Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[theshowandme]

How drunk do I need to be to read this thing from start to finish in one sitting?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

How drunk do I need to be to read this thing from start to finish in one sitting?

Extremely would be a good start.

[tjisonline]

Originally Posted by theshowandme

How drunk do I need to be to read this thing from start to finish in one sitting?

If you browse past 2-3 users on some pages, pretty fast read.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Auction opened April 11. Isn't the theft after that?

Maybe I misread the article then...that makes it a little less the obvious thing to do but still I think that would have been the best course of action.


Addendum:
Also...all the items already had a market value, and values for insurance purposes already I would assume (in case they would have been lost in the mail or a fire at the warehouse/auction house)...so logically running the auction to establish a value for insurance purposes is unnecessary ... isnt it?

IMO the best course of action would have been to close the auction once they knew of the theft, informed all cosigners of it asap and offer to return the items not stolen if they wanted them back at no cost or offer to hold them over for the next auction with zero fees taken in by ML for the consignment.
The cosigners who had items stolen would be in limbo, which they are anyway, but at least would be in the loop from the start that their items were stolen and could get updates on the case. ML could offer to pay the full market value up front or after a period of time if the cards are not recovered (giving the option to wait to see if the cards will be recovered)

If they werent recovered within the first 2 weeks I seriously doubt they will be recovered at all or at least any time soon...I hope I am wrong

Likely scenarios are these in no particular order:

1. Robber knew ahead of time what the package was and had already fenced the items before stealing them...thus the robber doesnt have them and they are absorbed into a shady collectors collection not to be seen until their death or some day long after the statute of limitations.

2. Robber quickly found out how impossible it would be for them to sell or get rid of the items bc they were easily identifiable...this leads to two options
2a. Robber sits on the items for a long time, possibility of them never resurfacing, or selling at an auction house10+ years down the road when people have forgotten about the theft (much like library collections have been stolen from and sold years later at some major auction houses) 2b. Robber trashes them to get rid of the evidence...destroyed never to be seen again and always a mystery what happened to them.

None the less...If they werent recovered quickly I seriously doubt they will be...if it was some idiot who did it they would have already showed up on ebay

[Peter_Spaeth]

Total speculation but I could see some employee opportunistically/impulsively taking the box, panicking once he realized the FBI was involved and this was a big deal, and destroying the evidence. Hard to see how this could have been an inside job especially given another box of catalogues from a different AH apparently was also tampered with.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

It looks like it started with affirmation from a lawyer that running the auction without disclosing that the items were stolen was the best way to establish insurance value, and then Ryan drove it home by stating that consignors are the only real stakeholders, and that running the auction without the cards in hand was the best way to make sure consignors get a reasonable appraisal for insurance purposes.

Awesome summary...Once upon a time...oh sorry.

Anyway, odds seem very unlikely there will be any insurance company involved in covering this but as Ryan stated, there is more to the story and it is none of our business.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Total speculation but I could see some employee opportunistically/impulsively taking the box, panicking once he realized the FBI was involved and this was a big deal, and destroying the evidence. Hard to see how this could have been an inside job especially given another box of catalogues from a different AH apparently was also tampered with.

On this line of thinking...since the auction ran that created a whole alternative line or lines of possibilities...as others pointed out pages back several items were bid way up from recent previous comps...yes I know that happens all the time but think of it this way as pointed out previously...what if those were the stolen cards...then the FBI has to investigate the bidders of those cards and the cosigners I would imagine wouldnt they? If they had nothing to do with this mess then that is wasted time and energy

Again the best course of action would have been to immediately cancel the auction and inform the parties involved.

Thomas Saunders

[ThomasL]

...also what is the probability that the FBI is monitoring this thread as we speak...

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

It looks like it started with affirmation from a lawyer that running the auction without disclosing that the items were stolen was the best way to establish insurance value, and then Ryan drove it home by stating that consignors are the only real stakeholders, and that running the auction without the cards in hand was the best way to make sure consignors get a reasonable appraisal for insurance purposes.

Or we could look at it an alternative way, from a baseball card collector perspective.

We've heard from two bidders who won two of the 50+/- cards that were stolen.

Powell Miller who's reaction is Stoic as hell, especially after the Boston Garter shitshow, he's someone I would like to meet and have a sandwich with sometime. He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price

Daryl owns the only Mello Mint Cobb, (congrats Daryl) that card belongs in his collection and he owns it.

I don't see him complaining about the the stuff that rabbit hole central is complaining about, he just wants his card, he owns it now and is a fantastic addition to his set, just because he doesn't have possession yet is immaterial.

I'm a little hesitant to prioritize the opinions of folks that aren't in the 50+/- crowd and have no skin in the game, a lot of pearl clutching outrage on this sub.

I'd like to hear the perspective of bidders who actually own the cards in question.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Or we could look at it an alternative way, from a baseball card collector perspective.

We've heard from two bidders who won two of the 50+/- cards that were stolen.

Powell Miller who's reaction is Stoic as hell, especially after the Boston Garter shitshow, he's someone I would like to meet and have a sandwich with sometime. He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price

Daryl owns the only Mello Mint Cobb, (congrats Daryl) that card belongs in his collection and he owns it.

I don't see him complaining about the the stuff that rabbit hole central is complaining about, he just wants his card, he owns it now and is a fantastic addition to his set, just because he doesn't have possession yet is immaterial.

I'm a little hesitant to prioritize the opinions of folks that aren't in the 50+/- crowd and have no skin in the game, a lot of pearl clutching outrage on this sub.

I'd like to hear the perspective of bidders who actually own the cards in question.

What do they own?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

What do they own?

Nothing. But that’s a silly rabbit hole detail.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Carter08

What do they own?

They own the cards they won in the auction and do not need to spend any money until they receive their cards, how is that not a collecting win?

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

Which gives the high bidder all the power, No?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Which gives the high bidder all the power, No?

It's a contingent contractual right, but realistically the contingency is unlikely to materialize.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a contingent contractual right, but realistically the contingency is unlikely to materialize.

Maybe, is there a chance these significant cards don't show up and end up in some Russian Oligarchs collection? Of course, but if they do show up the ownership provenance is ironclad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Maybe, is there a chance these significant cards don't show up and end up in some Russian Oligarchs collection? Of course, but if they do show up the ownership provenance is ironclad.

If the thief is sophisticated, or passes the cards along to someone sophisticated, they'll show up in different slabs (or raw), perhaps slightly damaged to avoid detection, etc. etc. I would not say ironclad.

[Mark17]

So far this discussion has mainly been focused on establishing value, for insurance purposes and to make everybody whole (after it's determined where liability lies.)

Here's a hypothetical: Since the cards were mailed from out of state, and it's a large sum, suppose the FBI is, indeed, running the investigation. Maybe it was THEIR idea to run the auction as though nothing had happened.

If it wasn't public knowledge that cards were stolen, and more importantly, exactly which ones, maybe it was an FBI-initiated "sting" operation to try to identify unusual bidding behavior. For example, some person, or group, bidding up only the stolen cards, to inflate their perceived value. Or, hoping some bidder might somehow reveal knowledge unknown to the public, like asking unusual questions, etc.

IF this is generally what happened, then I would have to change my mind and say that ML did the right thing in working with law enforcement to solve the crime.

Another package was tampered with, but not taken. I wonder if fingerprints were obtained that could be cross-checked against employees or others with access to the package. Maybe this is the reason for their stated "optimism."

So... If it was done to establish value, I think that was wrong. If it was a key part of the investigation, under direction of law enforcement, I would unquestionably change my mind completely.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the thief is sophisticated, or passes the cards along to someone sophisticated, they'll show up in different slabs (or raw), perhaps slightly damaged to avoid detection, etc. etc. I would not say ironclad.

Daryls Mello Mint Cobb is unmistakable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by casey2296

daryls mello mint cobb is unmistakable.

1/50+

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

1/50+

I would posit Powells 7.5 bat off is similar.

[ThomasL]

Originally Posted by Mark17

So far this discussion has mainly been focused on establishing value, for insurance purposes and to make everybody whole (after it's determined where liability lies.)

Here's a hypothetical: Since the cards were mailed from out of state, and it's a large sum, suppose the FBI is, indeed, running the investigation. Maybe it was THEIR idea to run the auction as though nothing had happened.

If it wasn't public knowledge that cards were stolen, and more importantly, exactly which ones, maybe it was an FBI-initiated "sting" operation to try to identify unusual bidding behavior. For example, some person, or group, bidding up only the stolen cards, to inflate their perceived value. Or, hoping some bidder might somehow reveal knowledge unknown to the public, like asking unusual questions, etc.

IF this is generally what happened, then I would have to change my mind and say that ML did the right thing in working with law enforcement to solve the crime.

Another package was tampered with, but not taken. I wonder if fingerprints were obtained that could be cross-checked against employees or others with access to the package. Maybe this is the reason for their stated "optimism."

So... If it was done to establish value, I think that was wrong. If it was a key part of the investigation, under direction of law enforcement, I would unquestionably change my mind completely.

+1

[Snowman]

If the insurance company does pull through and magically pays out on this rather dicey claim, then they would become the owners of the cards should they ever surface.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

Nothing. But that’s a silly rabbit hole detail.

I tend to look at things from a real estate perspective because that's the business I'm in.
If you offered me a property at a specific price and I agreed to that price but I didn't have to pay 1 cent to acquire the rights to that property but had the option to consummate the deal at a future date based on future value how is that not a win for me?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I tend to look at things from a real estate perspective because that's the business I'm in.
If you offered me a property at a specific price and I agreed to that price but I didn't have to pay 1 cent to acquire the rights to that property but had the option to consummate the deal at a future date based on future value how is that not a win for me?

It's a win, when compared to a baseline of nothing. However, of course, that is not the actual situation.

When people bid in an auction with a 'respected' auction house, the implicit expectation is that it is an actual, legitimate auction and the cards will be sent to the winner. Instead of sending payment and getting the card, in most of these cases here a very rare and difficult card you can't just go get another of, they have been given an option on a contingency that probably won't transpire. This did not happen because of a last second problem, but because the auction house lied and continued to lie running a fake, fraudulent auction for items they do not have and cannot possibly deliver and they knew they could not deliver. What a bait and switch!

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by G1911

It's a win, when compared to a baseline of nothing. However, of course, that is not the actual situation.

When people bid in an auction with a 'respected' auction house, the implicit expectation is that it is an actual, legitimate auction and the cards will be sent to the winner. Instead of sending payment and getting the card, in most of these cases here a very rare and difficult card you can't just go get another of, they have been given an option on a contingency that probably won't transpire. This did not happen because of a last second problem, but because the auction house lied and continued to lie running a fake, fraudulent auction for items they do not have and cannot possibly deliver and they knew they could not deliver. What a bait and switch!

Except the reality is the cards were stolen so I was never getting the cards in your scenario, so the only realistic option was that I now own the card at no cost to me until delivery. I was never getting the card since it had been stolen but I am now the owner of the card at no cost to me until I have the option to purchase at strike, 3 years down the road if the card resurfaces and is worth 10K more I'm still the owner and is on ML to deliver it to me at strike. I don't see how I'm damaged in that scenario.

Furthermore I would love to acquire no cost options on multiple cards in an auction.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Except the reality is the cards were stolen so I was never getting the cards in your scenario, so the only realistic option was that I now own the card at no cost to me until delivery. I was never getting the card since it had been stolen but I am now the owner of the card at no cost to me until I have the option to purchase at strike, 3 years down the road if the card resurfaces and is worth 10K more I'm still the owner and is on ML to deliver it to me at strike. I don't see how I'm damaged in that scenario.

Yes they were never the getting cards, but they did not know that was the situation precisely because ML lied. I get this board really doesn't want to go with just, you know, telling the truth and being straight up instead of hosting a fake fraudulent auction. The winners are absolutely not the owner of the card in any way whatsoever no matter how many times you say that they are. They have an option on an extremely unlikely contingency. First stolen goods are generally not recovered, second even if they were, they will belong to the insurance company that people keep insisting is telling Memory Lane to host fake fraudulent auctions if the insurance company pays a claim. The 'winner' of the fraudulent auction gets an option to purchase if 1) the card is recovered AND 2) there was no insurance claim paid on. This is very unlikely.

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Again the best course of action would have been to immediately cancel the auction and inform the parties involved.

Thank you! The only course of action!

[theshowandme]

328 replies in 36 hours is impressive

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Other auction houses use armored trucks to deliver $2 million dollar packages. Probstein regularly posts videos of him getting these on social media. Why would they go through the added inconvenience and expense of using an armored truck if they could have simply just shipped it via FedEx and saved a lot of money?

That "show" has value.

The same reason Mr Mint had a briefcase full of cash and put all that cash in a display case. Not every show, but at one I helped at. The promoters table I worked was right near him, and it was interesting watching him work. More circus than anyone else I ever saw, but he bought a lot of stuff.
Not a style I would or maybe even could emulate. But it worked very well for him.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

All this talk of hotels did make me think of this vintage commercial

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHCTaUFXpP8

My first reaction was "vintage? that was really recent."
Then I saw that it was posted 9 years ago.....

____ I'm getting old.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

We're simply at an impasse at this idea. A number of people, including those closer to the situation than either of us have suggested insurance, counsel or even law enforcement influenced the decision to continue the auction.

"Running the auction, which I am sure was done at the advice of both counsel and insurance, to establish value is certainly the best path with the least damage given the crappy situation that’s nobody’s fault. There is no winning answer under these circumstances. It sucks, millions $$ of cards got stolen and ML is on the hook. No bueno all around"

If this was an independent decision made by ML with no outside influence than I disagree with that decision. That being said I simply can't imagine that being the case.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think what they own is more in the nature of an option subject to a contingency, I don't think they own the cards, they haven't paid and indeed they are not obligated to pay under any circumstances.

Unless terms and conditions state otherwise ownership changes hands at the fall of the hammer (literal or virtual) NOT at the time of payment. So by law, the winning bidders could easily be considered the owners.

Auction law is weird, the situation is weirder, lawyers could get rich off of this kind of weirdness.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Ok Here is what I dont get...(but I guess lawyers advised them not to do this for some reason?)

They know about the theft before the auction starts correct?

Then why not cancel the auction until the items are recovered and then have the same auction at a later date?

Also until the cosigners are paid out I would not be signing anyone's praises either...they can say they will do a lot of things but until the money is in hand they haven't done anything.

If we are talking about hypotheticals...Image a cosigner who has to sell his loved collection to pay for medical treatments right now...but now their payout could possible take years of litigation...

How often do we discuss items that were auctioned, then appear back at auction soon after? And how often are the questions then "what's wrong with it" and "what sort of bidding shenanigans went on that it's being offered again so soon"

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If the insurance company does pull through and magically pays out on this rather dicey claim, then they would become the owners of the cards should they ever surface.

This is perhaps one of the most interesting things to me, but again this is assuming a lot. I have no dog in this race, I'm a lower level collector that makes less in a year than some of these cards go for in an auction. All that being said the only way I would think the Insurance company would pay out, correct me if I'm wrong, is if there was next to zero chance of the cards being recovered. If they suddenly are what exactly happens to them? I doubt the insurance company wants a bunch of old pre-war cards. Do they auction them off?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

...also what is the probability that the FBI is monitoring this thread as we speak...

And the thieves...

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

This is perhaps one of the most interesting things to me, but again this is assuming a lot. I have no dog in this race, I'm a lower level collector that makes less in a year than some of these cards go for in an auction. All that being said the only way I would think the Insurance company would pay out, correct me if I'm wrong, is if there was next to zero chance of the cards being recovered. If they suddenly are what exactly happens to them? I doubt the insurance company wants a bunch of old pre-war cards. Do they auction them off?

Never with cards but with items in the 5 figure range the insurance company owned the items after they paid me off. Have no idea what they did with them afterwards.

[evergreen1988]

Maybe a different point of discussion, what does this event mean for the industry and other auction houses generally, or even the insurance companies? A $2mm loss/payout changes things.

1. Will the insurance provider survive the payout, assuming they make one? Will there be any changes to policies? Additional restrictions or requirements? Will rates go up?
   
2. Will auction houses change their liability limits to theft or other issues? If so, how does a consignor secure their interests when listing with an auction house? I've never consigned anything, but what are the current limits?
   
3. Will auction houses cut back on what they bring to shows? I've personally bid after seeing something in person at a show and its always been cool to see some rare stuff.
   
4. What impact will this have on ML? Even if they recover the cards today and every buyer follows through and receives their purchases by Friday, almost as if this never happened, will consignors be concerned with ML's stability or decision making? More competition in the auction space is probably good, so this can only be negative.
   
5. Will/should there be changes to security at shows, especially the smaller ones? Will other dealers be reluctant to bring their best material, especially if insurance policies change?

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Seven

This is perhaps one of the most interesting things to me, but again this is assuming a lot. I have no dog in this race, I'm a lower level collector that makes less in a year than some of these cards go for in an auction. All that being said the only way I would think the Insurance company would pay out, correct me if I'm wrong, is if there was next to zero chance of the cards being recovered. If they suddenly are what exactly happens to them? I doubt the insurance company wants a bunch of old pre-war cards. Do they auction them off?

The likelihood of the recovery of the cards is not the criteria the carrier would use to base paying the claim or not, in this situation. They pay when there is a loss and at this point there is a loss but they only pay when the policyholder abides by the policy, which does not sound like that happened.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Never with cards but with items in the 5 figure range the insurance company owned the items after they paid me off. Have no idea what they did with them afterwards.

That's exactly what I'm asking. I'd imagine they have to do SOMETHING with them!

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

The likelihood of the recovery of the cards is not the criteria the carrier would use to base paying the claim or not, in this situation. They pay when there is a loss and at this point there is a loss but they only pay when the policyholder abides by the policy, which does not sound like that happened.

Chase,

I appreciate the clarification. I'm unfamiliar with a lot of this, you learn something new everyday.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

...also what is the probability that the FBI is monitoring this thread as we speak...

approximately 100%
.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

That's exactly what I'm asking. I'd imagine they have to do SOMETHING with them

I have no idea on collectables. I do know vehicles because I have a friend who owns a business that buys them from the insurance company. If you total a vehicle and insurance pays out they own it. The insurance company already has a network set up to buy the wrecked vehicles. I would assume they have the same for collectables.

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

Replace novel with comedy and I agree.

[MikeGarcia]

..It's been a while :




...Goudey Premium circa 1935-ish.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have no idea on collectables. I do know vehicles because I have a friend who owns a business that buys them from the insurance company. If you total a vehicle and insurance pays out they own it. The insurance company already has a network set up to buy the wrecked vehicles. I would assume they have the same for collectables.

If there is an insurance payout and the cards are eventually recovered, why couldn't ML have a standing offer to buy them (on behalf of the winning bidders who still wanted their winnings) from the insurance company? Doesn't something like that seem obvious for everybody, especially the insurance company, who then wouldn't need to search for a buyer and probably sell at a discount?

And if few of the winning bidders still wanted their winnings, wouldn't it make sense for the insurance company to work a deal with ML to auction them off?

I don't see why it seems to be assumed that if an insurance company ends up with the recovered cards, that they'd become unavailable to ML or the bidders.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

You won't get it, nor I do I believe a statement is coming out from ML. We only can speculate.

The bottom line for me is what I said earlier. An AH in 2024 ran an auction with cards that were stolen. I can't belive that.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

To add to this, this assumes there is insurance coverage for loss under these circumstances, which based on what we know (admittedly could be quite limited) seems highly unlikely. Anyone who has insurance can file a claim for loss. You do not need the ins co to give you permission. Once it gets before an adjuster that is a different story.

Adam stated it appeared to him to violate several consumer protection laws in CA to have run the auction. Ryan made it seem like ML was advised by a lawyer or the ins co to let the auction run. And lastly, Jeffrey, who seems to have some inside knowledge of this, agreed that it was necessary to let the auction run.

Lesson here is that mistakes are very hard to remedy sometimes.