Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

It certainly looks very suspicious, but I'm not willing to go as far as to say that the omission on the condition was definitely done on purpose without doing more investigation. And even then, I still would be basing an opinion on the so-called "preponderance of evidence". Let me ask you this. What do you feel would be an appropriate response if they only found out about it on my phone call?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

But Jeff's alleged lack of objectivity is based on the fact that your client is a POS and there's an abundance of evidence, both objective and subjective, to support that fact.

Wait I am only defending the guy in David's hypothetical, not Legendary, Jesus!! LOL

[Rob D.]

Despite the fact that I think Legendary is in the wrong here, the Mystery Theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

[Leon]

I don't think Legendary purposely left out the mention of the holes or purposely made small scans to deceive. They should make their scans a bit larger, that is what they are guilty of. But they are 1s, if they look too good, you know there has to be an issue. I told David what I thought before he started this thread.....and if I were the auction house would have probably helped a little bit to offset the decreased value of the pinholes.....but not a lot.

I help run a smaller auction so it's not apples to apples, but I prefer to have very large scans, which take some time to do, instead of flowery descriptions.....

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

You can assume if a card looks VG or VGEX but is in a "1" holder that it has a technical problem that just might not detract from eye appeal even if you aren't spotting it.

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by rob d.

despite the fact that i think legendary is in the wrong here, the mystery theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

lololololol

[autograf]

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by autograf

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

Good point about Heritage. Large scans ARE possible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

[nolemmings]

I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed.

Your assumption was reasonable. It would not have been difficult to identify the pinholes-- I searched their auction using the term "pinhole" and found 19 lots where that term was used. Granted, almost all were raw cards that perhaps merit a more thorough description, but 2-3 graded wrappers included the term in the description. I also noted a lot of 12 T205s where the scans of individual cards were larger and appeared clearer than these Oxfords.
I believe it a fair question to ask whether these scans were shown as they are on purpose and whether the omission of the pinholes in the description was deliberate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Note the date. Lichtman and Schultz on the same side of an argument.

[caramelcard]

Originally Posted by autograf

With all the griping that goes on about Heritage, scan quality is one thing they have down pat. At least whatever they do scan is a really good scan. Omitting items might be another issue. If pinholes are within the tolerance for a SGC10, then it is what it is. If it was a SGC60 with a pinhole it'd be a different story. Bigger scans are always better though......

I agree. Everybody loves REA. They are the laziest with scans out of any auction house. Quality material with horrible small scans. I guess they only have a year (well now 6 months) to prepare scans...

[vargha]

By the way, to clarify . . . what I am calling holes/pinholes are pinhole width, but are as long as 1/4" (more like a razor blade cut in shape).

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

Despite the fact that I think Legendary is in the wrong here, the Mystery Theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

I'll post what actually happened and what was said by noon CST tomorrow. I'll also post my thoughts about this specifically and in general so we can have something to argue about the rest of the day tomorrow.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

Uh, no. There is also a duty not to mislead by speaking half truths, a duty not to fail to inform when you know what you have said may have been misleading, a duty to disclose based upon a relationship and superior knowledge, etc. Misrepresentation, deceit, omission, non-disclosure and concealment are all types of generic fraud. That's fraud 101

[wonkaticket]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

If this thread was about some anonymous seller on eBay and a $100 card, the Net54 torches and pitchforks would be out.

Why is the onus on the bidder? It takes no more effort on the part of an auction house to post larger scans that would more clearly show problems on the cards.

Agree 100% it takes two seconds to put up a good scan and all this drama goes away.

Heritage for example may be slow on shipping for some but those boys know how to put up a proper scan when they list an item.

[Duluth Eskimo]

This is not quite the same, but I have a feeling you may have been treated the same. Many years ago I bid on a rare vintage program in a Mastro auction. I was willing to pay whatever it took to win it as it was pretty much one of a kind and I wanted it for my collection. I won it, of course at my high bid. Anyways, I received the program only to find out the entire 8 page program was torn in half through the middle of the program. You could not see it in the photos because the tears lined up almost perfectly and nowhere in the description did it mention this or any significant wear. I was pissed. I spoke to Doug Allen about this and he basically said, "Oh well, you should have asked more questions prior to bidding". This entire thread basically overstates my opinion of that answer. I wanted the program as it was pretty much one of a kind, but thought I paid significantly more than I would have if the program would have been accurately described. I will admit that they did offer to re-auction the program, but I wanted the program even with the tear, but obviously thought I was getting screwed. Bottom line is Doug Allen said, "We will refund you $100, take it or leave it". I took it as I wanted an example of this program in my collection, but it left a very bad taste in my mouth and I got my first example at how Mastro and his crew did business. Some may say I should have re-auctioned the program, but I chose not to and I still have the program. I did choose not to do business with these people anymore nor give them any material to sell or referrals . Not sure how your issue will turn out, but I will say this "when you deal with the devil you are bound to get burned". I hope you get treated better.

[nolemmings]

Note the date. Lichtman and Schultz on the same side of an argument.

I know. I'm thinking of having myself tested. I'm hoping it's just the stress of the Holidays.

[Rich Klein]

You know I enjoy a good thread like this every day of the week but if the cards are SGC 10's you know something is up with them.

Yes the scans should be bigger but you felt comfortable at your price level and since you knew they were 10's, you could have figured out (You are a smart man) that something else was wrong with them.

Could you post the cards with the updated scans so we can all see what you are talking about. Otherwise there is no visual evidence

Rich

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

Agreed.

[barrysloate]

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

[bobbyw8469]

LOL! Like Memory Lane.....BID TO WIN! GET IT! OWN IT NOW! They are so short, I love seeing what new things they can come up with in 4 words or less!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

Slippery slope. Pinholes were not the only problem. Is Legendary supposed to go through every single card in every single lot and describe every single thing that anyone could possibly consider to be less than perfect?

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vargha

I'll post what actually happened and what was said by noon CST tomorrow. I'll also post my thoughts about this specifically and in general so we can have something to argue about the rest of the day tomorrow.

You stated in an earlier post that you thought SGC overgraded one of your cards. Did you return that card stating that you thought it was over graded? If so I will not continue to LOL and take you serious.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slippery slope. Pinholes were not the only problem. Is Legendary supposed to go through every single card in every single lot and describe every single thing that anyone could possibly consider to be less than perfect?

They should supply all the relevant information possible, and leave out all the unnecessary background noise. In the time it takes them to compose all that flowery verbiage, they could point out the pinholes and have some time left over to work on the next lot. Yes, pinholes are an integral part of the lot description, IMO. We're not talking about a surface wrinkle in one card that they may have missed.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

They should supply all the relevant information possible, and leave out all the unnecessary background noise. In the time it takes them to compose all that flowery verbiage, they could point out the pinholes and have some time left over to work on the next lot. Yes, pinholes are an integral part of the lot description, IMO. We're not talking about a surface wrinkle in one card that they may have missed.

Isn't the determination of what is relevant, relative. A missed surface wrinkle on one single card might be extremely important to a specific bidder depending on what that bidder's thoughts are in regards to a cards specific and acceptable defects. That surface wrinkle might not matter to 25 bidders, but it could matter very much to that 1 single bidder.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by bnorth

You stated in an earlier post that you thought SGC overgraded one of your cards. Did you return that card stating that you thought it was over graded? If so I will not continue to LOL and take you serious.

Hi Ben, you may continue your laughing as I neither discussed or disputed the the grades with SGC, including the ones that I felt were undergraded. Like I said, pre-war black and white cards, and especially the ice cream cards and the York Caramel cards seem to have a wide disparity in some of the grades of 5 and lower. But these were for issues like centering and cut, not material like holes in cards. Furthermore, they graded my raw cards, they didn't sell me graded cards with less than complete information.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by markf31

Isn't the determination of what is relevant, relative. A missed surface wrinkle on one single card might be extremely important to a specific bidder depending on what that bidder's thoughts are in regards to a cards specific and acceptable defects. That surface wrinkle might not matter to 25 bidders, but it could matter very much to that 1 single bidder.

You do the best you can, you can't catch everything. I'm just trying to make a simple point: they could spend a couple of extra moments reviewing a lot, and spend less time composing all that dreadful prose. What would the average collector prefer: more detailed condition information, or longer hyped-up lot descriptions?

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

Dan, that is probably the best rebuttal to the question of Legendary's culpability so far.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

Because they have cards I want.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

I don't think it's necessarily obfuscation. For example some of the descriptions in LOTG are pretty flowery but I think that just reflects Al's enthusiasm. Also I can't dispute the proposition that it's good marketing, and if I were a consignor I would probably like it.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

You know I enjoy a good thread like this every day of the week but if the cards are SGC 10's you know something is up with them.

Yes the scans should be bigger but you felt comfortable at your price level and since you knew they were 10's, you could have figured out (You are a smart man) that something else was wrong with them.

Could you post the cards with the updated scans so we can all see what you are talking about. Otherwise there is no visual evidence

Rich

Rich, I'll post scans when I list them to sell. As to the "visual evidence", either you believe my story or you believe that I am stirring up a sh*t storm to besmirch someone's good name for no apparent reason. I'll let you decide where the truth lies, and I will feel comfortable with your conclusion either way.

To your main points, did you even look at the scans? I provided a direct link to the lot on the very first post. Based on their appearances, did they look too good to be 1's? And lastly, are you now introducing intelligence as a factor for disclosure? If so, how un-smart would a person need to be to place some responsibility at the feet of the seller?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slippery slope. Pinholes were not the only problem. Is Legendary supposed to go through every single card in every single lot and describe every single thing that anyone could possibly consider to be less than perfect?

So post scans that actually show the card and its issues. The scans they posted of these cards are useless. They might as well have drawn pictures of the cards with crayons. That would have been just about as revealing of the cards' issues.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's necessarily obfuscation. For example some of the descriptions in LOTG are pretty flowery but I think that just reflects Al's enthusiasm. Also I can't dispute the proposition that it's good marketing, and if I were a consignor I would probably like it.

Since I've written up over a thousand lots in my days as an auction house owner, I found there are three main things one needs to do:

1) Write an accurate description of a lot's physical characteristics and condition.
2) Supply historical context where it applies ( more so for memorabilia than cards).
3) Offer a little bit of hype to make the lot seem as appealing as possible.

It's a bit of a balancing act and you don't always get it exactly right. Some are really good at it, others offer nothing more than endless hype, just sentence after sentence stating that a particular lot is the greatest thing ever offered. Meanwhile, the auction house has no idea why the lot is important in the context of baseball history.

And I do agree that LOTG does about as good a job as anybody of balancing the three. And Al has a good sense of humor to boot. But I've read other auction descriptions that are simply cringe worthy and embarrassing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

So post scans that actually show the card and its issues. The scans they posted of these cards are useless. They might as well have drawn pictures of the cards with crayons. That would have been just about as revealing of the cards' issues.

I don't disagree that they should have posted a better scan.

[forazzurri2axz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

and the previous ones in the WH were war criminals who sent thousands of kids to die for their wallets to become fatter----let's see...what's worse spinners or neo-nazi war criminals????

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Since I've written up over a thousand lots in my days as an auction house owner, I found there are three main things one needs to do:

1) Write an accurate description of a lot's physical characteristics and condition.
2) Supply historical context where it applies ( more so for memorabilia than cards).
3) Offer a little bit of hype to make the lot seem as appealing as possible.

It's a bit of a balancing act and you don't always get it exactly right. Some are really good at it, others offer nothing more than endless hype, just sentence after sentence stating that a particular lot is the greatest thing ever offered. Meanwhile, the auction house has no idea why the lot is important in the context of baseball history.


And I do agree that LOTG does about as good a job as anybody of balancing the three. And Al has a good sense of humor to boot. But I've read other auction descriptions that are simply cringe worthy and embarrassing.

One of my all time faves was in an old Drent catalog, he described a card as having the colors of a Hawaiian sunset. Bussineau used to have some doozies too, in fact he may have been the pioneer of the over the top write-ups. He was creative though -- "antique white" as a euphemism for toning, for example.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

and the previous ones in the WH were war criminals who sent thousands of kids to die for their wallets to become fatter----let's see...what's worse spinners or neo-nazi war criminals????

Infraction given again......NO mentioning of POLITICS......

[autograf]

'bitter.........party of one.........'




not you Leon....couple posts up......geez.....

[vargha]

I haven't really heard anyone who says Legendary has at least some culpability discuss what a fair response would be. Predicate it on them not having knowledge of the holes prior to my call. Or maybe answer it from the perspective of if you were the seller and a similar thing happened with the buyer contacting you.

[Rich Klein]

I'll repeat one thing, without seeing the larger scans, I have no idea about the size of the pin holes. Since you are refusing to post the scans until you feel ready to sell the cards, I have to assume you have just as much culpability as Legendary is this. Post the damned scans already. I'm shocked no one else has asked you to do this

Rich

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

Post the damned scans already. I'm shocked no one else has asked you to do this

Rich

You're going to have to wait until noon like the rest of us.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by Rich Klein

I'll repeat one thing, without seeing the larger scans, I have no idea about the size of the pin holes. Since you are refusing to post the scans until you feel ready to sell the cards, I have to assume you have just as much culpability as Legendary is this. Post the damned scans already. I'm shocked no one else has asked you to do this

Rich

That or he's just soliciting for solutions to compare to the solution(s) he is ready to accept from or propose to Legendary, so he can pick the solution that benefits him the most. I can't think of any other reasons why he'd repeatedly ask for possible solutions without divulging any additional details. Its why I've only been a spectator in that regard without offering up my opinion.

If I was in your shoes David, I would have settled this with Legendary in private to a degree I found acceptable and that I was satisfied with. Then potentially post my experience here for general discussion instead of panning for solutions as you seem to be doing.

[Fred]

David,

You asked us to "humor" you, I tried doing that earlier in the thread, and the answer to the question is "its ass". My apologies for my poor attempt at humoring you....

These are SGC 10's ("1") so we would expect "issues". However, I understand where you're coming from because when I've sold cards on ebay I always tried to do my best to disclose issues on cards, even if they were graded a "1". Like someone mentioned much earlier in the thread, less fluff about the lot and more descriptive dialog should be used.

I'm not sure that it would have hurt the auction house to add a few more sentences, especially if they are going to make hundreds of dollars on the sale of the lot. We're talking about 5 minutes of time (to provide a more detailed description) and a few lines of text or making larger scans available. Hundreds of dollars of profit vs customer satisfaction?

As mentioned before, an email request for larger scans and/or a more detailed description of the lot could have prevented this.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

Exactly.

I can see why someone would want the cards, a sizeable lot of cool prewar cards in good shape for the grade. My first thought on seeing the scans was they were tiny, with no way to blow them up. And where were the back scans? Backs to me show what can not be seen on the front when it comes to serious damage, such as creases, pin holes, tears. Especially with crappy scans. These are worthy of an ebay cheapo screw the buyer auction. Smells of evasion to me. Buyer beware...oh yeah, that is why we are all reading this.

One note. My eyes are not the best, a reason I tend to buy graded cards. My point here is AH know this is typical of older customers and still do this type of piss-poor presentation. I would not do business with this house, except for Leon's rule: they have what I want.