Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

I don't think it's necessarily obfuscation. For example some of the descriptions in LOTG are pretty flowery but I think that just reflects Al's enthusiasm. Also I can't dispute the proposition that it's good marketing, and if I were a consignor I would probably like it.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's necessarily obfuscation. For example some of the descriptions in LOTG are pretty flowery but I think that just reflects Al's enthusiasm. Also I can't dispute the proposition that it's good marketing, and if I were a consignor I would probably like it.

Since I've written up over a thousand lots in my days as an auction house owner, I found there are three main things one needs to do:

1) Write an accurate description of a lot's physical characteristics and condition.
2) Supply historical context where it applies ( more so for memorabilia than cards).
3) Offer a little bit of hype to make the lot seem as appealing as possible.

It's a bit of a balancing act and you don't always get it exactly right. Some are really good at it, others offer nothing more than endless hype, just sentence after sentence stating that a particular lot is the greatest thing ever offered. Meanwhile, the auction house has no idea why the lot is important in the context of baseball history.

And I do agree that LOTG does about as good a job as anybody of balancing the three. And Al has a good sense of humor to boot. But I've read other auction descriptions that are simply cringe worthy and embarrassing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Since I've written up over a thousand lots in my days as an auction house owner, I found there are three main things one needs to do:

1) Write an accurate description of a lot's physical characteristics and condition.
2) Supply historical context where it applies ( more so for memorabilia than cards).
3) Offer a little bit of hype to make the lot seem as appealing as possible.

It's a bit of a balancing act and you don't always get it exactly right. Some are really good at it, others offer nothing more than endless hype, just sentence after sentence stating that a particular lot is the greatest thing ever offered. Meanwhile, the auction house has no idea why the lot is important in the context of baseball history.


And I do agree that LOTG does about as good a job as anybody of balancing the three. And Al has a good sense of humor to boot. But I've read other auction descriptions that are simply cringe worthy and embarrassing.

One of my all time faves was in an old Drent catalog, he described a card as having the colors of a Hawaiian sunset. Bussineau used to have some doozies too, in fact he may have been the pioneer of the over the top write-ups. He was creative though -- "antique white" as a euphemism for toning, for example.