Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

This is posted near the top of every page. Please adhere to it in the future.

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. It's one of the most important rules on the forum.



.

"

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by raulus

How many times does this need to be repeated!!!????

It was a Best Western Plus!!!

Not just any old ratty Best Western.

HUGE DIFFERENCE. Get it straight, people.

Do we know that it was in fact a Best Western Plus before the theft. The Plus could have been added after the heist.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Do we know that it was in fact a Best Western Plus before the theft. The Plus could have been added after the heist.

No it was there prior to the heist. There was small print on the sign that read:

BEST WESTERN PLUS
we steal your stuff

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by ricktmd

I also agree with Ryan. ML made the best of a terrible situation and is taking the high road by paying consignors and not waiting for the insurance companies to settle the matter. I doubt many other Auction Houses would reach in their pockets to pay consignors. I use Memory Lane and think they are top shelf. If they let the auction run and didn't pay the consignors or took money from bidders that would be another story. They did what they had to and protected their consignors and bidders both. As far as the winning bidders not being able to get the items they won (or pay anything), if it were me I would think it is not that big a deal as no money was lost.

If the cards are not found very soon it will likely be a battle between insurance companies. Memory Lanes insurance company is not going to just roll over and pay when the liability is with the Hotel. I highly doubt (as stated in this post by others) that the tag in the room relating to liability of property belonging to guests is equally applied to owners of the hotel holding valuable property for a future guest that they signed for. I am an investor in hotels similar to this and for sure the hotel has liability and will look to their insurance carrier (assuming they have an appropriate policy)

They don't have working elevators, short staff and barely have running hot water. Yea, big insurance policy I'm sure. LOL.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Do we know that it was in fact a Best Western Plus before the theft. The Plus could have been added after the heist.

The Plus refers to the "Plus Bed Bugs"

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

I am sure one could argue and your carrier might even say you were partially liable.

If you left the stuff overnight at a show in unlocked cases, no body bag and knowing the show did not provide security at night, I think your claim could be denied.

Same for leaving stuff in your room. If the hotel knows you are there for the card show and you leave the stuff out in the open knowing employees have access to the room and you leave for a long period of time, your claim could be denied.

Bottom line is that the most reasonable safeguards possible must be used when valuables are on or off premises. I do not feel leaving the box at the front desk, essentially that has 2 million worth of cards and a rep who is not going to be there for days, rises to the level of safeguarding.

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. For example, my ACNA policy says this:

"We will not pay for “loss” or damage caused by or resulting from covered property being shipped by the insured via 1st class mail. However, items sent by any common carrier where a signature of receipt is required would not be subject to this exclusion."

If the carrier doesn't actually get a signature, the insurer cannot deny coverage if I shipped via a method that 'required' signature. The clause would have to state that the signature must be required and successfully obtained. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Insurer ponied up once I pointed this out and threatened a bad faith case.

[Snapolit1]

Ambiguities in an insurance policy are construed against the drafter of the policy (i.e. the insurer) and in favor of coverage. Insurance Law 101.

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Carrier lost.

[Exhibitman]

Yep. That's why insurance policies can be incredibly prolix and require that a coverage lawyer be a bit of a masochist to willingly read all that crap.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

what would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

20%?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Same incentive they always have on every lot in every auction. As does every auction house.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

[JollyElm]

A special 'Collectorisms' offering:

Bled and Breakfast
The theft of millions of dollars worth of rare and historical collectibles, which had for some inexplicable reason remained unsecured somewhere inside of a hotel facility.

See also: Indoor Fool - rightfully or wrongfully, the 'blunderous' employee who is ultimately held responsible for such an oversight.

See also: Broom Service - the methods employed by interested parties to lessen the repercussions and make sure this ridiculous travesty is swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

Sorry, I was being facetious. Just trying to beat the next conspiracy theorist to the punch.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Sorry, I was being facetious. Just trying to beat the next conspiracy theorist to the punch.

Fair enough. And actually a pretty good one, now that you explain it. All good

[Republicaninmass]

Why on earth wouldn't they just ship them to the guys house who is driving to the show? Did they pay for his flight then go "all in" for a best Western plus? Hindsight...wow.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

No, that is incorrect. Any policyholder's duty of care in specific instances or any exclusions for not taking specific actions must be specified in the policy itself or the lack of specifics will go against the carrier. For example, my ACNA policy says this:

"We will not pay for “loss” or damage caused by or resulting from covered property being shipped by the insured via 1st class mail. However, items sent by any common carrier where a signature of receipt is required would not be subject to this exclusion."

If the carrier doesn't actually get a signature, the insurer cannot deny coverage if I shipped via a method that 'required' signature. The clause would have to state that the signature must be required and successfully obtained. I once had a case where the client's warehouse was burglarized and the insurer tried to deny the claim because the required alarm system was functional but not armed at the time of the break-in. The policy required that the insured have a functional alarm system but did not require that it be armed at the time of the incident or exclude coverage if the alarm system was not armed. Insurer ponied up once I pointed this out and threatened a bad faith case.

Very much appreciate the explanation. I assumed the burden would be on the insured so this is great to know. I have not taken insurance 101.

Adam, What is the insurer takes the position I was negligent by not taking steps to protect the valuables the best as I could while off premises and while in my possession? Does that language have to be included in the policy in order for them to deny a claim? I would think by my being irresponsible they could hold me at least partially liable for the loss or do they have to spell out that they will not cover the insured's negligence?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

We know. Peter was explaining that your position doesn't make sense, as any "extra" that ML received from the insurance would then have to be paid to the consignors.

[LOUCARDFAN]

I am utterly amazed that someone at ML actually thought sending $2 million dollars worth of someone else's cards to a cut rate hotel would be ok is astonishing enough.

I would also bet that the BW hotel wasn't even aware of the dollar value of the box that was received and ultimately stolen.

I am quite sure that if the hotel had been aware of it before hand, they would have told them no and that they would not be responsible for the shipment. Sorry, but even the Bellagio is cautious on high dollar items arriving at their place and they have an underground vault.

Secondly, would any of the winning bidders of the stolen items possibly have a case for legal action against ML to make them good on providing the item that they were contractually high bidder on? Those same bidders are contractually bound to pay ML for an item if they were high bidder so why not vice versa? I would think that if the items were stolen and the auction halted or stopped but since they let the auction continue all the while knowingly that they didn't have the items and very well never obtain them i would think they would be in a prime spot for legal action.

Lastly, I hope that the cards are ultimately found, and everyone is made good on this terrible predicament that ML put themselves in. Ryan, I do hope that you and all the other consigners are made whole but why wouldn't ML tell you and the other consigners anything but positive things to keep you all calm and patient which offers themselves more time to hopefully but doubtfully getting the cards back?

I would be willing to bet my entire collection that unless ML pays the consigners out of their own pockets, those consigners won't be made whole anytime soon as the insurance companies will deny any claims made and this will be tied up for years in the court system.

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Yes, the insurance company would just turn around and auction them off again if they were to take ownership by paying out on a claim and then later recovering the assets.

But I'd wager good money that they won't be consigning them to Memory Lane lol

Absolutely, most insurers' claims dept. have a salvage unit which does nothing more than dispose of assets recovered after they have paid the claim. Disposition can be anything; auctions, private sales, charitable contributions etc.

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Do we know that it was in fact a Best Western Plus before the theft. The Plus could have been added after the heist.

If so, that could explain why before the heist they would have been nonplussed.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

He now owns a 7.5 Cobb bat off, is ML shipping tomorrow? No of course not, but he owns it and doesn't have to pay for it until delivery.
If it turns up 3 years from now he still owns it, it's his card and this auction has clearly established ownership. And he owns it at the strike price.

No sir, once he is refunded it is not his card and not at that price. 3 yrs when the cards are worth half, try getting the people to.pay!

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

No sir, once he. s refunded it is not his card and not at that price. 3 urs when the cards are worth half, try getting the people to.pay!

ML said it would be the buyers option whether he wanted the card or not. But my logic was flawed, if insurance pays and the cards are found it is the property of the insurance company.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

ML said it would be the buyers option whether he wanted the card or not. But my logic was flawed, if insurance pays and the cards are found it is the property of the insurance company.

Ah! Wasn't aware ML.said that. Again I won a psa 2 green Cobb 3 yrs ago and was never refunded and thr card enver shipped. If it turns up, I have no claim. Prisco auctions stole 50k via live auctioneers and nobody was made whole

[brianp-beme]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoda

If the cards are not recovered then the carrier will subrogate against BW due to their negligence. The small statutory innkeepers liability limit will not protect BW in this case.

Exhibitman:

Explain how you come to this conclusion, please. My understanding is that subrogees are subject to all the same defenses as their subrogors. If there is an innkeepers' law that protects the hotel against a theft claim from the guest (subrogor), it also protects against the insurer (subrogee) who assumes the claim under an insurance contract.


"Subrogees, subrogors...let's call the whole subrogate off."

Signature song from the upcoming Broadway musical "Subrogate: The Saga of Memory Lane"


brianp(arker)-beme

[toothcutter]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

Is an inside job possible?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by toothcutter

Is an inside job possible?

It's definitely an inside job at the BW+ level imho.

[1880nonsports]

unlike school rooms across the country - life often gives you the test and THEN the lesson.....

[Lobo Aullando]

Personally, I was hoping for Shipped-Ittery (n.) using a method of transport (including security at the receiving end) that is inadequate considering the potential loss.

Originally Posted by JollyElm

A special 'Collectorisms' offering:

Bled and Breakfast
The theft of millions of dollars worth of rare and historical collectibles, which had for some inexplicable reason remained unsecured somewhere inside of a hotel facility.

See also: Indoor Fool - rightfully or wrongfully, the 'blunderous' employee who is ultimately held responsible for such an oversight.

See also: Broom Service - the methods employed by interested parties to lessen the repercussions and make sure this ridiculous travesty is swept under the rug and forgotten about.

[ThomasL]

Been thinking about the crime itself...maybe we should switch to that...

novel idea since most of this topic has been generated to how the Auction House handled it...

To me the most interesting part is the second box that was reported opened but not taken. Now we are missing a key part of the story that being the size and weight of the two boxes...but here is my question:

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It suggests to me that the thief was targeting that specific box. If you just wanted to steal cards you take both boxes without opening them as opening them on site is time consuming and increasing your risk of getting caught. (now if that is improbable based on the size of the box left it changes things obviously)

Now you might say "if the box was targeted then the thief knew which box to take so why even waste time opening the second box?"

Good question...well I have three possibilities for that:
1. The thief did it in an attempt to give the impression that one box was not targeted...and yet fail to realize that logically bc the stolen box was taken in whole this line of reasoning was flawed. Flawed bc it tells us he knew who had sent the target box before hand so logically he had no need to open it and pilfer through it or any other box.

2. The thief forgot who the mailer of the target box was, or didnt know, but was only aware of the contents/items to be stolen. Thus the thief had to open both boxes to see what was inside, opened the wrong box first, opened the second box to make sure it was the box based on contents (which would suggest he had no idea if it was delivered or not either) and took the targeted box in whole once it was opened.

3. The second box being opened has nothing to do the theft at all...some random employee mistook it for something else, opened it and just left it there. This seems unlikely to me as the police would know this pretty quickly and there would be no need for it to be reported anywhere.


I would like to throw out there the most optimistic idea as well bc Im not sure anyone has posted it...what if the package isnt stolen? What if it was delivered to the wrong address or hotel and just some fedex driver and/or hotel employee didnt care to check to make sure it was the correct address...just mindlessly went about their jobs scanning and signing...Im sure we all know this is a greater possibility then anyone would like to admit, but things very similar probably have happened to anyone dealing with mailing services in the last 20 years (yes fedex isnt the usps but still). I would like to think this was quickly ruled out though but thought it was worth mentioning

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

Agree. I can easily imagine Law Enforcement saying, "Leave the auctions up and let's see what they [the thieves] do..."

[Republicaninmass]

Out of desperation and naivety, maybe they were hoping they were simply misplaced and woukd show up...soon.

[Exhibitman]

Maybe the other box was heavy, Thomas, so the thief decided to open it first before lugging it off.

[jayshum]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Been thinking about the crime itself...maybe we should switch to that...

novel idea since most of this topic has been generated to how the Auction House handled it...

To me the most interesting part is the second box that was reported opened but not taken. Now we are missing a key part of the story that being the size and weight of the two boxes...but here is my question:

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It suggests to me that the thief was targeting that specific box. If you just wanted to steal cards you take both boxes without opening them as opening them on site is time consuming and increasing your risk of getting caught. (now if that is improbable based on the size of the box left it changes things obviously)

Now you might say "if the box was targeted then the thief knew which box to take so why even waste time opening the second box?"

Good question...well I have three possibilities for that:
1. The thief did it in an attempt to give the impression that one box was not targeted...and yet fail to realize that logically bc the stolen box was taken in whole this line of reasoning was flawed. Flawed bc it tells us he knew who had sent the target box before hand so logically he had no need to open it and pilfer through it or any other box.

2. The thief forgot who the mailer of the target box was, or didnt know, but was only aware of the contents/items to be stolen. Thus the thief had to open both boxes to see what was inside, opened the wrong box first, opened the second box to make sure it was the box based on contents (which would suggest he had no idea if it was delivered or not either) and took the targeted box in whole once it was opened.

3. The second box being opened has nothing to do the theft at all...some random employee mistook it for something else, opened it and just left it there. This seems unlikely to me as the police would know this pretty quickly and there would be no need for it to be reported anywhere.


I would like to throw out there the most optimistic idea as well bc Im not sure anyone has posted it...what if the package isnt stolen? What if it was delivered to the wrong address or hotel and just some fedex driver and/or hotel employee didnt care to check to make sure it was the correct address...just mindlessly went about their jobs scanning and signing...Im sure we all know this is a greater possibility then anyone would like to admit, but things very similar probably have happened to anyone dealing with mailing services in the last 20 years (yes fedex isnt the usps but still). I would like to think this was quickly ruled out though but thought it was worth mentioning

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

According to the SCD article, there is security video showing that the box was delivered:

"According to the company, security cameras reviewed by police show the heavy duty brown cardboard box being delivered and signed for."

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Hotel employees obviously know whats coming to town, especially as the hotel that has hosted the event for years. It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to open a couple of boxes obviously intended for the show and discover cards in one, and catalogs in another and only take the good one. I think this was a crime of opportunity not some grand caper.

Also if you've stayed in ANY hotel recently you know how understaffed they are. There was likely very little danger of someone being caught red-handed opening the boxes to check them out, especially if it was someone on the overnight shift when there's usually only one desk person present.

I'd like to give law enforcement a little more credit than thinking maybe they were delivered to the wrong hotel and nobody has figured that out yet, that seems pretty far-fetched.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2011 Ohio Revised Code
Title [47] XLVII OCCUPATIONS - PROFESSIONS
Chapter 4721: INNKEEPERS
4721.03 Limit of liability as to certain property.

Universal Citation: OH Rev Code § 4721.03
The liability of an innkeeper whether person, partnership, or corporation, for loss of or injury to personal property placed in his care by his guests other than that described in sections 4721.01 and 4721.02 of the Revised Code, shall be that of a depositary for hire. Liability shall not exceed one hundred fifty dollars for each trunk and its contents, fifty dollars for each valise and its contents, and ten dollars for each box, bundle, or package, and contents, so placed in his care, unless he has consented in writing with such guest to assume a greater liability.

You can tell that one hasn't been updated since the early 1900s.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It could be the thief had no idea what was in the boxes. They saw two boxes sitting in the storage area, opened them both to see what was in them, liked what they saw in one box and not the other, so took just the one box. Doesn't have to be targeted at all.

Edited to add: Looks like Scott beat me to it.

[notfast]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

Been thinking about the crime itself...maybe we should switch to that...

novel idea since most of this topic has been generated to how the Auction House handled it...

To me the most interesting part is the second box that was reported opened but not taken. Now we are missing a key part of the story that being the size and weight of the two boxes...but here is my question:

Why take one box in whole and open another and leave it?

It suggests to me that the thief was targeting that specific box. If you just wanted to steal cards you take both boxes without opening them as opening them on site is time consuming and increasing your risk of getting caught. (now if that is improbable based on the size of the box left it changes things obviously)

Now you might say "if the box was targeted then the thief knew which box to take so why even waste time opening the second box?"

Good question...well I have three possibilities for that:
1. The thief did it in an attempt to give the impression that one box was not targeted...and yet fail to realize that logically bc the stolen box was taken in whole this line of reasoning was flawed. Flawed bc it tells us he knew who had sent the target box before hand so logically he had no need to open it and pilfer through it or any other box.

2. The thief forgot who the mailer of the target box was, or didnt know, but was only aware of the contents/items to be stolen. Thus the thief had to open both boxes to see what was inside, opened the wrong box first, opened the second box to make sure it was the box based on contents (which would suggest he had no idea if it was delivered or not either) and took the targeted box in whole once it was opened.

3. The second box being opened has nothing to do the theft at all...some random employee mistook it for something else, opened it and just left it there. This seems unlikely to me as the police would know this pretty quickly and there would be no need for it to be reported anywhere.


I would like to throw out there the most optimistic idea as well bc Im not sure anyone has posted it...what if the package isnt stolen? What if it was delivered to the wrong address or hotel and just some fedex driver and/or hotel employee didnt care to check to make sure it was the correct address...just mindlessly went about their jobs scanning and signing...Im sure we all know this is a greater possibility then anyone would like to admit, but things very similar probably have happened to anyone dealing with mailing services in the last 20 years (yes fedex isnt the usps but still). I would like to think this was quickly ruled out though but thought it was worth mentioning

Anyway I thought instead of debating insurance and claims that time might be better spent trying to come up with plausible theories to the crime...but I think if the police felt this was a targeted theft it could possibly explain why the police might advise ML to let the auction run and not report it to cosigners and bidders, for several reasons, in an attempt to help find or eliminate suspects I would think.

The most likely scenario is that it was delivered with normal fed ex deliveries to the business, opened like normal packages they get delivered and then someone saw baseball cards and decided to take them. A crime of opportunity.

The tidbit about the catalog boxes being opened makes me think this was the case.

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

Not to mention, that Hotel was probably one of the biggest dumps I have stayed in since the 1970's. Best Western PLUS, they say. Plus what? Bed Bugs? It was like camping. There are no safes in the room. The hot water took 20 minutes to warm up on the top floor. That's only if you gingerly turned it on and the handle didn't come off. The Elevators were out both nights and the tiny staff reflected all of it.

That said, I had a great time but was somewhat apprehensive traveling there with cash and cards. Obviously for good reason.

I probably had one of the best times on this trip than I've had in a long time though. Especially where baseball cards are concerned. So much so, I want to go back next year. I was waiting in the lobby when the detectives were doing follow-up interviews on SAT Afternoon, talking about a "Package" and "video". Now it all makes sense.

I really enjoyed getting to know Joe T and he helped "hard sell" me on a card at Ashish's table before I left. Knowing that Bad MemoryLane is a local company, I bid pretty hard and won 3 great items. First and last time I'll use them. I just confirmed my lots were "not stolen" before I sent my fat check. I'm going to pick-them up in person.

Also, This is really the 2nd year I've utilized auction houses significantly. That said, I'm not overly happy with the entire experience of my losses or wins. My eyes are hurting...I CAN'T SEE giving these clowns 20% buyer premium. It is flat out gouging and not worth the service, IMHO. Get it down to 5% and I'll give them another chance.

I feel terrible for Ryan who has just a tremendous collection. At least he has faith in MemoryLane and is probably why he trusted his prized possession to them in the first place. If he's happy, I'm happy. Good luck Ryan.

Still I've made my last bid at Heretic, Bad MemoryLane and REA. cause I can't win anything @REA anyway.

Which card did you purchase from hard sell?

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Aaron Seefeldt

I'm curious to know if these cards were part of the stolen box:

D304 E Collins PSA 3 = $14,298
D304 Lajoie PSA 4 = $20,934
D304 Mathewson PSA 3 = $42,290
D304 Wagner PSA 3 = $50,339

An SGC 3 D304 Wagner sold in REA in August of last year for $11,700...

Curiosity killed the cat but the above prices made absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Was the 1910 Tip Top Bread Wagner pose graded PSA 1.5 that auctioned for $81K part of the stolen lot?

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

It could be the thief had no idea what was in the boxes. They saw two boxes sitting in the storage area, opened them both to see what was in them, liked what they saw in one box and not the other, so took just the one box. Doesn't have to be targeted at all.

Edited to add: Looks like Scott beat me to it.

Doesn't the hotel have security cameras, especially in the front desk area?

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by ThomasL

On this line of thinking...since the auction ran that created a whole alternative line or lines of possibilities...as others pointed out pages back several items were bid way up from recent previous comps...yes I know that happens all the time but think of it this way as pointed out previously...what if those were the stolen cards...then the FBI has to investigate the bidders of those cards and the cosigners I would imagine wouldnt they? If they had nothing to do with this mess then that is wasted time and energy

Again the best course of action would have been to immediately cancel the auction and inform the parties involved.

Thomas Saunders

Following this reasoning wouldn’t the actual consigners benefit the most as their payouts from an insurance claim be based on the card(s) price run ups? Edit: intent is to illustrate following the OPs argument, this would be nonsensical and absurd.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by brunswickreeves

Following this reasoning wouldn’t the actual consigners benefit the most as their payouts from an insurance claim be based on the card(s) price run ups?

Yup. And that is exactly why Memory Lane and I (and the other affected consignors) conspired to have cards stolen, so we could shill bid the "stolen" cards and commit insurance fraud and make a little extra money. We just had no idea that you internet geniuses would figure out our brilliant plan.

Brunswickreeves, you are getting awfully close to implying something that is very untrue and extremely offensive. Watch it.

Guys, please be mindful that this is a public message board, and that this is a real and very unfortunate situation with the real potential for economic and reputational loss to real people. Its one thing to discuss this matter -- its a BIG deal in our hobby and should be discussed. But its another altogether to start making assumptions on facts nobody knows about and, worse, making assumptions about people's motives, throwing around words like fraudulent, "price run ups", etc.

Ryan Hotchkiss, Consignor to Memory Lane

Leon, perhaps its time to lock this thread before some members get sued (or counter-sued in the case of Snowman) because of careless, false, and harmful public statements.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I honestly think bunswickreeves was making the point that it makes no sense for the auction company to participate in running things up because they wouldn't benefit. I don't think he was implying any wrongdoing, actually the contrary. Of course I've been wrong before.

[Seven]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Yup. And that is exactly why Memory Lane and I (and the other affected consignors) conspired to have cards stolen, so we could shill bid the "stolen" cards and commit insurance fraud and make a little extra money. We just had no idea that you internet geniuses would figure out our brilliant plan.

And you would've gotten away with it to, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog!

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I honestly think bunswickreeves was making the point that it makes no sense for the auction company to participate in running things up because they wouldn't benefit. I don't think he was implying any wrongdoing, actually the contrary. Of course I've been wrong before.

Perhaps, and if that’s the case, I apologize. But there have been many bravdo, know-it-all, irresponsible, etc statements made on this thread by people who don’t know facts, don’t know law (even though they act like the Supreme Court of internet chat boards), and, I think, don’t understand the potential damage and offense of their public musings, accusations, and assumptions; and, I believe, several are well aware of the offense.

For the benefit of the hobby and this community, I have tried to be open and communicative as a consignor about what I know and think on the matter. But this will be my last post on this thread. I will not update this board on how things turn out on my end- the peanut gallery ain’t worth it and I sure as hell don’t want to hear anyone’s opinion on the matter.

[Kco]

Originally Posted by pureball22

So if I went after a card they can't deliver over another card I also wanted, I guess I'm just SOL...Or if I sold stock, paid a big capital gains tax to finance a card they can't deliver....now what????

HOW you chose to finance your purchase is on you, not the AH. At the end of the day thats your prerogative. I'm not supporting ML here, what they did has tarnished them at this point, but whatever you personally are doing to get your cashflow ready is your business.

[Leon]

I don't blame you.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Perhaps, and if that’s the case, I apologize. But there have been many bravdo, know-it-all, irresponsible, etc statements made on this thread by people who don’t know facts, don’t know law (even though they act like the Supreme Court of internet chat boards), and, I think, don’t understand the potential damage and offense of their public musings, accusations, and assumptions; and, I believe, several are well aware of the offense.

For the benefit of the hobby and this community, I have tried to be open and communicative as a consignor about what I know and think on the matter. But this will be my last post on this thread. I will not update this board on how things turn out on my end- the peanut gallery ain’t worth it and I sure as hell don’t want to hear anyone’s opinion on the matter.

[brunswickreeves]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

I honestly think bunswickreeves was making the point that it makes no sense for the auction company to participate in running things up because they wouldn't benefit. I don't think he was implying any wrongdoing, actually the contrary. Of course I've been wrong before.

Yep exactly +1. I’m in no way intending to imply any wrongdoing on anyone’s part.