new member introduction

[drc]

I will testify that Scott Gaynor is a very reputable and knowledgeable auctioneer. I've bought and consigned with him many times, and think he's one of the best in the business.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by 7nohitter

**Information has been brought to my attention which indicates that Goldin was not on SAH in 1990...apparently West was shilling with someone else in 1990...**

Are you thinking of his co-host, Eddy Lewis?

[scgaynor]

"As he was seen as recently as April doing the same crap on AAN tv."

Did you actually see him on AANTV or just Goldin Sports products with Goldin hologram and cert. It is my understanding that Ken does not sell on AANTV has never appeared on that network.

A poster Nate Adams mentioned seeing him earlier too, however I don't understand how that is possible. It is possible that he just don't know what Ken looks like and maybe it was a misunderstanding. If so, his post should be edited.

Scott

[Peter_Spaeth]

As post 188 makes clear, people should be careful with their facts, because a retraction doesn't always have the visibility of the initial post.

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As post 188 makes clear, people should be careful with their facts, because a retraction doesn't always have the visibility of the initial post.

+1
Lots of unsubstantiated stuff being thrown around in this thread without regard to the actual facts. Can you prove what you are saying? Or is that just what you think? I work in newspapers, and if we ever published the word "con artist" next to someone's name with no official attribution, court disposition or documentation backing up that claim, we would be sued for millions of dollars.

I bet Goldin and his lawyers are now paying very close attention to this thread and what is being said here.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

[botn]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

"As he was seen as recently as April doing the same crap on AAN tv."

Did you actually see him on AANTV or just Goldin Sports products with Goldin hologram and cert. It is my understanding that Ken does not sell on AANTV has never appeared on that network.

A poster Nate Adams mentioned seeing him earlier too, however I don't understand how that is possible. It is possible that he just don't know what Ken looks like and maybe it was a misunderstanding. If so, his post should be edited.

Scott

It appears Nate retracted his entire post and probably the other post he made on another thread in which he refers to Goldin being on AAN tv. So Goldin's company nor Goldin are profiting from the sales of these products to which Nate was referring?

[scgaynor]

Originally Posted by botn

It appears Nate retracted his entire post and probably the other post he made on another thread in which he refers to Goldin being on AAN tv. So Goldin's company nor Goldin are profiting from the sales of these products to which Nate was referring?

Goldin Collectibles sells wholesale to venders who in turn resell at a higher price. I am sure that he made something on the original sale.

Scott

[wonkaticket]

My last post on this topic....

Robert....that’s a quick way to solidify your place in the auction world sue your future customers. That would surely make folks feel right at home and ready to place bids and hand over consignments.

I don’t see all that much leap of faith statements in here. I don’t see too much in the way of true slander either but I’m no attorney so I’ll let them chime in I think we have one or two here.

Videos are there everyone here knows that the SAH home days were over the top. Even Ken himself admitted it in this thread it “it was how it was done”. He calls it an “aggressive sales style” but any hobbyist with even a simply understanding of collecting knows that “aggressive sales style” equated to inflated claims, crazy hyped pitches that just didn’t quite add up and in some cases out right misinformation.

Examples selling cards today for 2k because next month lesser cards will be worth twice that…in talks of values quotes from Don West to Ken, “Honus Wagner only has like 4 cards” we all know Honus appears in more issues than that etc. etc.

Look we all laughed because we all for the most part are in the hobby and were not sold on the crazy pitches. It was as one person said entertainment a guilty pleasure if you will. For Shop at Home it was a business and a profitable one that Ken benefited from like it or not.

But there is an ugly side to this that we seem to be forgetting here that’s deeper than Ken and his new venture.

There were lots of folks who weren’t in the hobby. There were plenty of people who took these Shop at Home gentleman at their word as experts. These innocent people made justified buying decisions based upon inflated claims and so called trusted expert pipe dreams. To me anything that is spun from the root of the truth to inflate or get more out of something is a basic con sorry if you feel different. May not be illegal but can be called unethical.

Sadly many of these innocent people were left holding a worthless bag. That bag was meant to be a nest egg, a father son bonding experience etc. what a horrible taste to leave in someone’s mouth about our beloved hobby. What a message to send to future generations of collectors who we all depend on for the values of our own collections.

I never claimed Ken was at the root of all Shop at Home games. However he was present and accounted for on a few. The videos are public record.

Those for me in my personal opinion were enough for me to not trust or want to do business with Ken and his company and to voice that view here. Where he announced his business open to his potential customers (me).

I think the videos are to me an insight of where Ken used to draw the line and most likely draws the line today.

If the line for Ken has moved great and good for him! However it’s on him to prove that to his new customers, not on me to bend my position.

Cheers,

John

[cmcclelland]

I am sure Nate probably retracted his post because "Tough Guy" Goldin most likely sent him a message threatening to have his lawyers contact him.

Just a little legal advice for everyone - any action for defamation, slander, etc. would require that someone INTENTIONALLY state something that they know to be FALSE about the other person thereby inuring the other person's reputation.

These elements would all cause problems for Mr. Goldin if he ever tried to pursue this type of action based on the statements I've read on this board so far. First, nothing I've read appears to be something that any reasonable person could think was intentionally stated when it was known to be false. Second, it would be tough to argue that Mr. Goldin's reputation has been injured by statements on this board since he has already done so much to injure his reputation himself based on his past actions and business practices. Just the youtube video alone is probably enough for a reasonable person to believe that Mr. Goldin's reputation was already at such a low level that nothing here could change that for the worse.

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

My last post on this topic....


I don’t see all that much leap of faith statements in here. I don’t see too much in the way of true slander either but I’m no attorney so I’ll let them chime in I think we have one or two here.


John

I think the potentially troublesome posts have since been edited and retracted - thankfully.

[botn]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

Goldin Collectibles sells wholesale to venders who in turn resell at a higher price. I am sure that he made something on the original sale.

Scott

Thanks Scott.

Seems I was wrong. Nate's post is still there.

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by cmcclelland

I am sure Nate probably retracted his post because "Tough Guy" Goldin most likely sent him a message threatening to have his lawyers contact him.

Just a little legal advice for everyone - any action for defamation, slander, etc. would require that someone INTENTIONALLY state something that they know to be FALSE about the other person thereby inuring the other person's reputation.

These elements would all cause problems for Mr. Goldin if he ever tried to pursue this type of action based on the statements I've read on this board so far. First, nothing I've read appears to be something that any reasonable person could think was intentionally stated when it was known to be false. Second, it would be tough to argue that Mr. Goldin's reputation has been injured by statements on this board since he has already done so much to injure his reputation himself based on his past actions and business practices. Just the youtube video alone is probably enough for a reasonable person to believe that Mr. Goldin's reputation was already at such a low level that nothing here could change that for the worse.

This only holds true if the defamed is deemed by the court to be a public figure. I'm not sure Mr. Goldin would be deemed to be a public figure known to the lay person outside of the hobby.

If the person is deemed not to be a public figure, you can be sued and lose just by publishing something false about that person.

However, the key point you made is valid. He would have to prove damages/loss of money based on that statement -- and that would be very tough.

[npa589]

Well, my post gradually turned into everyone interpreting "seen" out of "heard". As you know, there is a marked difference between "seeing" and "hearing". I went back and altered posts to not even POSSIBLY imply that I saw Ken on aantv. I did not say that initially, since, in fact, I didn't.

I do not care enough to fight about this, really I don't, I simply have too much to worry about.

Also - just because I want to - it's being implied that I retracted posts because of him contacting me? Not sure how that arose... For a couple reasons this isn't true. 1. He hadn't contacted me. Also, I hadn't even retracted any post. I'm just clarifying some things because people have ran with this "seeing" him on AANtv thing. At this point, I'd rather focus on some other things. Peace!

[David R]

Originally Posted by RobertGT

This only holds true if the defamed is deemed by the court to be a public figure. I'm not sure Mr. Goldin would be deemed to be a public figure known to the lay person outside of the hobby.

If the person is deemed not to be a public figure, you can be sued and lose just by publishing something false about that person.

However, the key point you made is valid. He would have to prove damages/loss of money based on that statement -- and that would be very tough.

The other problem with a defamation lawsuit is that "truth" is a defense so if you sue someone saying their statements about you are untrue, you open yourself up to a lot of discovery about the topics in question. In a situation like this one, that would probably mean a lot of close examination and digging into things in the past that Mr. Goldin would probably prefer to leave alone.

[travrosty]

sometimes the exposure of the suit is more embarrassing than the initial complaint and could possibly reach more people too. that is taken into account.


i was a night owl and many a times i watched those sah shows and it was time after time after time I kept shaking my head wondering how they could do that to people.

buy todd van poppel or brien taylor or whoever and they are going to be the next nolan ryan, and ryan's rookie sells for x and this is the chance of the lifetime. I think of it now and it gives me goosebumps how they could do that, it was nonstop hype over and above any type of balance, and there had to be people grabbing the phones time and time again wondering how sah could be so stupid to let these incredible cards go for such an incredibly low price because west and goldin said so.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Did you ever find out if the postcards were legit? What were they, if you don't mind me asking?

Sending you a PM

[cmcclelland]

I would really like to know what ever happened to the T206 Wagner that was supposed to be given away during his Shop at Home days. Is it the same one that is pictured on the home page of Goldin's new website? Maybe he bought if back from the lucky guy who owns it now and it's going to be in the upcoming Goldin auction? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[whitehse]

I had a friend at the time who pulled one of the actual redemptions for the Wagner from a pack of SB cards. He did receive a vintage card as a prize and was entered into the drawing for the Wagner. (I believe there was 10 total redemptions available at that time). Needless to say he was pretty upset and looked into a potential lawsuit but it soon became clear there was no way they would even get anything from the lawsuit. Since that day the name of the principals in this company have been mud in my eyes.

Andrew Wh.ite

[travrosty]

if they didnt give the wagner away but enticed people to cumulatively buy heaven knows how many thousands upon thousands of packs in hopes of winning an entry for it, then i find it abominable.

[scgaynor]

I wanted to take a minute and clear up some confusion about the T206 Wagner card. There is a lot of misinformation floating around. This information has been posted before, but since the thread is so long, it is worth summarizing.

Scoreboard purchased the card from Dave Kohler in 1997. The card was used as a promotional piece for 1997 All Sport PPF. There were 25 redemption certificates randomly inserted into packs, if they pulled a redemption card, they were sent a Wagner card (not the T206). All of those redemption cards were then put into a larger raffle to win the T206. Scoreboard filed for bankruptcy before the winner could be drawn, and the card was sold at auction in 1999. In a bankruptcy filing some creditors are considered priority by the bankruptcy court and paid first. The rest of the creditors are paid with whatever is left over. People who were to receive redemptions were considered by the court to be the lowest priority.

While Ken was the face of the company for several years before the bankruptcy, Ken had left the company in the Summer of 1997 before it went into bankruptcy. After he left the board of directors mismanaged the company and Scoreboard went into bankruptcy in the Spring of 1998. The assets were sold in 1999 and purchased by a company called the Oxford Group. What they did with the Wagner card is unknown. Since the sales of assets are sold by the courts through auction, there is no way, as some are suggesting, that Ken could have kept the card, especially since he was no longer involved with the company that owned the card.

All of this is a matter of public record.

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by whitehse

I had a friend at the time who pulled one of the actual redemptions for the Wagner from a pack of SB cards. He did receive a vintage card as a prize and was entered into the drawing for the Wagner. (I believe there was 10 total redemptions available at that time). Needless to say he was pretty upset and looked into a potential lawsuit but it soon became clear there was no way they would even get anything from the lawsuit. Since that day the name of the principals in this company have been mud in my eyes.

Andrew Wh.ite

What card did he get if you don't mind me asking?

[wonkaticket]

Scott, thanks for being Ken’s voice etc. but I have two questions for you.

Don’t you find the shenanigans of Ken’s Shop At Home days the least bit misleading and lacking some basic integrity and ethics? If so why now the change of heart in terms of supporting Ken?

I only ask because you have always seemed to be a straight shooter who runs a nice business.

Cheers,

John

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I wanted to take a minute and clear up some confusion about the T206 Wagner card. There is a lot of misinformation floating around. This information has been posted before, but since the thread is so long, it is worth summarizing.

Scoreboard purchased the card from Dave Kohler in 1997. The card was used as a promotional piece for 1997 All Sport PPF. There were 25 redemption certificates randomly inserted into packs, if they pulled a redemption card, they were sent a Wagner card (not the T206). All of those redemption cards were then put into a larger raffle to win the T206. Scoreboard filed for bankruptcy before the winner could be drawn, and the card was sold at auction in 1999. In a bankruptcy filing some creditors are considered priority by the bankruptcy court and paid first. The rest of the creditors are paid with whatever is left over. People who were to receive redemptions were considered by the court to be the lowest priority.

While Ken was the face of the company for several years before the bankruptcy, Ken had left the company in the Summer of 1997 before it went into bankruptcy. After he left the board of directors mismanaged the company and Scoreboard went into bankruptcy in the Spring of 1998. The assets were sold in 1999 and purchased by a company called the Oxford Group. What they did with the Wagner card is unknown. Since the sales of assets are sold by the courts through auction, there is no way, as some are suggesting, that Ken could have kept the card, especially since he was no longer involved with the company that owned the card.

All of this is a matter of public record.

Scott sorry I may be misunderstanding you, but in one paragraph you say the Wagner was sold at auction in 1999, in the next paragraph you say what the company who bought Scoreboard's assets out of bankruptcy did with the card is unknown. Can you clarify? EDIT TO ADD Maybe the point is that Oxford Group bought the card in a bankruptcy court auction but it isn't known what it, in turn, did with the card?

[DJR]

The Oxxford Express, Inc. ("Oxxford")
240 West Parkway
Pequannock, NJ 07440

Another address:
POMPTON PLAINS, NJ 07444-1029

http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI...=newscoreboard
NEWSCOREBOARD.COM

''Aug 4, 1998 -- The Score Board, Inc. ("Score Board"), a marketer and ... to Oxxford Express, Inc. ("Oxxford") for a purchase price of $2400000.''

[bigfish]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

Scott, thanks for being Ken’s voice etc. but I have two questions for you.

Don’t you find the shenanigans of Ken’s Shop At Home days the least bit misleading and lacking some basic integrity and ethics? If so why now the change of heart in terms of supporting Ken?

I only ask because you have always seemed to be a straight shooter who runs a nice business.

Cheers,

John

+1

[scgaynor]

I look at the SAH days and the current auction it as two different things.

The SAH days were a different time in the hobby and in Ken's life. Ken said himself that he was not proud of those sales tactics.

The catalog auction is aimed at a more advanced audience and the material sells itself. You won't see the "hype" of the SAH days. I know because I will probably be writing a bunch of the copy, and that is not my style at all. Ken's attention is focused on dealing with the players and agents.

To answer Peter's question. The assets were purchased by Oxford at auction in 1999. Sorry I was unclear. It is unknown what they did with the Wagner card.

Scott

[GoldenAge50s]

Isn't the auction of assets a part of public record and could be looked up to see where it went?

[wolf441]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I know because I will probably be writing a bunch of the copy, and that is not my style at all. Scott

Having seen & bid on Scott's auctions quite a bit in the early 2000's, I can say that his involvement is extremely encouraging. Always an honest dealer and some of the best items that I've ever owned.

[aaroncc]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I look at the SAH days and the current auction it as two different things.

The SAH days were a different time in the hobby and in Ken's life. Ken said himself that he was not proud of those sales tactics.

The catalog auction is aimed at a more advanced audience and the material sells itself. You won't see the "hype" of the SAH days. I know because I will probably be writing a bunch of the copy, and that is not my style at all. Ken's attention is focused on dealing with the players and agents.

To answer Peter's question. The assets were purchased by Oxford at auction in 1999. Sorry I was unclear. It is unknown what they did with the Wagner card.

Scott

Scott, curious is that the same T206 Wagner that David Kohler was trying to sell at the National in 1997?

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

What card did he get if you don't mind me asking?

I am wracking my brain to remember but I believe it to be a more modern version of a Wagner. When I say modern I mean such as a 48 Leaf or something along those lines.

[whitehse]

Originally Posted by whitehse

I had a friend at the time who pulled one of the actual redemptions for the Wagner from a pack of SB cards. He did receive a vintage card as a prize and was entered into the drawing for the Wagner. (I believe there was 10 total redemptions available at that time). Needless to say he was pretty upset and looked into a potential lawsuit but it soon became clear there was no way they would even get anything from the lawsuit. Since that day the name of the principals in this company have been mud in my eyes.

Andrew Wh.ite

Sorry Leon......I forgot to add my name to this post. This was not intentional!

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

The catalog auction is aimed at a more advanced audience and the material sells itself. You won't see the "hype" of the SAH days.

Scott thanks for the response.

The above statement troubles me a bit if I’m being honest and I could just be reading into your comment too much if so I apologize.

What does that really mean?

To me I read that statement as Ken has had to change his game plan or sales tactics because he’s not selling middle America late night naive TV viewers who don’t know any better anymore. Saying that something sells itself all things should in a way sell themselves to a degree.

Why did the stuff from the 90’s need the extra dramatics and aggressive sales style? I think we all know that answer. Sadly it was that audience that got the shaft and learned the answer to that question the hard way.

To say that Ken won’t adopt that tactic to advanced hobbyists is sort of a “duh” statement. He won’t do that because it won’t work on his new audience. Saying that it’s all better now and he can’t pull those tactics because of the clientele and material has changed…doesn’t seem to take away or make me feel any better and I’m sure the folks who got sold the SAH goods especially take no comfort in that.

Cheers,

John

[scgaynor]

I think that the thing to do is revisit this thread in October when people have a catalog in their hands and reserve judgement until that time. I am confident that after the catalog comes out and the auction takes place, that opinions will begin to change.

Scott

[wonkaticket]

Scott fair enough, for me I will have a hard time moving past or seeing past Ken’s SAH antics it will take one hell of a catalog to make we want to jump into that pool. Who knows perhaps he will have just that catalog.

Not that you care or need my approval in anyway. But no ill will to you here I think you are a standup guy and you being involved is a bit of head scratcher.

Cheers,

John

[travrosty]

I don't understand the comment, "it was a different hobby" back then.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qVRa...feature=relmfu

2:10 mark

this is where the money is, you wanna rob a bank baby, you gonna rob a bank right now!


check out part two also, at the 25 second mark.
All of the cards are rookie cards according to them. He names off all the rookie cards, he names Jordan, the cards they show, show this north carolina finest jordan. this is what they consider a jordan rookie card? It's in the loose change bin and no one considers it a rookie card.

Then on another program, rookies, rookies rookies, which contain only rookie cards they show this larry bird card. its not the topps 80-81 tri-panel rookie which the hobby calls his rc, so what is it? they showed a magic johnson of the same type.

[jefferyepayne]

Looking at a catalog isn't going to solve anything for me (and hopefully a lot of others). This discussion is about ethics, and pretty pictures in a catalog don't tell you anything about the ethics of the people involved.

It's time for collectors in this hobby to take a stand and STOP BIDDING on auctions by those you believe are unethical. Until that happens, nothing will change. It frosts me when someone says they will still bid on an item if they need it even if they believe the individuals involved are unethical. Have some principles, people. It's the only way this will ever change.

jeff

Originally Posted by scgaynor

I think that the thing to do is revisit this thread in October when people have a catalog in their hands and reserve judgement until that time. I am confident that after the catalog comes out and the auction takes place, that opinions will begin to change.

Scott

[Ladder7]

Well put Jeff. The only way to clean this stinkin' house.

Even those 'it'll have to be a really great item to get me to bid' guys, riding the fence perpetuate the issue.

Online, the shyster's found religion... In reality;


Have a terrific day,
Steve F

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think the thread comes down to the larger question, do we forgive people their past sins, or do we not.

For some of us, past sins are irrelevant, as long as we can get the items we want. Indeed, for these folks, ONGOING sins may not matter. Stuff trumps all. Or perhaps a less harsh assessment is that we feel that as individuals we won't make any difference anyhow, so we might as well get the items we want.

For others, whether to forgive past sins depends on the attitude of the sinner. I think most people (except maybe Wonka LOL) are willing to forgive or at least give a second chance to sinners who show genuine remorse. As I see it, what got Ken into trouble here was not his SAH days per se, but his apparent lack of genuine remorse. Perhaps he just chose his words poorly, but in a format like this all we have to go on are people's words.

And I agree that the catalog really isn't the issue.

[Big Ben]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

Looking at a catalog isn't going to solve anything for me (and hopefully a lot of others). This discussion is about ethics, and pretty pictures in a catalog don't tell you anything about the ethics of the people involved.

It's time for collectors in this hobby to take a stand and STOP BIDDING on auctions by those you believe are unethical. Until that happens, nothing will change. It frosts me when someone says they will still bid on an item if they need it even if they believe the individuals involved are unethical. Have some principles, people. It's the only way this will ever change.

jeff

I very much agree with your post. I never understood why people continued to bid on those types of auctions.

[wolf441]

Just my humble opinion, but I do believe in second chances and will reserve judgement for the time being. People can and do change all the time. I would cite Michael Milken as a great example. He was disgraced during the junk bond scandal in the late 1980's, served his prison sentence and became a leading advocate for cancer research whose philanthropic endeavors have raised hundreds of millions for cancer research.

[jefferyepayne]

Originally Posted by wolf441

Just my humble opinion, but I do believe in second chances and will reserve judgement for the time being. People can and do change all the time. I would cite Michael Milken as a great example. He was disgraced during the junk bond scandal in the late 1980's, served his prison sentence and became a leading advocate for cancer research whose philanthropic endeavors have raised hundreds of millions for cancer research.

I most definitely believe in second chances too. I give them to people all of the time. However, you need to EARN your second chances. Until someone is sincere and honest and shows signs of truly changing, buyer beware. I've found that someone that can't (or won't) admit they made a mistake and apologize for it instead of giving lame excuses as to why "things were different then", has not yet earned this second chance. Con men thrive on those who blindly give a second chance. Hold people accountable for their actions if you want change.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me ...

jeff

[wolf441]

Point taken Jeff,

I'm not advocating blindly giving a second chance. I'm just interested to see how things play out. Just from being a member of Net54 for a very short period of time, I don't believe that the crowd here will be taken in by a less than 100% honest auction house. And seeing Scott Gaynor involved gives me hope as well.

Best wishes,

Steve

[jefferyepayne]

I wish you were right. In other threads on Net54, people have said they will participate in any auctions that has the cards they need, irrespective of the ethics or past behavior of the auction house / owner. Unfortunately it appears that very few are willing to do what's right if it results in even a small amount of personal loss.

The con men are laughing all the way to the bank when this attitude prevails and anyone in the hobby with a positive brand needs to be careful associating themselves with those of questionable ethics. In business, your brand is partially determined by who you associate with...

jeff

Originally Posted by wolf441

Point taken Jeff,

I'm not advocating blindly giving a second chance. I'm just interested to see how things play out. Just from being a member of Net54 for a very short period of time, I don't believe that the crowd here will be taken in by a less than 100% honest auction house. And seeing Scott Gaynor involved gives me hope as well.

Best wishes,

Steve

[Tabe]

I, too, spent many hours watching Ken Goldin on SAH during the late hours of the evening back then. It was entertainment as much as anything. However, I must disagree vehemently with Goldin when he says "that's how it was done" or otherwise shrugs off his selling tactics on SAH. I can live with cards being overhyped, to some degree. However, Golding and West often just flat-out lied. To cite one example, they hyped Mark McGwire Glacier Pilots cards a LOT when I was watching. Over and over and over calling it a "pre-rookie". Ok, whatever. Problem is, they (both of them) also stated, over and over, that it was a "1982 Glacier Pilots" card. That's just patently false. The card was printed in 1989 not 1982. To say it was a 1982 card is lying, it's not puffery. It's not overhyping, it's LYING. I've got a set Renatta Galasso made of the 1961 Yankees sometime in the early 80s. If I called it a 1961 Renatta Galasso set, I'd be LYING. Yet that's exactly what Goldin and SAH did.

So, sorry guys, but I'll be keeping my $$$ away from this auction venture.

Tabe

[Matthew H]

We should start a list of ethical auction houses, so we know where to bid.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jefferyepayne

I wish you were right. In other threads on Net54, people have said they will participate in any auctions that has the cards they need, irrespective of the ethics or past behavior of the auction house / owner. Unfortunately it appears that very few are willing to do what's right if it results in even a small amount of personal loss.

The con men are laughing all the way to the bank when this attitude prevails and anyone in the hobby with a positive brand needs to be careful associating themselves with those of questionable ethics. In business, your brand is partially determined by who you associate with...

jeff

Okay, so you won't bid on items sold by an auction house of questionable ethics. I assume you also wouldn't have a friend bid for you? Some have gone so far as to say they won't even sit at a dinner table if someone representing such an auction house is present. Do you also check to see who cards were bought from, just to insure that you don't buy from someone who buys from such auction houses? Will you eat at the same restaurants they eat at? Will you have anything to do with a bar that sells their employees a beer?

Let's find all these people and and get this hobby cleaned up properly!

[Ladder7]

Right, bash the guy for his honorable stance. What are you smokin?

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by Ladder7

Right, bash the guy for his honorable stance. What are you smokin?

IMO this Goldin guy was just an easy target for these "hobby crusaders". Just take a look at the topic vintagetoppsguy started... a pretty big deal if you ask me... you can hear crickets in that thread.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Okay, so you won't bid on items sold by an auction house of questionable ethics. I assume you also wouldn't have a friend bid for you? Some have gone so far as to say they won't even sit at a dinner table if someone representing such an auction house is present. Do you also check to see who cards were bought from, just to insure that you don't buy from someone who buys from such auction houses? Will you eat at the same restaurants they eat at? Will you have anything to do with a bar that sells their employees a beer?

Let's find all these people and and get this hobby cleaned up properly!

The old slippery slope argument!! But to quote one of my favorite quotes, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you need to ski to the bottom.

[Runscott]

Peter, I was sort of joking - I don't really think it's so slippery. Each person has their own ethics regarding this, and I definitely appreciate those who are looking out for the hobby.