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

[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.

[G1911]

Upon deep reflection, I now realize I was wrong. A reasonable man must, it seems so obvious now, believe any and every claim made against a company and never look at evidence to see if it is true. When there is a dispute about a contract or a bill or a list of items, it is akin to denying the holocaust to look at the document in question. Shaping my opinions around evidence, as I used to do, is much inferior to knee-jerk whining about whatever opinion people I'm butthurt about from completely unrelated long ago threads posted. Evidence, the most basic parts of western logic, seeing if things are actually true, these are the real problems. I learn so much from our wise men here.

Hopefully the enlightened wise men who reject the concept of using an evidentiary basis as reasonable are never accused of anything. By their principles, everyone would have to just believe it is true without any evidence at all.

[gonefishin]

Wow - I have absolutely nothing to add about the thread topic, BUT, I will say that I've enjoyed reading all the posts!

I'm especially interested because the originator has only posted twice, and rejoined Net54 not to add something positive about our hobby, but complain about how they were treated on a business deal! Absolutely crazy.

To originator, I'm sorry for your medical issues and monetary problems associated with them and hope for your recovery.

For the parties in the AH's, I'm sorry that you have (in some small way) been insulted, accused and humiliated in a public forum.

The best-case scenario would have been for all parties to work these things out civilly or legally if necessary.

This thread has taken a life of its own, and I can continue to look forward to all the drama that will follow in the next few days and then hopefully disappear.

Now that I've interrupted, please continue with all the insults, conspiracy theories and all else that one can think of surrounding the "Golden Ticket Contract" and mud slinging. Remember "No Quarter" because everyone is absolutely correct with evert post they make.

[judsonhamlin]

Late to the party, but it seems like this is a good situation to throw out Hitchens’ razor - and I think it applies to both sides on this one:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

On one side, you have someone who, by accounts posted here, is an experienced, educated collector who came here with delayed regrets and allegations of deceitful practices by long-standing auction professionals. On the other side, a denial of said deceit, albeit through a third-party, but without further clarification beyond a contract that looks like it was drafted by a first year law student (who would’ve gotten a crap grade on it).

Looks like none of the parties to this s-show care to further elaborate.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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.

Yes, the Leland's name has been around for a long time but I believe the company was recently purchased by Verkman. I don't know how many of the old crew are still there or how much say they have in how things are done, but I think it would be wrong to attribute past pluses or minuses about the company to the new group. If I am off on this I would appreciate being corrected.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Yes, the Leland's name has been around for a long time but I believe the company was recently purchased by Verkman. I don't know how many of the old crew are still there or how much say they have in how things are done, but I think it would be wrong to attribute past pluses or minuses about the company to the new group. If I am off on this I would appreciate being corrected.

I agree. That's why it's important to understand their current method of operation.

[oldjudge]

I have spoken with Steve and he explained in some detail what went on with this transaction. As per Steve, there is no interest being charged, there was no cherry-picking, and representatives of Lelands, including Steve and his son, spent 20+ man hours at the consignors house reviewing the material. Also, the collection included things other than sports memorabilia. After hearing this, and some other facts, I think this has gotten completely blown out of proportion. Thanks to Steve for clearing this up.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I have spoken with Steve and he explained in some detail what went on with this transaction. As per Steve, there is no interest being charged, there was no cherry-picking, and representatives of Lelands, including Steve and his son, spent 20+ man hours at the consignors house reviewing the material. Also, the collection included things other than sports memorabilia. After hearing this, and some other facts, I think this has gotten completely blown out of proportion. Thanks to Steve for clearing this up.

Thanks for providing more information. Did Steve say how much was actually taken? Did it fill 2 trucks?

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I have spoken with Steve and he explained in some detail what went on with this transaction. As per Steve, there is no interest being charged, there was no cherry-picking, and representatives of Lelands, including Steve and his son, spent 20+ man hours at the consignors house reviewing the material. Also, the collection included things other than sports memorabilia. After hearing this, and some other facts, I think this has gotten completely blown out of proportion. Thanks to Steve for clearing this up.

But was the check cashed?

[bigfanNY]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

But was the check cashed?

20 plus man hours is a Very nice way of saying four guys showed up with 2 trucks took some items they were supposed to but some they were not authorized to take. Left 5 hours later without giving the consigner a list of everything they took and without his signature agreeing to anything. Then one guy left behind with the " contract" for him to sign. Basicly he if he didn't sign that he would have literally been left without his stuff or any proof they had taken anything.
I too am glad Steve cleared that up for us.
If representatives for the "New Lelands " think this is the right way to do business then they should have no problem everyone knowing about it. Exactly like Google reviews so next potential customer can make an informed decision.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I have spoken with Steve and he explained in some detail what went on with this transaction. As per Steve, there is no interest being charged, there was no cherry-picking, and representatives of Lelands, including Steve and his son, spent 20+ man hours at the consignors house reviewing the material. Also, the collection included things other than sports memorabilia. After hearing this, and some other facts, I think this has gotten completely blown out of proportion. Thanks to Steve for clearing this up.

We have so little as it is.

Why do you have to take away all of our fun with speculating endlessly about these events and the relative honor (or lack thereof) of the participants?

At least we can still demand proof for the veracity of these assertions.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by raulus

We have so little as it is.

Why do you have to take away all of our fun with speculating endlessly about these events and the relative honor (or lack thereof) of the participants?

At least we can still demand proof for the veracity of these assertions.

Maybe we can set up a link where each disputant can upload supporting documentary evidence or at the very least sworn declarations.