Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

As if you are objective.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As if you are objective.

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Leon]

I don't think Legendary purposely left out the mention of the holes or purposely made small scans to deceive. They should make their scans a bit larger, that is what they are guilty of. But they are 1s, if they look too good, you know there has to be an issue. I told David what I thought before he started this thread.....and if I were the auction house would have probably helped a little bit to offset the decreased value of the pinholes.....but not a lot.

I help run a smaller auction so it's not apples to apples, but I prefer to have very large scans, which take some time to do, instead of flowery descriptions.....

[nolemmings]

I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed.

Your assumption was reasonable. It would not have been difficult to identify the pinholes-- I searched their auction using the term "pinhole" and found 19 lots where that term was used. Granted, almost all were raw cards that perhaps merit a more thorough description, but 2-3 graded wrappers included the term in the description. I also noted a lot of 12 T205s where the scans of individual cards were larger and appeared clearer than these Oxfords.
I believe it a fair question to ask whether these scans were shown as they are on purpose and whether the omission of the pinholes in the description was deliberate.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

Dan, that is probably the best rebuttal to the question of Legendary's culpability so far.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

Because they have cards I want.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

Exactly.

I can see why someone would want the cards, a sizeable lot of cool prewar cards in good shape for the grade. My first thought on seeing the scans was they were tiny, with no way to blow them up. And where were the back scans? Backs to me show what can not be seen on the front when it comes to serious damage, such as creases, pin holes, tears. Especially with crappy scans. These are worthy of an ebay cheapo screw the buyer auction. Smells of evasion to me. Buyer beware...oh yeah, that is why we are all reading this.

One note. My eyes are not the best, a reason I tend to buy graded cards. My point here is AH know this is typical of older customers and still do this type of piss-poor presentation. I would not do business with this house, except for Leon's rule: they have what I want.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by drmondobueno

Exactly.

I can see why someone would want the cards, a sizeable lot of cool prewar cards in good shape for the grade. My first thought on seeing the scans was they were tiny, with no way to blow them up. And where were the back scans? Backs to me show what can not be seen on the front when it comes to serious damage, such as creases, pin holes, tears. Especially with crappy scans. These are worthy of an ebay cheapo screw the buyer auction. Smells of evasion to me. Buyer beware...oh yeah, that is why we are all reading this.

One note. My eyes are not the best, a reason I tend to buy graded cards. My point here is AH know this is typical of older customers and still do this type of piss-poor presentation. I would not do business with this house, except for Leon's rule: they have what I want.

They actually did post the back scans, which is how I knew about the back damage.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

Not as many as they used to. Tick, tock.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As if you are objective.

But Jeff's alleged lack of objectivity is based on the fact that your client is a POS and there's an abundance of evidence, both objective and subjective, to support that fact.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

But Jeff's alleged lack of objectivity is based on the fact that your client is a POS and there's an abundance of evidence, both objective and subjective, to support that fact.

Wait I am only defending the guy in David's hypothetical, not Legendary, Jesus!! LOL

[vargha]

Originally Posted by 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.

It certainly looks very suspicious, but I'm not willing to go as far as to say that the omission on the condition was definitely done on purpose without doing more investigation. And even then, I still would be basing an opinion on the so-called "preponderance of evidence". Let me ask you this. What do you feel would be an appropriate response if they only found out about it on my phone call?

[Rob D.]

Despite the fact that I think Legendary is in the wrong here, the Mystery Theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by rob d.

despite the fact that i think legendary is in the wrong here, the mystery theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

lololololol

[vargha]

By the way, to clarify . . . what I am calling holes/pinholes are pinhole width, but are as long as 1/4" (more like a razor blade cut in shape).

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Despite the fact that I think Legendary is in the wrong here, the Mystery Theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

I'll post what actually happened and what was said by noon CST tomorrow. I'll also post my thoughts about this specifically and in general so we can have something to argue about the rest of the day tomorrow.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vargha

I'll post what actually happened and what was said by noon CST tomorrow. I'll also post my thoughts about this specifically and in general so we can have something to argue about the rest of the day tomorrow.

You stated in an earlier post that you thought SGC overgraded one of your cards. Did you return that card stating that you thought it was over graded? If so I will not continue to LOL and take you serious.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by bnorth

You stated in an earlier post that you thought SGC overgraded one of your cards. Did you return that card stating that you thought it was over graded? If so I will not continue to LOL and take you serious.

Hi Ben, you may continue your laughing as I neither discussed or disputed the the grades with SGC, including the ones that I felt were undergraded. Like I said, pre-war black and white cards, and especially the ice cream cards and the York Caramel cards seem to have a wide disparity in some of the grades of 5 and lower. But these were for issues like centering and cut, not material like holes in cards. Furthermore, they graded my raw cards, they didn't sell me graded cards with less than complete information.