Missing Mantle Rookie at National

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Marchillo

It's easy to say split the cost but how about this scenario (Not saying this happened with the OP).

How about if someone owns some high end baseball cards and they are extremely careless with them and some of them get stolen. Then someone goes and buys one of these cards which could be 3 years worth of their card budget (Let's say its $30K). They have no knowledge of this card being stolen and now because of a careless seller they have to share the burden of cost.

Maybe legally this is what is supposed to happen but I don't think its fair and just that this unsuspecting buyer should be on the hook for any of this either.

Is there any insurance out there that covers dealers at shows? I know there are a couple of companies out there that do insurance but I would imagine someone offers insurance to people who sell items at shows/conventions etc.

I feel terrible for the OP and I hope he gets his card back. In no way am I implying he was careless, but I am throwing out a scenario that isn't black and white.

Agreed. There's a lot of scenario's, here's another. Let's say you have an unscrupulous seller (geez, that never happens ) and he reports a card stolen, but he made up the story for insurance purposes. That card is later traded/sold via private transaction by the seller who reported it stolen and then the card is sold a time or two even after that. Then the original seller who reported the card stolen finds out who currently owns it and says, "Wait a minute. That was my card. I reported it stolen. Here's the police report." And if I may borrow from part of your scenario, let's say the buyer saved 3 years of his card budget ($30K), why should he be out of $30K because of some fraudulent seller? I'm sorry, but just because someone reports something stolen DOES NOT make it theirs once the item turns up. You're right, it's not always that black and white.

I, too, am not implying that anything like that happened in this case, but there are too many scenarios to say just because someone reports something stolen and it later turns up that it should be returned to the one that reported it stolen.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed. There's a lot of scenario's, here's another. Let's say you have an unscrupulous seller (geez, that never happens ) and he reports a card stolen, but he made up the story for insurance purposes. That card is later traded/sold via private transaction by the seller who reported it stolen and then the card is sold a time or two even after that. Then the original seller who reported the card stolen finds out who currently owns it and says, "Wait a minute. That was my card. I reported it stolen. Here's the police report." And if I may borrow from part of your scenario, let's say the buyer saved 3 years of his card budget ($30K), why should he be out of $30K because of some fraudulent seller? I'm sorry, but just because someone reports something stolen DOES NOT make it theirs once the item turns up. You're right, it's not always that black and white.

I, too, am not implying that anything like that happened in this case, but there are too many scenarios to say just because someone reports something stolen and it later turns it that it should be returned to the one that reported it stolen.

This is one of the points I was making earlier. I never got a receipt from a card show or shop from a card I purchased. I could go sell some good cards then walk out of the show and call the cops saying my card have been stolen.


Jesse did you just say moral obligation? Thought you weren’t in to that kind of stuff. Why should someone who got anything stolen from them pay for it back?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

This is one of the points I was making earlier. I never got a receipt from a card show or shop from a card I purchased. I could go sell some good cards then walk out of the show and call the cops saying my card have been stolen.


Jesse did you just say moral obligation? Thought you weren’t in to that kind of stuff. Why should someone who got anything stolen from them pay for it back?

That's funny because after reading some of your posts I question your sense of morality as well. Since in the previously discussed situation there would now be two innocent victims I dont think it's right that either should have to eat 100% of the loss. A lot would depend on the specifics and what could be proven. But if I had a card stolen from me and someone reached out to me to say they bought it down the road for cash and didn't remember from who, I would be willing to work something out to get the card back.

[Rookiemonster]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

That's funny because after reading some of your posts I question your sense of morality as well. Since in the previously discussed situation there would now be two innocent victims I dont think it's right that either should have to eat 100% of the loss. A lot would depend on the specifics and what could be proven. But if I had a card stolen from me and someone reached out to me to say they bought it down the road for cash and didn't remember from who, I would be willing to work something out to get the card back.

I don’t see why you would question my morality. But I see what your saying like a my dog went missing reward. Not a bad idea but at the same time if I found someone’s dog I probably just give it back and say keep the reward money.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Rookiemonster

I don’t see why you would question my morality. But I see what your saying like a my dog went missing reward. Not a bad idea but at the same time if I found someone’s dog I probably just give it back and say keep the reward money.

And I dont see why you would question mine. I found dog is quite different than a purchased 5 or 10 grand Mantle RC.

[rainier2004]

So my understanding on this...

If you have property that was reported stolen, you cannot convey good title on that item. I believe the law dictates you go back to the person you bought the card from and get your money back, then they go to who they bought it from and get their money back and down the line. Even if the insurance has paid on a claim the property in still good as it belongs to the insurance company now.

There are several ways to handle it though very dependent on the specific circumstances.

That sucks to have your card stolen though...

[drcy]

Yes, with a stolen item, the item goes straight to the rightful owner (presumably the person that the item was stolen from), but you get the $$ refund from the person you bought it from. That's why they tell you to keep the receipt.

That's also why, despite criticism from the chatboard rabble ( ), auction houses are using sound legal judgment when they don't give refunds to a person who is not the direct buyer. If you think about it, giving a refund to a person who was not only wasn't the buyer but who you may have never met before is goofy. If they give the refund to anyone down the buying food chain, multiple people may be asking for full refunds on one item.

I remember on this board when someone wanted refund from the original auction house. Not only wasn't he the original buyer from the auction house, but he insisted the auction house pay what he paid for it years later and not what the auction house originally sold it for. He got angry when I said that that's not the way things work nor should work.

Along the lines of the above paragraph, I also find it amusing when collectors years after the fact assign rules and conditions to LOAs or auction house rules that appear nowhere on the LOA. "The LOA says one-year money back guarantee, but I think the should be lifetime triple money back guarantee. Everyone with me?" While he's at it, he might as include "Plus a new car and a date with Charlize Theron." And let me take a wild guess: he'd be pissed if the auction house retroactively changed the terms of the letter in their favor ("No, no, you've got it wrong. I've clearly just written in the margin that YOU owe ME a new car and date with Charlize Theron. No, just a second here, where's my pen?: 'Two cars.' No, wait, 'Plus you have to wear really ugly clothes for a year and tell people that your name is Butt.' Sorry, there's no more blank space on the letter to write on, so I win!")

[chalupacollects]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Agreed. There's a lot of scenario's, here's another. Let's say you have an unscrupulous seller (geez, that never happens ) and he reports a card stolen, but he made up the story for insurance purposes. That card is later traded/sold via private transaction by the seller who reported it stolen and then the card is sold a time or two even after that. Then the original seller who reported the card stolen finds out who currently owns it and says, "Wait a minute. That was my card. I reported it stolen. Here's the police report." And if I may borrow from part of your scenario, let's say the buyer saved 3 years of his card budget ($30K), why should he be out of $30K because of some fraudulent seller? I'm sorry, but just because someone reports something stolen DOES NOT make it theirs once the item turns up. You're right, it's not always that black and white.

I, too, am not implying that anything like that happened in this case, but there are too many scenarios to say just because someone reports something stolen and it later turns up that it should be returned to the one that reported it stolen.

I believe in that case if the original seller was paid by his/her insurance company, technically the card would belong to the insurance company not the original seller.... Though I would think that by blowing the whistle on it the original seller may open himself up to some unwanted legal scrutiny...

[LarryLegend33]

Hey all such a tragic thing to read about any update on the missing hope it’s found!

[LarryLegend33]

Is it crazy to ask how/why the building has no video or security? This victimized dealer is at very front of the room, correct?