How Important is an Auction Lot's Description

[oldjudge]

The following lot in last nights' Goodwin & Co auction was misdescribed (It is an 1887 card, the most common Kelly 1887 card, and Kelly was sold to Boston on Feb 14, 1887). How much do you think the description entered into the final price? Should the buyer, if he or she relied on the description, be allowed to return the card?

http://www.goodwinandco.com/LotDetai...-SGC-5.5-EX%2b

[barrysloate]

Good question Jay, and of course the catalog description is critical. Now as far as would the buyer have a right to return this item, I'm not sure. The label correctly states the card was issued in 1887 (although I don't believe any of the grading services pay attention to whether an OJ was actually issued in 1887-88-or 89).

The catalog description is wrong, of course, and in this case it could be critical because 1890 OJ's are scarce and Kelly did play in the Player's League. But would any bidder actually be confused here and think that card is something it's not? I doubt it, and asking for a return is sort of backing out over a technicality.

Now maybe you see it differently, and feel I'm leaving an important point out. But if I were the seller I'm not sure that error would warrant a return privilege.

[oldjudge]

Barry-If the fellow writing the auction description, supposedly someone who is knowledgeable about what he is describing, does not know the facts why should one assume that a buyer would necessarily know the facts?

[jcmtiger]

Jay, I agree with you. I have quite a few Detroit Old judge Players, but I definitely don't have the knowledge that you and Joe G. have on these cards.
But, I would certainly investigate and try to find out about the card to make sure it was described correctly. If it was not, I would try to return the card.

Joe

[barrysloate]

Another fair question. Some buyers are experts and know more than the auction house. I would say every time you buy an Old Judge you know more than the seller, and others probably do too. Admittedly, not every OJ collector is an advanced one, and some may be beginners. And no question it's a poor description- who calls an OJ an 1890 card when they are almost all late 1880's products.

But I think you want to know if a buyer should be entitled to a refund, and my answer is I'm not sure. Is someone bidding on that card solely because he thinks it might be the PL version? I suppose you could make that case if you wanted.

[barrysloate]

Joe- to respond to your point. If you won that card, and when you received it discovered it was not from 1890, would you really want to return it? It's still a nice example of a key OJ. Would that date throw you off?

[oldjudge]

Barry-Forget PL. The description doesn't say PL, it just says rare 1890 version. The buyer may not know the Player's League from a player piano.

[barrysloate]

It doesn't say "rare", it just says 1890. Nevertheless, if the buyer were that upset with the description, then I suppose he should make his case and request a refund. My guess is nearly everyone bidding on the card would look at the scan, read the SGC label, and if they then won it, would keep it.

[oldjudge]

Barry-I believe every SGC label for any Old Judge says 1887. Second, the description is as follows:

The rarer of the bat-in-hand variations for Kelly, this Boston version has to be from 1890, following Chicago’s sale of the Hall of Famer in what was one of the biggest baseball deals of its time.

It says "rarer" not "rare" but it ain't either. Also, I emailed Bill to let him know about the mistake but no change was made.

[barrysloate]

Well then the buyer should just ask for a refund. He might face an argument, however. And the description should have been changed if an expert such as yourself told them about it. That would bother me a lot.

[bcbgcbrcb]

My feeling is that if the auction house was that specific in their description and it is inaccurate, then the buyer should be entitled to a refund, if they request one.

[Jay Wolt]

I VCP'd the correct card and the last one for SGC-70 (REA in '06) sold for a thousand $ higher
so did the improper description have anything to do w/ spirited bidding?
As the final # seemed low.

[oldjudge]

Jay-Good point, although the REA one was much nicer. However, the market is a fluid beast and who knows what the lot would have sold for if the description was accurate.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Joe- to respond to your point. If you won that card, and when you received it discovered it was not from 1890, would you really want to return it? It's still a nice example of a key OJ. Would that date throw you off?

Hi Barry, because I only collect Detroit players, I would only buy this card for trade, so I would want it to be the rarer 1890 version

Joe

[Gradedcardman]

In my opinion it means everything. I bought a lot of 154 T206's in a recent auction. In the description the worst card was listed as fair. When the lot came there were 4 cards with holes in them and another 30+ with severe back damage. Personally I would of cut off my bidding at $3200 instead of the $4100 plus juice I paid. The 120 cards not damaged were nice but I still sent an email to the auction house that sold and have received no reply.

[Exhibitman]

IMHO it matters and the buyer should have the option for a refund when the auctioneer is specific on a subject and there is no way for the buyer to know otherwise. In this case, the card is plainly labeled by SGC as an 1887. If I was looking at the lot and being told it is an 1890 by the auctioneer I'd want a guarantee it crosses to an 1890 holder, but the discrepancy is so obvious that I'd ask before I bid rather than bid on the assumption that SGC is wrong.

I suppose the converse question should be asked: is the auctioneer entitled to cancel a sale when the auction description is wrong and results in a rare card being sold as a common version? Isn't that the moral equivalent? And how often do people make posts here about great deals gotten on Ebay from ignorant sellers? Should those sellers be allowed to cancel those sales if they discover their mistakes?

[Joe_G.]

That auction description is poor and misleading on several levels, perhaps the worst I have ever seen. Kelly does have a batting pose that is considered tougher than the others but it isn't this pose. Kelly's toughest batting pose is his Script Series example in which he appears to be left handed (negative reversed).

The card for auction is without a doubt Kelly's most common pose by a significant margin. Most of Kelly's cards were only issued in 1886/87 but this pose was issued and re-issued numerous times through 1890.

254-5 Bat at ready at 45deg, R/handed
a. $10,000 Kelly (A6)
b. Kelly, C., Boston (Fc)
c. Kelly, C. Bostons (Fc)
d. Kelly, Boston (Fc script, G)
e. Kelly, Boston (PL) (Fc)
f. "Mike Kelly, C. Boston's" (G)

If the buyer was influenced by the description, I'd say he/she has every right to back out of the deal.