After paying their dues, should hobbyists who committed fraud be allowed back ?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by BobC

So, if you were at a show or flea market and saw someone selling a card you wanted for half of what you believed it was worth, and you bought it, you'd automatically pay him/her double the asking price???

I would think it varies greatly by each situation and money is made buying cards not selling when a dealer. At least in my experiance.

On the other side I bought a card from a member that he had listed for months on here, I turned around and sold it for close to 10 times what I paid. I sent the guy I bought it from a nice cash gift.

On another occasion I bought a complete 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set from a member. When it arrived it was in way better condition than what I was looking for. He said he sold it cheap because he really needed the money. Shortly after his computer died so I bought him a new one.

So it can go both ways.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would think it varies greatly by each situation and money is made buying cards not selling when a dealer. At least in my experiance.

On the other side I bought a card from a member that he had listed for months on here, I turned around and sold it for close to 10 times what I paid. I sent the guy I bought it from a nice cash gift.

On another occasion I bought a complete 1959 Fleer Ted Williams set from a member. When it arrived it was in way better condition than what I was looking for. He said he sold it cheap because he really needed the money. Shortly after his computer died so I bought him a new one.

So it can go both ways.

What difference does it make if a person is a buyer or a seller, a dealer or collector? The implication was that paying someone less than what something may actually be worth is tantamount to being a crime, and the person getting the deal is therefore somehow a criminal. Otherwise, why resort to using a line like, "There is just all kinds of crime.", or reference the person buying the cards as being "morally bankrupt"?

In the poster's story the party with the cards approached the dealer looking to sell them, not the other way around. So, when the dealer makes him an initial offer to buy, and the seller accepts without making a counter-office, or maybe going around to others at the show first to see if someone else may offer more, why is it the dealer's fault the guy sold so low, and he's now possibly perceived as a morally bankrupt criminal as a result?

Remember, dealers are in business to make money so none of them are ever going to offer full market value to buy for what to them is simply inventory they need to make a profit on. So what, are all dealers now automatically morally bankrupt criminals of some sort for merely trying to turn a profit? And if you're going to argue that based on that story he paid too little, how do you know what that dealer's costs and expenses are, and therefore what profit margin he needs to make? In which case now you're subjectively, not objectively, making someone out to be some type of criminal.

Now, if the dealer went out of his way to lie to the guy and told him things like maybe the cards were fake, or that they were worth next to nothing due to condition or some other made up reason(s), now THAT is a different story. But based on all the person posting said about this, we don't know what the dealer may have said to this guy. So now it looks like this poster could be accusing this dealer of things based merely on assumptions which may be wrong. I don't know.

But my question to him was a legitimate question as to if that is how he felt about the dealer in his story, how would he act were he suddenly to be in a somewhat similar position to that dealer himself?

Ben, you're a good guy, and I get and applaud that you go out of your way to be fair in dealing with others. But you also did not imply someone may be morally bankrupt, or possibly some type of criminal, based on a story/event where all the pertinent and relevant facts may not be known.

[Peter_Spaeth]

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

[howard38]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

I would.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

I would feel ashamed as I whipped out my wallet and offered him $40.

[JollyElm]

I would say, "Even though I've got $60 into this Gregg Jefferies rookie card, I'll offer it up in a one-for-one trade."

[G1911]

Originally Posted by JollyElm

I would say, "Even though I've got $60 into this Gregg Jefferies rookie card, I'll offer it up in a one-for-one trade."

Give me the Donruss AND the Score Jeffries, and I'll do it!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

How often have we heard people on here talk about some of the great deals they've come across, or finding that rare variation that no one knows about and getting it for a song? Isn't that why many of us still go to flea markets and garage sales, hoping to come across that rare item no one knows about that we can purchase for a song. Heck, I remember threads here on the forum where it was discussed how you don't even try asking some advanced collectors about the rare cards or variants in certain sets, they wanted to keep that to themselves so as to keep down demand and competition, and if they did come across such rare and valuable cards, get them for as cheap as they could.

Over time, I've asked a lot of people questions on here they don't want to respond to and answer for whatever reasons, and that includes you. So instead of letting you blindside me and maybe try to put me down or belittle me in some manner by answering your question, lets first wait to see what the person I originally asked my question of has to say in response first. I wasn't the one implying anyone was morally bankrupt or possibly some kind of criminal for taking advantage of a deal that was offered to them, especially in a situation that we don't really know all the facts about either. Wouldn't things possibly be better served by you directing your question to that person making such implications, rather than deflecting and trying to change the narrative somehow. Or is that poster another friend of yours you somehow think you have to defend?

Here's a related question back at you then while we wait to hear back from this other person so I can then answer your question. You're a lawyer, so how about explaining to everyone about how contingent fees work. You, or some other attorney(s), agree to do work for someone not for your typical hourly rate or set fee, but for a specified percentage of whatever the client ends up getting. And let's say you have a client involved in a horrific accident that they will have life-long medical bills and issues from, and will need every cent they can get. An attorney, like yourself, takes the case for, what's a typical contingent fee rate attorneys charge these days, 30%, 35%, 40%? Let's say they take it for 35%, and low and behold, not too long after filing suit the other party caves and settles for $1MM, meaning you (or whatever attorney took the case) just made $350K. But here's the thing, you knew the defendant had no real assets to speak of, but did have a liability policy for $1MM. So you knew pretty quick from the start that you wouldn't really be able to get the client any more than that $1MM settlement, and also knew the defendant and their insurance company would likely settle quickly to minimize additional legal costs and expenses. But the thing is, they ended up agreeing and settling so quickly, even at your highest hourly rate you've ever charged, your bill would have only come to $35K, not the $350K contingent fee you're going to collect. And yet you know the client is going to need every penny they can get to help with their injuries for the rest of their life. So what do you, or most other attorneys that belong to your profession, do in such a case so you/they don't get accused of being morally bankrupt, or possibly even some kind of criminal?

And I'll give you an option for not waiting till after I hear back from the other poster first before I answer your question. Go and get an actual '52 Topps Mantle and actually offer it to for me $50, and I'll answer by how we go forward with the deal or not.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

How often have we heard people on here talk about some of the great deals they've come across, or finding that rare variation that no one knows about and getting it for a song? Isn't that why many of us still go to flea markets and garage sales, hoping to come across that rare item no one knows about that we can purchase for a song. Heck, I remember threads here on the forum where it was discussed how you don't even try asking some advanced collectors about the rare cards or variants in certain sets, they wanted to keep that to themselves so as to keep down demand and competition, and if they did come across such rare and valuable cards, get them for as cheap as they could.

Over time, I've asked a lot of people questions on here they don't want to respond to and answer for whatever reasons, and that includes you. So instead of letting you blindside me and maybe try to put me down or belittle me in some manner by answering your question, lets first wait to see what the person I originally asked my question of has to say in response first. I wasn't the one implying anyone was morally bankrupt or possibly some kind of criminal for taking advantage of a deal that was offered to them, especially in a situation that we don't really know all the facts about either. Wouldn't things possibly be better served by you directing your question to that person making such implications, rather than deflecting and trying to change the narrative somehow. Or is that poster another friend of yours you somehow think you have to defend?

Here's a related question back at you then while we wait to hear back from this other person so I can then answer your question. You're a lawyer, so how about explaining to everyone about how contingent fees work. You, or some other attorney(s), agree to do work for someone not for your typical hourly rate or set fee, but for a specified percentage of whatever the client ends up getting. And let's say you have a client involved in a horrific accident that they will have life-long medical bills and issues from, and will need every cent they can get. An attorney, like yourself, takes the case for, what's a typical contingent fee rate attorneys charge these days, 30%, 35%, 40%? Let's say they take it for 35%, and low and behold, not too long after filing suit the other party caves and settles for $1MM, meaning you (or whatever attorney took the case) just made $350K. But here's the thing, you knew the defendant had no real assets to speak of, but did have a liability policy for $1MM. So you knew pretty quick from the start that you wouldn't really be able to get the client any more than that $1MM settlement, and also knew the defendant and their insurance company would likely settle quickly to minimize additional legal costs and expenses. But the thing is, they ended up agreeing and settling so quickly, even at your highest hourly rate you've ever charged, your bill would have only come to $35K, not the $350K contingent fee you're going to collect. And yet you know the client is going to need every penny they can get to help with their injuries for the rest of their life. So what do you, or most other attorneys that belong to your profession, do in such a case so you/they don't get accused of being morally bankrupt, or possibly even some kind of criminal?

And I'll give you an option for not waiting till after I hear back from the other poster first before I answer your question. Go and get an actual '52 Topps Mantle and actually offer it to for me $50, and I'll answer by how we go forward with the deal or not.

I move to strike that answer as completely non responsive. Motion allowed. What on earth do contingent fee arrangements have to do with my question? SMH.

[G1911]

It’s a gift to use so many words to say absolutely nothing

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s a gift to use so many words to say absolutely nothing

The many many many words is the best part.

Plus the biggest and by far most important question has not been addressed yet. Who is the criminal friends with? Really that seems to be by far the most important thing.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

So Bob, if someone who truly had no idea what they had offered you a nice 311 Mantle for $50, would you just pull out your wallet?

Leon's poll and question was should a person convicted of a hobby fraud be allowed on here as a member and so far in the thread it has escalated to comparing that to a second chance in society in general to people that have committed crimes outside the hobby being accepted here and back in society. Now we're involving the moral issue which can get very broad.

Peter, if you purchased an old book at an antique store and when you got home you found a T206 Wagner in it would you take it back to the antique store?

[HexsHeroes]

.
.
Andy (CobbSpikedMe) shared my opinion and points too.

Many of us have heard the saying “Screw me once, shame on you; Screw me twice, shame on me”. Key is not putting yourself in position or environment inwhich second occurrence may take place. That includes who you associate or socialize with. I do not pretend to live in a bubble but I do have limited ability to choose some of what happens around me or am exposed to.

Caveat Emptor is reminded occasionally when dealing in B/S/T area. Do we need to raise that level of concern in forum space by knowingly adding individual(s) with checkered past to Old Cardboard membership ?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

Leon's poll and question was should a person convicted of a hobby fraud be allowed on here as a member and so far in the thread it has escalated to comparing that to a second chance in society in general to people that have committed crimes outside the hobby being accepted here and back in society. Now we're involving the moral issue which can get very broad.

Peter, if you purchased an old book at an antique store and when you got home you found a T206 Wagner in it would you take it back to the antique store?

Pat interesting question. That feels more like just dumb luck than taking advantage of someone, but it probably could be argued the other way too.

[chalupacollects]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
Leon's poll and question was should a person convicted of a hobby fraud be allowed on here as a member and so far in the thread it has escalated to comparing that to a second chance in society in general to people that have committed crimes outside the hobby being accepted here and back in society. Now we're involving the moral issue which can get very broad.

Peter, if you purchased an old book at an antique store and when you got home you found a T206 Wagner in it would you take it back to the antique store?

Pat interesting question. That feels more like just dumb luck than taking advantage of someone, but it probably could be argued the other way too.

I would think that finding a T206 in a book that you bought and taking it back would be more of a moral issue rather than a hobby crime one.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by chalupacollects

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pat R View Post
Leon's poll and question was should a person convicted of a hobby fraud be allowed on here as a member and so far in the thread it has escalated to comparing that to a second chance in society in general to people that have committed crimes outside the hobby being accepted here and back in society. Now we're involving the moral issue which can get very broad.

Peter, if you purchased an old book at an antique store and when you got home you found a T206 Wagner in it would you take it back to the antique store?

Pat interesting question. That feels more like just dumb luck than taking advantage of someone, but it probably could be argued the other way too.

I would think that finding a T206 in a book that you bought and taking it back would be more of a moral issue rather than a hobby crime one.

So buying the Mantle for $50 is a crime?

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pat interesting question. That feels more like just dumb luck than taking advantage of someone, but it probably could be argued the other way too.

We could change the timing a bit and make it less about luck. What if you noticed the Wagner in the book before you bought it, would you buy the book anyway?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

We could change the timing a bit and make it less about luck. What if you noticed the Wagner in the book before you bought it, would you buy the book anyway?

Fine use of the Socratic method.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by raulus

We could change the timing a bit and make it less about luck. What if you noticed the Wagner in the book before you bought it, would you buy the book anyway?

Why would you buy the book when you can just put the Wagner in your pocket and walk out? Buying the book at that point makes no sense.

[Pat R]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pat interesting question. That feels more like just dumb luck than taking advantage of someone, but it probably could be argued the other way too.

That's why I asked Peter, because there's probably a lot wider range of opinions on moral issues. Morally I personally think the Wagner example would be worse than the Mantle or even the Cracker Jacks because if someone can't spend 20 seconds on their phone or computer to google mantle card or they take the first offer on a cigar box full of cards at a show where there are other dealers then they played a big part in the bad deal they got. With the Wagner the person who sold or consigned the book and the antique dealer most likely wouldn't know it was in there.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Pat R

That's why I asked Peter, because there's probably a lot wider range of opinions on moral issues. Morally I personally think the Wagner example would be worse than the Mantle or even the Cracker Jacks because if someone can't spend 20 seconds on their phone or computer to google mantle card or they take the first offer on a cigar box full of cards at a show where there are other dealers then they played a big part in the bad deal they got. With the Wagner the person who sold or consigned the book and the antique dealer most likely wouldn't know it was in there.

Maybe the reason for my gut distinction is that the Mantle hypo is face to face, but the Wagner isn't, and there's no deal to be made, the book owner has already given up the book? Not sure.