were offered and what you want?

Wow, Bill, that sounds incredibly frustrating
 

and there's a lot of detail there that I had trouble following in the quick time I had to scan through it, but I hope you can get some peace with this at some point.
It always baffles me when I encounter these types of customer service problems (in any industry) when a business loses the forest through the trees and the perspective of customer service becomes compromised. fighting over even $1k-2k in a $60k transaction involving a repeat customer just makes very little sense to me.

oh well. There's no end to things I don't understand, so I can't get on too high a soapbox about anything.

Best of luck with it all.

That stinks Bill. No matter what the resolution was steps should have been taken to ensure all the cards were in fact the proper grade listed on the registry.

I would be frustrated too after spending so much.

Rob

Bill - I read the whole thing and it is upsetting. At this point, angry as you are, you should go back to REA about the other PSA 8/9 switch. Let us know what they say. I know they've lost your business, but it would be good for the rest of us to know if they are at least willing to make you whole on their mistakes.

Could this be any more complicated? If I could follow what is going on, I would gladly offer an opinion.:confused:

Hi Bill!:)

That is a frustrating story!

I had a similar thing happen to me many years back with a completely different auction house (albeit not at this scale) and from that day on I have never tried to sell or trade any cards from an auction lot (or any purchase for that matter) until the card(s) are physically in my possesion.

-Rhett

What exactly do you think anyone here is going to do? If you have the means to spend that much money on cardboard, its your choice, but like anything else, it comes with risks. Good luck w however it comes out.

Just sayin...
 

If someone spent 60k+ with me, I would try to give them great customer service..just sayin...

This shows how inaccurate set registries can be. You would think the missing Pirates team card went into another registry set. Could the same cert number be listed in two sets?

what about pop reports? When a collector cracks a card out of a PSA/SGC holder looking for an unbiased re-submit, does that add a phantom card to the report? This could make cards seem more plentiful, right?

I don't think that is fair Scott. If an auction house states I am getting a PSA 9 card and I end up getting a PSA 8, that has nothing to do with taking on risk.

A lot of money was spent and a mistake (or a couple mistakes) was made...and the resolution seems it could have gone much smoother.

I think REA should do what is right and make this right! Customer service goes along way, especially with word of mouth. It may cost REA and the consignor 3k now, but look at the type of buyer he has. 60K is some nice bank! Ive never met Robert, have only heard great things about him, but in this case, it sounds like he is dropping the ball a bit!

I had a lot of shiny UFC cards go missing in the mail.(my first ever lost auction) I contacted the seller, and even though he provided me with proof of shipping, he had a photo of the envelope, with my address, date and such on it. (i have bought other lots from him, this is how he works) When i informed him they hadn't shown up, without hesitation he re-shipped the same cards and when i opened his package this morning, there were the cards, and there was my money back with an apology letter. All this for a measly 10$ order!


NOW THAT IS CUSTOMER SERVICE!!

REA didn't have what they listed.

Bidder should get his money back, REA keeps the cards.

That is the Cliff Notes / Easy Button version...

Customer Service
 

I recently sold a football media guide on eBay. The customer e-mailed me that there was a small picture cut out that I missed and hadn't put into the description. He wanted to return the guide. I immediately apologized, refunded him the entire purchase price and shipping and told him to keep the guide. He was shocked that I would do this (he has a ton of feedbacks) and couldn't thank me enough. Granted this was a $20 purchase with shipping, but I didn't want to risk my 20% discount that I get being a top rated seller. I have no idea if the picture was missing or not. It seems to me that if you are going to do business on the internet, you have to be ready to stand by your product or reputation and take an occasional loss if necessary.

from reading it seems rea did offer to take the set back but bill has already sold off some cards. after that it's just determining fair market value for individual cards, coupled that with SMR inaccuracy and you have a mess.

It's impossible to have the same cert number listed in the registries of two different people. It tells you right away when you add a card to your registry if it's listed in another collector's set. If you are the new owner of a card that is still listed in a previous owners registry, PSA will remove it if you provide them with front and back scans. This happened to me a couple of times.

I guess I understand the frustration with the original predicament. I do think the offer(s) that REA put forth were fair. Understanding that you'd already sold cards that weren't yet in your possession, I guess getting the $1800 was the best option. Like other posters have said, the registries are only as good as the participants and the host companies willingness to make them good and they'll never be perfect. Not even close. I've always found Rob and REA to be top notch and work to the best of their abilities to rectify a problem. I don't spend that type of coin with them, so it's a frustrating problem, I'm sure. Seems like you're going to attempt to resell all of it, so it's ultimately a question of $$ lost, so hopefully the $1800 makes up for most of it.

Rob, you are correct, especially if the card value is that much different, w an 8 or 9. I guess Im still stuck in the days when you just bought a nice card,and graded it Poor-Mint, based on you and other's observations. This grading stuff drives me nuts..haha.

"Follow-up---I did receive the $1800 after returning the PSA 8 and the person pointed out that the PSA 9 Miranda I sent in the 9 card transaction ($1250.00) was really an 8!!!!!!!!!!!!! I missed that REA sent me another PSA 8 instead of a PSA 9----one of the lowest pop PSA 9’s in the entire set missing as well. And no, I am not going back to REA about this"

So you made the same mistake REA made, not examining the cards to see that they conformed to your description, or am I misinterpreting???:confused:

I appreciate that you are disappointed but I think you are out of line here:

--REA made a mistake--clearly should have checked the cards not just the registry. However, people make mistakes. You caught the mistake.

--REA offered to rescind the transaction and make you whole. You said no.

--They offered you SMR for the 8. You said no.

--They offered you $100 over SMR for the 8. You got mad.

--You got $300 over SMR. You stayed mad but took it.

--You found another error. You won't go back to them with it.

I don't see where REA is in the wrong. You could have unwound the entire sale if you'd wanted and come out exactly where you were before. I don't think any seller or auctioneer has any obligation to do more than refund your purchase price if you did not receive what you agreed to buy.

I'd also note that your sale figures are pre-Great Recession and as we've been discussing on other threads prices have dropped since then.

Thanks Frank !!! I appreciate that. :o

From REA’s perspective:
 

When Mr. Latzko informed us that one card was listed as a 9 but was only an 8, we immediately offered to make an adjustment that was mutually agreeable or take the set back. Errors happen and there’s not much else we can do but offer to remedy the error in one of these two manners. The SMR of the set added up to $48,950. He won the set for $41,125. The set sold for 84% of SMR. On average, each card in the set sold for 84% of SMR value. The Pirates team card lists for $1,500 in PSA 9. We offered to give him $1,500or have him keep the PSA 8 card and provide an adjustment to compensate. If we sent him $1,500, he would of course have to send back the PSA 8 card. Or he could return the set for a full refund if that was his preference. This was offered immediately. But he refused to return the set, and he didn’t want to send the card back unless we gave him $1800. It was a very difficult situation: Mr. Latzko did not feel that our adjustment solution was reasonable, AND he refused to return the lot for a full refund. He expressed that the ONLY acceptable remedy was for us to give him exactly what he dictated. And so, we decided to do exactly that: we gave him what he dictated, even though we did not think it was reasonable. We sent him what he said was the only acceptable remedy, even though there was no meeting of the minds, and the buyer refused to return the set. We gave him what he wanted. I don't know how this can be interpreted as poor customer service.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

Bill,

Just out of curiousity, since you made exactly the same mistake that REA did, on your resale lot, how did you settle it with your customer?

This is a difficult situation for both parties. Fault lies with both REA and the buyer for not checking the actual grades on the cards that were presented.

Mistakes happen as everyone is human and Rob and REA have taken a pro-active approach in dealing with the situaton at hand. In my opinion, Rob and REA has handled this with pure class and the buyer should only be upset at himself for not catching the other card before speaking with Rob. I would have checked the entire set after I saw the first card that was a mistake. I am sure that Rob would have made good on any and all cards that were misrepresented.

REA is a great and honest auction house and this will not change my mindset in the way I feel about dealing with them.

Todd

Just to be clear
 

Just to be clear Bill and I did speak about this a few times on the phone. At no time did I ever know what auction house it was (as he never said), nor did it matter. All I told Bill was that he couldn't be anonymous (private) if he posted about it. It is a difficult situation and I am not sure REA could have done much more to make it right, than they did.

Responses
 

Jim VB and Peter---Yes, I made a mistake by not finding the second error and without hesitation refunded $1250 to the buyer of the 9 PSA 9's

Gray Ghost--I don't expect anyone "here" to do anything--Wheter it's $60 or $60,000 spent on cardboard, it shouldn't be a risk based on incorrect information given by consignor or auction house

Tom (et al) --I had NOT sold any crds that were not in my possession. I only notified other collectors after receiving the set from REA and discovered the Pirate mistake after the 9 card transaction. The Pirate card was not part of the 9 card transaction...BTW until now I also found REA to be top notch.

REA/ROB---YOU NEVER discussed taking the set back at all--it was only brought up in about my 4th conversation with Dean and then you. I explained at that point that I could not because I had sold 9 cards before finding the mistake and was told by y'all that it was MY fault for not finding YOUR mistake before doing my transaction---those were the exact words used.


bill

Bill,

I understand that this is a very frustrating situation, but this statement doesn't make much sense. It's like you're saying he NEVER discussed it EXCEPT these two times.




Mistakes happen. To all of us. You can't run an auction the size of REA and have it be 100% smooth, card for card. The real problem started here when the consignor left cards on his registry that he no longer owned. The second mistake happened when REA did not catch the consignor's mistake. The third mistake happened when you didn't catch the error either.

It seems that there's plenty of blame to go around and REA has stepped up to offer several workable solutions. Your subsequent sale eliminated one of those potential solutions, so the other options were limited.

In the end, it sounds like Rob gave in and gave you exactly what you wanted for the problem that was explained to him. You're upset with how that was handled, even though you got exactly what you wanted. AND... now you're upset with another issue that you have never even explained to them.

I realize that this is aggravating, but you could be acting a little harshly to REA in this case.

Don't know how members think this wasn't REA's fault because they offered a return and addressed the buyers concerns. Fact is it's their job as an auction house to confirm everything they have in hand before sending the write-ups out to print. If they couldn't count 31 cards that weren't anything but PSA 8's, then that's more than a mix-up.....It's called laziness!!! If this were any other auction house half you guys would have been making low-blows. This lot was expensive and the buyer is probably out fees that no one sees as well (ie. bank transfer, etc.) and this would have been eliminated if REA took the extra 5 minutes to do their job. That sucks about the two cards, but it goes to show that not all houses are perfect and maybe this will wake them up for next year.

Mike, I don't think anyone is saying REA is without fault; everyone including REA agrees that there was a mistake. People make mistakes; it's one of the enduring and endearing traits of humanity. I think the issue is really whether REA stepped up and owned its error and made it good. IMO, it did. REA offered to buy back the set. It then offered a reasonable $ adjustment based on the % of SMR on the set versus the total cost of the set. When those were rejected, ultimately, REA gave the buyer the exact figure the buyer demanded even though it was arguably a premium price on the card in question. I've had a lot worse "make goods" offered to me in the past on listing errors or lost items; what more than a full refund offer can you really expect?

To me it boils down to...
 

1) The set had two 8s when REA said it had two 9s. Oops. Mistake. Bad REA.

2) REA offered a refund for the entire item, and when that was not acceptable, acceded to the buyer's demand for $1,800. Mistake corrected. Thanks, REA.

3) Buyer bashes REA in a public forum. Intent: hurt REA publicly.

This never would have happened if you'd stuck to bidding with Dave Kohler and SCP Auctions.

-Ryan

I think what Bill is upset about is not the end result but the fact that from his perspective he had to haggle to get there, instead of Dean just saying ok we made a mistake what can we do to make it right.

Oh it's you. =click=

40'000 dollars is alot of money to be spending on 1956 Topps, js.

You should have gotten a refund Bill. That way you could bid on the Autograph Game used Jersey Duel super Refractor red boarder 1/1 Die Cut Strasburgh RC : )

He wouldn't have had enough money :)

flipper.

With all the cards REA gets it is easy to see how they missed this and didn't go through every card to double check, but in a business where every bid counts not sure why they didn't just take care of Bill right away, especially when he didn't get what was advertised. Is there that many collectors out there who drop 50k plus on a single auction to lose him as a bidder ? Who knows how many other auctions he bid on that added up to even more than the comissions he spent.

I'm confused, because you seem to be angry because you had to haggle to fix the mistake. The same mistake you admit to making afterwards.
Yet..

You also never mention any remedy you offered to REA in the initial conversations. As a matter of fact the only offer you made to them they eventually accepted.

Judging by the the title of your post "Used to be REA's big fan..." I'm guessing that you have had positive experiences with them in the past. What gives? It's like dining out at a restaurant a dozen times with great meals and then finding a hair in the pasta the 13th outing. Would you go on yelp and pan them? Mistakes happen. I would go through that annoyance 10x over to own such a set. In the end, are you enjoying your set? To me that is all that matters.

Just thought I'd mention that in the recent auction I bought a complete set of 1941 Sky Birds that was missing a #2, but instead had two #9 cards. Dean contacted the consignor and I quickly had the missing #2, and I returned the extra 9. Mistakes happen (and the fact that you committed the same mistake as REA demonstrates this) and REA was first class in handling it all.

I agree with most folks here that you have nothing to really complain about, REA gave you everything you wanted, and which I honestly believe is more than what any other auction house would have given you.

You could have got your money back but you sold many of the cards in your set before inspecting it, that is not REA's fault.

And the $63k didn't go in REA's pocket, it mostly went in the consignor's pockets.

A buyer and seller going off of book value to establish the price are bound to have a disagreement, only an open auction can establish the value of a card at any given time.

You should contact them about the other 8, but again, two people with adverse interests are not going to easily agree about the value.

I think the thing that bugs me with this stuff is that an auction selling pretty expensive stuff with plenty of prep time apparently can't be bothered to check to see if a set actually contains the cards it's supposed to have.

Seriously, it doesn't take all that long.

And how can they write the description if they haven't checked? is it typical for the consignor to write the description?

If they don't actually look, there's this Wagner I'm thinking of selling......

Steve B

The auction house writes the description, but apparently, with a set containing 300+ cards, they are just taking the consignors word for the grades, if they are all on the registry. The consignor sold a card but kept it on his registry to help maintain his lofty standing. From what I read, there were multiple mistakes involving this set that compounded on one another (with the 1st mistake being on the consignor).....

Two can play at this game. Just pay them in $100 bills and slip in a couple of ones. When they discover the mistake, offer to give them a fifty if they'll return the ones.

I think the main problem here is that the buyer didn't want to return the lot for a full refund, instead he wanted top dollar for the individual card.

When you buy a complete set you usually get a discount versus buying the cards individually. This buyer wanted it both ways, to buy the complete set at a discount, and then demand REA pay for the missing card as if it was purchased individually for top dollar.

The set was sold at 85% of SMR, but the buyer was demanding the $1600-$2300 that the missing card would fetch if sold individually. Even though REA was in the right, they gave in and gave him what he wanted.

The auction house clearly made a mistake and when notified they fixed it. I can completely understand the need for a public flogging, can't you? :eek:

I sympathize with Bill here. First the use of SMR for pricing is crazy. I think almost everyone agrees that SMR pricing is way off, and VCP is much better. So to say that Bill got a great deal off SMR is like all of those ebay sellers with high BINs at SMR thinking that they will sell for that amount. The other part is REA should have checked the lots and the items in the lots. Isn't that what the buyer's premium is for, besides printing that nice catalog? This lot sold for a lot of money. No reason why REA couldn't check the lot before shipping. I mean I recently sold an 80 card lot of 33 goudey's in poor condition on ebay that sold for $100. I checked each card in the lot when I listed it, and before I shipped it to the buyer to make sure it matched. REA made huge $$$ here, and they should have checked to make sure that it matched the auction description. I bought a partial Goudey set from REA in this last auction, and other than the big name cards (Ruth/Gehrig), I never even bothered to check the rest even though I spent a mere 9K on it. I figured REA had the quality control to to do that. So now I'll have to start checking in the future. In the end, I think REA tried to make it right even though Bill had to jump through hoops, and in the end, I think REA is probably still one of the better auction houses.

I'm guessing the buyer would counter that if he were to try now to buy the missing card, he'd have to pay the "individual price" and get no "complete set" discount. So why shouldn't he be compensated that higher amount? After all, he thought he was getting that card in the first place.

I'm not saying who's right, just that I can understand that argument.

That is a muted response.

And my point is probably moot.

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.

I smell a cage match coming on! If only we had an annual dinner we could book some real entertainment...

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
 

Thanks a lot Peter. Much appreciated. Dues are doubling too. :p

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.

Well if nothing more, making under 10K uniform cash deposits over a short period of time and immediately drawing money orders is one way to get noticed by the Feds. Under the Patriot Act I can assure you that you have caught someone's attention, even at simply at the bank who most likely is obligated to inform the Feds. Cash is a liability these days.

" . . . 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'.