Seller sues dealer/buyer for a high flip

[Justus]

Interesting article. Has this ever happened in the card market?

https://news.artnet.com/art-world/fr...g-mask-2370870

[Peter_Spaeth]

Wut?

The couple also alleges that the antiques dealer conspired with their gardener, with whom he split the proceeds of the sale, to determine provenance information about the mask before approaching the auction houses.

[Gorditadogg]

It happens all the time. I remember a post on here from a member who got a box of 67T hi numbers at a flea market from a widow for $5.

She had no idea what the cards were really worth and was probably never the wiser. It's the way the world is.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Snowman]

Something very similar came up here a couple years ago and I remember arguing with people about this. I was saying that the original owners should be able to seek damages and others were saying, "nope, a sale is a sale" and that the buyer has no responsibility to inform an ignorant seller of an item's value. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Gorditadogg

It happens all the time. I remember a post on here from a member who got a box of 67T hi numbers at a flea market from a widow for $5.

She had no idea what the cards were really worth and was probably never the wiser. It's the way the world is.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

That's messed up.

[Eric72]

I seem to remember a story in which somebody got a Nolan Ryan rookie for $12 when it was supposed to be $1,200. One of the members here pointed to a law regarding purchases at significantly less than the value of the item. Can anyone link that thread or explain the law? If I remember correctly, the seller of the Ryan may have had some possible recourse.

[ALBB]

Yea, the Ryan rookie card story,..I recall young kid working behind the counter of a card shop misread the price $1200...as $12.00, the buyer an adult Im sure knew it should have been 1200..but didnt say anything.

I think a judge ruled in the case -

[Directly]

Topps recently announced they had doubled up some Superfractor 1/1 inserted cards by error.
A seller had sold one for $2,000 shipped USPS then Topps announced a buy back program of $25,000 bounty for that particular card --the seller contacted USPS and had the delivery stopped for return--(who owns the card??)

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by Directly

Topps recently announced they had doubled up some Superfractor 1/1 inserted cards by error.
A seller had sold one for $2,000 shipped USPS then Topps announced a buy back program of $25,000 bounty for that particular card --the seller contacted USPS and had the delivery stopped for return--(who owns the card??)

Just read the tale on Beckett. 2023 Bowman packs sales are pretty brisk for some reason.

[lumberjack]

Here's some ancient history.

Back in the mid 1970s, a sharpie wrote an article about buying Crackerjacks at a show from an old guy walk-in.

He gave the man one dollar each for the cards....And was bragging about it.

Crackerjacks were selling for 15 or 20 times that amount in those days; people hadn't caught on as to what they possessed.

At that time, a number of the more savvy dealers were advertising in newspaper sports sections. The hustle went something like this: "We will be at the Holliday Inn on Route 35 all weekend. There is cash in your closet."

And people would bring in their shoebox Topps and Bowmans (receive dimes on the dollar) and think they were stealing the money.

Beware, my friends. Man's inhumanity to his fellow man in nothing new.

lumberjack

[steve B]

I read the article about the mask a couple days ago.

Articles usually leave a lot out, especially these days when they apparently save money by not having editors.

Anyway,

The guy who bought it took it to two other auction places that estimated it at well under 1000 euros. Then he took it to the specialist auction.

I suspect the gardener was one of those "hey, this isn't trash, I know a guy who would probably buy it. "
I just got electronics from a house clear out that was the same deal, handyman recommended a pushy real estate guy.

I suspect the specialized auction place was the one pushing the age/originality testing.

To me when I was going to yard sales and flea markets a lot there was a big difference between me asking a price which I usually paid if it was a deal, and me offering a price for something.
If someone underprices something, I'm ok with paying what they ask. (and even big dealers underprice things. )
Making an offer is easy if it's a well known thing, but much more complex if it's a bunch of stuff. What it might sell for, how much time the sorting and pricing will take. If I actually need some of it for my collection or if it's just extras....

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Something very similar came up here a couple years ago and I remember arguing with people about this. I was saying that the original owners should be able to seek damages and others were saying, "nope, a sale is a sale" and that the buyer has no responsibility to inform an ignorant seller of an item's value. Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Travis,

I'm interested to see what you are referencing, in terms of the post. Was it a hypothetical situation, or a transaction that actually occurred, here on the board?

- James

[G1911]

One should not rip people off for ethical reasons, but I fail to see how a buyer should be required to inform the seller of market details. That it appears some here believe this should be a law and a criminal act to use what you know to make smart buys seems absurd. If I make an offer on an item, that offer is within market norms (or as best as I believe them to be - rare material is a guesstimate) but I fail to see how I am obligated to leverage my knowledge or expertise (as lacking as it is) to their gain instead of mine.

[drcy]

There is a difference between when the seller beforehand sets the price, and when an unethical expert buyer manipulates the seller and lies about the items to create the price.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

One should not rip people off for ethical reasons, but I fail to see how a buyer should be required to inform the seller of market details. That it appears some here believe this should be a law and a criminal act to use what you know to make smart buys seems absurd. If I make an offer on an item, that offer is within market norms (or as best as I believe them to be - rare material is a guesstimate) but I fail to see how I am obligated to leverage my knowledge or expertise (as lacking as it is) to their gain instead of mine.

Not sure there are many or anyone saying it should be a crime as opposed to a potential civil claim.

[111gecko]

Deleted

[Yoda]

The elderly couples' age might work in their favor.

[Exhibitman]

First of all, if the French system is anything like ours, the asset freeze is pending the outcome of the actual litigation; in other words, it concludes nothing. Let's see what happens at trial.

Personally, I side with the dealer on what I've read. Unless he was hired to do an appraisal or render advice, he has every right to make an offer and see what happens, even if he spots something the sellers do not. If they came to him for advice and he gave it, that may be another story. We will have to see what the facts show when they come out at trial.

Not that I blame the sellers for taking a shot at it. With that much money at stake, I would go for it too. Just by putting up a fight they already have a six-figure offer on the table. One could argue that they are using the legal system to extort the dealer when what they really did was make a bad deal. I don't. They have a right to go to court and if they get whumped, they will have to pay the costs for it.

Speaking of which, facts require context and that will only emerge with a trial. For example, not offering it for sale right away may be the outcome of being a prudent seller rather than some nefarious motive. When I get a card I have not seen before, I don't just throw it out there for sale, I research it. I also want to know more about the allegations about what the dealer did. Did he really 'conspire' with the gardener, or did he ask the gardener questions after he already bought the item? Conspiracy indicates a pre-arrangement before the transaction to cheat a seller; asking questions after the fact is not the same thing. Did he know about the testing work, or was it suggested to him by someone he consulted after the deal?

Reading what was reported carefully, it seems to me that the sale price was a shock to everyone, even the specialty auctioneer. 10X estimate is a shocking outcome. The first two houses offered an opinion in line with what he paid as a wholesaler. Then there is the testing. Doing all that testing is not part of normal due diligence but is part of thinking something merited the attention. How that came to be the case needs to be fleshed out, if it even has relevance at all.

I don't think that using superior knowledge is a wrong thing in and of itself. Nor do I think people with equal bargaining power have anything to bitch about when the counterparty has superior knowledge. An expert has no reason to give up that advantage in an arms' length transaction. If someone approaches me with a box of cards for sale or if I find something at a garage sale, my first question is what they want for it. If I think is worth more than the asking price, sorry, I am meeting the asking price and walking away. I might even ask for a discount and see if I can improve my advantage. If they ask me for an offer and I make one, I am entirely unapologetic about it if they accept, even if my offer is low. I know this rubs some people the wrong way and they are entitled to their views and feelings. I don't share them. If you sell something without knowing what it is or is worth, that's "you" problem, not a "me" problem. I've made a few really stupid deals over the years but I didn't consider it the other guy's fault.

One final note: I am always leery of these discussions going into the quagmire of ethics. Not legality, but ethics. I don't think that is a productive place to go with these kinds of discussions. For most situations, there are many different views of what is ethical and what is not, and no objectively right answer that doesn't reflect the speaker's own background and education and beliefs. Some would offer a consignment instead of a purchase to a layperson who has a box of cards to sell., some would offer a cash price. I don't think either is wrong per se or right per se.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It doesn't sound like the buyer committed any fraud, accepting him at his word he didn't know the true value either. What theory is left to the seller, mutual mistake in value so no contract was formed? Seems a stretch without researching it.

As Adam said, feels like more a question of ethics.

[ALBB]

Used to be .." back in the day " ..if a tremendous walk in collection came to a dealer....He bought it ( lowball offer ? probably ), and the bragging/ story/tale about it was looked on as - " wow, that lucky so and so " ," If I only knew ", " what a steal of a deal " ,etc.....

Now maybe more - " that scumbag dealer lowballed the guy " , " He should be ashamed " etc...

[robw1959]

We as a society are still much more laisse-faire capitalistic than any European country. Regardless of how the French court rules, I can't foresee how a situation like this could happen here. Maybe some day it will, but right now, it doesn't matter what your intentions are regarding a purchase. After the purchase has been made, it becomes your property to do with as you choose, and I can't see how that is going to change any time soon.

In our Constitution, we have a right to the pursuit of happiness, which has been classically construed as the individual ownership of property.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by ALBB

Used to be .." back in the day " ..if a tremendous walk in collection came to a dealer....He bought it ( lowball offer ? probably ), and the bragging/ story/tale about it was looked on as - " wow, that lucky so and so " ," If I only knew ", " what a steal of a deal " ,etc.....

Now maybe more - " that scumbag dealer lowballed the guy " , " He should be ashamed " etc...

It baffles me when people that have never owned/run a real business and have no idea how they work comment on buying inventory. Dealers make money buying not selling.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

It baffles me when people that have never owned/run a real business and have no idea how they work comment on buying inventory. Dealers make money buying not selling.

Of course, but one can still behave ethically and do well.

[Eric72]

A $4,400,000 item for $157 goes far beyond normal.

Hell, even if the mask didn’t go for 10x estimates, a $440,000 item for $157 goes way outside the lines. For those of you that would gladly fork over the $157 without saying a word, congratulations. Test concluded, it’s verified; you’re one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Eric72

A $4,400,000 item for $157 goes far beyond normal.

Hell, even if the mask didn’t go for 10x estimates, a $440,000 item for $157 goes way outside the lines. For those of you that would gladly fork over the $157 without saying a word, congratulations. Test concluded, it’s verified; you’re one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name.

Many years ago, I sold a PSA 9 worth several K to a dealer. He was able to bump it to a 10, and when he sold it at a huge profit, he sent me part of his take. When I said you didn't have to do that, he said for him it was the right thing to do. That's how people should be.

[packs]

After reading the article and knowing nothing else about what happened, it didn't really sound like the dealer knew what they had either. More like the dealer had a feeling there might be something there. I don't think they could have guessed the true origin. Without knowing anything more about the dealer it's hard to say they could know the outcome when they made the purchase.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Eric72

A $4,400,000 item for $157 goes far beyond normal.

Hell, even if the mask didn’t go for 10x estimates, a $440,000 item for $157 goes way outside the lines. For those of you that would gladly fork over the $157 without saying a word, congratulations. Test concluded, it’s verified; you’re one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name.

If somebody offers me a 1953 Mantle GU jersey for $157, I'm buying it (taking the risk it's a fake,) getting it appraised, and if it's genuine, selling it at auction. When it's over, I'd go back to the original seller and offer her half.

Years ago I saw people bring stuff into card shows. One time a guy had a box of cards and told the dealer he wanted $50 for it. The dealer said it was worth much more and offered something around $300. The seller then said something like, "Oh, I didn't realize they were worth that much..." and walked away to get other offers.

So the dealer, trying to be a good guy, missed the deal completely when he could've had it for $50.

I also saw that same scenario play out with a different ending. When the seller started to walk away, the dealer said, "Wait a minute. Tell you what. I'll give you $100 for just these 6 cards." The seller agreed, not realizing he'd just sold 80% of the value in his box.

[packs]

I was thinking about the other outcome too. I don't think the original owner would be on the hook if the dealer did pay a $157 for a mask that after all the testing, examinations and appraisals he spent money on identified it as a $150 mask.

[JollyElm]

1042. Gramboozled (or Widowhoodwinked)
When a little old lady selling her dear, late husband’s collection gets absolutely ripped off without even knowing it.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Eric72

A $4,400,000 item for $157 goes far beyond normal.

Hell, even if the mask didn’t go for 10x estimates, a $440,000 item for $157 goes way outside the lines. For those of you that would gladly fork over the $157 without saying a word, congratulations. Test concluded, it’s verified; you’re one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name.

That's the sort of response I was hoping we would not have in this thread. I don't think there is a specific price point or percentage at which you can just say that the buyer is "one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name" without a lot more information, and when you take that sort of attitude right off the bat, you kill off any conversation about it. I think there is room for reasonable people to differ on the issue. I could point out myriad real-world examples, from the entire web sites dedicated to thrift store finds, to the many transactions we see every day at shows and on eBay, to the guy who buys a raw card and gets a 10 from PSA on it. Everyone who buys a card thinks he got a deal and everyone who sells a card thinks he got a deal. They can't all be right. Every transaction is a zero-sum one: somebody wins, somebody loses. The nature of the win and loss depends on the metrics by which you measure. I've overpaid for the last card I needed to finish a tough set. It was worthwhile to me, even if, financially speaking, it was not an objectively "good" deal. It was a good deal for me so I can enjoy the set.

Not directed at you, but more generally, I don't get the knee-jerk hostility to someone seeing and making a great deal. This is a hyper-capitalist society and economy: the whole point of trade is to make money, to get the advantage. Excluding criminality or fraud--which no one thinks is OK--why is there a tendency to attack people who do it? I bought an item from a walk-in at a show and paid his ask because I thought it was really special. I put it into an auction, and it sold for 17X what I paid. Does that make me a scumbag piece of crap? At the same show, I picked up a card that later sold for a third of what I paid. Should I sue the seller? Not as far as I am concerned. That's how it goes.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Eric72

A $4,400,000 item for $157 goes far beyond normal.

Hell, even if the mask didn’t go for 10x estimates, a $440,000 item for $157 goes way outside the lines. For those of you that would gladly fork over the $157 without saying a word, congratulations. Test concluded, it’s verified; you’re one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name.

I do not think I have ever met a collector and/or investor, who if offered a genuine T206 Wagner for $157, would not buy it.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That's the sort of response I was hoping we would not have in this thread. I don't think there is a specific price point or percentage at which you can just say that the buyer is "one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name" without a lot more information, and when you take that sort of attitude right off the bat, you kill off any conversation about it. I think there is room for reasonable people to differ on the issue. I could point out myriad real-world examples, from the entire web sites dedicated to thrift store finds, to the many transactions we see every day at shows and on eBay, to the guy who buys a raw card and gets a 10 from PSA on it. Everyone who buys a card thinks he got a deal and everyone who sells a card thinks he got a deal. They can't all be right. Every transaction is a zero-sum one: somebody wins, somebody loses. The nature of the win and loss depends on the metrics by which you measure. I've overpaid for the last card I needed to finish a tough set. It was worthwhile to me, even if, financially speaking, it was not an objectively "good" deal. It was a good deal for me so I can enjoy the set.

Not directed at you, but more generally, I don't get the knee-jerk hostility to someone seeing and making a great deal. This is a hyper-capitalist society and economy: the whole point of trade is to make money, to get the advantage. Excluding criminality or fraud--which no one thinks is OK--why is there a tendency to attack people who do it? I bought an item from a walk-in at a show and paid his ask because I thought it was really special. I put it into an auction, and it sold for 17X what I paid. Does that make me a scumbag piece of crap? At the same show, I picked up a card that later sold for a third of what I paid. Should I sue the seller? Not as far as I am concerned. That's how it goes.

Saying you had hoped we wouldn't have a response like mine, because it kills off any conversation, doesn't sit quite right with me.

Are you saying we should only write things in line with your beliefs and expectations? I don't think so. I've been on this forum for over a decade, and I've read many of your posts. I really don't have that image of you in my mind.

It wasn't a knee-jerk response, nor was it the issue of somebody making money. In your 17X example, I see nothing wrong with that. No, in my opinion, it doesn't make you a scumbag piece of crap. However, in this case, we're talking about a 28,000X flip. It's like finding a way to buy somebody's house for less than twenty bucks.

I wouldn't want to be the one who determines the line of demarcation between good deal and scumbag POS. However, this is definitely across any line I would consider reasonable.

[Eric72]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not think I have ever met a collector and/or investor, who if offered a genuine T206 Wagner for $157, would not buy it.

You've never met someone who would stop the seller and let them know what they had? That's unfortunate.

[Snapolit1]

Agreed. I go through old post cards and photos on eBay all the time, hoping to find Lou Gehrig or Oscar Charleston sticking his mug into something unexpectedly. Would I contact a seller and say “hey, do you realize …” Eh,
Probably not.
I think that’s very different than playing an active role in scamming someone. A large part of collecting for many of us is finding the proverbial lottery ticket.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

That's the sort of response I was hoping we would not have in this thread. I don't think there is a specific price point or percentage at which you can just say that the buyer is "one of those scumbag pieces of $#!t that gives the hobby a bad name" without a lot more information, and when you take that sort of attitude right off the bat, you kill off any conversation about it. I think there is room for reasonable people to differ on the issue. I could point out myriad real-world examples, from the entire web sites dedicated to thrift store finds, to the many transactions we see every day at shows and on eBay, to the guy who buys a raw card and gets a 10 from PSA on it. Everyone who buys a card thinks he got a deal and everyone who sells a card thinks he got a deal. They can't all be right. Every transaction is a zero-sum one: somebody wins, somebody loses. The nature of the win and loss depends on the metrics by which you measure. I've overpaid for the last card I needed to finish a tough set. It was worthwhile to me, even if, financially speaking, it was not an objectively "good" deal. It was a good deal for me so I can enjoy the set.

Not directed at you, but more generally, I don't get the knee-jerk hostility to someone seeing and making a great deal. This is a hyper-capitalist society and economy: the whole point of trade is to make money, to get the advantage. Excluding criminality or fraud--which no one thinks is OK--why is there a tendency to attack people who do it? I bought an item from a walk-in at a show and paid his ask because I thought it was really special. I put it into an auction, and it sold for 17X what I paid. Does that make me a scumbag piece of crap? At the same show, I picked up a card that later sold for a third of what I paid. Should I sue the seller? Not as far as I am concerned. That's how it goes.

[ALBB]

Its funny..

its looked at differently when its the " old story " ...the guy at garage sale buys a " reprint " 1776 US / Independence era document for 5 bucks...and it turns out its real and valued at 1 million bucks

Does it come down to " he didn't know it was real" or "knew it might have been real ", or" knew its definitely real "?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Every transaction is a zero-sum one: somebody wins, somebody loses. The nature of the win and loss depends on the metrics by which you measure. I've overpaid for the last card I needed to finish a tough set. It was worthwhile to me, even if, financially speaking, it was not an objectively "good" deal. It was a good deal for me so I can enjoy the set.

I disagree with your statement that every transaction is zero-sum, and you yourself provided an example where both sides won. I've been involved in countless deals when I bought at a fair price and was happy, as was the seller. I think the free market tends to produce win-win outcomes, since either party can freely and easily decline.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I don't get the knee-jerk hostility to someone seeing and making a great deal. This is a hyper-capitalist society and economy: the whole point of trade is to make money, to get the advantage. Excluding criminality or fraud--which no one thinks is OK--why is there a tendency to attack people who do it?

I agree. Although I do think it's more legitimate, as a buyer, to agree to a seller's low ask price, as opposed to initiating negotiations by offering a way lowball offer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not think I have ever met a collector and/or investor, who if offered a genuine T206 Wagner for $157, would not buy it.

You haven't met me or Eric then. And I suspect countless others. No way would I want that on my conscience.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Eric72

You've never met someone who would stop the seller and let them know what they had? That's unfortunate.

Perhaps it is. Or perhaps this moral high horse is just not really how people and the world work. Show me a man who wouldn’t hand me the $157 and take the card and I will show you the perfect man or a liar.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Perhaps it is. Or perhaps this moral high horse is just not really how people and the world work. Show me a man who wouldn’t hand me the $157 and take the card and I will show you the perfect man or a liar.

Pathetic, IMO. And no moral high horse either. Just how I think.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You haven't met me or Eric then. And I suspect countless others. No way would I want that on my conscience.

I am sure many will say it. But life teaches that very very few would actually choose the moral horse over hundreds of thousands of dollars when offered directly to them without any coercion or illegalities or proposing it themselves.

Congratulations to those of you who are paragons of human virtue and would never take such an offer.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pathetic, IMO. And no moral high horse either. Just how I think.

Pathetic I am. But at least I am honest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am sure many will say it. But life teaches that very very few would actually choose the moral horse over hundreds of thousands of dollars when offered directly to them without any coercion or illegalities or proposing it themselves.

Congratulations to those of you who are paragons of human virtue and would never take such an offer.

No moral high horse or virtue signalling, and far from perfect. Just being truthful. Not everyone is ruled by money.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pathetic I am. But at least I am honest.

Don't generalize then about everyone else.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Don't generalize then about everyone else.

That I am pathetic and you do not like me does not mean I may not speak on human nature. Insult away.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

That I am pathetic and you do not like me does not mean I may not speak on human nature. Insult away.

I do like you though. I just think you aren't in a position to call me a liar when I speak the truth about my personal morals, or to paint everyone in the hobby with the broad brush you did.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You haven't met me or Eric then. And I suspect countless others. No way would I want that on my conscience.

How about you walk into a used book store and are thumbing through an old book and sitting in the middle of the book is a Wagner card. Pristine. So the seller doesn’t know it’s there and never knew it was there. Same equation? Just curious.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

How about you walk into a used book store and are thumbing through an old book and sitting in the middle of the book is a Wagner card. Pristine. So the seller doesn’t know it’s there and never knew it was there. Same equation? Just curious.

I hate the Socratic method unless I'm the one doing it. I guess analytically it's probably the same, although in that situation I'd sure give some thought to how to distinguish it.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I hate the Socratic method unless I'm the one doing it. I guess analytically it's probably the same, although in that situation I'd sure give some thought to how to distinguish it.

SMH.

Just no moral compass...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

smh.

Just no moral compass...

lol. In the end I'd probably come out the same way though. Now if I found one on the sidewalk....

[packs]

Antiques Roadshow is all about happy accidents and things. People love the show for these stories, no?