Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Sane question. Who was hurt, and how?

To be clear, your argument is that if I cannot prove definable injury to anyone, lying is okay? You think it would be acceptable for me to do this in the BST and reveal after the auction I didn’t have the cards, they’d been stolen and I said nothing, but I needed to value them for my insurance claim, thanks for bidding in this farce, because, since nobody paid, nobody had a definable fiscal damage?


I think we all know not a single person would support this if it was not an auction house many like.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Mark17

People and museums with rare works of art regularly carry insurance. If a dollar value can be determined for something unique, like van Gogh's The Starry Night, a value can be determined for a Cracker Jack Matty.

Again, the notion the auction listings needed to run to determine value is ridiculous. This is a very rare instance - meaning, values are almost always determined for insurance purposes in other, conventional ways.

Justifying the deception of bidders simply because you want to find out what they would pay is not, IMO, ethical. As another poster said, if somebody on this forum wanted to know what his card was worth and ran a phantom auction to find out, would that be condoned?

What part of "they were working with authorities, the insurance company, counsel, and other hobby veterans to determine the best route" do you not understand? There is no doubt in my mind those were the folks helping ML make their decisions. And at the end of the day it was JP's call.
And imo, he did exactly what they should have done.

As far as getting the cards there; they got there. That wasn't a problem. The problem was a thief (or thieves) at the hotel.
.

[CardPadre]

Memory Lane had no business keeping people up until 1, 2, 3 am bidding on and committing finances to cards they weren't going to get unless the cards get recovered.

When Memory Lane no longer had access to the cards, that was their problem to deal with, with insurance and with consignors...THEIR problem. No right to recruit unwitting volunteers in their plan to establish value, if that's what it was.

There simply cannot be left open the possibility that in every auction, your participation is completely fictional and completely for someone else's benefit...at your expense of time and resources.

[Mark17]

.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

To be clear, your argument is that if I cannot prove definable injury to anyone, lying is okay? You think it would be acceptable for me to do this in the BST and reveal after the auction I didn’t have the cards, they’d been stolen and I said nothing, but I needed to value them for my insurance claim, thanks for bidding in this farce, because, since nobody paid, nobody had a definable fiscal damage?


I think we all know not a single person would support this if it was not an auction house many like.

It also directly affects one of if not the most popular and respected members. And that’s a fair consideration but I have a sense folks would not be so forgiving if it didn’t. Just my two cents.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

It also directly affects one of if not the most popular and respected members. And that’s a fair consideration but I have a sense folks would not be so forgiving if it didn’t. Just my two cents.

It’s abundantly clear that ethics selectively apply based on who benefits, and we will twist into a pretzel to defend any conduct if it produces the desired outcome. It’s absurd and stupid to argue backwards from conclusion and to pretend that things 100% of us know are wrong when someone we don’t like does it are totally fine when someone we do like or see benefit in defending does it, but it will usually carry a majority vote in the world.

[Casey2296]

-
200+ posts, time for a card or two...
-

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

To those blasting ML: If you are the auction company and your insurance provider says "let the auction run to conclusion or we won't pay" what do you do?

I assume all of those who are sharpening their pitchforks and getting their torches ready would just pay the consignors out of pocket and tell the insurance company to take a flying leap?

I don't KNOW that this is what happened. But I suspect it's not all that far off.

[Exhibitman]

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

To those blasting ML: If you are the auction company and your insurance provider says "let the auction run to conclusion or we won't pay" what do you do?

I assume all of those who are sharpening their pitchforks and getting their torches ready would just pay the consignors out of pocket and tell the insurance company to take a flying leap?

I don't KNOW that this is what happened. But I suspect it's not all that far off.

Again, I would love to see any insurance policy that requires someone to host a fraudulent fake auction after a theft in order to assign value to the items. Perhaps this is on the insurance provider, but this requirement that ML's fans are postulating seems to be extremely unlikely.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

To those blasting ML: If you are the auction company and your insurance provider says "let the auction run to conclusion or we won't pay" what do you do?

I assume all of those who are sharpening their pitchforks and getting their torches ready would just pay the consignors out of pocket and tell the insurance company to take a flying leap?

I don't KNOW that this is what happened. But I suspect it's not all that far off.

You’re focusing on the second aspect which is debatable at best. The first aspect appears to be mailing expensive items to Best Western management and hoping for the best. That would be ridiculed hard if not for who is involved/affected.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

+1

Great post. Worth at least 25 cents.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

Clearly, the problem is the law, for we have ascertained based upon our material interests that J.P. & Gang wouldn't do anything illegal, shady, or sleazy. We must change these unjust laws.

[ValKehl]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

Well said, Adam.

And Phil, that "Big Eater" card is just as sweet, if not sweeter!

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Mark17

+1

Great post. Worth at least 25 cents.

I agree, Adam seems to have a scoop on how this legally was probably a very poor choice by the auction house, as well as just being a damper on their reputation. Definitely a post worth up to $100.00 in my view (but evidently only a phantom auction could determine its true worth).


brianp(arker)-beme

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by G1911

Again, I would love to see any insurance policy that requires someone to host a fraudulent fake auction after a theft in order to assign value to the items. Perhaps this is on the insurance provider, but this requirement that ML's fans are postulating seems to be extremely unlikely.

Thank you.

I am besides myself that in 2024, a major AH tried to sell STOLEN cards in an auction. Such sad times.

[Luke]

Wild story. I hope the cards are found and everyone is made whole. Shipping a box with 2 million in cards to a Best Western is mind-boggling to me. The only way I can imagine doing that is if I had a guy sitting in the lobby all day long waiting to sign for it.

[anchorednw]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This whole thing is wild. My $0.02:

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

2. Allowing the auction to run baffles me. ML is a CA company. Conducting an auction on items it cannot deliver seems to me to be a violation of multiple consumer protection laws. CA Business & Professions Code 17200 prohibits unfair or fraudulent business practices. Any 'winner' who had no actual chance of winning the card they were chasing because it was stolen a few weeks ago was effectively subjected to an unfair or fraudulent trade practice. Then there are the auction regulation laws. CA Civ Code Section 1812.605(c) requires that all auctions "Truthfully represent the goods to be auctioned." If the cards being auctioned have been stolen, that seems to me to be a pretty big untruth. I have a hard time believing that ML was told by counsel to go ahead and risk running afoul of these laws.

3. Apart from legalities, why would they waste customers' time like this? There are a lot of AH's competing for market share, so why disappoint so many customers by running an auction you can't fulfill when the alternative was to pull the stolen lots and run them later if the cards are recovered? It's just a shitty thing to do to collectors.

Scott, I don't think the insurer would make that call. I've worked for insurers and that isn't how they operate. Property insurers are used to appraisals and valuations; they don't need sham auctions to figure out what the items are worth.

Damn, Phil, that Baker is sweet. Great card.

+1 This. I for one am glad that everyone (to our knowledge) will be made (or told they will be) whole. That said, what ML did was NOT ethical no matter how you paint or draw it up.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Thank you.

I am besides myself that in 2024, a major AH tried to sell STOLEN cards in an auction. Such sad times.

It's good to be a company in this hobby - people will defend you for anything and justify any crime or sleaze for you! Your PR department doesn't even have to do the job, your customers will. When they behave this way, we will get a never-ending sleazefest. Industry rule #4,080

[ricktmd]

I highly doubt the insurance carrier for Memory Lane believes they are the ones that have the lion share of the exposure. Memory Lane and its insurers will be looking for the Best Western Strongsville Carrier to cover the loss at their hotel I would bet. It is also more likely than not that the Best Western is owned by others who pay to fly the BW flag and not a corporate owned hotel. I am involved in partnerships on two Best Western properties where we pay a license fee. Our insurance carrier would be expected to perform or get sued. It will be interesting to see who take the loss if the cards don't show up.

[Blunder19]

I was worried when i heard a bunch of 14CJs were stolen..

i confirmed my card was not part of the stolen group..... Sorry to hear of this news for the other buyers. I hope the lost cards are found.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Leon

What part of "they were working with authorities, the insurance company, counsel, and other hobby veterans to determine the best route" do you not understand? There is no doubt in my mind those were the folks helping ML make their decisions. And at the end of the day it was JP's call.
And imo, he did exactly what they should have done.

As far as getting the cards there; they got there. That wasn't a problem. The problem was a thief (or thieves) at the hotel.
.

If you let your friend borrow your car and he decides to leave it parked in downtown San Francisco for a week and then returns it to you with broken windows and human feces in the passenger seat, do you get mad at your friend or at the homeless meth addict who smashed out the windows and defecated on the seat?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Lots of angst over a decision in a no win situation that didn't hurt anyone, accomplished some practical things as summarized by Phil's post, and avoided disrupting completely an auction where lots other folks had consigned non-stolen cards with the expectation of business as usual. Some good sanctimony though, for sure.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Snowman

If you let your friend borrow your car and he decides to leave it parked in downtown San Francisco for a week and then returns it to you with broken windows and human feces in the passenger seat, do you get mad at your friend or at the homeless meth addict who smashed out the windows and defecated on the seat?

Both?

I'd like to use a lifeline, Howie.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by ricktmd

I highly doubt the insurance carrier for Memory Lane believes they are the ones that have the lion share of the exposure. Memory Lane and its insurers will be looking for the Best Western Strongsville Carrier to cover the loss at their hotel I would bet. It is also more likely than not that the Best Western is owned by others who pay to fly the BW flag and not a corporate owned hotel. I am involved in partnerships on two Best Western properties where we pay a license fee. Our insurance carrier would be expected to perform or get sued. It will be interesting to see who take the loss if the cards don't show up.

I believe there is a state law in Ohio limiting the liability of innkeepers for lost or stolen customer property to a very small amount. I read it on the back of the hotel door last time I was in Cleveland for a National. Every place I've ever traveled has the same sort of rules. The BW will probably happily hand over the $500 or whatever it is and call it a day.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Lots of angst over a decision in a no win situation that didn't hurt anyone, accomplished some practical things as summarized by Phil's post, and avoided disrupting completely an auction where lots other folks had consigned non-stolen cards with the expectation of business as usual. Some good sanctimony though, for sure.

Sanctimony? Please. Disagree with people who don't think an AH should deliberately pretend to offer cards it doesn't have, but stooping to belittling should be beneath you.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Blunder19

I was worried when i heard a bunch of 14CJs were stolen..

i confirmed my card was not part of the stolen group..... Sorry to hear of this news for the other buyers. I hope the lost cards are found.

Damn Jamie, beautiful card.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sanctimony? Please. Disagree with people who don't think an AH should deliberately pretend to offer cards it doesn't have, but stooping to belittling should be beneath you.

OK, I'll reframe it along the lines of your own post.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people are offended by this.

To be clear, you said before, Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Sanctimony? Please. Disagree with people who don't think an AH should deliberately pretend to offer cards it doesn't have, but stooping to belittling should be beneath you.

Agree.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK, I'll reframe it along the lines of your own post.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people are offended by this.

To be clear, you said before, Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

You said you don’t consign items to AHs. Do you buy from AHs? They apparently had customers sweating bids at 1 and 2 in the morning for six figures as a practical exercise for their own benefit or to satisfy a hypothetical of if we actually had these cards what would you pay. That seems wrong. And there’s also the fundamental problem before all that they shipped millions of value to a local Best Western’s management. That can and should be called into question.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

You said you don’t consign items to AHs. Do you buy from AHs? They apparently had customers sweating bids at 1 and 2 in the morning for six figures as a practical exercise for their own benefit or to satisfy a hypothetical of if we actually had these cards what would you pay. That seems wrong. And there’s also the fundamental problem before all that they shipped millions of value to a local Best Western’s management. That can and should be called into question.

I definitely call into question shipping to the Best Western, and have posted on that. They should have held it for pickup, or shipped to Joe to take with him on the plane. I think it's unfortunate that people bid on the stolen cards, and admit and admitted before it isn't a pretty look at all, my point has been it's a no win situation and their solution may have been better than the alternative taking into account all the issues and concerns.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

You said you don’t consign items to AHs. Do you buy from AHs? They apparently had customers sweating bids at 1 and 2 in the morning for six figures as a practical exercise for their own benefit or to satisfy a hypothetical of if we actually had these cards what would you pay. That seems wrong. And there’s also the fundamental problem before all that they shipped millions of value to a local Best Western’s management. That can and should be called into question.

But, but, but, there's a double standard. If an AH we like does it, that's fine, there's nothing to see here, and those who have a problem with it are sanctimonious.

If you or I did such a thing in the BST section of this website, we'd be heavily scolded if not banned.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Kidnapped18

Think about it if your 2020 Tesla was stolen...

What about my 91 Honda CRX?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

OK, I'll reframe it along the lines of your own post.

Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people are offended by this.

To be clear, you said before, Honestly, I find it so hard to believe that so many people defend this.

I thought this might be the thread we were on the same side for once lol. Running apparently illegal, fraudulent fake auctions seems very difficult to defend. And we all know none of you would defend someone unpopular doing 100% the same thing. I cannot see how this is not a different rules for different people take. Nobody wants to bite and say me doing it in the BST is just fine and dandy also.

If one's position is defending a lie or fabrication, then one is pretty much always wrong. I have a very hard time seeing any situation where the right thing to do is to lie to your customers. And half the arguments given in support are just obviously fictions like this imaginary insurance policy that requires a fake auction to set values.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

But, but, but, there's a double standard. If an AH we like does it, that's fine, there's nothing to see here, and those who have a problem with it are sanctimonious.

If you or I did such a thing in the BST section of this website, we'd be heavily scolded if not banned.

I am 99% sure I would be banned for it and not a single person here would defend me. Nor should they. This hits the nail on the head, it's just wagons circling around people they like without any consistency to the claims.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

But, but, but, there's a double standard. If an AH we like does it, that's fine, there's nothing to see here, and those who have a problem with it are sanctimonious.

If you or I did such a thing in the BST section of this website, we'd be heavily scolded if not banned.

I am no fan of ML. I don't consign to them or bid with them. Maybe a card or two years ago. So don't presume.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am 99% sure I would be banned for it and not a single person here would defend me. Nor should they. This hits the nail on the head, it's just wagons circling around people they like without any consistency to the claims.

You're presuming in my case. Falsely.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Leon

I absolutely assume ML contacted authorities and insurance, not necessarily in that order, immediately. Those entities, and ML's counsel, were help making the decisions, would be my guess.
.

That's a fact, it's not a guess

[SyrNy1960]

Fact: If ML ended the auction immediately upon knowing the cards were stolen, and notified all involved, this thread would be all about the theft of the cards.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am no fan of ML. I don't consign to them or bid with them. Maybe a card or two years ago. So don't presume.

Don't presume I was speaking only about you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Don't presume I was speaking only about you.

I am the only one who talked about sanctimoniousness, which was featured in your post. Whether or not I was the only one you were addressing, you clearly meant to include me.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by doug.goodman

That's a fact, it's not a guess

Any of those entities advising to continue a phantom auction seems a bit dubious but perhaps that’s wrong. How do you know the actual fact?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're presuming in my case. Falsely.

Of course I am; because while I have the wrong ideas I'm not quite bad enough to host fraudulent auctions to test the hypothesis. If I put up a nice card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, you would say I did the best and right thing and defend it? Really?

Are we not against failing to disclose altered cards and lying in auctions? Why is it okay to lie about having the card at all? This makes no logical sense without a circus argument that lying is actually just fine and contradicting so many other hobby debates here.

[doug.goodman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't know if they have insurance coverage or not. Even if they did, most of these cards don't have established values. So there is a logic to establishing values through the auction. The same logic would apply if no insurance, to establish compensation for the consignors of the lost cards. Not defending them, just offering a perspective.

I agree 100%.

Yes the auctions of the stolen cards "screwed" the winners (and arguably many underbidders) but ultimately it was the best way to determine definitive values of items for their consignors. Who they are paying in full.

That's really all that matters in my mind, regardless of all the made up scenarios I've read so far (I'm at post #179) in this thread.

Bravo to Memory Lane.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Any of those entities advising to continue a phantom auction seems a bit dubious but perhaps that’s wrong. How do you know the actual fact?

I find it extremely surprising that so many are so confident that ML has an entirely unique insurance policy nobody else in the world does that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value the items. Also seems odd their lawyers would say to host a fake auction and violate California consumer laws.

Easy way to tell a bad take is to look at how absurd the arguments given to defend it are. These are really bad arguments that make no sense at all.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Of course I am; because while I have the wrong ideas I'm not quite bad enough to host fraudulent auctions to test the hypothesis. If I put up a nice card and Leon pinned it for the occasional board auction, that card was stolen and I declined to say anything, let the auction run with everyone making the obvious inference that I was in a position to deliver the card, then after it was done came on the board and thanked everyone for their bids but now said it was stolen and I just needed the auction to set the value for me for my insurance, you would say I did the best and right thing and defend it? Really?

Are we not against failing to disclose altered cards and lying in auctions? Why is it okay to lie about having the card at all? This makes no logical sense without a circus argument that lying is actually just fine and contradicting so many other hobby debates here.

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people. Context, nuance, can matter. It's a very weird, possibly unique situation.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am the only one who talked about sanctimoniousness, which was featured in your post. Whether or not I was the only one you were addressing, you clearly meant to include me.

Instead of addressing my point -that it would be unacceptable behavior for most of us - you choose to parse my comment? Well, okay, I apologize for suggesting you are one of the folks who likes ML.

Now... what do you think would be the response if one of us deliberately offered for sale items we don't have? I see newbies getting bug-zapped out of here almost daily for offering things they (probably) don't have.

Maybe they are innocently trying to determine values? In any case, if nobody gets scammed, nobody gets hurt, right? Isn't that your standard?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

I find it extremely surprising that so many are so confident that ML has an entirely unique insurance policy nobody else in the world does that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value the items. Also seems odd their lawyers would say to host a fake auction and violate California consumer laws.

Easy way to tell a bad take is to look at how absurd the arguments given to defend it are. These are really bad arguments that make no sense at all.

Lawyers give appallingly bad advice every day, I wouldn't place much stock in that.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

1. The logistics were idiotic. There is an entire secured logistics industry out there that moves small high value items from point to point and stores them. I've researched a few in the past for a cross-country option for moving my collection. For $2 million in a small-ish box you could readily have them transported securely and stored securely in a facility where theft would be a non-issue. It amazes me that ML sent seven figures in cards with about the same level of care as Aunt Edna's ugly Christmas sweater.

I think it is more than reasonable to use a reliable company like Fed Ex to deliver 2 million or more worth of valuables as long as the person shipping has the authorization, by their ins carrier, to use Fed Ex as a means of shipping and maintain full coverage.

That is moot though because Fed Ex delivered the box. Unless we hear the box they delivered was empty and was therefore thrown out and explains why they cannot find it.

This is all on the co who shipped the cards--they sent them in care of a $75 a night motel who had no involvement with the contents.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're engaging in reductionist thinking: all untruths are the same. To me, they aren't. In the particular facts of this case, and with no harm, and with many concerns and factors at play, it may have been the lesser evil. That doesn't make me any less of a hater of altered cards and nondisclosure of material facts that hurt people.

Oh they are not the same. Untruths (technically, not relevant here - the issue is not that somebody said something that turned out to be incorrect; it is a very blatantly intentional lie. Untruth is quite a softening) are bad.

The truth = good
Lies = bad

Not all lies are the same degree of bad. It's not really right of me to tell my aunt her cooking is just the bees knees when I want to spit it out. It's more not right to lie by ommission and not disclose material facts about a card. It's even more not right to completely lie about having the card at all and hosting a completely fake auction for it.

Dishonesty is a bad thing. It is bad whether I do it, you do it, a company does it, somebody I like does it, or somebody I don't like does it. I'm not seeing how thinking companies should not completely lie to customers is sanctimonious; it's a very low minimum bar of behavior being stated here. Really, this bar is basically laying on the ground, it's not hard a high standard to not host illegal fake auctions.