Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, for she is surprisingly strong and that wooden spoon she has is surprisingly heavy.

A little white social lie, it's not right, but it's worth muttering the expected pleasantry rather than taking the question seriously. Does that make it the right thing to do? No, it's just a minor sin, being more convenient does not make it right. In fact, being most convenient is very rarely right. Covering up a theft to host a fake auction is far past that.

Obviously I get what you're saying, it just strikes me as a unique and uniquely bad situation where there are countervailing considerations that make it a more nuanced question.

[parkplace33]

One point that hasn’t been brought up yet. The winners of the stolen cards got screwed. But I would also say that ML consignors of the non stolen cards also may have been screwed at well. What if a bidder wanted to go for two cards, one non stolen and one stolen, and picked to go hard after the stolen card.

I am sure some consignors in ML are none too pleased to read this news story.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

One point that hasn’t been brought up yet. The winners of the stolen cards got screwed. But I would also say that ML consignors of the non stolen cards also may have been screwed at well. What if a bidder wanted to go for two cards, one non stolen and one stolen, and picked to go hard after the stolen card.

I am sure some consignors in ML are none too pleased to read this news story.

If ML had pulled these high visibility items from the auction, as at least a few here feel they should've, do you think that would've been a positive or a negative for the remaining auction items.

I know what I think.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If ML had pulled these high visibility items from the auction, as at least a few here feel they should've, do you think that would've been a positive or a negative for the remaining auction items.

I know what I think.

As I said before, clearly it would have been a gut punch and bad news for consignors. Oh, sorry, our top 50 cards aren't here after all. I imagine the hits on the site would have nosedived.

[docpatlv]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

One point that hasn’t been brought up yet. The winners of the stolen cards got screwed. But I would also say that ML consignors of the non stolen cards also may have been screwed at well. What if a bidder wanted to go for two cards, one non stolen and one stolen, and picked to go hard after the stolen card.

I am sure some consignors in ML are none too pleased to read this news story.

Surprised this comment was overlooked with no responses. I thought it was one of the most interesting comments in this whole debacle. For those of you who agree that it was okay to continue auctions on the stolen cards, do you also agree that it may have been to the detriment of other consignors as illustrated in the highlighted section above?

If your consignment could have netted an extra 5-10k+ had a bidder concentrated on your lot instead of chasing a stolen lot, would you have been happy?

M.ike P.ugeda

[ThomasL]

Why haven't they released a list of the stolen items yet...or have I missed that? I think it would help for people to keep an eye out for them.

Also I didnt infer anything in my prior post except that I felt it was a target theft and law enforcement might have let it run to help aid them in eliminating or possibly incriminating possible suspects...that would include a long list of people...I am sorry if someone read into that incorrectly

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Why haven't they released a list of the stolen items yet...or have I missed that? I think it would help for people to keep an eye out for them.

Also I didnt infer anything in my prior post except that I felt it was a target theft and law enforcement might have let it run to help aid them in eliminating or possibly incriminating possible suspects...that would include a long list of people...I am sorry if someone read into that incorrectly

I doubt we get any additional information on this unless the cards are recovered.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

Surprised this comment was overlooked with no responses. I thought it was one of the most interesting comments in this whole debacle. For those of you who agree that it was okay to continue auctions on the stolen cards, do you also agree that it may have been to the detriment of other consignors as illustrated in the highlighted section above?

If your consignment could have netted an extra 5-10k+ had a bidder concentrated on your lot instead of chasing a stolen lot, would you have been happy?

M.ike P.ugeda

I think a much bigger detriment would've been the mysterious removal of $2m of the best cards. Can you imagine, as a bidder, continuing to bid in an auction where that happened?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I think a much bigger detriment would've been the mysterious removal of $2m of the best cards. Can you imagine, as a bidder, continuing to bid in an auction where that happened?

What about the damage to consignors from potentially have to dispute valuations on many of the scarcer items? All that avoided.

[docpatlv]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What about the damage to consignors from potentially have to dispute valuations on many of the scarcer items? All that avoided.

What are your thoughts on other consignors who potentially lost $$$ on their consignments in the scenario highlighted in my previous post? Innocent bystanders?

M.ike P.ugeda

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

What are your thoughts on other consignors who potentially lost $$$ on their consignments in the scenario highlighted in my previous post? Innocent bystanders?

M.ike P.ugeda

If that happened, obviously it's unfortunate. No winning options here for ML.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What about the damage to consignors from potentially have to dispute valuations on many of the scarcer items? All that avoided.

I was responding to the idea of consignors who weren't directly affected by the theft being negatively impacted by the continuation of the auction of the items that were stolen.

I really think there were only two options. Cancel the auction entirely, or let it run like they did. Any half measure would've been an abject disaster.

[Republicaninmass]

Best part is......99% of these posters haven't sniffed 2 million bucks worth of cards, let alone would they know what do if they were stolen.

Supreme Court of baseball card message boards

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I think a much bigger detriment would've been the mysterious removal of $2m of the best cards. Can you imagine, as a bidder, continuing to bid in an auction where that happened?

I wouldn't have been stuck with 3 non-stolen high dollar cards, that's for sure.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Best part is......99% of these posters haven't sniffed 2 million bucks worth of cards, let alone would they know what do if they were stolen.

Supreme Court of baseball card message boards

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I wouldn't have been stuck with 3 non-stolen high dollar cards, that's for sure.

How were you stuck with 3 cards?

[Yoda]

Isn't it about time ML issued some kind of public statement about the theft and ongoing investigations. The public has a right to know, especially Net54.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

How were you stuck with 3 cards?

They were not stolen

[notfast]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I wouldn't have been stuck with 3 non-stolen high dollar cards, that's for sure.

I want to hear this.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by notfast

I want to hear this.

Had I known about the theft & not having a clue which cards were stolen, I would not have made 1 bid on anything. Therefore, I would not have won a thing. Kind of like Logic 101

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by docpatlv

Surprised this comment was overlooked with no responses. I thought it was one of the most interesting comments in this whole debacle. For those of you who agree that it was okay to continue auctions on the stolen cards, do you also agree that it may have been to the detriment of other consignors as illustrated in the highlighted section above?

If your consignment could have netted an extra 5-10k+ had a bidder concentrated on your lot instead of chasing a stolen lot, would you have been happy?

M.ike P.ugeda

Gabrinus touched upon this in post #37, and I picked up upon his thoughts in post #51. Here is what I wrote almost 500 posts ago:


Originally Posted by gabrinus View Post
Holy shit that sucks...I understand the insurance angle but that money could have gone to other cards in the auction...Jerry


Definitely a great point...not only did this hurt the winning bidders of the missing cards, some of whom perhaps would have shifted their bidding money to other non-stolen lots, but the consigners of some non-stolen cards in the auction perhaps could have had the action on their lots potentially minimized because of the decision to keep the stolen auction lots open.

Condolences to all involved, and just a sucky situation all around that, with some common sense precautions, probably could have been avoided in the first place.


brianp(arker)-beme (quoting brianp(arker)-beme) - man, this thread has a lot of words!

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Obviously I get what you're saying, it just strikes me as a unique and uniquely bad situation where there are countervailing considerations that make it a more nuanced question.

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

[calvindog]

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

I won a couple of lots with bids that held up in ML, but I spent 6 figures on Goldin earlier that night and felt it might be best to exercise some self-control with ML. And no I don’t represent ML and never have.

Edited to add: I would have possibly run up some cards in ML that I already own but I didn’t want to get caught holding the bag and have to buy those cards if I wasn’t outbid. You know how that goes, no fun at all.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

That was a good one! Thanks for the laugh.

[Exhibitman]

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

Seems to me he was saying show me a policy that requires X. That sounds like a focus on the terms of a policy.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

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.

[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.

[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.

[mannequin1]

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

Again, here is what I replied to, making the claim that the insurance company told them to do it and ML followed the advice. What people said four pages ago and the leaps since is not really relevant to the quote and refutation now.

Again, no insurance policy is ever going to have this as a term to determine value. No credible insurance company is ever going to tell a claimant to commit a crime or engage in lying to all of their customers to value stolen goods. There are other, normal mechanisms. That would be hugely embarrassing and potentially incriminating to themselves to tell a claimant to do this. This is not realistic, it is a fictional fantasy explanation that makes no real sense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

Most of the complicating factors are not present in that hypothetical. That you would owe money to a consignor, that the card was very hard to value, that it would disrupt a major auction to pull the card when it was stolen, etc. etc. Get closer to what really happened here and I might say what you did was excusable. Then again, it's hard to analogize a single sale to a major auction with hundreds or was it thousands of lots.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most of the complicating factors are not present in that hypothetical. That you would owe money to a consignor, that the card was very hard to value, that it would disrupt a major auction to pull the card when it was stolen, etc. etc. Get closer to what really happened here and I might say what you did was excusable. Then again, it's hard to analogize a single sale to a major auction with hundreds or was it thousands of lots.

So the determining factor of when it’s okay to lie to bidders is based on if the card is mine (which makes it not okay) or if I am selling it for someone else (the lying becomes okay).

As the hypothetical just used an expensive unspecified card, hard to value or not is difficult to read into that and use as an excuse to justify the lies

And your third criteria there we have the obvious real point. Rules for big auctions, rules for everyone else. If you own an auction house, lying to hundreds or thousands of people becomes okay.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So the determining factor of when it’s okay to lie to bidders is based on if the card is mine (which makes it not okay) or if I am selling it for someone else (the lying becomes okay).

As the hypothetical just used an expensive unspecified card, hard to value or not is difficult to read into that and use as an excuse to justify the lies

And your third criteria there we have the obvious real point. Rules for big auctions, rules for everyone else. If you own an auction house, lying to hundreds or thousands of people becomes okay.

Not different rules, just a different context and different competing considerations and consequences. ML is running a business. It has both bidders and consignors. Whatever it decides has consequences that it has to assess and weigh. It may be getting advice, even bad advice. It may not be as simple as, I couldn't do X on the BST therefore what ML did is wrong.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not different rules, just a different context and different competing considerations and consequences.

Yes, the auction house stands to lose more. Rules for them, rules for everyone else. It’s different when they do it (and okay, because $$$).

[Snowman]

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

I feel like you may be able to work this into your small claims court case against them (seriously, not joking).

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

Could it just be as simple as they ran the auction as such as a hedge in case the cards showed up? It was a 2 week period so maybe they though they had enough time.

If so, quite a gamble that clearly did pay off.