SUBJECT: BEWARE Steve Verkman, Keith Vari, Leland’s, Clean Sweep & Paragon auctions

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think the contract indicates authentication would be on their dime with the "No additional fees", but this contract is so... poorly written that its difficult to be certain of much.





The OP proved some of his claims by producing the contract, but other claims by him and his surrogates need to be proven, like this cherry picking claim and the 16% interest bill. IF these are true, they are easy to actually prove - there is an inventory list and there is a bill which can be produced to prove. The OP made a poor decision to sign a contract of what appears to be of his own free will at the time, and was wrong about the BP split (that part is understandable, seeing this vague contract and its unprofessional back of the napkin phrasing).

The other side has responded only with a vague statement that specifically only denies the BP split (on which they appear to be correct from the odd contract), delivered via a proxy who then moved the thread to the watercooler to lessen visibility and then made a provably false claim that a history of doing this with things that might end up not reflecting well on Lelands is' made up crap'. Unusual response if there is nothing to see here, but the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim. IF the collection was cherry picked for only the high value items, then 60/40 is absurd and IF he is getting billed for ridiculous 16% interest rates with a contract that mentions no interest rates at all, then Lelands is horribly in the wrong, but that's not proven. OP has shown evidence for half the claims, but should prove the other half or they do not have much of any validity.

Why does he need to prove his claim here? From his first of two posts, his apparent primary purpose was to try to find a lawyer to help him. That he has not returned suggests he does not care about the court of public opinion, and maybe he shouldn't, what good will it do him?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why does he need to prove his claim here? From his first of two posts, his apparent primary purpose was to try to find a lawyer to help him. That he has not returned suggests he does not care about the court of public opinion, and maybe he shouldn't, what good will it do him?

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

[Casey2296]

-
What Would Rusty Do?
-

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

-
What Would Rusty Do?
-

He'd sell me that jersey.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Mark17

He'd sell me that jersey.

It would look great in your collection Mark. Who knows maybe it's in OPs collection and coming to market soon.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

It would look great in your collection Mark. Who knows maybe it's in OPs collection and coming to market soon.

1962-64 Colts home jerseys, like that, are very scarce. I'd expect it to go for $8,000 to $10,000 and maybe north of that if it's in decent, original condition.


And frankly, I might be willing to pay that.


[Mark wonders if somebody's old man has one available...]

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

Well yes of course, if his objective is to convince people. But perhaps that was not his objective.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well yes of course, if his objective is to convince people. But perhaps that was not his objective.

Okay. I’m going to stick with an evidentiary basis to believe things.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I think, and I'm sure this is suddenly highly problematic and controversial and I am a laundry list of horrible things for suggesting it, that if one publicly makes claims to bring attention to them, then one should show the proof of those claims.

Maybe people see you as calling them a liar with your demands for proof. Could also be you have absolutely zero to offer in return for info many know. Many have this info because they can tell a real story of what happened but are smart enough to not add names. Why are you so "special" that you believe you deserve proof?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Maybe people see you as calling them a liar with your demands for proof. Could also be you have absolutely zero to offer in return for info many know. Many have this info because they can tell a real story of what happened but are smart enough to not add names. Why are you so "special" that you believe you deserve proof?

It's probably pointless to observe that requesting proof of a claim is not claiming the claim is a lie, and that asking for the proof of a claim made publicly to be shown publicly is not making me special in any way.

If one makes a public claim, I think one should show the proof publicly. Normally, this would be non-controversial common sense. If I say "X happened!", it is reasonable for someone to look at evidence to see if X did, in fact, happen. If I publicly made a claim that would be easy to prove and someone asked me for the proof, would you also start whining that they asked for that proof? Of course most things get hijacked into agendas that have little, if anything, to do with the actual claims.

[jingram058]

Some would argue that the world is flat, there was no Holocaust, that Apollo 11 astronauts never walked on the moon. They'll offer up all kinds of discussion and denial. Proof? My father in WW2 as a combat infantryman with the 99th Infantry Division, wounded in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, was involved in the "liberation" of one of those concentration camps. He would be ready to fist-fight any ignoramous who stated there was no Holocaust in his presence.

[BobbyStrawberry]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Some would argue that the world is flat, there was no Holocaust, that Apollo 11 astronauts never walked on the moon. They'll offer up all kinds of discussion and denial. Proof? My father in WW2 as a combat infantryman with the 99th Infantry Division, wounded in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, was involved in the "liberation" of one of those concentration camps. He would be ready to fist-fight any ignoramous who stated there was no Holocaust in his presence.

Many are arguing it right now on social media. Unfortunately, these platforms lack a presence like your father to set them straight.

[Peter_Spaeth]

There are of course Sandy Hook deniers too. There are some really ugly, evil people out there, fortunately they are (I think) a very tiny minority.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by jingram058

Some would argue that the world is flat, there was no Holocaust, that Apollo 11 astronauts never walked on the moon. They'll offer up all kinds of discussion and denial. Proof? My father in WW2 as a combat infantryman with the 99th Infantry Division, wounded in combat during the Battle of the Bulge, was involved in the "liberation" of one of those concentration camps. He would be ready to fist-fight any ignoramous who stated there was no Holocaust in his presence.

Since we are having fun and the OP hasn't been back.

I guess I see things different. Say you are in a room full of people all talking and sharing stories. Then after you tell a story about something you have done someone then asks if you have any proof you really done that. Wouldn't you think they are basically calling you a liar?

Plus I just find it weird in life when someone is asking for proof fairly regularly.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Since we are having fun and the OP hasn't been back.

I guess I see things different. Say you are in a room full of people all talking and sharing stories. Then after you tell a story about something you have done someone then asks if you have any proof you really done that. Wouldn't you think they are basically calling you a liar?

Plus I just find it weird in life when someone is asking for proof fairly regularly.

Evidence that he is asking for proof fairly regularly?

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Since we are having fun and the OP hasn't been back.

I guess I see things different. Say you are in a room full of people all talking and sharing stories. Then after you tell a story about something you have done someone then asks if you have any proof you really done that. Wouldn't you think they are basically calling you a liar?

Plus I just find it weird in life when someone is asking for proof fairly regularly.

I think it's a little different when you're publicly accusing a company of mistreating you. In that case, showing proof of what you're saying was done is probably a good thing to include with your claims.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Since we are having fun and the OP hasn't been back.

I guess I see things different. Say you are in a room full of people all talking and sharing stories. Then after you tell a story about something you have done someone then asks if you have any proof you really done that. Wouldn't you think they are basically calling you a liar?

Plus I just find it weird in life when someone is asking for proof fairly regularly.

Telling stories is one thing. In this case, the reputation of one of the biggest and longest-running auction houses is on the line.

Asking for evidence, as I see it, isn't meant to answer the question whether the OP is being truthful. I see it as putting fresh eyes on the evidence. For example, the details of the cryptic "contract" that was posted. The "no additional fees" statement, followed by the ambiguous "60/40 split for auth."

Some of us, like me, look for inconsistencies. Some of us look at things through the eyes of an attorney experienced in contract law. Some look at it from the perspective of frequent consignors, comparing to their own experiences. Some from their work running auctions, or other similar businesses.

Basically, thinking people want more information to analyze, to more fully, and accurately, understand the full scope.

In short, this isn't sitting around a campfire telling stories. This is a subject that could shed light on the way a major auction house is currently doing business, for better or worse.