Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[nsaddict]

Perhaps bigger scans or the potential bidder could have requested such as many have stated. But we are talking about sgc 10's...what was expected??

[bobbyw8469]

Agreed! We are talking about the lowest grade SGC gives?!?!?

[Rob D.]

I don't know how many times on this board I've read people's comments about how the eye appeal of a slabbed card with a low grade can vary so greatly. Think about how many good-looking cards you've seen in "1" holders. Now think about how many absolute dogs you've seen in "1" holders.

Making the argument that "It's a 1, what'd you expect?" actually would hold more weight if the card were a 7 or 8. If you're willing to buy cards just based on a "1" on the flip, you are going to have cards in your collection that run the gamut in both eye appeal and technical flaws.

That said, most of this is moot. The seller is a freaking auction house, not grandpas_attic on eBay. Post larger scans. It's not that hard.

[Leon]

David, the OP, emailed me this evening and is having internet/computer issues or he would have already responded again. I am sure he will as soon as he can.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

David, the OP, emailed me this evening and is having internet/computer issues or he would have already responded again. I am sure he will as soon as he can.

I thought he had already vanished for another 3 years or however long it's been since we last saw David post.

[buymycards]

Really? Ask for larger scans? These cards sold for over $150 each. I have better scans on my ebay page for a $3 John Elway card. Legendary is just too - lazy? unprofessional? oblivious? - to provide decent scans and a complete description.

Rick

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nsaddict

Perhaps bigger scans or the potential bidder could have requested such as many have stated. But we are talking about sgc 10's...what was expected??

So to play devil's advocate, lets say I have an SGC 10 that was ripped horizontally in the lower half, about a third of the way across the card. As it lays it in the slab, it isn't obvious at first blush in a smaller scan but is obvious when looked at with the naked eye. I list it on eBay with smaller scans. A bidder asks if there are any holes in the card that can't be seen. To gain credibility I post his question on my auction and "guarantee" that there are no holes. Am I still cool? It's an SGC 10 after all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

David -- as Robert Bork once said, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

David -- as Robert Bork once said, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom.

I'm more of a "black and white" guy. So to me, I believe often in arguing to the ad absurdum because it shows where a person's true principals and values lie. It's like the old joke where a man asks a woman at a bar if she will go to bed with him for a million dollars. She says, "For a million dollars? Sure." He then asks her if she will go to bed with him for twenty dollars. Insulted, she exclaims, "Twenty dollars! Just what do you think I am?" The man calmly replies, "We've already established that. Now we are just negotiating price."

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by vargha

I'm more of a "black and white" guy. So to me, I believe often in arguing to the ad absurdum because it shows where a person's true principals and values lie. It's like the old joke where a man asks a woman at a bar if she will go to bed with him for a million dollars. She says, "For a million dollars? Sure." He then asks her if she will go to bed with him for twenty dollars. Insulted, she exclaims, "Twenty dollars! Just what do you think I am?" The man calmly replies, "We've already established that. Now we are just negotiating price."

LOL. Good one. But the problem with the Socratic method is that one can push virtually any principle to its extremes and find a fact pattern where it doesn't fit. But that doesn't necessarily undermine the principle.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by vargha

So to play devil's advocate, lets say I have an SGC 10 that was ripped horizontally in the lower half, about a third of the way across the card. As it lays it in the slab, it isn't obvious at first blush in a smaller scan but is obvious when looked at with the naked eye. I list it on eBay with smaller scans. A bidder asks if there are any holes in the card that can't be seen. To gain credibility I post his question on my auction and "guarantee" that there are no holes. Am I still cool? It's an SGC 10 after all.

According to Peter, you're cool. You didn't affirmatively misrepresent anything and your omission doesn't matter. I'm sure he would be willing to represent you in the resulting lawsuit.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

According to Peter, you're cool. You didn't affirmatively misrepresent anything and your omission doesn't matter. I'm sure he would be willing to represent you in the resulting lawsuit.

Paying client? Damn straight.

[Kenny Cole]

Yep, if the client can pay to defend a fraud, that's much better than if they can't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yep, if the client can pay to defend a fraud, that's much better than if they can't.

You can take the case on a contingency and then give the client objective advice on whether to take my settlement offer.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You can take the case on a contingency and then give the client objective advice on whether to take my settlement offer.

No. I would always try that case because your client is a POS and that matters to juries.

[calvindog]

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

[tbob]

I went back and looked at the original listing. Legendary normally uses an increased size scan when you click the scan and then one more larger scan when you click the "magnifying glass" icon. In this case, clicking the magnifying glass icon didn't increase the picture. If it had, there wouldn't have been a problem.
The problems with SGC 10s are they vary all over the place from horribly trashed cards to nice looking cards which might just have some back problems. I wish there were a way to grade cards SGC 50 BPL (paper loss on back) or SGC 50 WOB (writing on back). That would be more helpful and fair but I guess it causes more work for the company and some collectors wouldn't care for it.