Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[vargha]

First of all, this isn't a hit and run post. I do need to leave the computer for a couple of hours or so, but I will be back to answer any questions as well as to respond to posts. Here's the situation:

I won the lot of 10 Oxford Confectionery cards slabbed by SGC in the recent Legendary auction. The description was minimal, and the scans were a tad small in my opinion for what I am about to describe. When the cards came in, the four SGC 10 Pete Alexander cards all had damage that was not evident from the scans. Three of them have four small holes apiece where the cardboard is gone (not just thin spots). The fourth card has a half-inch gouge (indentation) on the front that ends in a small pinhole-sized hole. Two of the Alexander cards have scrapbook/back damage. That wasn't disclosed, but was evident enough from the pictures, so I factored that into my bid.

I called Jeff Marren (VP of Operations) today at Legendary. We spoke for about ten minutes on this. Without going into the details yet, what do you think should have been done on Legendary's part both before and after the sale? Areas of discussion might include, but are not limited to, due diligence on my (buyer's) part, disclosure requirements, if any, on graded cards, especially card graded "1", value of the lot/cards with or without the damage, obligations on Legendary's part (if any) post-sale, etc.

Like I said, I will fill in all of the details in a bit. Fire away, please!

http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDeta...ntoryid=160555

[oldjudge]

You had ample time to ask questions about the cards before you bid. Unless Legendary had something in their description that was wrong I think this one is one you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I don't think a seller has an obligation to go into detail about the defects on a card with the lowest possible grade, as long as it doesn't misrepresent anything. If it was important, you should have asked for a bigger scan.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think a seller has an obligation to go into detail about the defects on a card with the lowest possible grade, as long as it doesn't misrepresent anything. If it was important, you should have asked for a bigger scan.

+1

[Bpm0014]

+2. When you buy a PSA1 or SCG10, pinholes, back damage, and scrap book remnants are expected. Not trying to sound harsh, but you're always allowed to ask for better scans. Sorry.

[scooter729]

I had been bidding on the same lot as well. I hadn't seen the lot until the last day or so, so I didn't have time to delve with any further questions, so I went with what was given.

Since you could see some of the issues on the cards, I assumed worst case scenarios on those I couldn't see which were graded SGC 10's and assumed there were other faults which I couldn't see. I think my max bid was about $1,000 all-in, expecting there could be some other issues which weren't totally clear.

I can understand where you're coming from and could see both sides - not sure exactly how to proceed, as it's a bit of a tricky one, since the scans could've been better (a Heritage scan wouldn't have this issue), but you could've asked questions ahead of time....

[Peter_Spaeth]

The scans are just small. They aren't deceptive.

[RGold]

It took David a couple of sentences to describe the defects. Too bad Legendary couldn't do the same rather than wax poetic about the primitive charm of the set.


Each card has been graded by SGC. Presented is a 10-card Hall of Famers collection of E253 Oxford Confectionary baseball cards issued in 1921. Oxford Confectionery issued this unusual and very rare set in 1921, at the same time its larger competitors were also issuing baseball cards with caramel treats. Collectors have always appreciated the rarity and primitive charm of this distinctive early candy issue. Oxfords appear to have been somewhat of a regional issue as they are seldom found outside of the Pennsylvania area. The all Hall of Famers array includes: Graded SGC 35 GD+ 2.5: 3 cards w/Grimes and Rousch (2); SGC 30 GD 2: 1 card, Schalk; SGC 10 PR 1: 6 cards w/Alexander (4), Frisch and Grimes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Better to wax than to let the price wane.

[Piratedogcardshows]

While I go agree with others who say ask for a better scan or description if the pinholes aren't visible they should mention it.Quick question were all the scans undersized in the auction or just this lot?

[bigfish]

I was bidding on this lot as well. The cards are graded so I based my bids upon the grades. If they were raw, I think you are onto something....I agree with Jay.

[Gradedcardman]

+1

[Rob D.]

If this thread was about some anonymous seller on eBay and a $100 card, the Net54 torches and pitchforks would be out.

Why is the onus on the bidder? It takes no more effort on the part of an auction house to post larger scans that would more clearly show problems on the cards.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

From Legendary's About Us Page:

"Our goal is your total satisfaction with the presentation of your fine collectibles. We do whatever it takes."

[Fred]

I would have requested larger scans.

Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes your're the windshield...

What's the last thing a bug sees as he hits the windshield?

Just out of curiosity, what did Legendary say?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Major flaws such as holes and paper loss/trimming etc. should specifically be mentioned in an items description. Auction descriptions should aim at accuracy not puffery.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think a seller has an obligation to go into detail about the defects on a card with the lowest possible grade, as long as it doesn't misrepresent anything. If it was important, you should have asked for a bigger scan.

What about omissions? I'm on the fence about this one, but how hard is it for the seller to say that some of the cards have pinholes, particularly when the scans are so small that it can be reasonably argued, imo, that they were made that way to be intentionally deceptive? IMO, a seller like legendary shouldn't really be relying on caveat emptor to defend a shitty description. It's just bad business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The cards are 1s, for gosh sake. If the emptor cares about just how bad the carnage on the 1s is, the emptor can send an email or pick up the phone.

[nsaddict]

Perhaps bigger scans or the potential bidder could have requested such as many have stated. But we are talking about sgc 10's...what was expected??

[bobbyw8469]

Agreed! We are talking about the lowest grade SGC gives?!?!?

[Rob D.]

I don't know how many times on this board I've read people's comments about how the eye appeal of a slabbed card with a low grade can vary so greatly. Think about how many good-looking cards you've seen in "1" holders. Now think about how many absolute dogs you've seen in "1" holders.

Making the argument that "It's a 1, what'd you expect?" actually would hold more weight if the card were a 7 or 8. If you're willing to buy cards just based on a "1" on the flip, you are going to have cards in your collection that run the gamut in both eye appeal and technical flaws.

That said, most of this is moot. The seller is a freaking auction house, not grandpas_attic on eBay. Post larger scans. It's not that hard.

[Leon]

David, the OP, emailed me this evening and is having internet/computer issues or he would have already responded again. I am sure he will as soon as he can.

[buymycards]

Really? Ask for larger scans? These cards sold for over $150 each. I have better scans on my ebay page for a $3 John Elway card. Legendary is just too - lazy? unprofessional? oblivious? - to provide decent scans and a complete description.

Rick

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

David, the OP, emailed me this evening and is having internet/computer issues or he would have already responded again. I am sure he will as soon as he can.

I thought he had already vanished for another 3 years or however long it's been since we last saw David post.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The cards are 1s, for gosh sake. If the emptor cares about just how bad the carnage on the 1s is, the emptor can send an email or pick up the phone.

There are 1s and there are 1s. You know that Peter, so please don't pretend otherwise. Having a bunch of pinholes in a card is way different than slight back damage or other stuff that can get a card a 1. Legendary knows that too. Yet it presents the lot with scans that you would need an electron microscope to see and can't mention, on a $3000 lot, that the defects are what most collectors would consider to be among the worst defects possible?

OK. I get it. We will once again have to agree to disagree. I certainly think there could have been more due diligence on the part of the buyer, but I also think it could be argued that the scans and description (or lack thereof) were predatory. I hope it gets resolved, but I have to say that I will think more than twice before I ever bid in a Legendary auction again. That's why I think that, even if Legendary can use an ambiguous description and shitty scans to slide by (legally speaking), its just bad business.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

There are 1s and there are 1s. You know that Peter, so please don't pretend otherwise. Having a bunch of pinholes in a card is way different than slight back damage or other stuff that can get a card a 1. Legendary knows that too. Yet it presents the lot with scans that you would need an electron microscope to see and can't mention, on a $3000 lot, that the defects are what most collectors would consider to be among the worst defects possible?

OK. I get it. We will once again have to agree to disagree. I certainly think there could have been more due diligence on the part of the buyer, but I also think it could be argued that the scans and description (or lack thereof) were predatory. I hope it gets resolved, but I have to say that I will think more than twice before I ever bid in a Legendary auction again. That's why I think that, even if Legendary can use an ambiguous description and shitty scans to slide by (legally speaking), its just bad business.

Plaintiffs' lawyers never seem to think anyone has to take responsibility for their own actions. it's always someone else's fault. David is a sophisticated collector. He knew the scans were tiny and wouldn't necessarily show all defects. He could have asked. My opinion.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Plaintiffs' lawyers never seem to think anyone has to take responsibility for their own actions. it's always someone else's fault. David is a sophisticated collector. He knew the scans were tiny and wouldn't necessarily show all defects. He could have asked. My opinion.

LOL. And defense lawyers never take responsibility and always claim that it isn't their clients fault even when it is.

[vargha]

Hi all. Like Leon said, Charter was down for the last 4-5 hours, so sorry about the delays. I'm not trying to be coy or shifty on this, and I will disclose what happened on the phone call as well as my thoughts. However, if if you all will humor me, I'd like to discuss this a bit and see if we have any consensus on general listing and bidding ettiquette and responsibilities/culpabilities. So I'd like to deal with some of these issues on separate posts to keep it simpler (at least for me). Also, feel free to jump in at any time even if I am not directing a question at you.

Originally Posted by oldjudge

You had ample time to ask questions about the cards before you bid. Unless Legendary had something in their description that was wrong I think this one is one you.

This sentiment, or something similar was posted a few times. Here are some questions I have.

1. Does this apply to any sale, including private sales and eBay auctions?

2. Is omission okay as long as there was no intent to directly deceive?

3. If you sold a card and found it had a serious flaw afterward, would you try to do anything? (Why/Why not?)

4. Is caveat emptor the rule of the day as long as the card is slabbed by PSA or SGC? What if it is raw?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think a seller has an obligation to go into detail about the defects on a card with the lowest possible grade, as long as it doesn't misrepresent anything. If it was important, you should have asked for a bigger scan.

Do you think it would be okay for me to sell these cards in a private transaction or on eBay without disclosing what I now know about them unless directly asked? If not, why not?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vargha

Do you think it would be okay for me to sell these cards in a private transaction or on eBay without disclosing what I now know about them unless directly asked? If not, why not?

Yes. They are SGC 1s and accurately graded, and if you don't say anything beyond that I don't think that's deceptive. But if you mention one defect but not another, I think you start to cross the line.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Jason

While I go agree with others who say ask for a better scan or description if the pinholes aren't visible they should mention it.Quick question were all the scans undersized in the auction or just this lot?

The "enlargements" weren't big enough to see the holes. I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed. Obviously, I was wrong. I didn't go through a ton of listings, but individual cards like the E107's on page 1 all had huge scans. Some of the group lots I looked at had bigger scans. Some of the others seemed smaller like the Oxfords that I bought.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Fred

I would have requested larger scans.

Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes your're the windshield...

What's the last thing a bug sees as he hits the windshield?

Just out of curiosity, what did Legendary say?

Fred, I'll cover that at the end, then we can discuss Legendary and me on our thought processes. For now, I wanted to eliminate a little bit of the personal and discuss this as if it were the proverbial "friend of mine".

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

Perhaps bigger scans or the potential bidder could have requested such as many have stated. But we are talking about sgc 10's...what was expected??

So to play devil's advocate, lets say I have an SGC 10 that was ripped horizontally in the lower half, about a third of the way across the card. As it lays it in the slab, it isn't obvious at first blush in a smaller scan but is obvious when looked at with the naked eye. I list it on eBay with smaller scans. A bidder asks if there are any holes in the card that can't be seen. To gain credibility I post his question on my auction and "guarantee" that there are no holes. Am I still cool? It's an SGC 10 after all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David -- as Robert Bork once said, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by vargha

So to play devil's advocate, lets say I have an SGC 10 that was ripped horizontally in the lower half, about a third of the way across the card. As it lays it in the slab, it isn't obvious at first blush in a smaller scan but is obvious when looked at with the naked eye. I list it on eBay with smaller scans. A bidder asks if there are any holes in the card that can't be seen. To gain credibility I post his question on my auction and "guarantee" that there are no holes. Am I still cool? It's an SGC 10 after all.

According to Peter, you're cool. You didn't affirmatively misrepresent anything and your omission doesn't matter. I'm sure he would be willing to represent you in the resulting lawsuit.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David -- as Robert Bork once said, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom.

I'm more of a "black and white" guy. So to me, I believe often in arguing to the ad absurdum because it shows where a person's true principals and values lie. It's like the old joke where a man asks a woman at a bar if she will go to bed with him for a million dollars. She says, "For a million dollars? Sure." He then asks her if she will go to bed with him for twenty dollars. Insulted, she exclaims, "Twenty dollars! Just what do you think I am?" The man calmly replies, "We've already established that. Now we are just negotiating price."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

According to Peter, you're cool. You didn't affirmatively misrepresent anything and your omission doesn't matter. I'm sure he would be willing to represent you in the resulting lawsuit.

Paying client? Damn straight.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vargha

I'm more of a "black and white" guy. So to me, I believe often in arguing to the ad absurdum because it shows where a person's true principals and values lie. It's like the old joke where a man asks a woman at a bar if she will go to bed with him for a million dollars. She says, "For a million dollars? Sure." He then asks her if she will go to bed with him for twenty dollars. Insulted, she exclaims, "Twenty dollars! Just what do you think I am?" The man calmly replies, "We've already established that. Now we are just negotiating price."

LOL. Good one. But the problem with the Socratic method is that one can push virtually any principle to its extremes and find a fact pattern where it doesn't fit. But that doesn't necessarily undermine the principle.

[Kenny Cole]

Yep, if the client can pay to defend a fraud, that's much better than if they can't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yep, if the client can pay to defend a fraud, that's much better than if they can't.

You can take the case on a contingency and then give the client objective advice on whether to take my settlement offer.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You can take the case on a contingency and then give the client objective advice on whether to take my settlement offer.

No. I would always try that case because your client is a POS and that matters to juries.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

No. I would always try that case because your client is a POS and that matters to juries.

And they also see through plaintiffs trying to pin the blame on someone else, so it's back to 50-50 whether you get paid or not.

[calvindog]

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And they also see through plaintiffs trying to pin the blame on someone else, so it's back to 50-50 whether you get paid or not.

LOL, its far better than 50/50. Try again.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

As if you are objective.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As if you are objective.

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As if you are objective.

But Jeff's alleged lack of objectivity is based on the fact that your client is a POS and there's an abundance of evidence, both objective and subjective, to support that fact.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

+2. When you buy a PSA1 or SCG10, pinholes, back damage, and scrap book remnants are expected. Not trying to sound harsh, but you're always allowed to ask for better scans. Sorry.

You can assume if a card looks VG or VGEX but is in a "1" holder that it has a technical problem that just might not detract from eye appeal even if you aren't spotting it.