Is the auction world the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
 

Should auction houses be held accountable for false claims? And how would you hold them accountable in a situation like the below? I’m not picking on anyone in particular here and this is not a bash anyone thread as most all are guilty of this.

For example when you make comments like...

“The finest known and only example in any condition, either Red or Brown Hindu ad back, ever graded by PSA.”

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/LotD...px?lotid=20917

And within seconds another can be found that sold in a major auction house or by searching eBay shouldn’t that be frowned upon just a bit?

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/.../2012/157.html

Or should it be on the collectors to research each lot they are bidding on and put no trust into the auctioneer’s descriptions?

Just curious if this stuff bothers you guys or not? I know I would be a bit upset to spend pretty penny on something I thought was one of a kind and have 4 guys say “oh I have that card too, only nicer etc.” I know the above will be explained that PSA didn’t start labeling the brands until recently therefore it was missed in the reports.

But really how hard is a Google search or checking the other major auction houses past results before you make bold claims?

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/LotD...px?lotid=20919

http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedi...c-40-219220882

Cheers,

John

totally agree john its not cool, if the seller is truly trying to lie of fake out a buyer. But I always do my own reasearch online, if the card is a bit sketchy i still may buy it if its cheep enuff. Sometimes it works out. But if the price is to high i would never

Hi John, this very subject is my biggest pet peeve in the hobby. i don't put too much stock in auction descriptions when they claim "1/2, none higher", or the dreaded "scarce for the grade", etc...very annoying, yet people eat it up and bid like it's the only one on the planet.

and yes, the biggest reason for all of these inaccuracies is the PSA pop reports are all out of whack, as you pointed out there are tens of thousands of cards (T206 specifically) that are not broken down by brands. very misleading.

when are you up in NYC again?

John- It's always Caveat Emptor in our hobby. As a collector of scarce cards I see this stuff happen daily. Friday I picked up some things at an auction house that were supposed to all be one of one. On the way over I stopped at 1 man card show and saw another one of the one-of-ones :).

An auction house should be held accountable for their lot descriptions, especially when it may impact how high a bidder may go. But it also doesn't hurt for the bidder to do his due diligence before sinking big money into a piece.

As a bidder I would contact an auction house that makes a material error and ask them to make the necessary change. I know that when I ran auctions I had to correct some things that were pointed out to me by the bidders. It's really not a big deal, as mistakes will happen.

John, not sure if auction houses can be held accountable for false claims, but as Leon said, it's always Caveat Emptor in our hobby.

Due diligence!

If an item was misrepresented, including as "best known" in the auction description and I discovered after winning that that the information conveyed was patently untrue and the auction house should have known that it was untrue at the time of writing, I would expect a full refund if I asked for it.
JimB

I think Id want the same thing, innaccuracies may be a mistake at times but the AH would still be accountable for said information. Innaccuracies bother me as well...Ive always been accountable for my documentation professionally and legally...it makes you pay attention to say the least.

In their defense, in my case, there was almost no way they could have known. I do agree though, if it's a no-brainer and they made a gross mistake, I would expect a refund if I asked.

First ya'll get the FBI to slap our wrists when we shill bid...

....now you want honesty in advertising our lots???

unbelievable! I guess we'll just have to jack the buyers penalty up to 33%

and charge 5x the going rate for shipping.

(shakes fist at damn collectors)

Tough one, if all they did was check the population reports it would look like it's the only one. I have a common like that, SGC 80 shown as the best of its kind, but there's an 88 out there. (Which actually looks worse than mine:()

While I think that would be forgivable on a cheap card- like maybe something around $20-100- I would like to think they'd spend a bit of time getting it right on a card that will sell for a few thousand. I'm sure the interns they can hire cheap could find the prior sales very quickly.

Ultimately the auction house would keep their own database to make that process quicker.

Obviously that's all just wishful thinking.

Steve B

They are not even searching the registries. Another Crandall PSA 4 sold 2 months ago.

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=24743

Jeff owns a PSA 5 Chase Hindu, they list their 4 as possibly the finest example.

I don't really understand people who would bid extra based on an auction description like that. If you're going to drop a chunk of change on something, wouldn't you do a little research beforehand yourself?

It seems like nothing but blather to me anyways.

Do you like the card for the grade, and what would you pay for it? Period!

I think we have to remember that not every collector or buyer is a hardcore collector. Some are here that are new or here for investment based etc.

Some of those folks will bid very much on claims and that's why they should be careful when making claims such as the above.

Also the reason these claims are typed in the first place is for the very reason that people will bid more. If these write ups had no effect on bidding patterns you wouldn't see them.

Cheers,

John

+1
There's a legal name for what this behavior is. It's called "Fraud". Look it up.

Not to detract from the OP's question, but this thread prompted me to look at all of the red Hindus in SCP's auction. All I can say is, wow! I can't imagine where some of these will end up as T206 back collectors try to cross off a tough one from their lists. Impressive offering.

(Not my cards, obviously.)

I imagine this has been covered many times but--what is the accepted version of WHEN PSA started keeping track for pop report of 1) all graded cards 2) breaking down t206 backs. Thanks.

They can lie all they want in the description, since I typically stop reading after chapter 3... They do however need to stop adjusting scan color and contrast. All I want is for the card that shows up to look like the catalog.

agreed with matthew h
 

screwing with the picture is more egregious then puffery in my opinion.

Now that you mention it there is a Blue Old Mill in a current banner ad here that appears a bit bluer than the real McCoy from what I've heard.:rolleyes:

Auction houses often attempt to mislead bidders with claims about #s of T206s in a certain grade by ignoring that 10,000s were graded before PSA distinguished back brands. For example if I say there is only one Joe Schmoe PSA 8 with a Piedmont back and forget to mention that there are 7 PSA 8s with unknown backs, I am misleading IMHO.
JimB

There's a blue old mill?






:p

You don't have to understand it, but bidders DO have a right to not have fraudulent misrepresentations in auction descriptions on items on which they are bidding .

It is not only those who do not do their own research that are affected. Every time one gets bid up by another bidder because they believed the lies, that person is affected too.
JimB

Jim- to take it a step further, some descriptions will note that, for example, a PSA 8 is the highest ever graded, and is a pop 1...when they are in fact aware that SGC graded one example a 9. Wouldn't that be useful information?

I never defended the practice. Just stated I didn't understand the psychology of bidders who would spend a good deal of money on something without doing very simple research on it.

I also don't quite understand the psychology of flowery descriptions affecting someones bid. I don't get how people are that easily swayed.

When I do my own auctions on Ebay I try to keep my descriptions as simple as possible. This is what it is, this is the general condition, If there's any important or relevant details I add them, if it's an obscure figure I might throw in a short history of one or two sentences at most, here's a big picture of the item, if you like it, bid on it.

Closest thing to flowery I get is: "Great Image", "Wonderful Pose", "Nice Shot". I try to keep the meaningless exposition at 5 words or less.

Also, not being a graded card collector or dealer, I lack the understanding of the "none graded higher" importance. Even if there is "none graded higher" today, there could easily be 6 graded higher by tomorrow (unless it's a 10 of course), and yes I know what I just said is an exaggeration for effect. ;)

Speaking of misleading...

http://www.prweb.com/releases/roy-ha...web9482131.htm

Last time I checked Halladay had MLB licensed cards in '97, so why would a '98 minor league issue even draw RC consideration?

I don't really like getting into what is, or isn't a Rookie card, but there are some wonderful exclamations in this article:

"Holy Grail"

"Crown Jewel"

"Ultra Limited Edition"

"nearly impossible to find in good shape"

"should widely be considered his most valuable and coveted baseball card ever produced."

"I honestly don't think there will ever be one that will grade above this one"

:D

+1

Huh?
 

Goodwin currently has a series 4 T210 of Collier PSA 1.5 which is advertised as not only the lone graded copy but there are no known ungraded copies known to exist.
Interesting since I have an SGC 30 T210-4 Collier :)

Bob,
Most auction house employ the "in the neighborhood" rule when it comes to descriptions.

Must be 3
 

I also saw the "one of a kind" T210-4 Collier card in the current Goodwin auction, and thought to myself "I think I have a Collier, too." I checked, and was right - I do. It is ungraded, so how else would anyone know? :)

I disagree with Barry's point
 

To me the population of SGC when dealing with PSA is irrelevant in my opinion, and vice versa. If they had the same standards and caught all the same alterations I would agree, but they do not.

"The only one graded in the hobby" seems to have become the latest "buzz" phrase to attract crazy bidding activity...esp on front/back t206 combinations...it seems to work...atleast for Goodwin!


The whales like to have their ego's stroked...often!

Glyn- but what if you are buying the PSA 8 because you believe it's the finest known? It's not the finest if there's a better one out there. At least the cataloguer should mention the presence of what is likely the better card.

Sorry - I am with Glyn on this one. You have to keep the pop reports of the different companies separate. If you start cross comparing, then you have to also include GAI, BVG, KSA, PRO, etc. Just gets to be too much.

If you start cross comparing, who is going to be the judge of the companies that you do and don't include on the comparison. Someone can include both SGC and PSA, but then by omitting the one BVG card that ranks higher than both of the first two companies, that is misleading also. Then if you include BVG as well, the KSA owner says, "Well, what about MY 1 of 1 KSA 10!?!?!". Just gets to be too much. I see nothing wrong with sticking to the single companies pop report. When you start crossing companies report like that though, I just don't get it.

Comparing cards to pop reports is just a way to make the card seem rarer than it really is...no matter how you slice it?!

How about simply saying, for example: "This PSA 8 is a 1 in 1; however, SGC has graded one 9." Put the information out there, let the bidder evaluate whether or not he is getting the finest. It's about disclosure.

I think PSA and SGC are sufficient for vintage (pre-WWII) stuff. I have never seen a KSA card. PRO is...well PRO - not much real or unaltered stuff in their holders. Most GAI stuff has been cracked and crossed anyway. PSA and SGC would probably cover 98% of legitimate pre-War graded cards IMHO.
JimB

What about the ones in BVG/Beckett holders? What about the ones in GAI holders? When you do that, you are forgetting about all the other graders of cards, no matter how reputable they are. It is not true disclosure when you are omitting people.

Let me phrase it another way. A collector pays a huge premium for a PSA 8 because it is a 1 in 1 and he wants to own the best example. He is not aware that there is another example graded 9 by SGC, as well as one graded 9 by Beckett.

Shortly after he buys the card either the Beckett or SGC example is crossed over to PSA, who assigns it a 9 grade. The buyer no longer has the best example, but now the second best. And had he known of these other two, he never would have paid the huge premium (I know all this information is available on the web, but we're talking theoretical here).

Again, just put the information out there and let prospective bidders assess it however they choose. It's about providing more information, not less. If I'm going to lay out big bucks I want to know as much as possible. You can limit your information to the big three grading companies.

To play devil's advocate, like Glyn already said earlier, you can't really do that. If you are buying cards based upon ALL of the card gradings companies POP reports, you are assuming that all the cards will cross likewise in another companies holders. Even on high grade cards, one companies '9' might be another companies EOT. And if you do succeed in getting something crossed, then you have a skewed pop report if it is not removed from the competitors report. I know we may be overthinking things here, but I am in the camp of KISS (keep it simple, stupid). If a card is graded by PSA, then you mention the current PSA pop only. Don't compare apples to oranges. I think the buyer should do due dilligence himself, especially if he is attempting a crossover.

I see your point here, but to be fair to a buyer, if you are saying "highest graded by PSA, 1 of 1"(for example); and you know there are others with high grades out there, graded by other well established and credible TPG's- shouldn't you fully disclose this to the buyer? The apples to oranges only applies to the TPG's, not the actual high grade card, right?

Sincerely, Clayton

The big auction houses have to keep the consigners happy...and this is accomplished by commanding big hammer prices...any way that they can. So if failing to disclose a little info here and there will help accomplish this end...that's what they do. So win win for the auction house and the consigner...lose lose for the collector/investor!

And as we all know pop reports are like the state by state synopses in the usa today...they just tell a small part of the whole story!

Robert- you don't have assume anything regarding whether or not the cards will cross at the same grade. You only want to get as much information as is out there, then decide how you wish to proceed.

Of course we can never be sure how a card will do in a crossover. But let me say this: if you were to pay a huge premium for a PSA 8 because it's purportedly the highest graded, and there's an SGC 9 in circulation, even though you and I don't know with any certainty how that SGC 9 will fare at PSA, you have to be thinking that there's a pretty good chance your PSA 8 is not the best one out there.

It's not so hard and doesn't take up much space. Look how LOVE OF THE GAME does it. CLear and concise. It's just information. I don't see how anyone can argue that the information is not useful to bidders.

Look at the bottom of the page. Just put the numbers in there and be done with it. I agree the bidder can determine what the numbers mean, but just put them in there. Doesn't hurt.

https://loveofthegameauctions.com/Lo...%29---PSA-VG-3.

http://i1023.photobucket.com/albums/...14113902AM.png

Agreed that Al's write ups and presentation were fantastic but wanted to raise a point with Barry. Suppose the SGC 9, in your example, is now the PSA 8 upon a cross over. Only reason I mention this is I have crossed over cards from both companies and in some cases cards were never removed from the other company's pop report. And they happened to be high grade cards where pop really made a difference.

Hi Greg- well that would certainly complicate matters. The whole system is a bit of a joke, but collectors take it seriously so just put out the information and let prospective bidders sort it all out. You can't expect every auction house to keep up with every crossover, that's not feasible. But instead of overloading descriptions with all that useless puffery, in its place provide useful data. That's all an auction house can do.