Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Peter i respect your views and commentary. This is black and white there is no gray area here for me. I'm not saying you're making defenses for them but doesn't their insurance cover the theft in itself right then and there? Not a sale of cards they do not have in their possession and the end of said auction.

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

If the auction was clean, and assuming the card was stolen during the auction, why isn't that as good a valuation point as any? Or are you saying you just did a fraudulent listing after the fact?

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If the auction was clean, and assuming the card was stolen during the auction, why isn't that as good a valuation point as any? Or are you saying you just did a fraudulent listing after the fact?

I’m saying the sale continued after the theft of said items that they no longer possessed.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I’m saying the sale continued after the theft of said items that they no longer possessed.

If you possessed a card that you were listing for auction, I would think that insurance would cover it if it was stolen during or after the auction was completed. If the auction is completed, that would seem to be a reasonable amount for insurance to pay (which appears to be what ML did). If not, then a fair value would have to be determined some other way, as others have said.

[Exhibitman]

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

+1

Great post. Worth at least 25 cents.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

Clearly, the problem is the law, for we have ascertained based upon our material interests that J.P. & Gang wouldn't do anything illegal, shady, or sleazy. We must change these unjust laws.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

Well said, Adam.

And Phil, that "Big Eater" card is just as sweet, if not sweeter!

[anchorednw]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

+1 This. I for one am glad that everyone (to our knowledge) will be made (or told they will be) whole. That said, what ML did was NOT ethical no matter how you paint or draw it up.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

I think it is more than reasonable to use a reliable company like Fed Ex to deliver 2 million or more worth of valuables as long as the person shipping has the authorization, by their ins carrier, to use Fed Ex as a means of shipping and maintain full coverage.

That is moot though because Fed Ex delivered the box. Unless we hear the box they delivered was empty and was therefore thrown out and explains why they cannot find it.

This is all on the co who shipped the cards--they sent them in care of a $75 a night motel who had no involvement with the contents.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

Your case is completely different from what happened with ML. You never owned or had in possession these cards you listed on ebay. Getting insurance on items you never had and then claiming they were stolen to try get insurance reimbursement is fraud. ML actually had these cards in their possession at one point and took a blanket insurance on them. Of course, they would get reimbursed with the amount depending on the details of their policy. Nothing fraudulent there.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

I don’t believe that was their intent either Peter…I’m just saying the fact is they didn’t possess the cards at the end of the sale nor during parts of bidding, that’s it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

I don’t believe that was their intent either Peter…I’m just saying the fact is they didn’t possess the cards at the end of the sale nor during parts of bidding, that’s it.

I get it. It's not pretty. I am only saying that in the context of the mess created by the theft, it may have been a reasonable measure. Not like any bidders were massively defrauded. Just annoyed.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

When those cards went missing, those became phantom lots. They were auctioning cards they didn't have.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

When those cards went missing, those became phantom lots. They were auctioning cards they didn't have.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

Again, who was hurt and how?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

I don’t

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

What part of "they were working with authorities, the insurance company, counsel, and other hobby veterans to determine the best route" do you not understand? There is no doubt in my mind those were the folks helping ML make their decisions. And at the end of the day it was JP's call.
And imo, he did exactly what they should have done.

As far as getting the cards there; they got there. That wasn't a problem. The problem was a thief (or thieves) at the hotel.
.

[CardPadre]

Memory Lane had no business keeping people up until 1, 2, 3 am bidding on and committing finances to cards they weren't going to get unless the cards get recovered.

When Memory Lane no longer had access to the cards, that was their problem to deal with, with insurance and with consignors...THEIR problem. No right to recruit unwitting volunteers in their plan to establish value, if that's what it was.

There simply cannot be left open the possibility that in every auction, your participation is completely fictional and completely for someone else's benefit...at your expense of time and resources.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

What part of "they were working with authorities, the insurance company, counsel, and other hobby veterans to determine the best route" do you not understand? There is no doubt in my mind those were the folks helping ML make their decisions. And at the end of the day it was JP's call.
And imo, he did exactly what they should have done.

As far as getting the cards there; they got there. That wasn't a problem. The problem was a thief (or thieves) at the hotel.
.

If you let your friend borrow your car and he decides to leave it parked in downtown San Francisco for a week and then returns it to you with broken windows and human feces in the passenger seat, do you get mad at your friend or at the homeless meth addict who smashed out the windows and defecated on the seat?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lots of angst over a decision in a no win situation that didn't hurt anyone, accomplished some practical things as summarized by Phil's post, and avoided disrupting completely an auction where lots other folks had consigned non-stolen cards with the expectation of business as usual. Some good sanctimony though, for sure.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lots of angst over a decision in a no win situation that didn't hurt anyone, accomplished some practical things as summarized by Phil's post, and avoided disrupting completely an auction where lots other folks had consigned non-stolen cards with the expectation of business as usual. Some good sanctimony though, for sure.

Sanctimony? Please. Disagree with people who don't think an AH should deliberately pretend to offer cards it doesn't have, but stooping to belittling should be beneath you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sanctimony? Please. Disagree with people who don't think an AH should deliberately pretend to offer cards it doesn't have, but stooping to belittling should be beneath you.

OK, I'll reframe it along the lines of your own post.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people are offended by this.

To be clear, you said before, Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sanctimony? Please. Disagree with people who don't think an AH should deliberately pretend to offer cards it doesn't have, but stooping to belittling should be beneath you.

Agree.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If you let your friend borrow your car and he decides to leave it parked in downtown San Francisco for a week and then returns it to you with broken windows and human feces in the passenger seat, do you get mad at your friend or at the homeless meth addict who smashed out the windows and defecated on the seat?

Both?

I'd like to use a lifeline, Howie.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

I agree 100%.

Yes the auctions of the stolen cards "screwed" the winners (and arguably many underbidders) but ultimately it was the best way to determine definitive values of items for their consignors. Who they are paying in full.

That's really all that matters in my mind, regardless of all the made up scenarios I've read so far (I'm at post #179) in this thread.

Bravo to Memory Lane.