Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

what would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

20%?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Same incentive they always have on every lot in every auction. As does every auction house.

[JollyElm]

A special 'Collectorisms' offering:

Bled and Breakfast
The theft of millions of dollars worth of rare and historical collectibles, which had for some inexplicable reason remained unsecured somewhere inside of a hotel facility.

See also: Indoor Fool - rightfully or wrongfully, the 'blunderous' employee who is ultimately held responsible for such an oversight.

See also: Broom Service - the methods employed by interested parties to lessen the repercussions and make sure this ridiculous travesty is swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[LOUCARDFAN]

I am utterly amazed that someone at ML actually thought sending $2 million dollars worth of someone else's cards to a cut rate hotel would be ok is astonishing enough.

I would also bet that the BW hotel wasn't even aware of the dollar value of the box that was received and ultimately stolen.

I am quite sure that if the hotel had been aware of it before hand, they would have told them no and that they would not be responsible for the shipment. Sorry, but even the Bellagio is cautious on high dollar items arriving at their place and they have an underground vault.

Secondly, would any of the winning bidders of the stolen items possibly have a case for legal action against ML to make them good on providing the item that they were contractually high bidder on? Those same bidders are contractually bound to pay ML for an item if they were high bidder so why not vice versa? I would think that if the items were stolen and the auction halted or stopped but since they let the auction continue all the while knowingly that they didn't have the items and very well never obtain them i would think they would be in a prime spot for legal action.

Lastly, I hope that the cards are ultimately found, and everyone is made good on this terrible predicament that ML put themselves in. Ryan, I do hope that you and all the other consigners are made whole but why wouldn't ML tell you and the other consigners anything but positive things to keep you all calm and patient which offers themselves more time to hopefully but doubtfully getting the cards back?

I would be willing to bet my entire collection that unless ML pays the consigners out of their own pockets, those consigners won't be made whole anytime soon as the insurance companies will deny any claims made and this will be tied up for years in the court system.

[Lobo Aullando]

Personally, I was hoping for Shipped-Ittery (n.) using a method of transport (including security at the receiving end) that is inadequate considering the potential loss.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

A special 'Collectorisms' offering:

Bled and Breakfast
The theft of millions of dollars worth of rare and historical collectibles, which had for some inexplicable reason remained unsecured somewhere inside of a hotel facility.

See also: Indoor Fool - rightfully or wrongfully, the 'blunderous' employee who is ultimately held responsible for such an oversight.

See also: Broom Service - the methods employed by interested parties to lessen the repercussions and make sure this ridiculous travesty is swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[ThomasL]

Been thinking about the crime itself...maybe we should switch to that...

novel idea since most of this topic has been generated to how the Auction House handled it...

To me the most interesting part is the second box that was reported opened but not taken. Now we are missing a key part of the story that being the size and weight of the two boxes...but here is my question:

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It suggests to me that the thief was targeting that specific box. If you just wanted to steal cards you take both boxes without opening them as opening them on site is time consuming and increasing your risk of getting caught. (now if that is improbable based on the size of the box left it changes things obviously)

Now you might say "if the box was targeted then the thief knew which box to take so why even waste time opening the second box?"

Good question...well I have three possibilities for that:
1. The thief did it in an attempt to give the impression that one box was not targeted...and yet fail to realize that logically bc the stolen box was taken in whole this line of reasoning was flawed. Flawed bc it tells us he knew who had sent the target box before hand so logically he had no need to open it and pilfer through it or any other box.

2. The thief forgot who the mailer of the target box was, or didnt know, but was only aware of the contents/items to be stolen. Thus the thief had to open both boxes to see what was inside, opened the wrong box first, opened the second box to make sure it was the box based on contents (which would suggest he had no idea if it was delivered or not either) and took the targeted box in whole once it was opened.

3. The second box being opened has nothing to do the theft at all...some random employee mistook it for something else, opened it and just left it there. This seems unlikely to me as the police would know this pretty quickly and there would be no need for it to be reported anywhere.


I would like to throw out there the most optimistic idea as well bc Im not sure anyone has posted it...what if the package isnt stolen? What if it was delivered to the wrong address or hotel and just some fedex driver and/or hotel employee didnt care to check to make sure it was the correct address...just mindlessly went about their jobs scanning and signing...Im sure we all know this is a greater possibility then anyone would like to admit, but things very similar probably have happened to anyone dealing with mailing services in the last 20 years (yes fedex isnt the usps but still). I would like to think this was quickly ruled out though but thought it was worth mentioning

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

Agree. I can easily imagine Law Enforcement saying, "Leave the auctions up and let's see what they [the thieves] do..."

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Been thinking about the crime itself...maybe we should switch to that...

novel idea since most of this topic has been generated to how the Auction House handled it...

To me the most interesting part is the second box that was reported opened but not taken. Now we are missing a key part of the story that being the size and weight of the two boxes...but here is my question:

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It suggests to me that the thief was targeting that specific box. If you just wanted to steal cards you take both boxes without opening them as opening them on site is time consuming and increasing your risk of getting caught. (now if that is improbable based on the size of the box left it changes things obviously)

Now you might say "if the box was targeted then the thief knew which box to take so why even waste time opening the second box?"

Good question...well I have three possibilities for that:
1. The thief did it in an attempt to give the impression that one box was not targeted...and yet fail to realize that logically bc the stolen box was taken in whole this line of reasoning was flawed. Flawed bc it tells us he knew who had sent the target box before hand so logically he had no need to open it and pilfer through it or any other box.

2. The thief forgot who the mailer of the target box was, or didnt know, but was only aware of the contents/items to be stolen. Thus the thief had to open both boxes to see what was inside, opened the wrong box first, opened the second box to make sure it was the box based on contents (which would suggest he had no idea if it was delivered or not either) and took the targeted box in whole once it was opened.

3. The second box being opened has nothing to do the theft at all...some random employee mistook it for something else, opened it and just left it there. This seems unlikely to me as the police would know this pretty quickly and there would be no need for it to be reported anywhere.


I would like to throw out there the most optimistic idea as well bc Im not sure anyone has posted it...what if the package isnt stolen? What if it was delivered to the wrong address or hotel and just some fedex driver and/or hotel employee didnt care to check to make sure it was the correct address...just mindlessly went about their jobs scanning and signing...Im sure we all know this is a greater possibility then anyone would like to admit, but things very similar probably have happened to anyone dealing with mailing services in the last 20 years (yes fedex isnt the usps but still). I would like to think this was quickly ruled out though but thought it was worth mentioning

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

According to the SCD article, there is security video showing that the box was delivered:

"According to the company, security cameras reviewed by police show the heavy duty brown cardboard box being delivered and signed for."

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It could be the thief had no idea what was in the boxes. They saw two boxes sitting in the storage area, opened them both to see what was in them, liked what they saw in one box and not the other, so took just the one box. Doesn't have to be targeted at all.

Edited to add: Looks like Scott beat me to it.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Been thinking about the crime itself...maybe we should switch to that...

novel idea since most of this topic has been generated to how the Auction House handled it...

To me the most interesting part is the second box that was reported opened but not taken. Now we are missing a key part of the story that being the size and weight of the two boxes...but here is my question:

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It suggests to me that the thief was targeting that specific box. If you just wanted to steal cards you take both boxes without opening them as opening them on site is time consuming and increasing your risk of getting caught. (now if that is improbable based on the size of the box left it changes things obviously)

Now you might say "if the box was targeted then the thief knew which box to take so why even waste time opening the second box?"

Good question...well I have three possibilities for that:
1. The thief did it in an attempt to give the impression that one box was not targeted...and yet fail to realize that logically bc the stolen box was taken in whole this line of reasoning was flawed. Flawed bc it tells us he knew who had sent the target box before hand so logically he had no need to open it and pilfer through it or any other box.

2. The thief forgot who the mailer of the target box was, or didnt know, but was only aware of the contents/items to be stolen. Thus the thief had to open both boxes to see what was inside, opened the wrong box first, opened the second box to make sure it was the box based on contents (which would suggest he had no idea if it was delivered or not either) and took the targeted box in whole once it was opened.

3. The second box being opened has nothing to do the theft at all...some random employee mistook it for something else, opened it and just left it there. This seems unlikely to me as the police would know this pretty quickly and there would be no need for it to be reported anywhere.


I would like to throw out there the most optimistic idea as well bc Im not sure anyone has posted it...what if the package isnt stolen? What if it was delivered to the wrong address or hotel and just some fedex driver and/or hotel employee didnt care to check to make sure it was the correct address...just mindlessly went about their jobs scanning and signing...Im sure we all know this is a greater possibility then anyone would like to admit, but things very similar probably have happened to anyone dealing with mailing services in the last 20 years (yes fedex isnt the usps but still). I would like to think this was quickly ruled out though but thought it was worth mentioning

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

The most likely scenario is that it was delivered with normal fed ex deliveries to the business, opened like normal packages they get delivered and then someone saw baseball cards and decided to take them. A crime of opportunity.

The tidbit about the catalog boxes being opened makes me think this was the case.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

Sorry, I was being facetious. Just trying to beat the next conspiracy theorist to the punch.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Sorry, I was being facetious. Just trying to beat the next conspiracy theorist to the punch.

Fair enough. And actually a pretty good one, now that you explain it. All good

[toothcutter]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

Is an inside job possible?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by toothcutter

Is an inside job possible?

It's definitely an inside job at the BW+ level imho.

[1880nonsports]

unlike school rooms across the country - life often gives you the test and THEN the lesson.....

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

We know. Peter was explaining that your position doesn't make sense, as any "extra" that ML received from the insurance would then have to be paid to the consignors.