Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Am I the only one on this board that believes that the bidders on these cards Got a big middle finger from the auction house.

We are truly in a sad state in this industry.

Johnny Marsili

ML seems to have been in a no win situation. I think most auction houses are going to err on the side of doing what's best for the consignors if that is different from what is best for the bidders.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

ML seems to have been in a no win situation. I think most auction houses are going to err on the side of doing what's best for the consignors if that is different from what is best for the bidders.

What's best for their eithical duties is to disclose it and end bidding on the stolen cards

Consignor and bidders have all been slighted it needs to be fair this has not been.

ML should have done the right ethical thing. I don't believe that was fully done in this case that's it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

What's best for their eithical duties is to disclose it and end bidding on the stolen cards

Consignor and bidders have all been slighted it needs to be fair this has not been.

ML should have done the right ethical thing. I don't believe that was fully done in this case that's it.

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

Peter i respect your views and commentary. This is black and white there is no gray area here for me. I'm not saying you're making defenses for them but doesn't their insurance cover the theft in itself right then and there? Not a sale of cards they do not have in their possession and the end of said auction.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

Peter i respect your views and commentary. This is black and white there is no gray area here for me. I'm not saying you're making defenses for them but doesn't their insurance cover the theft in itself right then and there? Not a sale of cards they do not have in their possession and the end of said auction.

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

If the auction was clean, and assuming the card was stolen during the auction, why isn't that as good a valuation point as any? Or are you saying you just did a fraudulent listing after the fact?

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

So I list a card on eBay in an auction I don’t have the card the sale ends. I reach out to the buyer and I say the cards were stolen. I don’t have them and then I try to recoup that sale price as the value of my card I don’t think any insurance companies gonna pay that number because I never possess the card at the end of the sale.

Your case is completely different from what happened with ML. You never owned or had in possession these cards you listed on ebay. Getting insurance on items you never had and then claiming they were stolen to try get insurance reimbursement is fraud. ML actually had these cards in their possession at one point and took a blanket insurance on them. Of course, they would get reimbursed with the amount depending on the details of their policy. Nothing fraudulent there.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

It's not the same thing. The auction was in progress, and perhaps they were given reason to believe recovery was likely. The intent was not to run a phantom auction.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

What part of "they were working with authorities, the insurance company, counsel, and other hobby veterans to determine the best route" do you not understand? There is no doubt in my mind those were the folks helping ML make their decisions. And at the end of the day it was JP's call.
And imo, he did exactly what they should have done.

As far as getting the cards there; they got there. That wasn't a problem. The problem was a thief (or thieves) at the hotel.
.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

I agree 100%.

Yes the auctions of the stolen cards "screwed" the winners (and arguably many underbidders) but ultimately it was the best way to determine definitive values of items for their consignors. Who they are paying in full.

That's really all that matters in my mind, regardless of all the made up scenarios I've read so far (I'm at post #179) in this thread.

Bravo to Memory Lane.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

Imagine all the people who stayed up two extra hours though, Gary.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by glchen

I would respond to this is there anyone with standing in this case upset that ML did them wrong? That is, are there any consignors who had some of their cards stolen or any winning bidders who will not receive their winnings due to their cards being stolen think that ML did them wrong? All of the consignors and winning bidders who have posted so far seem very understanding to ML, and are instead upset at the thieves who stole the cards. I really don't think folks should be blowing this up more than necessary. If ML were unethical, who are the victims here that are upset with them?

+1

It was the best solution for a bad situation. What if the cards had been recovered before the close of auction? Unlikely but a possibility.

This way you have established current FMV on cards that would have been difficult to establish value otherwise.

You have established who the card belongs to if/when they are recovered.

You have established a solid value to compensate the consignors.

You have mitigated layers of litigation.

Yes it sucks and hindsight is what it is but I don't see a better solution.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

What I hear you saying, which is clear, is that ML did what was easiest and best for THEM. That does not mean what they did was ethical or right.

They auctioned off cards they did not have. They created fake sales to serve a purpose other than to complete sales. Isn't that, basically, lying to bidders? It certainly is misleading them to a huge degree, and I don't see how that can be defended.

What should've happened:

1. Immediately close those auction listings.
2. If the cards are not recovered, establish values for insurance purposes the standard way. It's done all the time, without staging fake auction listings.
3. If the cards are recovered, offer the consigners a return, or a discounted listing in a subsequent auction.

But don't use your trusting bidders for your own purposes, to their detriment.

Well, just to continue the discussion for argument's sake, what detriment?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, just to continue the discussion for argument's sake, what detriment?

Bidding, thinking it's an honest auction, then learning you've been used, is detriment enough. But consider the bidders who were shuffling assets around, selling things off, in preparation of needing money to pay for anticipated winnings. Could such a bidder "prove damages?" Maybe not. But being chumped is, again IMHO, not okay.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Perhaps, but on the other hand, that potentially means 50+ disputes with consignors about how much to reimburse them, assuming they in fact have coverage disputes with the insurance company over values, not to mention the gut punch that would deal to the rest of the auction.

It’s definitely more convenient to cover it up and hold a fake auction.

This is the only hobby I’ve been a part of where convenience is considered an appropriate reason to do the wrong thing, to cover things up, to lie, or to host frauds. I’m sure it’s not the only one, but my other hobbies have been so much cleaner than this.

That it is more convenient to do X is not really a justification for X, and we all would think that if I was the seller instead of an auction house many people like.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s definitely more convenient to cover it up and hold a fake auction.

This is the only hobby I’ve been a part of where convenience is considered an appropriate reason to do the wrong thing, to cover things up, to lie, or to host frauds. I’m sure it’s not the only one, but my other hobbies have been so much cleaner than this.

That it is more convenient to do X is not really a justification for X, and we all would think that if I was the seller instead of an auction house many people like.

Sane question. Who was hurt, and how?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sane question. Who was hurt, and how?

To be clear, your argument is that if I cannot prove definable injury to anyone, lying is okay? You think it would be acceptable for me to do this in the BST and reveal after the auction I didn’t have the cards, they’d been stolen and I said nothing, but I needed to value them for my insurance claim, thanks for bidding in this farce, because, since nobody paid, nobody had a definable fiscal damage?


I think we all know not a single person would support this if it was not an auction house many like.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

To be clear, your argument is that if I cannot prove definable injury to anyone, lying is okay? You think it would be acceptable for me to do this in the BST and reveal after the auction I didn’t have the cards, they’d been stolen and I said nothing, but I needed to value them for my insurance claim, thanks for bidding in this farce, because, since nobody paid, nobody had a definable fiscal damage?


I think we all know not a single person would support this if it was not an auction house many like.

It also directly affects one of if not the most popular and respected members. And that’s a fair consideration but I have a sense folks would not be so forgiving if it didn’t. Just my two cents.

[Mark17]

.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

It’s definitely more convenient to cover it up and hold a fake auction.

This is the only hobby I’ve been a part of where convenience is considered an appropriate reason to do the wrong thing, to cover things up, to lie, or to host frauds. I’m sure it’s not the only one, but my other hobbies have been so much cleaner than this.

That it is more convenient to do X is not really a justification for X, and we all would think that if I was the seller instead of an auction house many people like.

Agree.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I think most auction houses are going to err on the side of doing what's best for the consignors if that is different from what is best for the bidders.

In PA, our fiduciary duty is, indeed, to our consignors.