Brian Drent grades GEM MINT 10 for integrity

[danmckee]

Thank you Adam. Yes law enforcement was not interested at all. And actually, it was a PSA graded card and the scammer didn't actually say he didn't get it, he said that it "was not as described" and American Express did the charge back just before their 9 month max window for charge backs.

Also, they didn't even make the buyer return the item!!

Some of the responses here are exactly why I no longer frequent this board.

If you know-it-alls ever have a card stolen or lost and have to go through what I did with PSA or what my friend did here, then you would understand.

I agree with you that theft is theft but as Adam stated, law enforcement couldn't be bothered and said to handle it in court which is a joke.

This is all I am going to say on this matter and anyone who would like details can look at my past threads here on the new board as I posted as soon as the card was hocked.

I posted this because I felt Brian Drent deserved some good feedback for what he did.

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by danmckee

Thank you Adam. Yes law enforcement was not interested at all. And actually, it was a PSA graded card and the scammer didn't actually say he didn't get it, he said that it "was not as described" and American Express did the charge back just before their 9 month max window for charge backs.

Also, they didn't even make the buyer return the item!!

Some of the responses here are exactly why I no longer frequent this board.

If you know-it-alls ever have a card stolen or lost and have to go through what I did with PSA or what my friend did here, then you would understand.

I agree with you that theft is theft but as Adam stated, law enforcement couldn't be bothered and said to handle it in court which is a joke.

This is all I am going to say on this matter and anyone who would like details can look at my past threads here on the new board as I posted as soon as the card was hocked.

I posted this because I felt Brian Drent deserved some good feedback for what he did.

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan

Dan,

With respect, do you not see that there are two innocents here? There is the one who originally got scammed, and there is the innocent consignor who bought the card not knowing of the scam.

Many of the posters have simply made the point that Brian's conduct prefers one of these innocents over the other. In this case, he preferred the interests of a third party over the interests of the consignor who trusted him to sell his card and do his best for him.

That is not the obvious right thing to do - at least in the eyes of many posters (some of whom are lawyers). And as some have pointed out, the law recognizes many ways to obtain proper legal title to goods that were once stolen or obtained by questionable means. Neither the law nor the moral high-ground in this matter necessarily side with the guy who was originally scammed. You are assuming that to be the case and that is your view, but people don't have to agree with you.

Cheers,
Blair

[calvindog]

It does sound like Drent screwed the consignor by being honest. What I hate most of all are heads of auction houses who screw the consignors rather than conspiring with them to rip off innocent bidders in auctions. Those are the great guys in our hobby, the ones who will help others steal money while stuffing as much in their pockets as possible. Those are the auctioneers we need to protect, displaying our false umbrage on the board whenever the truth comes out and the bad guys are attacked -- all in an effort to obfuscate, to protect wallets.

Better we should all pile on an innocent guy over a $100 misunderstanding instead. Funny how the guys who pile on the small-fries are wildly supportive of the big fraudsters, the great guys. I guess it's only offensive when they lose a few nickels; as long as they're on the right side of the equation when massive fraud goes down, it's all good.

I don't mean to be a downer or become irrelevant so perhaps we can have a good ol' fashioned bidding party and celebrate our ill-gotten windfalls! And before 10 or so of you email me secretly, thanking me for posting the truth, why not have the balls instead to post something here?

[Abravefan11]

Obfuscate...nice!

[White Borders]

Originally Posted by Abravefan11

Obfuscate...nice!

Hey Tim, hope you didn't miss "interpleader" and "umbrage" in the prior posts!

(I just hope that Joann, now that she has passed the bar, doesn't start using words they never taught me in engineering school)

[Abravefan11]

Just reading the posts on this board has ameliorated my vocabulary to the point I wish I could retake the SAT's.

[bigfish]

sorry....wrong forum

[Republicaninmass]

Sad to see some of these responses, it guess it just shows the integrity and morals of people. I bet they never had anything stolen from them of any value.

When my cards got stolen I called around and within 1 hour, I found them, every dealer seemed to know the sellers were suspicious. When I called, I described possibly what the criminals looked like, and what cards they had. Dealers responses "Seemed strange", "they didnt know what they had" "they had different stories" etc. Not many people walk around with 500+ 1952 topps in great shape. Sure enough ONE dealer eventually bought them. It taught me almost everyone has their price..among other things. Thieves are the lowest form of life..unless you are a bank robber the banks are insured

[Jacklitsch]

I think it comes down to this...

If the consignor was the original eBay buyer from Glendale CA the case closed. The Auction House did the right thing.

If the consignor was not the original eBay buyer then there potentially could be a problem here for the Auction House.

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Sad to see some of these responses, it guess it just shows the integrity and morals of people. I bet they never had anything stolen from them of any value.

Who has posted here showing a lack of integrity or morals? Nobody.

Cheers,
Blair

[Jewish-collector]

I've got the guts to post something:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnMiw...rom=PL&index=1

[Wesley]

Originally Posted by calvindog

It does sound like Drent screwed the consignor by being honest. What I hate most of all are heads of auction houses who screw the consignors rather than conspiring with them to rip off innocent bidders in auctions. Those are the great guys in our hobby, the ones who will help others steal money while stuffing as much in their pockets as possible. Those are the auctioneers we need to protect, displaying our false umbrage on the board whenever the truth comes out and the bad guys are attacked -- all in an effort to obfuscate, to protect wallets.

Better we should all pile on an innocent guy over a $100 misunderstanding instead. Funny how the guys who pile on the small-fries are wildly supportive of the big fraudsters, the great guys. I guess it's only offensive when they lose a few nickels; as long as they're on the right side of the equation when massive fraud goes down, it's all good.

I don't mean to be a downer or become irrelevant so perhaps we can have a good ol' fashioned bidding party and celebrate our ill-gotten windfalls! And before 10 or so of you email me secretly, thanking me for posting the truth, why not have the balls instead to post something here?

I didn't understand your entire post, but Dan said the consignor did not know the card was stolen. So I don't think the consignor is one of the great guys that you speak of so frequently.

Does anyone have a link to the card in question?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by danmckee

My work is done here and I can't wait to get off of this board.

Dan, buddy, take a deep breath. Respectful disagreement (I don't think anyone has been nasty in this thread) is no reason to leave. Stick around, your input is valued.