USED to be REA's big fan ---not any more

[forazzurri2axz]

that several Net 54 members, among those Glynparson, Chris Agard and a few others buy a T206 set in an REA auction

The set contains a Plank PSA 6, recently sold for $188,000

They pay $350,000 for the set calculating the above value for the Plank, and
$162,000 for the rest of the set, totaling $350,000 which is $410,000 INCLUDING buyer's premium

Y'all get the shipment with the Plank being a PSA 5,and call REA

You are told that the consignor made a mistake and sold the PSA 6, replaced it with a PSA 5 but didn't change the registry and that the auction was mistaken as well. You then get told that the SMR value of the set is $485,000 and since you paid 85% of that you would get 85% of the SMR value of the Plank which is ONLY $135,000 in PSA 6, SMR being a lousy guide at best

THAT MEANS YOU GET OFFERED $114,750 FOR WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A PLANK PSA 6 WHICH YOU VALUED AT RECENT SALES OF$188,000

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO ME--I WAS OFFERED 85% of SMR and other ridiculous insulting offers even before the discussion of taking the set back ever happened.

So I guess you/y'all would have said , "Fine, we;'ll take the $114,000 and return the Plank PSA 5. If you say that you would have accepted that, you're a liar.(s)

All I expected was to be treated fairly from the beginning--not having to haggle over $300.00 which they did for days on end after I had spent over $60,000 on different auction lots...and for those who pointed out that most of that goes to the consignor, almost $10,000 went to REA--

bill

[chris122868]

First of all if you were not happy with what you said would FIX the problem don't OFFER !!! What more can a guy do but offer you a FULL refund. Sorry my fault REA was supposed to give you the cards for free !!!!! He did exactly what you asked of him,and you still have the NERVE to BIT-- !!!! I would understand if you didn't agree to a settlement. Only thing i can think of is you wish you would have asked for more. It's better to be needy than greedy

[timn1]

I understand a lot of people on this board are loyal to REA, and for good reason considering some of their competitors.

But if you look closely at Bill's last note where he cogently takes us through the transaction using the T206 Plank analogy, I think his point is pretty compelling. No buyer would be satisfied in that situation. And it is crazy to me that REA would balk at $300 given the amount Bill had spent with them, if that is what happened.

There also seems to be a disagreement about when the "full refund" offer was made. Bill is adamant in saying that it wasn't offered until well along in the negotiation. Obviously none of us really knows the full story on that issue as we were not there, but if that's true I can understand why he would be upset.

And frankly, while a full refund is a stand-up offer to make, as we should expect from a company like REA, you can't reasonably claim that it completely erases the auctioneer's initial mistake, which clearly had the potential to cost the buyer (whoever he was) a lot of time, effort, and even money.

The analogy there is this: you spot the #1 card on your wantlist on an Ebay BIN. You are incredibly excited and you BIN it. Then the seller tells you, oops! he made a mistake and can't supply the card -- but of course he will refund your money! Are you saying you wouldn't be furious despite getting your money back? Don't think so.

[Robert_Lifson]

Someone else might say “Wow, REA thought I wanted too much and maybe I did, but they gave me what I wanted anyway. What a great company! Thanks!"

Mr. Latzko did not jump through any hoops or experience any delay at all. There seems to be an impression or assumption in some posts that we made him wait. We immediately checked with the consignor (to see if by chance he had the card in question – sometimes it can get pretty confusing with graded registry sets when collectors upgrade or downgrade). This took one minute. We then came up with plans to address the error including taking the set back. I spoke to Bill Latzko for 10 minutes. He was extremely rude and unreasonable and belligerent in my opinion. In the very same conversation (the one and only with me regarding this issue), since we could not have any meeting of the minds, I gave him what he demanded. It was during this conversation that he finally, when pressed, told me that the reason he refused send the set (that he was so unhappy with) back was because he had sold some of the cards. He still had the cards in hand but insisted he wanted to make the sale as it was a good sale to a good customer of his. So I just gave him what he wanted even though it was more than I thought fair and reasonable, all the more so in light of the fact that he refused to return the set for a full refund. As far as I was concerned, REA gave him $1800 (the amount demanded by him) for a card that in my eyes he paid $1260 for (SMR of $1500 x 84% = $1260). He saw things differently. So we went along with how he saw things even though we didn’t agree. I paid him what he wanted. Which makes his posts here all the more curious.

In addition, Mr. Latzko did not mention that he paid for his $63,751 invoice with an unreasonable number of small denomination bank checks purchased with cash over a two week period which were a burden for us to even deposit. One or two or even three checks for whatever reason is fine for payment of any invoice (99%+ pay with one check), but this set a record. This was crazy. In addition, Mr. Latzko has failed to mention that he paid his auction invoice late - and without prearranged terms to do so - and that we did not give him a hard time about this and we waived his late payment fees.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

[glchen]

...

[jbsports33]

Thanks Rob for clearing this up and explaining your side, it really seemed confusing

glad you responded to this post

Jimmy

[glynparson]

I will gladly say it to your face come see me at the national.

[barrysloate]

I don't think Bill's example using the T206 Plank was a good one because for many bidders that may have been the sole reason they were bidding on the lot. Maybe they only wanted the Plank and were prepared to sell the other 520 cards just to get it. So if you expected a 6 and got a 5 you may not have wanted the lot at all.

In the case of the 1956 Topps set, the misgraded team card was an important one because of its low pop, but it wasn't a Mantle rookie or a card of that caliber. So it would be easier to come up with a solution there.

The only area here that I felt REA was remiss was counting on the registry report and not examining the set card by card. Unfortunately, as time consuming as that is, you have to do it. At the end of the day, the auction house has to write up the description and stand behind it. By counting on the registry listing they were ceding control of that step to someone else. That's a no-no and I am sure Rob and company realize they can't do that in the future.

Other than that he gave Bill as much as he could have hoped for so I don't understand why this thread was even started. Like I said in Scott's post about SGC, both sides need to be a little more flexible in resolving an issue like this. I don't think Bill exhibited any flexibility at all. It had to be his way period, and Rob actually agreed to it. End of story.