How to get ripped off by SCP Auctions & Sotheby's

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Peter- my auction rules are all sales are final; but if I grossly misrepresent something I'm going to have to bend my rules. I have no choice.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Please answer this question:
Legally, does a worded description excuse a deceptive photo?



This photo was creatively cropped and the color was artistically adjusted to make it more appealing.

Worse yet - as I examine it further....
There very well may have been some photo retouching (cloning / erasing of flaws) that was done.... look at the date under the player\'s feet on the right side. See that clear white crease line in Ryan\'s "Actual" depiction. Where is it in SCPs photo? Many of the creases have been dulled down a bit... but this particular crease is a complete mystery. Where is it?

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Joe D.,

I'm on Ryan's side, I'm just trying to save him some money on legal fees. If Ryan came into my office I would explain to him that lawsuits are all about money. It doesn't make any sense to sue over $10,000 unless there are potentially huge damages. I just don't see it.

All I see is negligence on the part of SCP, here's what their attorney would argue. Most people would say that an auctioneer like a retail store has the right to display their items in the most favorable light. Perhaps SCP went overboard, but that is simply negligence and nothing more.

Also, the fact remains that you need to show intent to decieve by preponderance of the evidence. This is higher than the "more likely than not" standard of torts. I just don't think Ryan can meet the standard of proof.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If Ryan doesn't have enough proof here I am going to start buying Vg cards and offer them out as gem mint. Hey, I'll just tell the judge they looked gem mint to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

The difference between the actual item and the way it is presented in the catalogue, is "simply negligence"???

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter, your responses are so consistently and mind-numbingly wrong that I acutally question whether or not you are even a licensed attorney.

Negligence?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Photoshopping a photograph is not negligence.

It is done deliberately to enhance an image so it looks better than it actually is. And I'm not even a lawyer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zinn

Peter Chao, Attorney at Law, Chao & Lopez, 807 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94133

P.S. You really should give him some slack. JMHO

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yes, Barry, but unlike Peter you slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

[Archive]

Posted By: Solomon Cramer

Barry,

Obviously, any compromise that the two parties would reach that would satisfy both of them (or, in the spirit of compromise, if they were both unhappy!), would be fantastic. And I've made partial adjustments at times. In the case of disposable products or services, it is often the only solution - when someone is selling their time and expertise, they can't "take it back" and issue you a refund.

My primary business is car rental - if someone rents a vehicle for a week, and wasn't happy with it, all I can do is make some sort of adjustment or offer of future credit. But equally, I've had cases that the person wasn't happy at the beginning of the transaction, and I told them to make a decision now, because we're not going to renegotiate later. Best example was during prom season, when kids would come in with their parents and demand a discounted rate because the car wasn't the color they wanted (despite the fact we don't gaurantee colors).

In this case, if I were the seller, I might even prefer to offer an adjustment vs. a full refund - better to make 1/2 as much commission as nothing at all. But if I offered a full refund, and the customer refused and insisted on an adjustment - frankly I'd tell the person to pound sand.

Again, the above is not really specific to Ryan's case. The only question I'd have is how long was it from the time of sale to when Ryan contacted SCP that there was a problem.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Solomon's points are well-taken.

Ryan, perhaps you should give them a call about this on Monday or after their auction has ended. Perhaps after the public airing of this mess they will be more likely to realize that their refusal to provide you any relief was done in haste.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I'm no lawyer and maybe that's why what Peter Chao is saying seems logical to me...even though it seems clear to all of us that SCP was deceptive here I certainly wouldn't trust a jury or judge to rule in Ryan's favor in large part because SCP described the damage in their description. If Ryan is going to pursue this legally I think he needs to be damn sure that he's going to win the case. What may seem like a "slam dunk" here on the board may not be what happens in the real world. I'd just hate to see Ryan lay out a lot of money for a lawyer and travel and have him lose the case.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Nieves

I've been unable to locate SCP's Terms for this auction, but I suspect that you will likely find something in there similar to this excerpt from Memory Lane's Auction Terms:

8) Inquiries concerning condition are strongly advised. Internet and/or catalog pictures should NOT be used to determine condition or grade as in some instances pictures have been cropped or enlarged in order to provide the best possible representation of an item within the scale restrictions of the medium. We will be happy to provide detailed telephone descriptions as well as photocopies of lots upon request. Lots are also available for viewing, by appointment only. Telephone inquiries regarding condition as well as viewing appointments must be made prior to the auction closing date. Due to the heavy volume of calls on the auction closing date, condition inquiries will NOT be considered on the auction closing date.

If so, Ryan has no case. Actually, even without that, I don't believe Ryan has a case here.

What are the damages to Ryan? Look no further than Ryan's 10:14 PM post from September 6, 2007 to determine the damages.

Ryan wrote: "Had they offered me a full refund two weeks ago, I doubt I would have taken it. And that would be that. They would have done the right thing by offering a refund, even if I didn’t take them up on their offer. I bid on this photo because I want to keep it."

If Ryan was not interested in taking a full refund for this item, he is essentially saying that he would prefer to have this item (as is) instead of his 10k. Therefore, the damages to Ryan are zero.

The unfortunate irony of this situation is that there could possibly be a case here -- a libel/defamation case against Ryan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

On this one I happen to agree with Peter C that the claim would be for negligence, not for fraud. In my experience catalog cropping of photographic images is VERY common, perhaps to the point of being the rule, not the exception. Yes, what was cropped happened to be the worst part of the creasing, but aside from that it did not cover any other salient features of the image. While I am aware what I just wrote is a huge "aside from that", but from the perspective of the Sotheby's catalog guy preparing thousands of images for catalog depiction, I would attribute the cropping more to an innocent mistake, not a conscious intent to defraud. This is truly nickel and dime stuff to Sotheby's/SCP. The innocent oversight explanation makes much more sense to me than either company risking trashing its reputation over a very minor item. In regard to the change in photo tones, on that one I did make a point of looking up the image in the Sotheby's catalog to see how it was depicted. The difference in photo tones in my view is well within the range of customary catalog transformation.

With all this said though, I am surprised SCP has not offered to quietly settle the matter. Ryan does have merit to his position and I wonder if perhaps there might be a bigger issue involved (i.e., does SCP's arrangement with Sotheby's prevent them from settling the matter?) From Sotheby's perpsective, if precedent is set here, what happens the next time a guy buys a $50 million painting that he feels was not accurately depicted in the catalog. The last thing Sotheby's might want is to give such a guy legal ammunition by him arguing that hey, you settled with Christoff, what about me. Again, this is just supposition on my part, but I am a bit surprised at SCP's stance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Corey, first off, it was quite convenient that Sothebys' picture cropping left out the most significant damage in the picture. As Ryan showed, the real picture and the one in the catalogue are significantly different -- and not just in the cropped areas. Tears do not appear in the catalogue pic that appear in the real picture. That Sotheby's may claim that 'this is the way we do things' will hardly sway anyone. It may be the way they do things but it doesn't make it right. A jury (not that it would ever get that far) of regular people would be appalled, in my opinion, of the differences in the two pictures.

I agree that Sothebys will make it right once they are pushed; I'm amazed, frankly, that the bashing they've taken out here hasn't caused them to pick up the phone and call Ryan already.

[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

Is negligence not actionable in California? In particular, negligent misrepresentation?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

look at how SCP displayed the product
and look at the actual product.

please.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Sure it is. But such an action would not be commercially feasible because of the limited damages you would receive. To make this case worthwhile, Ryan would have to show fraud.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I don't think that the photo enhancement that appears in the catalog is just the typical kind of cropping that is done as a rule, and not an exception, to paraphrase Corey. As Joe and I were discussing, a printer and photographer have an extra obligation when preparing an auction catalog that features collectibles.

If you are printing a cookbook and you want your red peppers to look a little redder, go for it. You're not in the business of selling red peppers anyway.

But in an auction catalog it is really important to make sure the object being photographed is as close to real life as possible. When I scan my auctions lots I tell my catalog designer not to darken light photos, and not to photoshop blemishes out of an image. It's very important to depict the object as it is. I don't agree it's acceptable for Sotheby's to do anything to the image other than to leave it exactly as it is, warts and all.

[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

Peter, you said, "Also, the fact remains that you need to show intent to decieve by preponderance of the evidence. This is higher than the "more likely than not" standard of torts. I just don't think Ryan can meet the standard of proof."

Sorry I cannot let this one go. These are the SAME thing. Preponderance means more likely than not. What you mean to say, I believe, is that you have to prove fraud by CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence which is a higher standard than preponderance.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter S, good point. While I'm just a country criminal defense lawyer, the standards are: preponderance of evidence (51%), clear and convincing (more) and beyond a reasonable doubt (most).

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Your right, Peter S., I don't do this type of litigation so I did not state standard correctly. Thanks for correcting me.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: PAS

Pete C., no problem, just wanted to set it straight in case anyone is paying attention to us lawyers.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

"just a country criminal defense lawyer"



Thank you for not saying "poor".

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

On this one we'll just agree to disagree.

Jeff, if you look at what I wrote, in no way do I say or imply that what Sotheby's did is right and they should not be held accountable. I did say Ryan has a meritorious action for negligence. I said only that in my opinion based on my experience I do not believe the cropping was done with intent to defraud. I might also add that I am arguably as skeptical as anyone on this Board as to Sotheby's auction ethics. I have even gone so far as to publish an article accusing them of fraud in a prior matter. So I have no love lost for that company. But I do try to be as objective as I can and look at all angles, and I just have serious doubt that for a nickel and dime matter such as this one they are using photoshop or cropping with fraudulent intent.

Barry, while I respect very much your expertise/experience and the care you put into your catalogs, the fact remains that given the small nature of your business compared to Sotheby's, I don't think its fair to say that just because Barry Sloate takes/has the time to personally inspect the cropping (or lack thereof) on all the items in his catalog, that Sotheby's, a worldwide company with literally hundereds of thousands of items that it prepares for depiction in its catalogs, takes/has the same time. Arguably they should and hence the credible case here for negligence. But I'm just having a hard time believing that this was a deliberate attempt to defraud.

I'll also add that while I have tremendous sympathy for Ryan's plight and while I think his case has merit, I do not think it is a slam dunk. The catalog description does make specific reference to structural damage and multiple creasing, and Sotheby's will undoubtedly argue that any prospective buyer should therefore be sufficiently put on notice to ask for more information. The lot description also states that the item is sold as is subject to the terms and conditions of sale. While I do not have handy these terms and conditions, it would not surprise if they say to the effect that the catalog shall not be a representation or warranty as to condition and that any prospective buyer should physically inspect the item prior to bidding.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Corey -- how can you explain the tears and damage to the picture that are not in the area that was cropped? Isn't that the difference between purported negligence and intentional action?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I don't think Sotheby's had a staff meeting and decided to crop Ryan's photo, but I think they might have a policy that instructs their catalog designer to enhance pictures somewhat, particularly those that don't look so great to begin with. Perhaps in this case they just went too far. The nature of the cropping is what concerns me, not that it just happened to be enhanced.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I think the problem here is that some people presume that just because this sort of (somewhat) subtle altering of pictures done in an attempt to make items look better (which serves to misrepresent the actual item in a material way) has been done regularly in the industry means that the practice will be forever given a pass. It won't be. For an example, the price fixing alleged by the NYS Attorney General against the insurance industry (AIG, Marsh, etc.) simply exposed a practice that had been allegedly going on for years. Eventually criminal charges were brought against the brokers alleged to be involved in this behavior and the firms fined zillions of dollars. There is no way, at least to me, you can pass off the Sotheby's picture in the catalogue compared to what it truly looked like as just a modest improvement. There are material differences designed, solely, to inflate the bidding. This is fraud any way you look at it.

Edited to add: And if anyone thinks Sothebys would let those two pictures be the basis of a very public lawsuit, they are dreaming.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Corey- I'm leaning towards Jeff on this one. There is just too much of a discrepancy between the way it is and the way it is depicted. It's not subtle, but more of a sledgehammer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

"But I'm just having a hard time believing that this was a deliberate attempt to defraud."


If this was not deliberate then it is the most incredible, fortuitous, luckiest cropping, color enhancing, crease fading, and crease removal I have ever seen for an item that was scanned (or photographed) to be printed in a catalog.

I am a printer by occupation.

In fact, I am second generation printing professional. I have been around the profession since childhood.

I have personally scanned thousands of images for printing, have handled thousands of other customer supplied scans for printing. Have seen retouching / cropping / color enhancing for many many years.


I have a very hard time believing that anyone can look at the SCP photo and think the result was not DELIBERATE.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I think this is purely an attempt to force one over a buyer, largely because of the belief the item being sold can be argued to be difficult to photograph and thus is open to interpration visually, and further that the hobby doesn't speak with one voice.
Imagine this were a large Imari vase being sold with exactly the same damage, but the photos didn't reflect the description. The inference to be taken as an interested buyer using the catalog for reference, is that a zealous employee was over stating the damage in the written description in an effort to be assiduously accurate, and that visually the flaws were hard to detect and the piece had great eye appeal.

I don't think for a minute that if the vase then turned up cracked far worse than shown, missing a chunk larger than photo'd, and altogether was hardly representative of the catalog image - that Southebys would think they could force such damaged goods on a buyer.
To me, it speaks of incredibly arrogance and lack of respect for our field/hobby, and a belief you can make the little guy eat s#%t because of the perception that it won't hurt the auction houses reputation.

Wrong, wrong, and just plain dumb wrong.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

Aside from the tears, there is nothing in the cropped area except grass. Auction houses typically have a policy of depicting the salient features of a photograph and cropping out the portion deemed to be of insignificant interest to perspective bidders. This policy both allows the salient features to be shown in greater detail as well as saves valuable catalog space. The act of cropping is an intentional act. I agree with that. But going back to Ryan's photo, as long as Sotheby's can make the case the cropping was done as part of standard procedure without thought of hiding salient features and misleading prospective bidders, I don't believe it qualifies as fraud. And I do believe the cropper was focusing only on the grass, not the creasing (which appears elsewhere in the image and is mentioned in the catalog description and so therefore was not deemed material enough to keep in). Was the cropper stupid/careless? Yes. Hence the action for negligence. Also, Ryan makes mention that he received the item matted and framed. That leads strong credence to the notion that all that was cropped out was the frame, which certainly in the eyes of Sotheby's was not a salient feature. And why you might ask should they not mention the item was framed so as to give a prospective bidder further notice that the depiction might be omitting important details? Answer--arguably they should have, which will be a further part of the negligence action.

Fraud is a much stronger term than negligence, and it just blows my mind that Sotheby's on such a trivial item (to them) as this would commit fraud and risk so much.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Corey--look at the tear below the word "May"; that is more than just a crop job.

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron Seefeldt

Several years ago I sold a couple of big ticket cards thru SCP:

1932 US Caramel Lindstrom
T206 Cobb with Cobb back


I will never consider bidding/consigning/dealing with them again.

I recommend others follow suit. They will feel it if enough of us boycott/ignore...

Ryan, I hate when collectors get ripped off.


I am shocked as I have always thought David Kohler (pres. SCP) to be a stand up guy. I am surprised he has done nothing about this!

-Aaron Seefeldt

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Corey,

The following comparison photos illustrate the difference between what was you would have been able to view if you were at the live auction vs. what you would have actually gotten. The one on the left is what it looked like in the frame. Neither of these views mattered to those of us who weren't there because they were both cropped entirely out of the catalog photo. I suppose it was just coincidence that it was matted this way? Same thing goes for defects on the right edge that were matted out. In both cases, portions of the players were matted out in order to cover defects. Interested to hear your explanation.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I need first a bit of clarification as to what you are saying. Was the item framed by SCP/Sotheby's or the consignor?

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Corey,

I have no idea who framed it or why.

If it was framed by the consignor, are you suggesting that the auction house shouldn't be responsible for taking it out of the frame to know exactly what they're accepting on consignment? I don't understand what difference it would make who framed it. There was never any mention it being framed in the catalog. I had no idea I was bidding on a framed item.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Aaron- since I originally sold that Lindstrom card, I am curious- what happened when you resold it that turned you off to the company? I know it was a down market at the time but that wasn't their fault.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I probably have more of an issue with the creases/tears that are evident in person, and weren't in the catalog picture, than another 1/2 inch or inch tear, to a tear that is already there, and doesn't disturb anything material in the photo (that I can tell)....I am not sure it's uncommon to crop out through framing some inconsequential problems (ya'll know better than me) .....Though as a purist I would rather know exactly what I am buying ...

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron Seefeldt

Barry,

I guess my post was a bit confusing (sorry)...

I won't deal with them anymore after this incident with Ryan.

I threw my SCP/Sotheby's auction cat. in the garbage today and I am going to call them tomorrow and tell them to take me off of their mailing list.

The point I was trying to get across with the Lindy and T206 Cobb/Cobb is that they stand to lose alot of business going forward...

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Corey,

I hate to sound like I am picking on you - because that is not my intention....
You are expressing your opinion wonderfully, but we are still on opposite sides of the fence on this one.

lets move past the cropping which we both seem to agree is an intentional act.

Please explain how it is possible (without a person intentionally taking care of it) for every single crease and tear to be much less noticeable in SCPs image than it is in Ryan's?

Please explain where the evidence of the tear (hilighted below) is in the SCP image.

I bet you could give anyone, including SCP, 100 tries to scan or photograph that image and make it come out just "as good" (without changing color settings or altering the image) -- and that person would not be able to do it.

To steal an argument from the great litigator Vincent Gambini...... Was this a magic scanner (or camera)? Did SCP buy the scanner (or camera) from the same guy Jack bought his beanstalk beans?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joe -- exactly. That doctored picture is an attempt to deceive the bidder.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I am not sure it is a doctored image so much as when the picture is pressed flat, the tear is less apparent and offensive than when it is not flat. I am not taking sides on this, just playing the devil's advocate because there is often a pack of wolves tendancy on this board. As I stated before, I like Ryan and I hope this all concludes in a way that he is happy with.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

I believe who framed the image has a lot to do with it. My experience is that auction houses often (maybe even usually) do not take items out of frames when photographing for catalogs, and that statement applies to some of the most respected auctions houses in our hobby. If what happened here is that Sotheby's received the item framed from the consignor, photographed it as is and then cropped out the frame/matting, I simply do not see the fraud. Also, I raise the issue whether the act of photographing a photograph under glass (at least under the commercial standards by which auction houses do their photographing) could lessen the appearance of the creasing. Also, when I look at the image Sotheby's provided (and if you go onto their website to look at the image, they provide a zoom-in feature that allows close inspection of any desired specific area of the image), I CAN see the imperfections, though not as well as in Ryan's out-of-the frame images. So I don't believe photoshop manipulation was done.

As regards the issue whether the auction house should have taken the item out of the frame, even on this one I can sympathize with their reluctance, both for economic and legal reasons. In regard to the economic, it would substantially increase the photographing/cataloging costs to unframe each framed item and then reframe it. Also, many items are very fragile and are framed under strict conservation standards. Auction house would reasonably be reluctant to incur the risk of damaging a fragile item and/or reframing it in accordance with the precise standards under which it was originally framed. I think Ryan's best argument under a negligence cause of action would be the omission in the description that the item was framed. However, the more I reflect on it my view has gravitated now to believing that the disclaimer in the description that the item is sold as is subject to the terms and conditions of sale will give SCP/Sotheby's adequate legal shield.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Corey,

I believe that Dave Kohler looked into the legal aspects of this before he decided to screw me and decided that he (they) were sufficiently covered. That still doesn't make it right.

You're arguments have been solely based on the legal side of things, which I think speaks to a larger issue that the "hobby" is experiencing right now. Auction houses will get away with whatever they can, whether it's ethical or not, as long as their legal team can find a loophole to make it legal. I realize that business is business and that's just the way things work in this world. That doesn't make it right to treat people like that.

We have never done business together, but I can promise you that I would NEVER treat someone like that, even if it were legal to do so.

By your logic, assuming they have done nothing illegal (whether or not I agree with you on that) are you saying they have done nothing wrong? It sounds like that's what you're saying, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

By the way, in the first post where I show the catalog image and the one I took, that photo I took is of the item IN THE FRAME, UNDER GLASS, exactly as I received it. If you look around the edges you can see where it's been matted. If they took a photo of it in the frame, it should look similar to the pictures I took. Also, I don't have an anti-sepia feature on my camera. The color of the image you see above is what it actually looks like.

By the way, that tear under the word "May" is 2 1/2" long and has had repair work done to it that is visible on the reverse. You don't think a 2 1/2" repaired tear merits being specifically mentioned? I think Jim is right about the tear being less visible when pressed flat, which would mean they did have it out of the frame, whether they took it out or it came that way and was framed later, when they scanned it.

A huge factor in my decision to keep the photo or return it (prior to having that decision made for me) was how I felt about it when I looked at it. Would I see the 1927 Cuban Stars with a young Martin Dihigo towering over his teammates? Or would I see all the extra money I paid for an item that was not at all what I thought I was bidding on? At this point, I look at it and see myself standing there like those old cartoons where the character does something stupid and turns into a lollipop that says "SUCKER" on it.

That's what I get for bidding in an SCP/Sotheby's auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

We can continue speculating on how Ryan has gotten to where he is now, but one unassailable fact is that the picture in the catalog does not accurately match the object, and that it looks cleaner and reveals less faults in the catalog. How and why that happened is still the point of debate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

To be crystal clear on this point, I do NOT believe that if an auction house has done nothing illegal, then it has done nothing wrong (ethically). I do not believe I have said anything in my previous posts inconsistent with that statement. In fact from my previous posts on other threads, I would have thought it was clear how I feel about auction ethics. I have been a vocal proponent of the view that the failure of an auction house to disclose prior grading history constitutes fraud, and the failure to disclose that a statistically significant percentage of graded cards are altered is ethically wrong and very well might constitute fraud. I also have characterized the practice of auction houses to place house bids on behalf of consignors to be "legalized fraud" (i.e., it might be permitted by law but it is still reprehensible and done with intent to mislead).

I fully understand and sympathize with your frustration, and I truly hope the matter works out to your satisfaction. However, I don't think I or any other attorney would be doing you any favors by opining what a great case you have, inducing you to spend significant legal fees and then having you both lose the case and be out-of-pocket the legal fees.

EDITED for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Corey,

"Legalized Fraud" is a perfect way to sum up these kinds of deals. I appreciate the responses I've received from you and others in the legal profession, both here and via private e-mails. I've read and given thought to all of them.

It's pretty clear to me that I'm in for a huge hassle and possibly very little gain once attorney fees are factored in, should I pursue this in the courts. I expected as much, which is why I wasn't inclined to go that route.

I'm probably about as far from the litigious type as you'll find on this board. There are almost always other ways of resolving things, in my opinion. That doesn't mean I'm going to lie down and let myself get taken advantage of, however. It's not an open invitation for anyone I do business with to steal from me.

I don't plan on letting it go, but I doubt I'll pursue it through our court system.

What's really annoying is that by treating me this way, they only created a lose-lose situation. I'm guessing they thought screwing me for a few thousand bucks was a win-lose in their favor, maybe? It's obviously going to cost them a lot more than that in lost business. I'm still not sure what the logic was there, but yes, any frustration you're sensing from me is very real.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

There is no way you can make that middle tear disappear by pressing the picture flat, etc. Either the scan was altered or the picture was damaged after the scanning somehow. Either way, SCP screwed the pooch here. I know nobody likes a mob, but it defies explanation to think SCP was up front regarding the condition of this item. I don't bid in their auctions now, but I finally have a job where the potential exists for me to bid in the future, but I don't see now why I would. Baseball cards aren't worth more than my sense of right and wrong.

The sad thing is, nobody runs a more honest or accomodating auction than Ryan. You'd think he'd have enough positive karma going for him that this kind of crap would never happen to him. With this and the Aguilitas auction on ebay ending early, I'm in a real sour mood about the hobby today.

--Chad