How to get ripped off by SCP Auctions & Sotheby's

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason Duncan

I think evey one of us who plan on never to use SCP again should make a phone call to let them know why. It could help Ryan out and we should do it as a small community. Let us each step up and help out our brother. If they get 50-100 phone calls from various vintage collectors thenmaybe they will make things right in an attempt to win back some future bidders.

Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Chad, I agree regarding the missing tear on the scan. SCP might as well put up for auction a card in a PSA 8 holder and then deliver a PSA 5 card; they can claim later that the buyer should have come to visit the card in person because they should not be held accountable for pictures in the catalogue.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

I think arguing anything other than misrepresentation is ridiculous. The item delivered quite clearly does not look anything like the goods offered for sale in the catalog. And lets face it, appearance is everything in our and most collecting interests.

In terms of Southebys being too busy to take accurate photographs - being so overwhelmed with all their auctions and 'more important' items for sale, hogwash! That's why people give such auction houses their items, because of the implied AND stated efforts to display all pieces to advantage (that is, great light, shot with superior equipment, in a catalog layout that screams classy, and a blurb that translates the better qualities of the item) and before an audience that trusts them. Similarly buyers are told they can trust the company for their expertise in describing all pieces materially accurately, and that where they get it wrong - they should make good.
If you want/can expect crappy scans and sh@#*y customer service for your memorabilia, I will happily open a business to supply said service.



Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

Here are SCP's terms:

"AS IS
The authenticity of the Authorship of property listed in the catalogue is guaranteed as stated in the Terms of Guarantee (below) and all property is sold “as is” without any representations or warranties by SCP Auctions, Sotheby’s, or the Consignor as to the merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, the correctness of the catalogue or other description of the physical condition, size, quality, rarity, importance, medium, provenance, exhibitions, literature, or historical relevance of any property and no statement anywhere, whether oral or written, whether made in the catalogue, an advertisement, a bill of sale, a salesroom posting or announcement, or elsewhere, shall be deemed such a warranty, representation, or assumption of liability. SCP Auctions, Sotheby’s, and the Consignor make no representations or warranties, express or implied, as to whether the purchaser acquires any copyrights, including but not limited to, any reproduction rights in any property. SCP Auctions, Sotheby’s, and the Consignor are not responsible for errors and omissions in the printed catalogue, on-line catalogue, or any supplemental material or in regards to the failure of the auction program to execute any bids on behalf of the bidder."


Now to a point I understand this, but I have to wonder how effective it really is to disclaim the correctness of your own catalogue description? This essentially appears in two places, first in the "without any representations or warranties" clause and second in the "not responsible for errors and omissions" clause towards the end. I don't know California law in this context, but from what I know of it generally I would be surprised if this sort of disclaimer would nullify any claim based on inaccuracy of the catalogue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chad

With guarantees like that I wonder why ANYBODY would ever bid in their auctions.

--Chad

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

The disclaimer protects SCP from virtually everything except for intentional misrepresentation. The next paragraph to check for is the applicable law and forum clauses. You need to know which law applies and where you are going to litigate.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

By bidding in this auction, the bidder consents to the application of the laws of the state of California without application of conflicts of laws and the jurisdiction of the state of California in the county of Orange.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

With due respect you admitted yesterday you did not practice in this area, and you were flat out wrong about federal law not applying to price fixing by auction houses, so I hope you are giving us accurate information this time.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

I do not concede the point on federal law. I would very much like to know the federal law that is applicable to this situation.

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

Read the end of the thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

If you want a citation, it's the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1 outlawing conspiracies in restraint of trade. Price-fixing is a per se offense, and I am unaware of any exemption for auction houses. If there was one one expects Sotheby's execs would not have done jail time.

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Are you serious about applying the Sherman Act in this context?

Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

Yes and so was the Department of Justice apparently. Look it up, it was in 2000 and involved Christie's and Sotheby's, I believe Max W. provided a link last night.

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2000
WWW.USDOJ.GOV AT
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888



SOTHEBY'S AND FORMER TOP EXECUTIVE AGREE TO PLEAD GUILTY TO
PRICE FIXING ON COMMISSIONS CHARGED TO SELLERS AT AUCTIONS

Sotheby's Agrees to Pay $45 Million Criminal Fine

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sotheby's Holdings Inc.--one of the world's largest auction houses--has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $45 million criminal fine for fixing the price of commission rates charged to sellers of art, antiques, and other collectibles at auctions, announced the Department of Justice today. The company's former president and chief executive officer, Diana D. Brooks, has also agreed to plead guilty to price fixing charges, and will cooperate with the Department's ongoing antitrust investigation.

In separate one-count felony charges filed today in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Sotheby's and Brooks were charged with participating in a conspiracy lasting more than six years, from April 1993 to December 1999, to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing prices in violation of the Sherman Act. The conspirators also agreed to limit or eliminate other inducements to sellers, such as interest-free loans and charitable donations.

Sotheby's and Christie's International, its chief competitor, control more than 90 percent of the world's auction business. They provide substantially the same services to sellers and, prior to the introduction of the fixed, non-negotiable commission rates, they competed primarily on the basis of price, undercutting each other's offers to sellers. As a result of the conspiracy, sellers lost their principal bargaining tool.

"Those charged today were engaged in classic cartel behavior*price fixing, pure and simple," said A. Douglas Melamed, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division. "These are serious crimes, and the Antitrust Division will prosecute them wherever they occur."

Today's cases, the first to arise out of a federal investigation into auction house collusion, charge that Sotheby's, Brooks and their co-conspirators carried out the conspiracy by participating in meetings and conversations in the United States and elsewhere to discuss sellers' commissions. At those meetings the conspirators:


agreed to raise pricing by fixing sellers' commissions;

agreed to publish non-negotiable sellers' commission rate schedules;

agreed to the order in which each co-conspirator would publish its non-negotiable sellers' commission schedule;

issued sellers' commission schedules in accordance with the agreements reached;

exchanged customer information for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the non-negotiable seller's commission schedules;

agreed not to make interest-free loans on consignments from sellers; and

agreed not to make charitable contributions as part of pricing to sellers.
This pricing scheme impaired the ability of sellers to achieve the best price terms through negotiation, as had been possible under the conspirators' previous commission structures.

The Department also confirmed the announcement by Christie's International, one of the world's largest auction houses, that it has been cooperating with the investigation under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Program. Under the Leniency Program, a company may qualify for protection from criminal prosecution if it voluntarily reports its involvement in a crime and satisfies certain other criteria.

Sotheby's and Brooks are charged with violating Section One of the Sherman Act which carries a maximum fine of $10 million for corporations, and a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment and a $350,000 fine for individuals. The maximum fine for both corporations and individuals may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Sotheby's $45 million fine, which is payable over five years, is subject to court approval. Brooks' sentence will be determined by the court.

Sotheby's Holdings Inc. is headquartered in New York, New York and provides auction services worldwide. Its revenues from sellers' commissions during the period charged in the court papers were in excess of $225 million in the U.S.

The ongoing investigation of the auction business is being conducted by the Antitrust Division's New York Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Anyone with information concerning collusion in the auction business should contact the Antitrust Division's New York Office at (212) 264-0650 or the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation at (212) 384-1000.


###
00-591

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Peter said,
"Now to a point I understand this, but I have to wonder how effective it really is to disclaim the correctness of your own catalogue description?"

I don't think the catalog description is the issue here since it stated there are multiple creases and a tear.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

Jim I was thinking though that the photo was part of the "description." But in any event I was also thinking more generally about whether one can disclaim an inaccurate description, even if assuming for argument's sake this particular one was accurate.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I sort of agree but the catalog picture (look) is quite different than the picture received. So in that regard the catalog is mistaking. I can't believe you could indemnify yourself, or company, by only saying you aren't responsible....but I am no lawyer.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Peter S, as I said earlier why can't SCP simply sell a card pictured as a PSA 8 in its catalogue and then deliver a PSA 5 version -- and claim that the buyer can't rely on its catalogue? Of course they can't. And I'm still trying to figure out how the tears in Ryan's picture, which were not in the corners, were not intentionally removed?

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

Anyone who buys PSA 8s gets what they deserve.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ha! Fair point.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

good luck ryan - keep us posted


(edited to take out the whole message and replace it with my last one on the subject)

[Archive]

Posted By: PS

It was pointed out to me that the online terms I quoted from SCP's upcoming auction in California are different (though perhaps not materially) from the ones that governed the June auction originating in NY. Those terms also apparently provided for NY law to govern. It's still a valid discussion I think, but apologies for getting the facts wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I agree. Although I am not a lawyer, I would not think that disclaiming an inaccurate description would NOT insulate them from responsibility if the description was dramatically different from the item. Why bother with a description if that were the case? Then Jeff's point about writing up a PSA 8 and sending out a PSA 5 to the winner would make sense.
JimB

Edited to add: "NOT" I typed too fast last time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

The description reads to the effect "T206 McGinnity in the absolute positive most deplorable condition imaginable. PSA 1 grade would be way too good for this monstrosity. Imagine the most disgusting card you can, and that still can't approach what this thing looks like." The depiction then shows a gorgeous card in a PSA 8 holder.

You make no inquiries and buy the card for a price indicative of an 8 McGinnity but receive the -1 McGinnity. Couldn't it be said you had a duty to make an inquiry given the obvious discrepancy between the description and the depiction?


EDITED to add that the point I am trying to make is not that in this scenario there would not be grounds for rescission, but that discrepancies between description and depiction can reasonably put a prospective bidder on notice to ask for more information, and the failure to do so could materially impact his legal remedies.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

After reading Sotheby's terms it appears they have a license to do pretty much anything they want.

I guess it's good to be rich and powerful.

Edited to add Corey posted the same time as me, and he brings up a very important point: when you plan to bid on a significant item in an auction, and you can't view it in person, pick up the phone, have them take out the object, and ask them as many questions as you can.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

Is the responsibility on me to make that inquiry?

Or is the responsibility on the seller to not have such a poor representation of their product?


Maybe I should inquire. Maybe I am shy and I just want to buy a card... and heck it looks pretty in the catalog. I'm not a smart buyer I guess. But not being a smart buyer is different from being a deceitful seller.


(edit to say: darn! I jumped back in even after I said I would post no more on the subject )

[Archive]

Posted By: Eric B

So Ryan is at fault for not asking if the picture is an accurate representation of the item?

Maybe every bidder should call about every lot they are interested in and have them pull it out and describe it to see if the picture is accurate. I'll bet they get tired and say "Look at the Picture!"

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

In certain instances it can be, yes.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

The absolute positive moral to this saga is that EVERYTIME you are interested in bidding on a photograph and cannot physically inspect it or have someone do it on your behalf, you MUST call the auction house, ask them to take BOTH the item AND the catalog in hand, and THEN you should with your catalog in hand ask them very specific questions as to how the actual piece compares to the catalog depiction. I do this all the time with every auction house in which I bid. Caveat: Do not use the on-line image. They may vary depending on the monitor used. Always have everybody refering to the catalog depiction when making your inquiries.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Eric- to answer your question, it depends what you are bidding on.

If you are buying a T206 Ty Cobb in an SGC 40 holder and there is a picture in the catalog, you're probably safe placing your bids.

But when you buy a panoramic photograph that's partly hidden under a mat and it has considerable condition issues, a phone call is just a way to protect your own interests.

In no way am I blaming Ryan, as he is the victim here, but he could have saved himself a lot of grief.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Corey- we keep posting simultaneously.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Maybe we can lock this useless f#@%ing thread now that it will only be lawyers debating lawyers about disclaimers and the Sherman Act.

This is my last post in this thread.

SCP/Sotheby's have had plenty of time to respond or comment and they have declined to do so. I don't care how busy they claim to be.

I am not going to sue. It doesn't matter how good or bad their legal case is. They've won. Done deal.

Congratulations, scumbags!!! Have fun spending my money.

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

Very sorry to learn of your ordeal Ryan. Hope you get satisfaction of some type in the end. I also hope Leon honors your request and locks this thread, so you don't need to see it rising to the top over and over--he said while posting, causing the very thing he hopes won't happen

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Corey, I had been thinking the entire reason for having a truly representative picture was to get away from subjective descriptions, whether written or stated in person/over the phone?
If I ring up person A and ask about the actual condition of an item, how many different questions do I have to invent to cover every possibility? Do I have to rely on just one person's opinion, or should I ask for a second to get on the phone? Eg. Person A calls it a 'medium' crease with light surface wear, Person B would call the exact same condition a 'heavy' crease and medium surface wear. Perhaps Person B also notes stains because of better background in looking for such flaws, while person A misses this entirely.
So after all these calls I bid, get the piece and it does not reflect their oral description.....should I have tape recorded the conversation so that there can be no dispute over words used??? What if they just flat out lie?
It gets ridiculous, which is why as has been said innumerable times on this forum, a successful auction description is one that posts large, clear pictures and leaves descriptors to an absolute minimum. And if you screw up the pictures, take another one or be prepared to accept the item back.

The words, whether written or spoken, just get in the way of making a good and clear decision as a buyer.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Daniel- you are correct. In a perfect world a photo in a catalog should be an accurate depiction of the item.

But in an imperfect world asking a few questions might help you to decide whether or not to bid. There's no downside.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

that the questions are answered incorrectly? That the description they give does not match what you yourself see? And thus, you end up bidding on what they say and not what is pictured......with all respect, I trust my own eyes better than yours or anyone elses to determine whether or not the item is attractive to me and warrants a bid. Even though I like you alot .


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Your personal affection for me aside, thank you, you make a good point. A nitwit on the other end of the phone could make matters worse. But if he's holding the object in his hand while you speak hopefully he can be of some assistance.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

If I lock this thread then we don't get to see a nice, appropriate title about the auction house.....Ryan- if you really really want this locked let me know and I will honor your request as I would any other board member...regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ryan, why not let this thread run through SCP's upcoming auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

As the saying goes, "take care of your customers, or someone else will." I can't imagine why they don't simply make this right for Ryan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Corey R. Shanus

You make some great points but as Barry said, we do not live in a perfect world and any system will have its imperfections. The guts of what I collect is photography. I can only tell you that I have never had a problem knowing what questions to ask, and I have never had anything but honest answers from all the auction houses. Also, here's another problem with expecting the main basis of description to be the catalog depiction. If that is to be our standard, what happens if, despite everyone's best good faith efforts, the end result still does not capture the essence of the item. Does the auction house then cancel/delay the auction out of fear of legal liability that the depiction is not an accurate enough portrayal of the items? This is not a hypothetical question. I know of actual instances. The point is that inconsistency between description and depiction will always occur despite sincere good faith efforts and there can never be eliminated some duty on the part of prospective bidders to make independent inquiry to ascertain the true condition of an item.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

This auction house is deceptive, clear and simple. Also, SCP/Sothebys lack of communication is disgraceful. Why anyone would patronize such swindlers is beyond me. I will certainly not bid, nor ever look at their sales.

Ryan, I hope you allow this thread to continue.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

And I can't argue the essence of what you are saying either Corey, which I believe is to avail yourself of as much information as possible including direct contact with the Auction House.
I just think it really isn't too much to ask that a catalog picture represent the item at hand - in fact with the money spent it's an absolute minimum, otherwise as has been intimated why offer one? I've always found the pictures Southebys use for artefacts, art, antique pistols, vintage jewellery, and all sorts of other items I find myself perusing () are usually beautifully shot......this instance was just an absolute shocker.
And it's not like they rely on a non-expert photographer with a $200 minolta to photograph items in floodlit rooms. They know what they're doing, and all it would have taken if they didn't want to re-shoot/scan would have been a small notation in the blurb stating that differences in tone and extent of damage may be more evident when the item was in hand.
Continuing my vase analogy from earlier, this piece was like seeing a blue ming vase in the catalog and receiving a green one at the door .


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bartenbaker

i won the 1909 pittsburg pirate pocket mirror in sotheby's halper auction and was charged $100 for shipping,totally outraged i paid it any way to get my item,then proceded to tell them that the standard shipping fee for an item this size is always around $5.00. it took them a year to refund my $100.00 also historic auctions in st.pete,fla. had for auction what they said was a 1934 team composite of the 1934 detroit tigers,not being the right size i thought maybee thephotography studio back then made another smaller size,much to my dismay i found when i recieved the item it was a photocopy off the original,complete with lines where creases should be and was glued to a mat so i left as is,called,and called,and called but the right guy james was'nt never in,so i got lucky and tracked him down at national in cleveland and made sure i got paid in person. the trend here is that some auction houses are not taking the time to authenticate certain items and are taking consignor's word that it is original,thus leaving bidder holding the bag. i won't be bidding in another of there auctions again,thanks for taking time to read this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Ryan did they ever fix the problem or at least call you on it after this thread?

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Maybe I just don't get this.

Nobody wins here.

SCP looks like a bunch of uncaring morons because the image that was used for bidding on the item is pathetic.

Ryan gets a substandard item and he's not happy about the situation (I wouldn't be either).

The only thing Ryan accomplishes is to expose SCP's poor decision to not "take care of business".

SCP will lose more than the amount that they would have compensated Ryan.

I just don't get it. Are people just that ignorant and uncaring?

SCP - wake up! They might save a few dollars by not dealing with Ryan but in the end I think they've really blown it because they've probably lost Ryan's business and more - and for what?

I get the feeling that if this was a large reputable auction house that things might have been handled differently.

Does anyone believe that there's still time for SCP to do the right thing?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

Is there some sort of metric or record kept of returned items? Some measurement that is kept in the industry (or perhaps monitored by the FBI in their probe of the memorabilia industry?) that makes returned auction items a red flag of some sort that is far more damaging than simply returning Ryan's money?
I have no idea, ...probably assumes more oversight than is possible, but it's just a thought that crossed my mind...

[Archive]

Posted By: peter chao

Jason,

None that I know of, maybe if you check with the local chamber of commerce.

A friendly bump to see if we can get an update.

Peter C.

[bobbyw8469]

Update?

[joeadcock]

Ryan

Thanks for the invaluable info.




Frank

Originally Posted by Archive

Posted By: E, Daniel

And I can't argue the essence of what you are saying either Corey, which I believe is to avail yourself of as much information as possible including direct contact with the Auction House.
I just think it really isn't too much to ask that a catalog picture represent the item at hand - in fact with the money spent it's an absolute minimum, otherwise as has been intimated why offer one? I've always found the pictures Southebys use for artefacts, art, antique pistols, vintage jewellery, and all sorts of other items I find myself perusing () are usually beautifully shot......this instance was just an absolute shocker.
And it's not like they rely on a non-expert photographer with a $200 minolta to photograph items in floodlit rooms. They know what they're doing, and all it would have taken if they didn't want to re-shoot/scan would have been a small notation in the blurb stating that differences in tone and extent of damage may be more evident when the item was in hand.
Continuing my vase analogy from earlier, this piece was like seeing a blue ming vase in the catalog and receiving a green one at the door .


Daniel