Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Don't we need to know what the exact reasoning was behind ML's decision to move forward with the auction without pulling the 54 lots as to whether it was fraud or not? Was that decision they made on their own or was it required or requested of them?

I am not sure they could use as a defense or explanation that they had to let the auction run to establish values on those 54 lots. My reasoning is that prior to the sale their number 1 consignor and a valued representative of ML established values on each item he consigned. If I am not mistaken most, if not all, of the cards stolen belonged to that consignor.

Anyway, below is Ryan's post below from the morning after the auction and clearly before he knew the cards had been stolen because of the "tongue in cheek comment that someone stole a card in referencing the CJ Jax.



And lastly, would it change anyone's opinion as to whether it was fraud or not if there were people outside of ML who knew a theft had happened or were vaguely aware of it because they either spoke with ML reps or because they saw ML reps with police at the hotel?

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To me, you're being overly literal and pedantic rather than focused on the realities of the situation including that ML had no intent to injure anyone and did not injure anyone. When next you see a fraud case where the dictionary prevailed over those two factors, do tell me.

Intent to injure is not what you said or what we have been talking about. You argued repeated organized lying to hundreds of bidders was not intent to deceive. I am not using a pedantic thing or an archaic definition, anyone with common sense knows damn well organized lying is deceitful. Only here do we pretend we can’t figure that out

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Intent to injure is not what you said or what we have been talking about. You argued repeated organized lying to hundreds of bidders was not intent to deceive. I am not using a pedantic thing or an archaic definition, anyone with common sense knows damn well organized lying is deceitful. Only here do we pretend we can’t figure that out

You're now in a closed loop. Only the dictionary matters, only your interpretation of the dictionary is right, and anyone with any other perspective including one based on decades of experience is disingenuous.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're now in a closed loop. Only the dictionary matters, only your interpretation of the dictionary is right, and anyone with any other perspective is disingenuous.

I’m sorry, but this is not a difficult definition here for even a second grader. It’s very short, straightforward and direct. We all know damn well what deceive actually means, and that organized lying to hundreds of people very very obviously is a deceitfu act and that Memory Lane intended to do this as hosting a fraudulent auction to define values to pay off the consigners was the whole point of the lies. For the first 10 pages we debated whether that was right or wrong, now we’re in the absurdity of pretending we can’t figure out what deceive is because to acknowledge that would be harder to claim Memory Lane did the right thing.

This is your argument? Come on. This is how we should all know this is wrong, the defenses rely on denying basic words or bizarre appeals to oneself and popularity. I’m disappointed, there’s an argument to be had here that doesn’t rely on disingenuously denying the basic facts and the English language. .

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the absence of any damage or any plausible motive to harm anyone, I am comfortable saying this is not fraud in any meaningful sense of the word or as we commonly use it whether or not they were told or advised they should proceed this way, but certainly it would be helpful to know the complete story underlying the decision.

Thanks for that. Sorry just trying to understand this.

So it would be your opinion that their continuing to run the auction with the inclusion of those stolen lots does not rise to the level of fraud because there was no intent to deceive and no way to measure damages to bidders or other consignors?

How do we know there are no damages? Wouldn't we have to ask the bidders, not just the winners, of those 54 lots if by bidding on those lots they decided to not pursue other lots, could it be argued there was a loss of opportunity and possibly lower prices on the remaining lots that could have been pursued by those bidders had they known they could not win those 54 lots. Not sure that can be measured.

And lastly, would it be safe to conclude that bidders were at least mislead even if they were not defrauded?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

Thanks for that. Sorry just trying to understand this.

So it would be your opinion that their continuing to run the auction with the inclusion of those stolen lots does not rise to the level of fraud because there was no intent to deceive and no way to measure damages to bidders or other consignors?

How do we know there are no damages? Wouldn't we have to ask the bidders, not just the winners, of those 54 lots if by bidding on those lots they decided to not pursue other lots, could it be argued there was a loss of opportunity and possibly lower prices on the remaining lots that could have been pursued by those bidders had they known they could not win those 54 lots. Not sure that can be measured.

And lastly, would it be safe to conclude that bidders were at least mislead even if they were not defrauded?

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by swarmee

Then walk away knowing that you won.

Would be impossible for him, because opinions are just that, more so one's based on fiction. A world where he bid on one of the 54 lots and won...but didn't get the item and takes ML to court in a stunning victory

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You're now in a closed loop. Only the dictionary matters, only your interpretation of the dictionary is right, and anyone with any other perspective including one based on decades of experience is disingenuous.

Now you've got it counselor! Only opinions matter in this world, not facts or experience. You get an opinion, You get an opinion, You get an opinion!!! While they just Opine

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My overall thinking, and sorry I cannot quote you a dictionary only a practical real world usage of fraud, is that unlike every other fraud case we've seen, ML was not trying to induce anyone to act to their detriment. In the real world every case of fraud basically involves ripping someone off -- stealing their money, selling them something worth less than or materially different from what they bargained for, etc.

As for whether some bidders might have won different lots, too speculative to prove if for no other reason than that there's no practical way to know how the bidding would have gone had they bid. The actual winners might have bid more, for example. Equally speculative for a consignor to try to make that argument.

Misled as opposed to defrauded? I guess you could use that word if you want to, to me it's less charged. But again, the important thing to me here is no harm or intent to harm.

I would love to know a lot more details about this but I think it is safe to assume bidders were misled even if it was not done with malice or with any intent to cause harm. My guess is that it was their intent, despite what I now know about JP's past, to come up with the best solution to minimize damages.

In some respect the decision to keep the lots in the auction hurts them more than anyone else. There are clearly some who might be annoyed enough to not bid with them again because of this. For me, I keep going back to the lapse in judgement over shipping with no rep from the company present as to the extent of their wrongdoing. After that it was simply damage control and one way or another you are going to upset a group of people. Objective then is to piss off as few as possible.

[Carter08]

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Under California law and under any normal sense of morality I believe it is illegal to advertise goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised. Seems like that was done here.

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

[ClementeFanOh]

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

Theft was in OH, sale was in CA.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

You don't think Trent is as superior as he postures? Hmmm.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

A disclaimer and a few points-

Disclaimer- I have no affiliation with ML and the involved cards.

1) I hate that some net54 folks were impacted as consignors, truly.

2) ML's solution to the mess they created seems more than a little bit
Machiavellian to me. If I had a dog in the fight, my feelings would
surely be stronger. Really odd that, at barest minimum, they've issued
no statement on their site.

3) Speaking of dogs in the fight... Does anyone else find it absurd/amusing
that 3 of net54's biggest blowhards, who apparently have no such dogs
in this fight, can't stop tearing at each other's throats in this thread? It's
a bit like watching chimps in action at the local zoo, hurling feces while
onlookers think, "I'm glad there's glass between us". Congrats to G1911,
RepublicaninMass, and Peter Spaeth- you've outdone yourselves. Sad...

Trent King

And now the single biggest blow hard of them all chimes in!

Ever going to figure out how to use a space bar, return key or properly value a trade?

Your posts are not only unintelligible they are downright unreadable.

[ClementeFanOh]

Lorewalker-

I'm stunned to see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved.

1) I didn't write that ML "owed" me a statement. I wrote that it's strange
they are remaining silent on the site. Surely some mention of a 2 million
dollar theft on their watch is worthy of a footnote?

2) If you call what those 3 have been doing a "debate", then your definition
of that term is different than mine. It's just name calling and repetition,
massive ego vs massive ego.

I hope things are going well for you in lovely Oakland.

Trent King

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

As to 2) Why do they owe you a statement? They have notified the consignors and the winners of the stolen lots...you know...the people who were adversely impacted by the theft. Any statement they issue would be total BS. Do you like BS?

As to 3) Not taking sides but no I do not find it absurd those 3 members were debating this matter. And those 3 are not the ones I would describe as a blowhard.

"Keep my (user) name out cha mouth"

I Just find it amusing, as I posted, people with no skin in the game are pontificating on their soap box about legalese and ramifications when they are fit to manage a men's room at a bus station. Again, ML likely relied on advice from legal or insurance, any other opinion is just that. Here to wit, an opinion and 5 bucks will get you a cold press in Brooklyn.

[ClementeFanOh]

RepublicaninMass- you are too stupid to insult, truly. You are also gullible.
I'll stop now, a mere 27 posts behind you in this thread I maintain my
original comments about net54 members who have been impacted.

Trent King

[MikeGarcia]

.. Card

..

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

1) I didn't write that ML "owed" me a statement. I wrote that it's strange
they are remaining silent on the site. Surely some mention of a 2 million
dollar theft on their watch is worthy of a footnote?

I am not sure you can bid in an auction like ML's but when you can and then when you can run an auction house like ML, you can issue statements when you have lapses in judgement. Why do they need to make a statement? It is all over the internet? They are in contact with the parties who matter. You are not part of a party that matters, trust me on that one.

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

2) If you call what those 3 have been doing a "debate", then your definition
of that term is different than mine. It's just name calling and repetition,
massive ego vs massive ego.

I disagree and find all three members to be valued members who, unlike you, have plenty to offer the community. And you would not be able to identify a debate. You only know how to insult people.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

"Keep my (user) name out cha mouth"

I Just find it amusing, as I posted, people with no skin in the game are pontificating on their soap box about legalese and ramifications when they are fit to manage a men's room at a bus station. Again, ML likely relied on advice from legal or insurance, any other opinion is just that. Here to wit, an opinion and 5 bucks will get you a cold press in Brooklyn.

I will take it a step further...as Peter stated, from a legal standpoint it is his opinion, with or without advice from insurance carriers, police or lawyers, that letting the auction run with the lots does not rise to the level of fraud. Now how that does not frustrate the Business and Professions code in the state of CA, is beyond me.

Now before we upset King Trent and Bigfoot even further, we really need to start chatting on other threads that they approve of.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

RepublicaninMass- you are too stupid to insult, truly. You are also gullible.
I'll stop now, a mere 27 posts behind you in this thread I maintain my
original comments about net54 members who have been impacted.

Trent King

"Trent ..no function
Beer
Well without "

[ClementeFanOh]

Lorewalker-

Let me get this straight. You couldn't follow a direct statement I made,
then accused me of failing to recognize a debate. Sure, sounds lucid to me...

I'll amend my original blowhard count in this thread to 4. Think you can
figure out who I've added? Or is that beyond your comprehension as well?
On second thought, never mind. (It may just be that you are the party who
doesn't matter, Chachi.)

Trent King

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Did this happen in California? If not why would it matter?

The auction is based in California. I guess you didn’t know that?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

"Keep my (user) name out cha mouth"

I Just find it amusing, as I posted, people with no skin in the game are pontificating on their soap box about legalese and ramifications when they are fit to manage a men's room at a bus station. Again, ML likely relied on advice from legal or insurance, any other opinion is just that. Here to wit, an opinion and 5 bucks will get you a cold press in Brooklyn.

This is exactly what you do. You just value your bs opinion more than others. Good for you.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by ClementeFanOh

Lorewalker-

Let me get this straight. You couldn't follow a direct statement I made,
then accused me of failing to recognize a debate. Sure, sounds lucid to me...

I'll amend my original blowhard count in this thread to 4. Think you can
figure out who I've added? Or is that beyond your comprehension as well?
On second thought, never mind. (It may just be that you are the party who
doesn't matter, Chachi.)

Trent King

And YOU are complaining about people throwing stuff at each other? LOL hysterical. You surely lead this site in terms of personal invective per post, by a large margin. Anger management might be in order.

Oh, and you've now committed what to you is the ultimate sin, going off topic. See what happens when you get triggered?

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Carter08

This is exactly what you do. You just value your bs opinion more than others. Good for you.

Pot..meet kettle!

However,
I only value the facts which memory lane decided to adhere to.

I can appreciate the opinions of experienced people and consignors. I will refute opinions based on fiction and people's feelings. Sorry, I'm not sorry, but all opinions are not equal

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

The auction is based in California. I guess you didn’t know that?

No actually I did not.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Pot..meet kettle!

However,
I only value the facts which memory lane decided to adhere to.

I can appreciate the opinions of experienced people and consignors. I will refute opinions based on fiction and people's feelings. Sorry, I'm not sorry, but all opinions are not equal

Agreed. You have certainly proved to me that some opinions are not so bright and should be discounted. So you have succeeded in a way. Nicely done.

[ClementeFanOh]

Peter Spaeth-

There's so much stupidity in your most recent post- 80 or so on this topic
alone, as I recall- that it's difficult to assign order to a response:

1) I absolutely don't "lead the forum" in invective. The vast majority of my
comments are about cards (crazy, right!) or private messages. You and
the other members of the double digit IQ club might want to explore
PMs...

2) "Anger management is in order". From your lips to God's ears, partner.
I'll get on it right away.

3) My first 2 posts were directly on topic, then you mopes chimed in. Do you
even realize that this thread went "off topic" FIVE HUNDRED messages
ago? Of course you don't, you live in the realm. It's getting past time for
you to understand that your words aren't as clever or valuable as you
believe they are.

4) Your use of the word "triggered" is an automatic signal that you have
been outwitted- again. If I'm "triggered" at 5 posts, what does that make
you? (It's rhetorical, don't try to answer or we will all be treated to 20
additional posts).

TLDR- You 4 are clowns.

Trent King

[Peter_Spaeth]

Add another off-topic, invective-laden post to your tally. It's rich LOL.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Add another off-topic, invective-laden post to your tally. It's rich LOL.

King Trent really resents it when you hold up the mirror for him...in case you have not noticed. Nobody here comes unraveled and resorts to insults faster. Everything is personal with him. He was not even a part of this thread and his first post was attacking 3 people who I think most of us would unequivocally state are valued members.

[calvindog]

Two of my favorite Memory Lane wins:

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Two of my favorite Memory Lane wins:

That Gertenrich is fantastic, the Cobb is amazing.

[Stonepony]

The Cobb is insane, Holy…

[calvindog]

Thanks, guys. I'm thankful neither card was sent to a Best Western Plus via FedEx. Of course I have other wins that I wish had been lost before I paid.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Stonepony

The Cobb is insane, Holy…

Truly. Might be a tad overgraded due to the upper right but hard to find that combo in any grade, let alone any E94 that nice. Outstanding piece, once again.

[tkd]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

That Gertenrich is fantastic, the Cobb is amazing.

Jeff, the Lou Gertenrich Ruth is amazing! One of my favorite cards. The back is absolutely beautiful. If you ever want to sell it let me know.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Who was damaged, and in what amount?

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

I think he is going to say in this case there was intent to harm because the house simply put the card there to attract bidders, assuming that truth came out. As to damages, I am guessing the house would have to produce a Doyle error card to the winner.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

Scott / Aquarian...

I don't see how that clause 7 of your contract can be stretched to say that unless buyer and seller agree to pull a lot from the auction, then it cannot be done and you must continue with a lot's auction when you no longer have the item; and that as a seller you are authorized to defraud bidders and an eventual winner by accepting bids when you well know that you don't have the item.

Regardless of clause 7, you know that's not right.

Context my friend. Someone asked a specific question about requesting items back. I was in no way saying what you seem to think I was.

[Snowman]

edited

[steve B]

Well, that's been interesting.

Some industries have peculiar and particular defintions of things that seem off to people not in that industry.

I think that's what we're seeing here.
There's a dictionary definition of a word, then there's how that act is legally defined. And they don't quite match.

My wife is in computers, and we argue like this fairly often. My all time favorite one was a warning that read "virtual memory minimum too low"
WTF. how can a minimum be too low?!?!
Apparently it actually means that the virtual memory was set from X to Y and that X wasn't enough even if Y was more than plenty. Somehow even with my needs falling well within that range, it caused a problem. Until she got tired of me complaining and ridiculing whoever had written that and changed the minimum.

Been there on a very small scale. Won a small lot of cards on Ebay at a great price. The seller cancelled after, saying they'd sold the cards over the weekend and just didn't get around to removing the auction. (yeah right)
Did they allow a sale of something they didn't have? maybe? at least thar was their claim.
Did I feel ripped off? Yes, especially since their solution was to offer a discount on their very sketchy autographs.
Did I report them to ebay? Yes, and while they were off ebay soon after I doubt it was because of me.

Even if there was enough money involved, which there wasn't could I win a suit? I'm thinking no, because they had a borderline plausible explanation and I wasn't out any money.
Sort of the same thing here.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Peter, I'm curious about something. Suppose an AH, to generate interest (which would benefit the consignors,) lists in its auction a T206 Doyle error card, which it doesn't actually have. After the auction ends, the winner of the Doyle is told, sorry, they aren't getting the card because the AH doesn't have it.

If your standard is as above, would this scenario be ok? If nobody was damaged, then no problem, right?

I realize of course this is not what happened with ML, in terms of initial intent, but the central fact (a card at auction couldn't be delivered to the eventual high bidder) is what the ML auction evolved into once the theft occurred.

Anyway, in my hypothetical: "Who was damaged, and in what amount?"

Mark, to quote one of my favorite legal quotes, and it may have been (gasp) Robert Bork, just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean you have to ski it to the bottom. Yes, your example feels sleazy, despite the no harm.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by steve B

Even if there was enough money involved, which there wasn't could I win a suit? I'm thinking no, because they had a borderline plausible explanation and I wasn't out any money.
Sort of the same thing here.

Yes, that's the long and short of it. There's harm to Memory Lane bidders kept in the dark in a very general sense (e.g., wasted time, opportunity cost), but not "compensable damages" in the practical and legal sense.

That's why most of the comments about Memory Lane's approach have been focused on their reputational hit, rather than actual legal consequences. They picked the approach that best served their consignors (to whom they owe a fiduciary duty), at the expense of their customers (where the relationship is defined by boilerplate terms of bidding).

I think Memory Lane probably made the correct call from a fiduciary perspective. They also made it clear that they're willing to deceive customers and waste their time if they decide it's in the company's financial interest. Their customers are entitled to be upset that they're on the losing side of that calculus, even if they can't prove calculable damages.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I doubt there will be much reputational consequence.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I doubt there will be much reputational consequence.

Speaking for myself, their reputation has taken a big hit in the sense that I'll always think of Memory Lane as the bumbling auction house that shipped seven figures worth of cards to a motel and put themselves in a situation where concealing material facts from bidders was their best option.

But their reputation probably won't stop me from bidding again if I see something I really want that I can't get somewhere else. Sort of like the collectibles version of "Too big to fail." If consignors keep giving them cool stuff, I'll hold my nose and cross my fingers.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by gunboat82

Speaking for myself, their reputation has taken a big hit in the sense that I'll always think of Memory Lane as the bumbling auction house that shipped seven figures worth of cards to a motel and put themselves in a situation where concealing material facts from bidders was their best option.

But their reputation probably won't stop me from bidding again if I see something I really want that I can't get somewhere else. Sort of like the collectibles version of "Too big to fail." If consignors keep giving them cool stuff, I'll hold my nose and cross my fingers.

Stuff. It overrides almost anything. I think most if not all will do the same.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

As far as a reputational hit I just don't see it. I think most posters ITT feel that the shipping of the cards in such a manner was a mistake and that the handling of the problem was less than ideal.

So you mean to tell me in a world where felons whose crimes were in THIS industry are welcomed back with open arms; a world where known bad actors are still very active; where companies that bend the hell out of the law on a regular basis are incredibly successful, a lapse of judgement or two (which when you boil it down is how a lot of people seem to see the situation) is going to have lasting repercussions for ML? I just don't see it.

And just in case I haven't said it lately. I have no relationship with ML, couldn't pick anyone who works there out of a lineup and I've never done business with them.