Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Instead of addressing my point -that it would be unacceptable behavior for most of us - you choose to parse my comment? Well, okay, I apologize for suggesting you are one of the folks who likes ML.

Now... what do you think would be the response if one of us deliberately offered for sale items we don't have? I see newbies getting bug-zapped out of here almost daily for offering things they (probably) don't have.

Maybe they are innocently trying to determine values? In any case, if nobody gets scammed, nobody gets hurt, right? Isn't that your standard?

Sure, people would get zapped, but I doubt there would be the type of extenuating circumstances we have here.

[Carter08]

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Oh they are not the same. Untruths (technically, not relevant here - the issue is not that somebody said something that turned out to be incorrect; it is a very blatantly intentional lie. Untruth is quite a softening) are bad.

The truth = good
Lies = bad

Not all lies are the same degree of bad. It's not really right of me to tell my aunt her cooking is just the bees knees when I want to spit it out. It's more not right to lie by ommission and not disclose material facts about a card. It's even more not right to completely lie about having the card at all and hosting a completely fake auction for it.

Dishonesty is a bad thing. It is bad whether I do it, you do it, a company does it, somebody I like does it, or somebody I don't like does it. I'm not seeing how thinking companies should not completely lie to customers is sanctimonious; it's a very low minimum bar of behavior being stated here. Really, this bar is basically laying on the ground, it's not hard a high standard to not host illegal fake auctions.

But you might tell your aunt that because there are other factors at play, no?

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

Bingo!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

So they can spend the cash on the next big card. Cry me a river.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

But you might tell your aunt that because there are other factors at play, no?

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.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Any of those entities advising to continue a phantom auction seems a bit dubious ... How do you know the actual fact?

Because the auction continued. That is a fact. They didn't go against the advice of their lawyers and insurance agents. They just didn't. Was I there? No.

Originally Posted by Carter08

... but perhaps that’s wrong.

Yes, perhaps you are. Or, perhaps I am wrong.

But the auction continued.

[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.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Not crazy to think a buyer would sell stock or move assets around to pay for their big win. Then they get an email — sorry we actually don’t have this stuff. That seems wrong.

Let's hope they did not go as far as to liquidate a retirement account too as several have suggested is a great idea to free up money for cards.

[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 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.

[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.

[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 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.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people. Context, nuance, can matter. It's a very weird, possibly unique situation.

To be fair, his argument may be reductionist, but you're begging the question. You're starting from the premise that there's "no harm" to bidders and underbidders, because you're assigning zero value to their time and opportunity cost. Others might reasonably disagree with your premise that financial harm and property loss are the only things that matter.

If you want to argue that Memory Lane, acting as a fiduciary, made a difficult but rational choice to use bidders as pawns for the benefit of consignors and hypothetical insurance requirements, then that's fine. But to suggest that the bidders have no cause for complaint because Memory Lane did what was best for Memory Lane is a hot take.

[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 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.

[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 $$$).

[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]

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.

[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.

[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).

[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?

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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

Parsing again. His larger point is as I stated. Insurance companies do not use phantom auctions to determine loss value.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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.

What did you win, Jeff?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Parsing again. His larger point is as I stated. Insurance companies do not use phantom auctions to determine loss value.

On what basis other than his words can I deduce his true meaning?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On what basis other than his words can I deduce his true meaning?

I understand him. Do you understand what my previous post said? It's a simple concept.

It's only hard to understand what he's saying when you don't want to.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

What did you win, Jeff?

Just a couple of T206s in ML; but in Goldin I won the three Cherokee Parks Final Four and National Championship rings. I went to Duke so those were pretty special to me.

And for what it’s worth, I was mostly aghast at the theft of the Cobb Mello Mint that you had won. Of all the cards stolen, that was the one that made me nauseous as I know how rare that card is for your set. Really hoping it turns up for you. For the longest time no one knew if the card even existed.

[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 Mark17

I understand him. Do you understand what my previous post said? It's a simple concept.

It's only hard to understand what he's saying when you don't want to.

Greg is a very precise person. If he had meant to make the larger point, I think he would have. I could be wrong.

[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?

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Just a couple of T206s in ML; but in Goldin I won the three Cherokee Parks Final Four and National Championship rings. I went to Duke so those were pretty special to me.

And for what it’s worth, I was mostly aghast at the theft of the Cobb Mello Mint that you had won. Of all the cards stolen, that was the one that made me nauseous as I know how rare that card is for your set. Really hoping it turns up for you. For the longest time no one knew if the card even existed.

Wow, that’s awesome! Congrats! And many thanks, Jeff. I really appreciate it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

There’s a transcript we both have, and I replied to the most recent rendition of the ‘insurance told them too’ bunk, even though no policy known to man has terms to use fraudulent auctions to determine values of claims and no credible insurance company is going to ask people to do such blatantly shady and what seems to be illegal things. How is who said it first relevant or any kind of refutation? I don’t remember every post by now lol.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

There’s a transcript we both have, and I replied to the most recent rendition of the ‘insurance told them too’ bunk, even though no policy known to man has terms to use fraudulent auctions to determine values of claims and no credible insurance company is going to ask people to do such blatantly shady and what seems to be illegal things. How is who said it first relevant or any kind of refutation? I don’t remember every post by now lol.

I was just curious how that got started, is all. Was too lazy to look back, thought you might remember.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

First mentioned here...https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...7&postcount=10

Not blaming Phil as he was only making a suggestion but other respected posters jumped on board validating the choice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

First mentioned here...https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...7&postcount=10

Not blaming Phil as he was only making a suggestion but other respected posters jumped on board validating the choice.

And seems another leap from there to the proposition that the insurance company required it.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by sportscardpete

This doesn’t make sense, why would ML keep an auction running if the items were stolen? Something doesn’t add up.

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I'm not sure how else would you establish insurance value?

Originally Posted by calvindog

Correct

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I received a call after Sunday night (a day after auction ended) telling me that a box of cards had been stolen. First, I was assured that I will be paid out 100%, on the final value of the auction, which I have no doubt will happen, whether insurance covers it or not (and I am sure they will). Second, I was told the auction had to continue in order to establish the fair market value of the cards, otherwise, how does anyone establish the value/hammer price. Third, I was told anyone who won a stolen card will be given the option, but not obligation, to buy the card at the hammer price + BP if they are found. Plus, they are optimistic the cards will be found.

A few other things:

1. The cards were stolen, not lost or misplaced. The cards got to their intended destination, were signed for and stored, and then taken. As far as I can tell, ML has done nothing wrong or irresponsible.

2. It sucks for the buyers, but they are out no money, only expectations. They may have missed out on another card, but they are in no worse position than before the auction started. The bigger issue would have been how much do you pay the consignors? Do you guess, do you just settle, do you litigate? 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

3. ML owes me a lot of money. I have complete confidence I will get every dime (and have proactively been assured numerous times of that and I will get paid before insurance ever kicks in). I do not blame ML for this and I think they are doing all the right things under real crappy circumstances. I think it sucks balls for the collecting community bc the cards may be gone from the hobby forever. Hopefully the turn up.

Originally Posted by Leon

What does that mean? There is no con. ML had to do what they had to do and no doubt they took advice from counsel as well as others. There is a possiblity of the cards being recovered. It sucks for everyone involved. Hopefully, the cards will eventually be returned. Most of our pre war cards are like fingerprints, so there is a possibilty......
.

Originally Posted by 4815162342

+1

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

+2 (coming from the consignor with the most to lose and a bidder who won a very rare and expensive card that will almost certainly not come up again for sale for many years).

The people most impacted understand and are satisfied with how ML is handing it. The situation sucks and is unfortunate, but there is no perfect answer. That said, I am sure that ML proceeded on the advice of counsel, the insurance company, the cops, etc.

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.

[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.

[Bigdaddy]

Would people feel differently if, instead of being stolen, the cards had been destroyed in such a way that there was zero chance of recovery?

For everyone's sake - consigners, ML, auction winners and the hobby in general - lets hope the cards are recovered unscathed and do not go that way that Yogi's rings did after they were stolen. Melted down and sold by the ounce.

[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.

[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...

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy

Would people feel differently if, instead of being stolen, the cards had been destroyed in such a way that there was zero chance of recovery?

For everyone's sake - consigners, ML, auction winners and the hobby in general - lets hope the cards are recovered unscathed and do not go that way that Yogi's rings did after they were stolen. Melted down and sold by the ounce.

Sort of. If the AH truly-but ultimately wrongly-thought they would get the items back in time it’s slightly more defensible to run the auction. It would still be running an auction on items it currently does not possess which just seems bizarre. But my thinking on this comes back to the police officer in Big Lebowski investigating the stolen car—essentially laughing at the idea they would recover stolen goods. Perhaps there’s information we don’t know that these items will be found but even the consignor said he’s sad for the hobby because they are probably gone forever. Agreed.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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...

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

[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.