SUBJECT: BEWARE Steve Verkman, Keith Vari, Leland’s, Clean Sweep & Paragon auctions

[daves_resale_shop]

Originally Posted by G1911

Now it makes sense why the rebuttal was incredibly vague about how the OP is untrue and the only specific was about a phone call and not the contract.

The contract sure seems to give the cosigner only 60%. I don't see the BP mentioned at all, but maybe that relates to the sellers reserve column. I don't know why, but I expected a vaguely professional real contract for a six figure plus deal. OP's claims seem to be on the main points factually correct.

Hard to see 60% (possibly even lower in reality with the vague or non-existent BP references in this 'contract') being fair and reasonable. If they did indeed cherry pick only the good items as OP said, and thus are not doing a ton of work with low value stuff to get rid of, OP has been bent over.

Also stated that the cost of authentication will be shared with the consignor… important to note is that not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked… seems like a pretty hefty consignment fee to pay for only the good stuff.

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by daves_resale_shop

Also stated that the cost of authentication will be shared with the consignor… important to note is that not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked… seems like a pretty hefty consignment fee to pay for only the good stuff.

Maybe cherry picked because it would not all fit on the two trucks and auctioning the better valued items first would be a great help to the consignor who was looking for cash. Sure, the auction house benefits as well but since a $15K advance was given in good faith, they would certainly want to recoup that as quickly as possible. Any business would want to do that.

Obviously, just a guess but the consignor did not state that they were not eventually taking all they committed to, just that they cherry picked on the initial load.

[tiger8mush]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Sure, the auction house benefits as well but since a $15K advance was given in good faith, they would certainly want to recoup that as quickly as possible. Any business would want to do that.

I'd agree if it weren't for the 16% interest rate.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

I'd agree if it weren't for the 16% interest rate.

Isn’t the point of an advance to be a good faith pre-payment, to be deducted from the proceeds down the road? Is charging interest a common practice?

[rand1com]

Originally Posted by tiger8mush

I'd agree if it weren't for the 16% interest rate.

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing a multimillion dollar auction house is trying to squeeze $200/month out of a consignor until $15K comes through the auction process to cover the advance when they expect to get a $40K take in the end if indeed the consignment is worth at least 6 figures.

Could be the conflict got out of hand and both sides have dug in but the pittance of $200 a month makes no sense although I assume it could be true.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by rand1com

Sorry, but I have a hard time believing a multimillion dollar auction house is trying to squeeze $200/month out of a consignor until $15K comes through the auction process to cover the advance when they expect to get a $40K take in the end if indeed the consignment is worth at least 6 figures.

Could be the conflict got out of hand and both sides have dug in but the pittance of $200 a month makes no sense although I assume it could be true.

I’m also unfamiliar with how these arrangements work, so I’ll speculate wildly based on my general experience in analogous situations from my professional life.

But having said that, I don’t get why they would be hassling him about the interest now. Just tack it onto the amounts you deduct from the 60% paid to the consignor. Seems a lot easier to just wait until the items sell, collect the payments from the winners, and then net the advance plus interest out of the amount you pay to the consignor. Shaking down the consignor for a few hundred bucks in interest now seems like an exercise in futility.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by daves_resale_shop

Also stated that the cost of authentication will be shared with the consignor… important to note is that not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked… seems like a pretty hefty consignment fee to pay for only the good stuff.

It's still pretty unclear exactly what was taken. The OP said not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked, but he never really said how much was taken or how much of the 2 trucks that showed up were filled. There's a lot of unknowns still, and the OP hasn't bothered to come back and answer any of the questions or provide any more information about exactly what was taken.

[savedfrommyspokes]

Originally Posted by jayshum

the OP hasn't bothered to come back and answer any of the questions or provide any more information about exactly what was taken.

Maybe the OP can't find the thread.

Also, not clear why the OP felt so pressured to enter into this agreement w/o taking the time to "shop" his collection around to other AH. In the scheme of things, what would a few more days be...does not appear any of his products have even been sold yet, two plus months later.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by savedfrommyspokes

Maybe the OP can't find the thread.

Also, not clear why the OP felt so pressured to enter into this agreement w/o taking the time to "shop" his collection around to other AH. In the scheme of things, what would a few more days be...does not appear any of his products have even been sold yet, two plus months later.

Indeed. And at least two major auction houses are in his area, and perhaps others I am missing. Even a phone call to get ballpark reactions to the first proposal.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by daves_resale_shop

Also stated that the cost of authentication will be shared with the consignor… important to note is that not everything was taken and the collection was cherry picked… seems like a pretty hefty consignment fee to pay for only the good stuff.

I think the contract indicates authentication would be on their dime with the "No additional fees", but this contract is so... poorly written that its difficult to be certain of much.





The OP proved some of his claims by producing the contract, but other claims by him and his surrogates need to be proven, like this cherry picking claim and the 16% interest bill. IF these are true, they are easy to actually prove - there is an inventory list and there is a bill which can be produced to prove. The OP made a poor decision to sign a contract of what appears to be of his own free will at the time, and was wrong about the BP split (that part is understandable, seeing this vague contract and its unprofessional back of the napkin phrasing).

The other side has responded only with a vague statement that specifically only denies the BP split (on which they appear to be correct from the odd contract), delivered via a proxy who then moved the thread to the watercooler to lessen visibility and then made a provably false claim that a history of doing this with things that might end up not reflecting well on Lelands is' made up crap'. Unusual response if there is nothing to see here, but the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim. IF the collection was cherry picked for only the high value items, then 60/40 is absurd and IF he is getting billed for ridiculous 16% interest rates with a contract that mentions no interest rates at all, then Lelands is horribly in the wrong, but that's not proven. OP has shown evidence for half the claims, but should prove the other half or they do not have much of any validity.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the contract indicates authentication would be on their dime with the "No additional fees", but this contract is so... poorly written that its difficult to be certain of much.





The OP proved some of his claims by producing the contract, but other claims by him and his surrogates need to be proven, like this cherry picking claim and the 16% interest bill. IF these are true, they are easy to actually prove - there is an inventory list and there is a bill which can be produced to prove. The OP made a poor decision to sign a contract of what appears to be of his own free will at the time, and was wrong about the BP split (that part is understandable, seeing this vague contract and its unprofessional back of the napkin phrasing).

The other side has responded only with a vague statement that specifically only denies the BP split (on which they appear to be correct from the odd contract), delivered via a proxy who then moved the thread to the watercooler to lessen visibility and then made a provably false claim that a history of doing this with things that might end up not reflecting well on Lelands is' made up crap'. Unusual response if there is nothing to see here, but the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim. IF the collection was cherry picked for only the high value items, then 60/40 is absurd and IF he is getting billed for ridiculous 16% interest rates with a contract that mentions no interest rates at all, then Lelands is horribly in the wrong, but that's not proven. OP has shown evidence for half the claims, but should prove the other half or they do not have much of any validity.

Why does he need to prove his claim here? From his first of two posts, his apparent primary purpose was to try to find a lawyer to help him. That he has not returned suggests he does not care about the court of public opinion, and maybe he shouldn't, what good will it do him?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why does he need to prove his claim here? From his first of two posts, his apparent primary purpose was to try to find a lawyer to help him. That he has not returned suggests he does not care about the court of public opinion, and maybe he shouldn't, what good will it do him?

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

[Casey2296]

-
What Would Rusty Do?
-

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
What Would Rusty Do?
-

He'd sell me that jersey.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Mark17

He'd sell me that jersey.

It would look great in your collection Mark. Who knows maybe it's in OPs collection and coming to market soon.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

Well yes of course, if his objective is to convince people. But perhaps that was not his objective.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well yes of course, if his objective is to convince people. But perhaps that was not his objective.

Okay. I’m going to stick with an evidentiary basis to believe things.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

Maybe people see you as calling them a liar with your demands for proof. Could also be you have absolutely zero to offer in return for info many know. Many have this info because they can tell a real story of what happened but are smart enough to not add names. Why are you so "special" that you believe you deserve proof?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Maybe people see you as calling them a liar with your demands for proof. Could also be you have absolutely zero to offer in return for info many know. Many have this info because they can tell a real story of what happened but are smart enough to not add names. Why are you so "special" that you believe you deserve proof?

It's probably pointless to observe that requesting proof of a claim is not claiming the claim is a lie, and that asking for the proof of a claim made publicly to be shown publicly is not making me special in any way.

If one makes a public claim, I think one should show the proof publicly. Normally, this would be non-controversial common sense. If I say "X happened!", it is reasonable for someone to look at evidence to see if X did, in fact, happen. If I publicly made a claim that would be easy to prove and someone asked me for the proof, would you also start whining that they asked for that proof? Of course most things get hijacked into agendas that have little, if anything, to do with the actual claims.

[jingram058]

Some would argue that the world is flat, there was no Holocaust, that Apollo 11 astronauts never walked on the moon. They'll offer up all kinds of discussion and denial. Proof? My father in WW2 as a combat infantryman with the 99th Infantry Division, wounded in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, was involved in the "liberation" of one of those concentration camps. He would be ready to fist-fight any ignoramous who stated there was no Holocaust in his presence.