Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

+1

[Bpm0014]

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

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

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

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

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

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

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by vargha

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

Sean, I will get something up tomorrow.

[nolemmings]

So legally, I have no real recourse

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

[scooter729]

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

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[RGold]

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


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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Better to wax than to let the price wane.

[Piratedogcardshows]

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

[bigfish]

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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

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

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[nsaddict]

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

[bobbyw8469]

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

[Rob D.]

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

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

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

[Leon]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

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

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

[buymycards]

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

Rick

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vargha

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

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

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by vargha

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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

Paying client? Damn straight.

[Kenny Cole]

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

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vargha

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

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