USED to be REA's big fan ---not any more

[forazzurri2axz]

First of all, before a few members criticize this as being “negative”, I have run it by Leon and he
has no problem with my post as long as it is not anonymous—

An introduction to the situation is as follows::: I was the winner of the 1956 Topps set in the REA auction, all PSA 8’s with a Mays 8.5 and 30 PSA 9’s. The price was $35,000 and with 17.5% premium the total for this set was $41,125. Because I won more lots than I thought I might, I decided to sell the PSA 9’s after replacing them first with PSA 8’s and at some time sell a 100% PSA 8 set. In the two weeks following the auction , I was able to get 28 PSA 8’s, including the Mays. Only after receiving the set 2-3 weeks after the auction ( the delay was my doing in switching funds etc, not REA’s ) did I then email a few fellow collectors asking if they would be interested in upgrading some of their 8’s to PSA 9. One responded immediately and we worked out a transaction for 9 of the PSA 9’s..A few hours after I then discovered that one of the three PSA 9’s for which I had not yet found a PSA 8 The Pirates Team Card #121 , was in fact NOT a PSA 9 as the registry indicated and as REA had listed in their description of the set.(this was not part of the 9 card transaction)

A few facts about this card. It is a TOUGH card in PSA 9; it has not been indicated as being sold on VCP since 2007; it sold 4 times in 2006/2007, from $1600-2300.00. I calculated the card at a MINIMUM of $1500 plus buyers premium when I evaluated all the cards in the set. The SMR which in my opinion is a poor guide at best in general has a PSA 8 at $315 and $1500 in PSA 9. I contacted REA in regards to this problem and spoke with Dean who told me he would contact the consignor and get back to me---Here is what happened after that!!

Consignor admitted selling the PSA 9 some time ago and did not remove it from the registry
Obviously REA went by the registry since they advertised it as a PSA 9 and sent a PSA 8 to me instead
Consignor offered $1000 which I refused. When I spoke with Dean again, I was told that I paid 85% of SMR and so the card is only worth 85% of 1500.00 ---another offer was $1500 and I would return the PSA 8---I refused that since I would no longer have a complete set AND the card is worth more than that AND I also paid the buyer’s premium.

REA then told me the consignor would give me a Snider PSA 9 if I would PAY THEM $500.00 and my Snider PSA 8 in the set. VCP Snider 9 ==$1900 less my $500.00 less my PSA 8 Snider approx $300.00.I still felt that was not fair since that is an $1100 value for a card worth a lot more than that. I felt that $1500.00 was fair and I would keep the PSA 8.

REA offered to take the set back and when I explained my transaction , I was told I should have discovered THEIR error before making a transaction even if it did not involve that card. I pointed out that SMR is way off in many cases; the common PSA 9’s that sell for $250-$300 are the SAME SMR as the low pop commons that sell for $1200-$1500—that’s it’s a guide at best and it shouldn’t matter what %% I paid.

I was then given the opportunity to speak to Rob at which point I basically was told all of the above again and that if hypothetically all cards were shipped 1 grade lower than they advertised and they “refunded me in the manner I am requesting” then I would MAKE a profit of $10,000. Well, I guess that comes from the logic of 85% of SMR and I’m not smart enough to follow how all of a sudden I’m “hypothetically MAKING $10,000……I was told by Rob that he would (and this is a direct quote) “take $100.00 OUT OF MY OWN POCKET in addition to the $1500.00 and you return the PSA 8”. I lost my cool and raised my voice since it seems to me that if I spend $63,751.25 IN WINNING SEVERAL LOTS IN HIS AUCTION of which OVER $9,000 is buyer’s premium why the heck are they quibbling over $300.00----do they think my money comes from trees and his $100.00 is the ultimate sacrifice??? It seems to me that his $100.00 out of HIS pocket just might be part of MY $63,000+ that went into his pocket in the first place!!! This conversation deteriorated in “quality” at that point---I would told I was making him upset with my comments ( as if I shouldn’t have been upset by their penny-pinching?????) , that Rob had to get back to work and that he would write me out his own personal check for $300.00.

Follow-up---I did receive the $1800 after returning the PSA 8 and the person pointed out that the PSA 9 Miranda I sent in the 9 card transaction ($1250.00) was really an 8!!!!!!!!!!!!! I missed that REA sent me another PSA 8 instead of a PSA 9----one of the lowest pop PSA 9’s in the entire set missing as well. And no, I am not going back to REA about this

bill latzko

[Peter_Spaeth]

Can someone post the cliff notes version??

[T206Collector]

What are you asking for?

a) return the whole set for no money lost; or

b) the difference in value between what you thought you bought and what you did buy?

I don't think you're entitled to anything else. And if we're just talking about (b), then what is the difference between what you were offered and what you want?

[GrayGhost]

What exactly do you think anyone here is going to do? If you have the means to spend that much money on cardboard, its your choice, but like anything else, it comes with risks. Good luck w however it comes out.

[ibuysportsephemera]

If someone spent 60k+ with me, I would try to give them great customer service..just sayin...

[FUBAR]

I think REA should do what is right and make this right! Customer service goes along way, especially with word of mouth. It may cost REA and the consignor 3k now, but look at the type of buyer he has. 60K is some nice bank! Ive never met Robert, have only heard great things about him, but in this case, it sounds like he is dropping the ball a bit!

I had a lot of shiny UFC cards go missing in the mail.(my first ever lost auction) I contacted the seller, and even though he provided me with proof of shipping, he had a photo of the envelope, with my address, date and such on it. (i have bought other lots from him, this is how he works) When i informed him they hadn't shown up, without hesitation he re-shipped the same cards and when i opened his package this morning, there were the cards, and there was my money back with an apology letter. All this for a measly 10$ order!


NOW THAT IS CUSTOMER SERVICE!!

[FrankWakefield]

REA didn't have what they listed.

Bidder should get his money back, REA keeps the cards.

That is the Cliff Notes / Easy Button version...

[ibuysportsephemera]

I recently sold a football media guide on eBay. The customer e-mailed me that there was a small picture cut out that I missed and hadn't put into the description. He wanted to return the guide. I immediately apologized, refunded him the entire purchase price and shipping and told him to keep the guide. He was shocked that I would do this (he has a ton of feedbacks) and couldn't thank me enough. Granted this was a $20 purchase with shipping, but I didn't want to risk my 20% discount that I get being a top rated seller. I have no idea if the picture was missing or not. It seems to me that if you are going to do business on the internet, you have to be ready to stand by your product or reputation and take an occasional loss if necessary.

[Matthew H]

40'000 dollars is alot of money to be spending on 1956 Topps, js.

[JasonL]

and there's a lot of detail there that I had trouble following in the quick time I had to scan through it, but I hope you can get some peace with this at some point.
It always baffles me when I encounter these types of customer service problems (in any industry) when a business loses the forest through the trees and the perspective of customer service becomes compromised. fighting over even $1k-2k in a $60k transaction involving a repeat customer just makes very little sense to me.

oh well. There's no end to things I don't understand, so I can't get on too high a soapbox about anything.

Best of luck with it all.

[Robextend]

That stinks Bill. No matter what the resolution was steps should have been taken to ensure all the cards were in fact the proper grade listed on the registry.

I would be frustrated too after spending so much.

Rob

[barrysloate]

Could this be any more complicated? If I could follow what is going on, I would gladly offer an opinion.

Hi Bill!

[rhettyeakley]

That is a frustrating story!

I had a similar thing happen to me many years back with a completely different auction house (albeit not at this scale) and from that day on I have never tried to sell or trade any cards from an auction lot (or any purchase for that matter) until the card(s) are physically in my possesion.

-Rhett

[Matthew H]

This shows how inaccurate set registries can be. You would think the missing Pirates team card went into another registry set. Could the same cert number be listed in two sets?

what about pop reports? When a collector cracks a card out of a PSA/SGC holder looking for an unbiased re-submit, does that add a phantom card to the report? This could make cards seem more plentiful, right?

[Robextend]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

What exactly do you think anyone here is going to do? If you have the means to spend that much money on cardboard, its your choice, but like anything else, it comes with risks. Good luck w however it comes out.

I don't think that is fair Scott. If an auction house states I am getting a PSA 9 card and I end up getting a PSA 8, that has nothing to do with taking on risk.

A lot of money was spent and a mistake (or a couple mistakes) was made...and the resolution seems it could have gone much smoother.

[jb217676]

Originally Posted by Matthew H

This shows how inaccurate set registries can be. You would think the missing Pirates team card went into another registry set. Could the same cert number be listed in two sets?

what about pop reports? When a collector cracks a card out of a PSA/SGC holder looking for an unbiased re-submit, does that add a phantom card to the report? This could make cards seem more plentiful, right?

It's impossible to have the same cert number listed in the registries of two different people. It tells you right away when you add a card to your registry if it's listed in another collector's set. If you are the new owner of a card that is still listed in a previous owners registry, PSA will remove it if you provide them with front and back scans. This happened to me a couple of times.

[Matt]

Bill - I read the whole thing and it is upsetting. At this point, angry as you are, you should go back to REA about the other PSA 8/9 switch. Let us know what they say. I know they've lost your business, but it would be good for the rest of us to know if they are at least willing to make you whole on their mistakes.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

...REA offered to take the set back...

...take $100.00 OUT OF MY OWN POCKET in addition to the $1500.00 and you return the PSA 8...

...I would told I was making him upset with my comments ( as if I shouldn’t have been upset by their penny-pinching?????) , that Rob had to get back to work and that he would write me out his own personal check for $300.00...

Follow-up---I did receive the $1800 after returning the PSA 8 and the person pointed out that the PSA 9 Miranda I sent in the 9 card transaction ($1250.00) was really an 8!!!!!!!!!!!!! I missed that REA sent me another PSA 8 instead of a PSA 9----one of the lowest pop PSA 9’s in the entire set missing as well. And no, I am not going back to REA about this

I appreciate that you are disappointed but I think you are out of line here:

--REA made a mistake--clearly should have checked the cards not just the registry. However, people make mistakes. You caught the mistake.

--REA offered to rescind the transaction and make you whole. You said no.

--They offered you SMR for the 8. You said no.

--They offered you $100 over SMR for the 8. You got mad.

--You got $300 over SMR. You stayed mad but took it.

--You found another error. You won't go back to them with it.

I don't see where REA is in the wrong. You could have unwound the entire sale if you'd wanted and come out exactly where you were before. I don't think any seller or auctioneer has any obligation to do more than refund your purchase price if you did not receive what you agreed to buy.

I'd also note that your sale figures are pre-Great Recession and as we've been discussing on other threads prices have dropped since then.

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

Follow-up---I did receive the $1800 after returning the PSA 8 and the person pointed out that the PSA 9 Miranda I sent in the 9 card transaction ($1250.00) was really an 8!!!!!!!!!!!!! I missed that REA sent me another PSA 8 instead of a PSA 9----one of the lowest pop PSA 9’s in the entire set missing as well. And no, I am not going back to REA about this

bill latzko

Bill,

Just out of curiousity, since you made exactly the same mistake that REA did, on your resale lot, how did you settle it with your customer?

[forazzurri2axz]

Jim VB and Peter---Yes, I made a mistake by not finding the second error and without hesitation refunded $1250 to the buyer of the 9 PSA 9's

Gray Ghost--I don't expect anyone "here" to do anything--Wheter it's $60 or $60,000 spent on cardboard, it shouldn't be a risk based on incorrect information given by consignor or auction house

Tom (et al) --I had NOT sold any crds that were not in my possession. I only notified other collectors after receiving the set from REA and discovered the Pirate mistake after the 9 card transaction. The Pirate card was not part of the 9 card transaction...BTW until now I also found REA to be top notch.

REA/ROB---YOU NEVER discussed taking the set back at all--it was only brought up in about my 4th conversation with Dean and then you. I explained at that point that I could not because I had sold 9 cards before finding the mistake and was told by y'all that it was MY fault for not finding YOUR mistake before doing my transaction---those were the exact words used.


bill

[Jim VB]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

REA/ROB---YOU NEVER discussed taking the set back at all--it was only brought up in about my 4th conversation with Dean and then you.

bill

Bill,

I understand that this is a very frustrating situation, but this statement doesn't make much sense. It's like you're saying he NEVER discussed it EXCEPT these two times.




Mistakes happen. To all of us. You can't run an auction the size of REA and have it be 100% smooth, card for card. The real problem started here when the consignor left cards on his registry that he no longer owned. The second mistake happened when REA did not catch the consignor's mistake. The third mistake happened when you didn't catch the error either.

It seems that there's plenty of blame to go around and REA has stepped up to offer several workable solutions. Your subsequent sale eliminated one of those potential solutions, so the other options were limited.

In the end, it sounds like Rob gave in and gave you exactly what you wanted for the problem that was explained to him. You're upset with how that was handled, even though you got exactly what you wanted. AND... now you're upset with another issue that you have never even explained to them.

I realize that this is aggravating, but you could be acting a little harshly to REA in this case.

[MikeS]

Don't know how members think this wasn't REA's fault because they offered a return and addressed the buyers concerns. Fact is it's their job as an auction house to confirm everything they have in hand before sending the write-ups out to print. If they couldn't count 31 cards that weren't anything but PSA 8's, then that's more than a mix-up.....It's called laziness!!! If this were any other auction house half you guys would have been making low-blows. This lot was expensive and the buyer is probably out fees that no one sees as well (ie. bank transfer, etc.) and this would have been eliminated if REA took the extra 5 minutes to do their job. That sucks about the two cards, but it goes to show that not all houses are perfect and maybe this will wake them up for next year.

[Exhibitman]

Mike, I don't think anyone is saying REA is without fault; everyone including REA agrees that there was a mistake. People make mistakes; it's one of the enduring and endearing traits of humanity. I think the issue is really whether REA stepped up and owned its error and made it good. IMO, it did. REA offered to buy back the set. It then offered a reasonable $ adjustment based on the % of SMR on the set versus the total cost of the set. When those were rejected, ultimately, REA gave the buyer the exact figure the buyer demanded even though it was arguably a premium price on the card in question. I've had a lot worse "make goods" offered to me in the past on listing errors or lost items; what more than a full refund offer can you really expect?

[hunterdutchess]

You should have gotten a refund Bill. That way you could bid on the Autograph Game used Jersey Duel super Refractor red boarder 1/1 Die Cut Strasburgh RC : )

[Matthew H]

Originally Posted by hunterdutchess

You should have gotten a refund Bill. That way you could bid on the Autograph Game used Jersey Duel super Refractor red boarder 1/1 Die Cut Strasburgh RC : )

He wouldn't have had enough money

[murcerfan]

flipper.

[jbsports33]

it may have been better to keep it short with your post, you lost me at the half way point!

Jimmy

[glynparson]

If you refeunded the buyers of your cards more than they paid for them you have a gripe. If not you are just a hypocrite and a jerk. just my opinion.

[forazzurri2axz]

to the above comment------of course, if glynparson got different cards than he paid for, we all know that he would graciously accept it , keep his mouth shut, and figure that it's OK to be offered less than the value he paid several times before reaching an agreement.

[T206Collector]

1) The set had two 8s when REA said it had two 9s. Oops. Mistake. Bad REA.

2) REA offered a refund for the entire item, and when that was not acceptable, acceded to the buyer's demand for $1,800. Mistake corrected. Thanks, REA.

3) Buyer bashes REA in a public forum. Intent: hurt REA publicly.

[ElCabron]

This never would have happened if you'd stuck to bidding with Dave Kohler and SCP Auctions.

-Ryan

[Kawika]

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

This never would have happened if you'd stuck to bidding with Dave Kohler and SCP Auctions. -Ryan

Oh it's you. =click=

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think what Bill is upset about is not the end result but the fact that from his perspective he had to haggle to get there, instead of Dean just saying ok we made a mistake what can we do to make it right.

[forazzurri2axz]

Leon--I realize I responded to rob in the other thread but feel this is egregious enough to warrant a new post/thread please
__________________________________________________ ________________

In addition, Mr. Latzko did not mention that he paid for his $63,751 invoice with an unreasonable number of small denomination bank checks purchased with cash over a two week period which were a burden for us to even deposit. One or two or even three checks for whatever reason is fine for payment of any invoice (99%+ pay with one check), but this set a record. This was crazy. In addition, Mr. Latzko has failed to mention that he paid his auction invoice late - and without prearranged terms to do so - and that we did not give him a hard time about this and we waived his late payment fees.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC
__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ _____________

Dear Rob,

It is one thing to make a mistake in your auction--which your consignor and you BOTH did.
It's one thing to haggle with a customer who spent $60,000 over a few hundred dollars to fix YOUR mistakes--which you did

But it's quite another to come on the NET 54 forum and blatantly LIE and MISREPRESENT what happened--which you are doing

FACTS: I called you right after the auction Rob, explained that I had the $63,000+ IN CASH , preferred not to make a huge deposit in my checking account at one time and offered two ideas
1) I offered TO DRIVE FROM ATLANTA for 12/13 hours with the cash and asked if you could have someone drive 3 hrs to meet me since I couldn't physically do 15 hrs at a stretch. You thanked me for the offer, stated another "local" winning bidder had dropped off cash earlier that day but you only had 3 people and you couldn't "spare one for the day".which I understood

2) I then asked if I could--over a 2 week period-- do Money Orders for approx $5,000 each . YOU SAID YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT!!!! I mentioned I would send them Fed Ex and you GLADLY gave me your street address instead of the PO Box. You certainly didn't say that it was a BURDEN to deposit money orders, you didn't object to the two weeks, and I told you I'd probably send 50% in 1 week. YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT TOO!!! YOU EVEN KNEW ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY ORDERS I WOULD SEND AND THAT WAS OK WITH YOU AS WELL!!

3) I overnighted approx $32,000 a week later (8 money orders)---I followed up the next day to make sure you received it-----Y'all thanked me and I said I would send the balance FEDEX
within the next week.--which I did.(6/7 money orders for the $30,000 balance)

You can do all the $10,000,000 auctions you want, you can have the most beautiful catalogue and consignments in the hobby, and certainly be one of the leader's in the BB card hobby,which makes you perhaps somewhat "believable" to some people. But your misrepresentations of our conversations is despicable to say the least. Why is it all of a sudden a BURDEN to deposit a number of money orders which YOU WERE FINE WITH WHEN WE SPOKE?? Why is it all of a sudden late payment WHEN YOU WERE FINE WITH IT WHEN WE SPOKE??? You are correct that I didn't pre-arrange this but if it was a burden or an objection, you could have mentioned it then---Someone initially offering to drive 25 hours round trip to deliver in cash isn't an unreasonable person!!

I won't bother to address further the issue of compensation of the missing card---I'll repeat that for you to use a % of SMR to justify your attempt to short-change someone in your initial offers is nothing short of being an unethical (albeit rich) businessman.--and you sure as hell can't say that your INITIAL offers which you failed to address here were fair!!!

Peace

[sbfinley]

Way past unnecessary now.

[Leon]

Oy....why do I get to have to deal with these situations? I want a raise!!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Leon no one will object if you double your current salary...

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Leon no one will object if you double your current salary...

Thanks a lot Peter. Much appreciated. Dues are doubling too.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by forazzurri2axz

Leon--I realize I responded to rob in the other thread but feel this is egregious enough to warrant a new post/thread please
__________________________________________________ ________________

In addition, Mr. Latzko did not mention that he paid for his $63,751 invoice with an unreasonable number of small denomination bank checks purchased with cash over a two week period which were a burden for us to even deposit. One or two or even three checks for whatever reason is fine for payment of any invoice (99%+ pay with one check), but this set a record. This was crazy. In addition, Mr. Latzko has failed to mention that he paid his auction invoice late - and without prearranged terms to do so - and that we did not give him a hard time about this and we waived his late payment fees.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC
__________________________________________________ _____________
__________________________________________________ _____________

Dear Rob,

It is one thing to make a mistake in your auction--which your consignor and you BOTH did.
It's one thing to haggle with a customer who spent $60,000 over a few hundred dollars to fix YOUR mistakes--which you did

But it's quite another to come on the NET 54 forum and blatantly LIE and MISREPRESENT what happened--which you are doing

FACTS: I called you right after the auction Rob, explained that I had the $63,000+ IN CASH , preferred not to make a huge deposit in my checking account at one time and offered two ideas
1) I offered TO DRIVE FROM ATLANTA for 12/13 hours with the cash and asked if you could have someone drive 3 hrs to meet me since I couldn't physically do 15 hrs at a stretch. You thanked me for the offer, stated another "local" winning bidder had dropped off cash earlier that day but you only had 3 people and you couldn't "spare one for the day".which I understood

2) I then asked if I could--over a 2 week period-- do Money Orders for approx $5,000 each . YOU SAID YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT!!!! I mentioned I would send them Fed Ex and you GLADLY gave me your street address instead of the PO Box. You certainly didn't say that it was a BURDEN to deposit money orders, you didn't object to the two weeks, and I told you I'd probably send 50% in 1 week. YOU WERE FINE WITH THAT TOO!!! YOU EVEN KNEW ABOUT HOW MANY MONEY ORDERS I WOULD SEND AND THAT WAS OK WITH YOU AS WELL!!

3) I overnighted approx $32,000 a week later (8 money orders)---I followed up the next day to make sure you received it-----Y'all thanked me and I said I would send the balance FEDEX
within the next week.--which I did.(6/7 money orders for the $30,000 balance)

You can do all the $10,000,000 auctions you want, you can have the most beautiful catalogue and consignments in the hobby, and certainly be one of the leader's in the BB card hobby,which makes you perhaps somewhat "believable" to some people. But your misrepresentations of our conversations is despicable to say the least. Why is it all of a sudden a BURDEN to deposit a number of money orders which YOU WERE FINE WITH WHEN WE SPOKE?? Why is it all of a sudden late payment WHEN YOU WERE FINE WITH IT WHEN WE SPOKE??? You are correct that I didn't pre-arrange this but if it was a burden or an objection, you could have mentioned it then---Someone initially offering to drive 25 hours round trip to deliver in cash isn't an unreasonable person!!

I won't bother to address further the issue of compensation of the missing card---I'll repeat that for you to use a % of SMR to justify your attempt to short-change someone in your initial offers is nothing short of being an unethical (albeit rich) businessman.--and you sure as hell can't say that your INITIAL offers which you failed to address here were fair!!!

Peace

It has been requested that I lock this thread. I have a hard time doing that with respect to the way the board has always been run. However, it is being contemplated. The problem is that if it gets locked then that basically doesn't let anyone else comment and I am not sure that is the fair way to run the board? Suggestions? Opinions? (btw, I have to go to a small party in about 30 minutes so this might have to wait till this evening, regardless of the decision) regards

[botn]

No point locking this one unless you lock the other one too.

[barrysloate]

Can we ask who requested it? That said, we really only need one thread at most discussing this matter.

[sbfinley]

Originally Posted by Leon

btw, I have to go to a small party in about 30 minutes so this might have to wait till this evening

I thought parties went until the break of dawn when Leon was involved.

[ksabet]

I have been a buyer and a seller to REA and usually do not say much on the board as I am more of a lurker, but this thread is ridiculous. If you really read the email that Rob sent I believe he humored this guy as long as he could before the little things go a bit out of hand.

I have had nothing but a red carpet laid out for me every time I call the office and I don't do a ton of buying or selling, just enough to consider myself a collector.

It seems that you were given about a dozen options from them for rectification and none were suitable. Eventually the customer ceases to be right.

Let it go man life is too short.

[barrysloate]

If we agree that we don't need two threads on the same subject, then this one should be shut down. But do you leave the other one open?

I feel this discussion has been exhausted on both threads, but it's not really my call.

[calvindog]

For a number of fairly obvious reasons this thread should be deleted (the other one as well). And it should be done immediately.