Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Obviously I get what you're saying, it just strikes me as a unique and uniquely bad situation where there are countervailing considerations that make it a more nuanced question.

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

[calvindog]

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

I won a couple of lots with bids that held up in ML, but I spent 6 figures on Goldin earlier that night and felt it might be best to exercise some self-control with ML. And no I don’t represent ML and never have.

Edited to add: I would have possibly run up some cards in ML that I already own but I didn’t want to get caught holding the bag and have to buy those cards if I wasn’t outbid. You know how that goes, no fun at all.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I won a couple of lots with bids that held up in ML, but I spent 6 figures on Goldin earlier that night and felt it might be best to exercise some self-control with ML. And no I don’t represent ML and never have.

Edited to add: I would have possibly run up some cards in ML that I already own but I didn’t want to get caught holding the bag and have to buy those cards if I wasn’t outbid. You know how that goes, no fun at all.

What did you win, Jeff?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

That was a good one! Thanks for the laugh.

[Exhibitman]

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

Now that was the laugh I was looking for!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

Seems to me he was saying show me a policy that requires X. That sounds like a focus on the terms of a policy.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Seems to me he was saying show me a policy that requires X. That sounds like a focus on the terms of a policy.

Parsing again. His larger point is as I stated. Insurance companies do not use phantom auctions to determine loss value.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

There’s a transcript we both have, and I replied to the most recent rendition of the ‘insurance told them too’ bunk, even though no policy known to man has terms to use fraudulent auctions to determine values of claims and no credible insurance company is going to ask people to do such blatantly shady and what seems to be illegal things. How is who said it first relevant or any kind of refutation? I don’t remember every post by now lol.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

First mentioned here...https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...7&postcount=10

Not blaming Phil as he was only making a suggestion but other respected posters jumped on board validating the choice.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

We're simply at an impasse at this idea. A number of people, including those closer to the situation than either of us have suggested insurance, counsel or even law enforcement influenced the decision to continue the auction.

"Running the auction, which I am sure was done at the advice of both counsel and insurance, to establish value is certainly the best path with the least damage given the crappy situation that’s nobody’s fault. There is no winning answer under these circumstances. It sucks, millions $$ of cards got stolen and ML is on the hook. No bueno all around"

If this was an independent decision made by ML with no outside influence than I disagree with that decision. That being said I simply can't imagine that being the case.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

[mannequin1]

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

This is posted near the top of every page. Please adhere to it in the future.

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. It's one of the most important rules on the forum.



.

"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

[Republicaninmass]

Why on earth wouldn't they just ship them to the guys house who is driving to the show? Did they pay for his flight then go "all in" for a best Western plus? Hindsight...wow.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

Again, here is what I replied to, making the claim that the insurance company told them to do it and ML followed the advice. What people said four pages ago and the leaps since is not really relevant to the quote and refutation now.

Again, no insurance policy is ever going to have this as a term to determine value. No credible insurance company is ever going to tell a claimant to commit a crime or engage in lying to all of their customers to value stolen goods. There are other, normal mechanisms. That would be hugely embarrassing and potentially incriminating to themselves to tell a claimant to do this. This is not realistic, it is a fictional fantasy explanation that makes no real sense.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Convenience isn't a good reason to materially lie to hundreds of people and to turn an ostensibly serious and honest auction into a farce.

Again, if I put up a nice expensive card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, would you say I did the best and right thing and defend it?

Most of the complicating factors are not present in that hypothetical. That you would owe money to a consignor, that the card was very hard to value, that it would disrupt a major auction to pull the card when it was stolen, etc. etc. Get closer to what really happened here and I might say what you did was excusable. Then again, it's hard to analogize a single sale to a major auction with hundreds or was it thousands of lots.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Most of the complicating factors are not present in that hypothetical. That you would owe money to a consignor, that the card was very hard to value, that it would disrupt a major auction to pull the card when it was stolen, etc. etc. Get closer to what really happened here and I might say what you did was excusable. Then again, it's hard to analogize a single sale to a major auction with hundreds or was it thousands of lots.

So the determining factor of when it’s okay to lie to bidders is based on if the card is mine (which makes it not okay) or if I am selling it for someone else (the lying becomes okay).

As the hypothetical just used an expensive unspecified card, hard to value or not is difficult to read into that and use as an excuse to justify the lies

And your third criteria there we have the obvious real point. Rules for big auctions, rules for everyone else. If you own an auction house, lying to hundreds or thousands of people becomes okay.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So the determining factor of when it’s okay to lie to bidders is based on if the card is mine (which makes it not okay) or if I am selling it for someone else (the lying becomes okay).

As the hypothetical just used an expensive unspecified card, hard to value or not is difficult to read into that and use as an excuse to justify the lies

And your third criteria there we have the obvious real point. Rules for big auctions, rules for everyone else. If you own an auction house, lying to hundreds or thousands of people becomes okay.

Not different rules, just a different context and different competing considerations and consequences. ML is running a business. It has both bidders and consignors. Whatever it decides has consequences that it has to assess and weigh. It may be getting advice, even bad advice. It may not be as simple as, I couldn't do X on the BST therefore what ML did is wrong.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Not different rules, just a different context and different competing considerations and consequences.

Yes, the auction house stands to lose more. Rules for them, rules for everyone else. It’s different when they do it (and okay, because $$$).

[Snowman]

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

I feel like you may be able to work this into your small claims court case against them (seriously, not joking).

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Warning: Non-lawyer here... But the idea that the insurance company advised ML about how to proceed with the auction is absurd. That didn't happen. JP either made that brilliant decision himself or was advised to by his legal counsel and followed their advice. The insurance company isn't going to weigh in on how they should proceed. At most, they miiiight have said they would accept the hammer prices as market values, but I highly doubt an insurance claim has even been filed yet, let alone processed and approved.

Could it just be as simple as they ran the auction as such as a hedge in case the cards showed up? It was a 2 week period so maybe they though they had enough time.

If so, quite a gamble that clearly did pay off.