Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Rob D.]

If this thread was about some anonymous seller on eBay and a $100 card, the Net54 torches and pitchforks would be out.

Why is the onus on the bidder? It takes no more effort on the part of an auction house to post larger scans that would more clearly show problems on the cards.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

From Legendary's About Us Page:

"Our goal is your total satisfaction with the presentation of your fine collectibles. We do whatever it takes."

[Fred]

I would have requested larger scans.

Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes your're the windshield...

What's the last thing a bug sees as he hits the windshield?

Just out of curiosity, what did Legendary say?

[Cardboard Junkie]

Major flaws such as holes and paper loss/trimming etc. should specifically be mentioned in an items description. Auction descriptions should aim at accuracy not puffery.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Fred

I would have requested larger scans.

Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes your're the windshield...

What's the last thing a bug sees as he hits the windshield?

Just out of curiosity, what did Legendary say?

Fred, I'll cover that at the end, then we can discuss Legendary and me on our thought processes. For now, I wanted to eliminate a little bit of the personal and discuss this as if it were the proverbial "friend of mine".

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

If this thread was about some anonymous seller on eBay and a $100 card, the Net54 torches and pitchforks would be out.

Why is the onus on the bidder? It takes no more effort on the part of an auction house to post larger scans that would more clearly show problems on the cards.

Agree 100% it takes two seconds to put up a good scan and all this drama goes away.

Heritage for example may be slow on shipping for some but those boys know how to put up a proper scan when they list an item.

[Duluth Eskimo]

This is not quite the same, but I have a feeling you may have been treated the same. Many years ago I bid on a rare vintage program in a Mastro auction. I was willing to pay whatever it took to win it as it was pretty much one of a kind and I wanted it for my collection. I won it, of course at my high bid. Anyways, I received the program only to find out the entire 8 page program was torn in half through the middle of the program. You could not see it in the photos because the tears lined up almost perfectly and nowhere in the description did it mention this or any significant wear. I was pissed. I spoke to Doug Allen about this and he basically said, "Oh well, you should have asked more questions prior to bidding". This entire thread basically overstates my opinion of that answer. I wanted the program as it was pretty much one of a kind, but thought I paid significantly more than I would have if the program would have been accurately described. I will admit that they did offer to re-auction the program, but I wanted the program even with the tear, but obviously thought I was getting screwed. Bottom line is Doug Allen said, "We will refund you $100, take it or leave it". I took it as I wanted an example of this program in my collection, but it left a very bad taste in my mouth and I got my first example at how Mastro and his crew did business. Some may say I should have re-auctioned the program, but I chose not to and I still have the program. I did choose not to do business with these people anymore nor give them any material to sell or referrals . Not sure how your issue will turn out, but I will say this "when you deal with the devil you are bound to get burned". I hope you get treated better.

[nolemmings]

Note the date. Lichtman and Schultz on the same side of an argument.

I know. I'm thinking of having myself tested. I'm hoping it's just the stress of the Holidays.

[Rich Klein]

You know I enjoy a good thread like this every day of the week but if the cards are SGC 10's you know something is up with them.

Yes the scans should be bigger but you felt comfortable at your price level and since you knew they were 10's, you could have figured out (You are a smart man) that something else was wrong with them.

Could you post the cards with the updated scans so we can all see what you are talking about. Otherwise there is no visual evidence

Rich

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

You know I enjoy a good thread like this every day of the week but if the cards are SGC 10's you know something is up with them.

Yes the scans should be bigger but you felt comfortable at your price level and since you knew they were 10's, you could have figured out (You are a smart man) that something else was wrong with them.

Could you post the cards with the updated scans so we can all see what you are talking about. Otherwise there is no visual evidence

Rich

Rich, I'll post scans when I list them to sell. As to the "visual evidence", either you believe my story or you believe that I am stirring up a sh*t storm to besmirch someone's good name for no apparent reason. I'll let you decide where the truth lies, and I will feel comfortable with your conclusion either way.

To your main points, did you even look at the scans? I provided a direct link to the lot on the very first post. Based on their appearances, did they look too good to be 1's? And lastly, are you now introducing intelligence as a factor for disclosure? If so, how un-smart would a person need to be to place some responsibility at the feet of the seller?

[steve B]

This one's a bit difficult.

First, I'm not familiar with these, does a pinhole vs a mass of creases make a huge difference in price? They're about equal to me, but if the issue is prone to that sort of hole which sounds like a poorly applied staple, then maybe unstapled but creased would be more desirable.

The scans weren't great. Not even close. Even zoomed in I couldn't see the damage, aside from the scrapbook damage.

But to me, a 10 is going to have some sort of major problem. So I might ask exactly what the problem is.

The other examples, both real and hypothetical don't work for me as they're not quite comparable. The torn program is pretty obviously a bad deal, the hypothetical card with a tear and seller only saying "no holes" when asked about holes is closer, but there the question was asked and only answering the specific question would be pretty sneaky.

When selling I typically went with good scans or pictures, and a brief description. If someone wanted more details I'd do my best to answer.

Also a poor example, but I had a similar issue with an ebay item. A block of four stamps, that turned out to not actually be a block. I waited a day before calling the seller, and realized that because of condition I'd actually make money if I sold them individually. But I called him anyway since the helper had certainly made a misleading scan and listing and I figured he should know. He didn't seem all that interested. (Big seller, with loads of lots and staff)

I think the real catch is here - Relevant line highlighted

Originally Posted by vargha

To your main points, did you even look at the scans? I provided a direct link to the lot on the very first post. Based on their appearances, did they look too good to be 1's? And lastly, are you now introducing intelligence as a factor for disclosure? If so, how un-smart would a person need to be to place some responsibility at the feet of the seller?

Yeah, if you were gambling that the cards were undergraded and might do better a second time around or graded with another company I can see some disappointment. And maybe some reluctance to ask since that might be added to the description if it looked correct.
Nothing against gambling on grades, but sometimes it doesn't work out, and that's on the buyer if they don't ask. (I've taken a chance on a few graded cards and more ungraded, won a few lost a few, that's the breaks.)

Steve B