My bet would be on this conclusion. I have firsthand experience on buying a currency in NM-MT and it having a good sized indention in it, after in person inspection. I was told the large type scanner the company used didn't pick it up. It was a quick refund...

100 of thousands of fakes with HIS NAME RIGHT ON the FAKE Certificate from GAI. "look up "from the Mike Baker Collection" :D:D

He signed on behalf of GAi but I don't think there was any suggestion he was actually authenticating the autographs himself?

Which is why a good auction house writes an accurate description in addition to the best scan they can provide.

I don't think what "end" the auction house is on should have any impact on how they conduct their business. If this was a smaller or "low end" auction it would be OK???

Says the fine gentleman with some of the best descriptions in the business.:)

LOL, no it is only OK when the AH/seller is a friend who does it to others.:eek::D

I'm guessing that this post was intended to suggest that we might expect these sorts of shenanigans from some two-bit seller/shyster on eBay, but not from a reputable AH.

My guess is whoever wrote the description did not have the card in hand. I imagine with many auction houses -- and especially for lots that are middle or lower tier -- the short description is based on the scan the writer is given rather a firsthand review of the card.

In any case, I'd be very surprised if the auction house doesn't allow a refund or offer a workable solution for both parties. As an aside, the main writer for this auction house knows every aspect of the hobby inside and out. He wouldn't be deceitful about the condition of the card, and I'm confident the same is true of the auction house overall. Best to allow them the full opportunity to make this right.

I wonder who he let write the Goudey Ruth #181 descriptions for this last auction. The blue highlighted text is from the actual auction lot description.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0431ca57dc.jpg

Ooohhhh, what a gotcha moment! Alert the New York Times!

Huh? What is your source? So you want us to believe eBay not only booted PWCC off of the site but then went out of their way to notify everyone who bought a card from them that they were shill bidding? That is libel so if you know that the actual reason they were booted was because of launching their "competing" platform then you might know why PWCC did not sue the shit out of eBay.

Yes, that is precisely what I'm saying. And the reason they didn't sue for libel is because ebay's lawyers were careful when crafting that email by saying, "individuals associated with PWCC" were shill bidding. In other words, their consigners (ebay's responsibility, not PWCC's) were shilling their own cards. Also, ebay has had a decades long track record of actively enabling shill bidding on their platform. And PWCC has a fully built out auction platform up and running literally one month later. A custom built in house website that had been in development for the better part of a year. This is not just coincidence. There is zero chance that PWCC was kicked off for shilling cards themselves.

Well, I have good news to report. I received a check from Memory Lane for a full refund on the Goudey Gehrig plus $100 to cover return shipping.

It came as a bit of a surprise though, as I did not receive a follow up phone call or an email response regarding the card after they received it back in hand. They just sent out a check. But I'm OK with that. At least they made it right in the end.

Wise decision on their part, especially if they knew this thread was active.
We'll see, going forward, if they try the same stunt?

Glad it worked out for you in the end!

Congrats Travis. I wouldn’t worry too much about the paucity of communication. If my experience with AH disputes is any guide, sometimes less is more when it comes to communication.

I am glad it worked out.

I am in no way excusing selling that card with that scan, but scans are tricky. I try to scan every card I buy and sometimes the same setting on the same scanner produces very different results with different cards. Creases are especially dicey; sometimes they show up, sometimes not.

If I sell a card with a crease online I try to mention the crease even if I can see it, but I am one guy doing all the tasks. The writers at ML might not have had the card in hand, just the scan, when writing it up. When you are scanning large numbers of cards for sale and have a scanner setting down, odds are you are not looking at every scan the way a collector would, and if your work flow is broken up in a manner that leaves the card in the vault and circulates images, this sort of thing can happen as a 'garbage in, garbage out' situation. Now, if ML relists with the same deceptive scans, we veer into the realm of intentionality.

As far as remedying the situation, it doesn't help that most AHs' idea of customer service is that once the card is delivered, service is over. I think it more likely than not that had Snowman not started shit-posting Memory Lane on boards like this, he would still be arguing for a refund.

I believe Memory Lane is reputable and will do the right thing.

Reading comprehension, Powell? :)

(They already did.)

.

That's their way of silently letting you know that they'll refund your money, but they’re really not happy about it. In situations like this, it should always follow up with an apology, regret any inconvenience, whether it was intentional or not. That's the professional thing to do.

This was like a 2K card with an obviously bad scan, not a major sale. I have no doubt ML would have refunded the money once they got the card and confirmed the error/bad scan, regardless of Travis bringing it up here, as the mistake was that clear.

You guys can't really think that ML is in the business of ripping people off for a thousand or two thousand bucks?

If anything, and I don't speak for ML -- they surely could have been pissed about this being outed before they were given the chance to rectify it. I don't blame Travis for doing so, it's a hobby issue and he's certainly allowed. But the negative backlash occurred before they had the chance to make things right and they're not the auction house known for misleading scans. They could be a bit pissed.

No auction house is perfect and shit can happen with so many lots. In this hobby, if an error is fixed painlessly, we should celebrate it.

Celebrate it...
 

Here ya go. Note the shoes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M

How can you miss the shoes!

+1. I agree completely with this post and James’ post a few above.

No explanation? That is strange.

Very smart, business move memory lane good job. No need to address anything send out the check make it right and move on. Good job.

Zero chance ebay was worried about competition from PWCCs platform.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I don't know if "worried" is the right term, but ebay is one of the most aggressive companies there is when it comes to taking out their competition by any means possible. They have a long standing history of buying out and filing suit against small competitors to ensure their monopoly remains in place. PWCC has done hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions over the years. I assure you, eBay wants that business. They have an entire division dedicated to gaining market share in the collectibles space.

I think unless you are a party to either side's legal team, it is pure speculation on your part. "Individuals associated with PWCC" could mean far more than just consignors. It could include employees of PWCC too. It is a matter of convenience for you to conclude eBay was referring to only consignors.

Despite the impressive numbers PWCC did on eBay, they represented a immaterial amount of eBay's bottom line. With that said, I am sure eBay did not want PWCC taking their sales to their own site but if that was a violation of the agreement PWCC had with eBay, namely they will not compete, and then they went ahead and competed, why can't eBay simply steer clear of a potential libel suit and just say, PWCC violated terms and boot them?

Anyway, glad you got made whole by ML. Great to hear that they did the right thing. I still contend it was a complete oversight.

there you have it, :D:)Hence "From the Mike Baker Collection"

&

Oil's well, that ends well Travis!

That is just the beauty of this board. So many people with different opinions. Some support card restoration and some call it alteration.



TJ I am sorry to hear about your issues with the Gehrig. I know you have a great collection and eye for detail. I agree the pics are made to look better than what you got. Glad things were made whole.

The card is up again in their new action: https://memorylaneinc.com/site//bids...rities-auction

Looks like they're using the same scan as last time.

Possibly carelessness, but in any case just plain wrong!


brianp(arker)-beme

Probably not the best choice by the house but my take away from this is that if the scan of the Gehrig is so misleading what does that imply about the other scans for the other cards they auction? Not sure we would know if they are getting a lot of returns unless we compare prior auction sales to the current auction.

After all of this, it's unbelievable they're using the same scan.

Who runs Memory Lane these days?

The description states creasing and wrinkles. I don't expect an AH with such a huge auction to make sure each and every scan used settings designed to fully convey each card's flaws. Especially for a lower end lot. Rather, if I saw a description of a PSA 1 that stated wrinkles and creasing-- knowing how 1s are graded and knowing how scans do not always show surface issues the way an angled camera photo does-- I would simply ask the AH about the card, perhaps request an additional image.

The description states creasing and wrinkles. Could be two, could be three, could be 10, could be only on the corners, could be across his face. All of that matters to us. Card image in the auction shows none. As shown by the two images above, it's clearly not that difficult to scan or take a picture of a card that clearly shows the creasing and wrinkles. Bad scanner, bad camera are nothing but excuses. We all want to see exactly what we are going to get.

And for them to relist the same card again, after all of this, is ridiculous.

In my own collecting experience, I've seen enough scans at various auctions of lower grade cards to know that a scan can more often than not fail to present the full picture. In reality, I would imagine an AH simply scans each lot and moves onto the next scan, rather than scanning a card and pausing to evaluate whether the scan adequately showcases all the card's flaws, and then re-scanning or adjusting settings to accomplish that. I'd therefore simply put some onus on myself as a shopper if I was interested in the item, and call or email the AH to ask for some more details or images.

So yes, it could be any range of creases or wrinkles and learning the precise degree of wear would matter a great deal; I'd choose direct communication with the AH about the lot as the best route to obtaining that information.

I sent them the scan of the card that shows the wrinkles and creases and asked them to replace it with the current image in their auction. Let's see if they do the right thing!

Sadly I expected this to happen. Bowing down to the dollar.

Well if it's perfectly alright not to disclose alterations, I don't see the problem. Why would it be held to a higher standard of disclosure? Plus, the description says it is creased even, exceeding the standard :rolleyes:

Gehrig Goudey
 

FYI, I have just been informed by the Memory Lane office that a high-resolution scan will be posted to the website within the next 24 hours revealing the horizontal wrinkles.

Respectfully disagree that we should now have to reach out to the auction house to see if the scans provided accurately reflect the condition of the card. I mean it should not be that hard to get a scanner that picks up heavy creases like this.

This card was returned to the house for that exact reason and they did not take the time to make any effort? As I asked earlier, what else is hidden in their scans on other lots? Also, if this card is not worth their time putting more effort into then what is their threshold for value where they are a bit more conscientious?

They did refund the buyer, to their credit, but I think they have an all sales final policy like most houses. Burden is on them, imo.

Great to hear! Thanks!

Ya, I'm with you here. Scans often hide creases. We all know that. It was the misleading, at best, description that I had the bigger issue with (although images showing the flaws should be the standard we hold all AHs to). But if I had purchased it with its current description which reads, "Moderate creasing with light wrinkles and soiling." in bold font, then I wouldn't have returned the card. That said, I also wouldn't have bid on it.

As a reminder, the previous description from when I won it read, "Soiling and wear are evident on the front, but nothing takes away from the pinstriped Gehrig central image. Clear verso."

I'll be curious to see what the hammer price is this time around. The one I won sold for $3763.

Memory Lane Gehrig expectation vs reality
 

They have added the additional photos. Most notably:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...323470dd29.png

[QUOTE=4815162342;2426417]They have added the additional photos. /QUOTE]

Claws like those could scratch the slab!

Brian

Memory Lane Gehrig expectation vs reality
 

Really wish we could now remove “Memory Lane” & “Gehrig” (Replace with “Auction House”) from the title as this is an ongoing issue with the majority of auction houses.

Note: I’m happy Snowman’s issue was resolved & looking forward to the hammer price of the re-listing.

Personally, I wish the topic of image / scan manipulation would get more attention. Same for lack of detail in descriptions.

Here’s an example.

This SGC 2.5 1968 Topps 3-D Test Roberto Clemente card was sold in 2017 by PWCC via eBay. Nice pics & description. Plus, this card is really condition sensitive (plastic was used & degrades over decades) so when buying online, an accurate listing is important. E.g. cracks & discoloration will only worsen over time and i know from owning a graded mint on card kenner star wars vinyl cape jawa that i consigned w/ Hake's last yr (it developed 2 small discoloration spots sometime between 2020 and 2023 that Hake's perfectly disclosed in their July 2023 auction )
https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/items/1500138

This exact card sold again last month via Goldin. While they mentioned the front discoloration was faint (it isn’t) , there was no mention of be back crease / wrinkle. I get it though. The final price wouldn’t have been so high if the pics didn’t have the settings configured as it (e.g. brightness).
https://goldin.co/item/1968-topps-3-...-good-2-5sowtt

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...3a9cf06fb3.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...25c160d342.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...2d6e573694.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...6454946ba3.jpg