The plot thickens...
Developments over the last day or so require I make another post here, so here goes. Suffice to say I feel like the knucklehead in a bad 1970s sitcom. I know it’s a commonly-used phrase, but you can’t make this stuff up.
The lot in question, won by Frank, was a group of 11 T206 cards. This thread happened, and the person who received the cards in error told me he found ten of the 11. He kindly sent them back, because he’s a good guy, and did the right thing, and deserves a pat on the back. Frank was aware that only ten cards would be coming back. I did not know which ten, nor did I think to ask. Since Frank was only going to get ten of the 11 cards, and since in my mind I had already written off the cards as a loss, I offered Frank to keep his refund, as well as the cards. Frank showed exceptional character by refusing to take the money.
This morning I wake up and read about a Brown Old Mill. Guys, give me some credit. I feel pretty confident in saying that I’m not going to overlook a brown Old Mill and accidentally list it in a group of commons in my auction.
Back in early October, I received a submission of 76 T206s back from PSA, all from the same consignor. I grouped them together in lots, and passed them along to the part-time employee who was helping scan the cards for the auction. When I was proofing his work, I noticed that two cards were mislabeled by PSA as Brown Old Mill. One - the Paige - had already been scanned as part of what became lot 262 - the lot that started this thread. The second card - a Bill Bernhard that I was going to list on its own - had come back a PSA 4.5. Given that Brown Old Mills should not have numerical grades since they’re all hand-cut, something was clearly wrong - not to mention that neither back looked brown to me.
I contacted PSA about the two cards, and they asked me to send them back to be reholdered. I sent them back, PSA reholdered them and shipped them back to me immediately at their expense. Here’s a screen shot from the PSA submission of that reholdering/relabeling job, showing both cards and their cert numbers.
Meanwhile, the original lot of 11 cards - the one this thread is about, with the scan of the Paige card with the incorrect Brown Old Mill flip, was listed in the auction. The scan of the 11 cards SHOULD have been replaced with a new scan including the Paige in the correct holder. They weren’t. OR, the or the entire lot should have been listed as a group of 10 without the Paige. It wasn’t. That’s where I screwed up (the first time).
INSTEAD, the two cards that were reholdered by PSA wound up erroneously being re-scanned together, and
listed as a separate lot in the auction - lot 234. That lot contains the Paige AND the Bernhard, in the correct holders. If you look at the Paige card in lot 262 and the one in lot 234, they are clearly the same card - same pinhole at the top, same cert number on the flip, but one has the wrong description on the label.
So now, I’ve got the same card listed in the auction twice, and I don’t realize it. It is a common card, graded 1, very unnoticeable. Except that Frank, and probably some other folks as well, think there’s a chance that there’s a Brown Old Mill hiding in a lot of relatively common T206s, and rolling the dice might wind up with a nice score.
And, of course, when Frank doesn’t get his lot, hilarity ensues, as it would only be natural for Frank to think that somebody was playing games on this end with his Brown Old Mill.
It wasn’t until this morning, when I read posts in this thread about the Brown Old Mill, that I realized that this problem went even deeper than I had realized. I contacted the guy who'd received the ten cards to make SURE he couldn't have possibly still had the 11th card, and he insisted there was no way. In searching to figure out if it was possible that I still had the Paige here, I searched “Paige” in my most recent auction - and there it was, in lot 234.
SO, I contacted the winner of lot 234, the two Old Mills, in hopes that I could buy that card back from him and send it along to Frank with the other ten.
The winner of that lot (lot 234) is a Net54 member, extremely well-respected in the hobby, one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet, and anyone who’s been on this board for any length of time knows him. I’m going to leave his name out of this thread. He’s working on a collection of Old Mill Southern Leaguers and I believe he’s building the set raw. So he went to break the card out of the new, ironclad PSA holder, and he damaged the card.
It looks like this now.
So that’s why Frank is not getting the Paige. Because it has a giant hole in it, as I discovered today. The guy who got the 10 cards by accident was being honest - he only got 10 cards, and he shipped them back quickly because he is a nice guy who lives one state away.
This afternoon I shipped the ten cards, along with a check for $100 to cover the cost of the Paige, to Frank, via Priority Mail. He should have them Saturday.
A promise: As long as Love of the Game Auctions is a business, I will occasionally make a mistake, and when I do, I will own it and do everything I can to fix it. Less occasionally, but still occasionally, I will make more than one mistake with the same lot. However, a far more important promise (I think): you will never, ever, see me engaging in any kind of sinister, unethical behavior. I understand that the natural response is to assume - especially given some of the history in this hobby - that the worst possible thing is happening. However, I started LOTG IN RESPONSE to that element of the hobby. There are no shenanigans going on with this company. Period.
Had I found that I made a mistake and listed a brown Old Mill in a lot of commons in my auction, I would have withdrawn the lot, explained why, and listed the brown Old Mill as its own lot in my next auction. I would NOT lie about it, be devious about it in any way, because that is not how I do things. For those of you who would like to think otherwise, I get it, but it’s just not that exciting. If you’re looking to find an auction house lying and cheating its customers, look elsewhere.
Once again, to Frank, I apologize for all the ridiculousness surrounding this lot. I’m not going to answer questions like “Why did he ask to have his items before the holidays?” or “Why did the mail deliver one thing really fast and another thing really slow?” because they’re unanswerable questions.
I hope this clears everything up.
-Al