Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Glad you both brought up this topic, because I had discussed a similar scenario with friends at a card show this weekend.

My scenario was an auction house wants to sell a signed Ty Cobb bat in the future. No current comps for that piece, so the AH puts a fake listing in their next auction to get a comp. The fake listing sells, the buyer doesn't get it, bingo, comp for a future auction. Again, from reading this thread, most would not have a problem with this, because legally, no one is harmed.

A few years ago, in a thread regarding shill bidding, we discussed this notion of fake comps (items bid up by shill bidders who don't pay,) and then the general outcry was that everyone was harmed by the false value information it put into the market.

But now the standard seems to have shifted, for some, to "No harm, no foul."

Shill (fake) bidding is bad; phantom auction items are okay. And what's weird is, only half of us see the hypocrisy.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

A few years ago, in a thread regarding shill bidding, we discussed this notion of fake comps (items bid up by shill bidders who don't pay,) and then the general outcry was that everyone was harmed by the false value information it put into the market.

But now the standard seems to have shifted, for some, to "No harm, no foul."

Shill (fake) bidding is bad; phantom auction items are okay. And what's weird is, only half of us see the hypocrisy.

The no harm no foul was not proposed (at least by me) as some general overarching standard applying universally to every possible situation, and my answer to your hypothetical made that clear. It was proposed as a reason under the unique circumstances of this case what ML did in response to a no win situation was not "fraud." Was it a bad look, of course. As Scott writes, do people here really have no ability to see nuance and complexity and are able to think and live only in terms of black and white rigid rules and standards?

So your "gotcha" is a straw man as far as I am concerned. I'm more than content to take each situation on its terms, guided by general principles but not inflexible ones.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The no harm no foul was not proposed (at least by me) as some general overarching standard applying universally to every possible situation, and my answer to your hypothetical made that clear. It was proposed as a reason under the unique circumstances of this case what ML did in response to a no win situation was not "fraud." Was it a bad look, of course. As Scott writes, do people here really have no ability to see nuance and complexity and are able to think and live only in terms of black and white rigid rules and standards?

So your "gotcha" is a straw man as far as I am concerned. I'm more than content to take each situation on its terms, guided by general principles but not inflexible ones.

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to Emerson, little minds insist on a foolish consistency. You can characterize it however you want, to me each situation is different and sometimes you can't thread the needle with a perfect rule so you go by general principles, experience, judgment, and an innate sense of right and wrong. If you can't tell the difference between what ML did and ordinary shill bidding, I am sorry. That you can find some overarching words that apply to both is beside the point.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

According to Emerson, little minds insist on a foolish consistency. You can characterize it however you want, to me each situation is different and sometimes you can't thread the needle with a perfect rule so you go by general principles, experience, judgment, and an innate sense of right and wrong. If you can't tell the difference between what ML did and ordinary shill bidding, I am sorry. That you can find some overarching words that apply to both is beside the point.

Thanks for telling me I have a little mind. And I'll confess, I've probably never sniffed $2 million in cards either. I mostly collect game flannels, but I don't sniff them much, either.

But frankly, I'm not seeing your superiority in defending the deception of hundreds of bidders in an auction.

You're the one who says "Stuff trumps all" and you are currently defending that credo with one small tweak. Your new motto should be: Stuff (and money) trumps all." And if a deception is run in the chase for stuff and money, so what? Nobody is damaged.

I will again end with the caveat that if ML continued the phantom lots at the bequest of law enforcement, I would certainly consider that to be a legitimate reason to do so.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Thanks for telling me I have a little mind. And I'll confess, I've probably never sniffed $2 million in cards either. I mostly collect game flannels, but I don't sniff them much, either.

But frankly, I'm not seeing your superiority in defending the deception of hundreds of bidders in an auction.

You're the one who says "Stuff trumps all" and you are currently defending that credo with one small tweak. Your new motto should be: Stuff (and money) trumps all." And if a deception is run in the chase for stuff and money, so what? Nobody is damaged.

I will again end with the caveat that if ML continued the phantom lots at the bequest of law enforcement, I would certainly consider that to be a legitimate reason to do so.

As you wish. Feel free to mischaracterize.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I thought you were saying, if there were no damages, there was no fraud.

Shill bidding produces no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

Continuing phantom auction lots produce no sale, no exchange of money or goods, but leaves information, as though it had been a completed sale, in the marketplace.

I see your flexibility not as reasoned nuance, but as basic inconsistency.

I would love more info on why ML decided to move forward with the lots in the auction. To me, that is very relevant before anyone here can possibly conclude if their intent was pure or not.

Assuming it was, what they concluded was the best of all the choices might have ended up being misleading but it was not being done with an intent to deceive or harm others. And I do not see it in the same light at all as shill bidding which not only has measurable damages but is also clearly done with an intent to deceive.

[Republicaninmass]

The straw man army has come home to roost. People can come up with any number of scenarios to support their opinion. Except the one surrounding the issue at hand, it's too much of a stretch

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

The straw man army has come home to roost. People can come up with any number of scenarios to support their opinion. Except the one surrounding the issue at hand, it's too much of a stretch

Also, as I understand it from what someone said, if the cards are recovered, and assuming insurance issues can be worked through, the winning bidders still have an option to pay for and receive the cards they "won." Another indicator IMO this was not a "fraud" as I understand the term.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Also, as I understand it from what someone said, if the cards are recovered, and assuming insurance issues can be worked through, the winning bidders still have an option to pay for and receive the cards they "won." Another indicator IMO this was not a "fraud" as I understand the term.

If you simply look at it from the point of view of the house, what did they have to gain by letting the auction go with 54 key lots that at the time the auction ended they could not ship? They were now going to have to tell 54 people, possibly, what happened. What is the upside there?

They allegedly told nobody outside of the company about the theft until the auction was concluded and they very well might not have insurance coverage for this and will be writing a check. Yes disappointing and it sucks to think you can win something that you cannot take possession of but I just see no advantage to them in having done so. It might not be the best look for them but they look awful shipping the box as they did. To me, the rest of it is moot.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

If you simply look at it from the point of view of the house, what did they have to gain by letting the auction go with 54 key lots that at the time the auction ended they could not ship? They were now going to have to tell 54 people, possibly, what happened. What is the upside there?

They allegedly told nobody outside of the company about the theft until the auction was concluded and they very well might not have insurance coverage for this and will be writing a check. Yes disappointing and it sucks to think you can win something that you cannot take possession of but I just see no advantage to them in having done so. It might not be the best look for them but they look awful shipping the box as they did. To me, the rest of it is moot.

What they gain of course is an infinitely easier path to reimburse consignors and deal with insurance issues. Otherwise, it's a hot mess as most of these cards do not have commodity values. Nothing at all sinister about this. Context matters unless you live by a dictionary.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What they gain of course is an infinitely easier path to reimburse consignors and deal with insurance issues. Otherwise, it's a hot mess as most of these cards do not have commodity values. Nothing at all sinister about this. Context matters unless you live by a dictionary.

That was my failed attempt at the point. It was done for their consignors. The house does not benefit at all from having done this.

I did raise the question the other day that Ryan and the house had already estimated the values of his consignments. Not sure if all 54 cards stolen were his but there was an agreement as to what they both felt the cards would sell for. I know that estimate prior to consignment being sent is not the same as the auctions having run their course but the house was not in total darkness about what those lots were worth. Turned out they were close to spot on. It begs the question if they really needed to leave the lots in there for valuation purposes.