Collect.Com Auction Catalog on-line

[drc]

From a practical matter, it would seem a good way for SCD to free itself from CC is for this auction to succeed financially. If you want SCD to drop CC, you should hope SCD's own auction is a success. If wish SCD to remain dependent on CC's advertising, you should want SCD's auction to fail.

If someone wishes to boycott SCD and their auctions (which I assume means he doesn't own a Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards!) that is fine by me. However, I hope the above illustrates that relationships and, in particular, practical cause-and-effect are often different than one believes.

One of my favorite quotes of Yogi Berra is, "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

By the way, do I think the magazine should drop CC advertising? Sure.

[calvindog]

I disagree with David: once an auction is made public, it can and should be publicly critiqued if so merited. The energy spent supporting those who would commit fraud or otherwise sell bogus items (and this is not directed at Bob L. who clearly is above-board even if this item is not) is almost comical here. How does one expect to avoid being defrauded in this hobby when even the targeted victims will exhaust themselves apologizing to those who would defraud them?

[Leon]

I think it's ok to critique things publicly but as a business person I hope folks would give me a chance to make something right before going public.

[wonkaticket]

Jeff I agree.

It seems pretty simple to me if you’re taking the time to print catalogs and shoot YouTube videos for items you should be taking the time to make sure said items are legit.

It’s all about personal responsibility if you’re in the auction business make sure what you’re selling is legit or don’t list it for sale. And if you list something for sale without doing your homework expect somewhere a few folks may call it out as Jerry and I did. It's nothing personal and there really is no said protocol to follow either regarding private or public nobody’s throwing anybody under the bus just calling out a questionable item.

I don’t think this is a huge deal here (Stall & Dean) I’m sure Bob and the team will pull the lot if they agree with us on the questionable authenticity of the item.

The SCD and CC connection well that’s a whole other topic and not so easily responded too and the real embarrassment IMO. As the Stall & Dean can be chalked up to a mistake but years of taking advertising money from a known bad guy well…..

Cheers,

John

[Leon]

I agree with what you said for the most part. I doubt there is an auction house that is in business today that hasn't made some mistakes. It's all about how you handle them. I am sure Collect.com will investigate and make the right decision. regards

[drc]

I stand by what I said, in part as it's a courtesy each of us would wanted extended to us if we made a mistake. I'm not saying this courtesy is due to obvious fraudsters, known serial offenders or people who have ignored your help in the past. Also note that I said it was okay to go public if the auctioneer ignored you and/or didn't correct the problem.

Did you know that at the GameUsedUniverse forum, posters are required to first contact the seller before posting about an authenticity problem? I believe this is to allow honest sellers, often eBayers, to correct an honest error or once in a while correct the complainer.

[Mr. Mitt]

Bob came on a public forum to advertise his auction, free of charge via a new thread. I feel that questioning the authenticity of a highly publicized lot is justified given the circumstances. If he had not taken this course, I would have questioned him privately after I received the catalog or viewed his website.

Furthermore, John and I have information regarding past forgeries/reproductions of the item in question. Do you feel it best for us to remain quiet and try to get the item pulled from behind the scenes or to inform and educate the collecting community who, perhaps, weren't privy to its history?

Whether done publicly or privately, the end result should be a withdrawn lot. If they want to succeed as an auction house, admitting and rectifying an oversight is the ethical course of action. No one will fault them for this. Ignoring the issue, however, and letting the lot run to fruition would be more telling.

Jerry

[wonkaticket]

Only in this hobby and this forum can one respond to another forum members question about an item which is commonly known to be faked. And have to spend time justifying why it wasn’t done to someone else’s liking or standards. LOL

Funny Jerry and I should have handled differently so there should have been due diligence on our part but the auction house gets the benefit of the doubt. Hmmm the item sells or doesn’t sell Jerry and I benefit how again? What’s our motive again?

I also think private notification is silly if an auction house has nothing to hide and uses this forum to promote items and in doing so is notified publicly that said item or items may be questionable. It’s an easy fix remove item or items if they agree and thank the forum for its support and input. If they disagree explain why so bidders can bid with ease and confidence.

Nobody expects folks to be perfect but we expect business owners to be professional and fix mistakes which I’m sure Collect.com will be as they have given me no reason to think they won’t.

This applys to all auction houses, grading companies and sellers etc.

Still the bigger question is a valid one that folks have raised me included.

An auction house that is affiliated with a company who derives revenue from known fraudulent sources like Coaches Corner does seem to be a conflict of interest bad Stall & Dean item excluded.

Cheers,

John