Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Powell]

I agree with you Ryan. I won the Bat Off Cobb PSA 7.5. I don’t blame Memory Lane. I blame the thieves. Memory Lane is reputable and will do the right thing.

[BRoberts]

I think it is admirable that a consignor, Ryan, is handling spokesperson duties here for Memory Lane. It has been established that Joe T. Is the best catalog writer in the business. Maybe he or another ML representative could come on the board and make a post or two to clarify the situation about what exactly happened and what expectations are moving forward.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by BRoberts

I think it is admirable that a consignor, Ryan, is handling spokesperson duties here for Memory Lane. It has been established that Joe T. Is the best catalog writer in the business. Maybe he or another ML representative could come on the board and make a post or two to clarify the situation about what exactly happened and what expectations are moving forward.

I don't think they should make comments while an investigation is going on, but that is up to them.. Isn't that law 101? Or is that common sense 101?
.

[111gecko]

There is probably a good reason they have handled it this way. Guessing:

1) They know the party that took them is and have sufficient confidence they will get them back.

2) If some have been sold, they didn't want the auction down for the investigation while they try and retrieve.

3) Short of the thief freaking out and throwing them in the trash (which is highly unlikely); the cards are probably under someone's bed until they figure out what the heck they got themself into.

We're all extremely hopeful they will be found and you'd think that's going to happen.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Leon

I don't think they should make comments while an investigation is going on, but that is up to them.. Isn't that law 101? Or is that common sense 101?
.

It sounds like ML has communicated clearly and directly with all affected parties - which IS business critical. At this point they don't owe anyone else any explanations. I suspect as this unfolds more details will be made available to interested but unaffected (directly) parties.

For ML, Ryan and all other affected consignors and winning bidders, I am very sorry to hear about this and hope the thief is caught and cards recovered.

To all those who are offering could have, should have and would have scenarios I remind you that hindsight is 20/20 and "easy" to see looking back. As previously mentioned it sounds like this was standard business practice with little or no historical problem(s) and was covered by insurance. I suspect that practice will be scrutinized and possibly modified moving forward.

While I understand the question of running the auction with the knowledge that the cards weren't available, I also understand that it really was the best way to establish current fair market value for insurance purposes.

I have and know of others that in the past had issue with Fedex stealing cards and hope they are being investigated here as well. I think their $1,000 cap on "collectible" claims (it's in the fine print) leaves them ripe for incidents like this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by hcv123

It sounds like ML has communicated clearly and directly with all affected parties - which IS business critical. At this point they don't owe anyone else any explanations. I suspect as this unfolds more details will be made available to interested but unaffected (directly) parties.

For ML, Ryan and all other affected consignors and winning bidders, I am very sorry to hear about this and hope the thief is caught and cards recovered.

To all those who are offering could have, should have and would have scenarios I remind you that hindsight is 20/20 and "easy" to see looking back. As previously mentioned it sounds like this was standard business practice with little or no historical problem(s) and was covered by insurance. I suspect that practice will be scrutinized and possibly modified moving forward.

While I understand the question of running the auction with the knowledge that the cards weren't available, I also understand that it really was the best way to establish current fair market value for insurance purposes.

I have and know of others that in the past had issue with Fedex stealing cards and hope they are being investigated here as well. I think their $1,000 cap on "collectible" claims (it's in the fine print) leaves them ripe for incidents like this.

Counter point if it was to establish value: They allowed their customers to waste their time bidding on a make believe auction to maximize their own insurance recovery.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Counter point if it was to establish value: They allowed their customers to waste their time bidding on a make believe auction to maximize their own insurance recovery.

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

[Johnny630]

The Con is the continued theft that has recently occurred on-site at these major card shows. At every major show, you hear from dealers being theft victims of multiple expensive cards/many graded. The people doing this are not heroin junkies….they seem to know what they're doing…does not appear to be rank amateurs with little to no knowledge of the value and workings of this industry.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

Understood but is that the way it had to go down? We have many lawyers on this board, can we get an opinion? And no comments from ML doesn’t help this issue.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

Did the insurance company tell them that? If not, the argument about running them in the auction to establish value is bogus. Thousands of insurance claims are made every day, and fair market value is determined by appraisers and/or recent, comparable sales.

You don't have a collector who suffers flood damage to his collection say, "Gosh, my high-end cards are ruined. I'd better find an AH that will run phantom auction listings for me so I can determine what they were worth... "

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by calvindog

If the choice was to follow what your insurance company told you to do or else they wouldn’t cover a penny of the loss, or do it your own way, not have the auction, and lose $2 million, what would you do?

That would be “interesting” insurance policy language if it required a fake auction to establish value or the recovery would be zero. If the items are covered there would be many alternatives to determine value that wouldn’t involve wasting customer time.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Counter point if it was to establish value: They allowed their customers to waste their time bidding on a make believe auction to maximize their own insurance recovery.

1) If the cards are not recovered, yes, it will turn out to have been a waste of bidders time and emotional energy - incredibly frustrating. Though, if the cards are recovered, it will be very clear who gets what and for how much.

2) I think it is quite an exaggeration to call the auction "make believe". The auction was real. The cards are real. It is not a simple situation with no easy answers.

3) "To maximize their own insurance recovery" - this is really the most perplexing part of your comment - First and foremost - the insurance company needs substantiation of current market value for a claim. The Ty Cobb shown in this thread and presumably some of the other cards involved have very few and/or current sales - running the auction was really the best way to assess current fair market value - as an example the aforementioned Cobb sold for about $7K less than the last time it sold 3 years ago, indicating a lower current fmv than the last sale and reducing the amount that might otherwise have been claimed - in fact, lowering the insurance recovery. Up or down - the auction best reflects current fmv. While ML may get to keep whatever % they were entitled to on the sales, the lion's share of the proceeds I presume will be used to compensate consignors.

[Powell]

Memory Lane is in a tough spot and doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize their insurance. My personal opinion is to support Memory Lane and unite against the thief.

[BRoberts]

Originally Posted by Powell

Memory Lane is in a tough spot and doesn’t want to do anything to jeopardize their insurance. My personal opinion is to support Memory Lane and unite against the thief.

#United