Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

Lorewalker · #1 05-19-2024, 01:25 PM

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

As many of you know, I consigned a large portion of the prewar items that sold last night. I am very content with the results, although they were all over the place.

Last night's auction contained about 75% of my total consignment, with other items to sell in the Summer and Winter auctions. When I first consigned, Joe and I (Joe is with Memory Lane) sat down and we estimated a low, likely, and high value for every card. Last night, the total aggregate sales price of my consignments, with the Buyer's Premium, was about 3% above the total likely-value we placed on the items. Thus, last night's entire consignment ended, in the aggregate, almost exactly where we estimated it would. That said, many individual items went for very different amounts that expected (both good and bad).

The D304s went crazy. Literally, nonsensical; but I wont complain! The Wagner, Matty, Lajoie, Collins, and many commons went for multiples over prior highs.

My T206 set and 1914 CJ set both did better, in aggregate, than I expected. The 1914 CJ Jackson was the bad egg of the entire auction -- someone stole that card. But most other items, including commons, did very well. Same with the T206 set; the Green Cobb did not do well at all, but that was offset substantially by the other Cobbs and many PSA 7s+ and strong results for commons.

The W600 Matty went through the roof, as it should have, considering it was produced in his rookie year (albeit not the first issue of his rookie year). The Tip Top Wagner did great, and my Planks all finished very strong. Almost every Ruth finished on the lighter side of what I expected, and a few crapped the bed. Wagners and Cobbs are definitely 10%-20% off their highs, but still strong.

Put it this way, it was a very large and diverse consignment and it ended at 102%+ (including BP) of where we estimated the likely value total to be. I am happy with the results, and now I need sleep!

And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

Peter_Spaeth · #2 05-19-2024, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.

And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

Lorewalker · #3 05-19-2024, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

Thanks for that. Sorry just trying to understand this.

So it would be your opinion that their continuing to run the auction with the inclusion of those stolen lots does not rise to the level of fraud because there was no intent to deceive and no way to measure damages to bidders or other consignors?

How do we know there are no damages? Wouldn't we have to ask the bidders, not just the winners, of those 54 lots if by bidding on those lots they decided to not pursue other lots, could it be argued there was a loss of opportunity and possibly lower prices on the remaining lots that could have been pursued by those bidders had they known they could not win those 54 lots. Not sure that can be measured.

And lastly, would it be safe to conclude that bidders were at least mislead even if they were not defrauded?

Peter_Spaeth · #4 05-19-2024, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Thanks for that. Sorry just trying to understand this.

So it would be your opinion that their continuing to run the auction with the inclusion of those stolen lots does not rise to the level of fraud because there was no intent to deceive and no way to measure damages to bidders or other consignors?

How do we know there are no damages? Wouldn't we have to ask the bidders, not just the winners, of those 54 lots if by bidding on those lots they decided to not pursue other lots, could it be argued there was a loss of opportunity and possibly lower prices on the remaining lots that could have been pursued by those bidders had they known they could not win those 54 lots. Not sure that can be measured.

And lastly, would it be safe to conclude that bidders were at least mislead even if they were not defrauded?

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

Lorewalker · #5 05-19-2024, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

I would love to know a lot more details about this but I think it is safe to assume bidders were misled even if it was not done with malice or with any intent to cause harm. My guess is that it was their intent, despite what I now know about JP's past, to come up with the best solution to minimize damages.

In some respect the decision to keep the lots in the auction hurts them more than anyone else. There are clearly some who might be annoyed enough to not bid with them again because of this. For me, I keep going back to the lapse in judgement over shipping with no rep from the company present as to the extent of their wrongdoing. After that it was simply damage control and one way or another you are going to upset a group of people. Objective then is to piss off as few as possible.

Carter08 · #6 05-19-2024, 03:33 PM

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

bnorth · #7 05-19-2024, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carter08

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

ClementeFanOh · #8 05-19-2024, 03:47 PM

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Memory Lane	calvindog	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	5	08-13-2017 01:01 AM
Memory Lane - Uncut W516 Strip Cards	T206Collector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	0	12-20-2011 03:20 PM
Memory Lane	YankeeCollector	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	08-22-2011 03:28 PM
You would think...(Memory Lane)	mintacular	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	12	03-01-2011 12:15 PM
Memory Lane Selling Mint graded cards??	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	11-08-2007 04:50 PM