Adam,
I do not take BS from ANYONE!!!!!
"Bob, I am speaking from experience taking tables at card shows and attending hundreds of them as a patron, and even running a few of them. With that many dealers in the room, it is a seller's market unless you are trying to move junk. I set up at the first large show in LA in years this past summer and even though the place was mobbed, the walk-ins were in line with what I stated: mostly crap, with a smattering of decent items in there."
So what? No one ever said you didn't have experience in selling and doing shows. Or is this merely your idea of trying to establish that you may have some kind or type of unique and special knowledge/experience that makes your opinion and thoughts soooooooo much better than anyone else's, and thereby imply/impose your superiority over them and everyone else?
"I wasn't aiming at your prior posts; several other members posted similar misgivings and comments regarding the best routes to actually buying stuff besides sitting at a show."
Then that wasn't you making dismissive and derogatory comments about Alan Rosen and the use of cash as a possible prop? I was the one that mentioned it in earlier posts, and how it was simply taking a "page" out of Rosen's old book of tricks. So tell me again how just this one example doesn't prove your comment you weren't aiming at any of my prior posts isn't a lie then?!?!? You even falsely implied I may have somehow been advising the OP to adopt Rosen's entire "shtick", as you called it. But I never did that, did I? I merely suggested he try flashing some cash as a prop, which by the way, other members also commented on as not being a bad idea at all either. Funny, and convenient isn't it, how you seem to have left that part out when you made your statement above about other members posting misgivings about what I had said. Makes it seem to anyone just reading your most recent post now, and who maybe didn't go back and read all the prior posts, that people responding only agreed with you, thus further validating to them how you are the only one that is right. And by the way, I did come back in a later post to clarify for those that did misinterpret, or never comprehended what I initially said, that no one was suggesting the OP adopt and act like Rosen with his over-the-top, bombastic attitude. Yet you, as usual, ignore and fail to acknowledge that, and just continue posting your negative and derogatory comments like they are all that is true. Your reading comprehension and selective memory is truly astounding! And it also seems to be coming clearer and clearer that some people may count on others not bothering to go back and completely read all posts in a thread to get around admitting to things they said or implied earlier. In other words, they just keep saying they are right, and everyone else is wrong, and eventually expect that people will go away with that thinking.
"With regard to the walk-ins' knowledge level, I stand by my view. The occasional clueless walk-in happens but is a rarity, especially as compared to the past."
Again, no one disagreed with you In fact, did I not point out to the OP that his chances of finding anyone coming into a show with anything good he'd want to buy would be nominal, at best? I used maybe 1 out of 20, if he were lucky, to possibly describe what his results could be like. Would you have been happier had I said only 1 out of 100, or maybe 1 out of 1,000? Meanwhile, the exact statement you made which prompted me to share my REA story was as follows, from an earlier post you directed back at me. "By the time someone walks into a show, they have already done their homework on where to sell cards." I did not see any wiggle room in that statement there, like saying "most" or 'many" people, so the only correct interpretation of what you emphatically said thar I could come up with is that apparently "everyone" walking in already knows what they are doing. I merely shared my story to show that your statement did have exceptions, and is not emphatically true. And it doesn't matter if such occurrences are rare or not, that doesn't invalidate anything I said. I'd already been on record as saying such situations would likely be rare. Now adding onto that above quote that there actually still may be an occasional unknowing selling walking into a show somewhere, does not automatically excuse you from the negative comments you saw fit to throw out earlier. Again, seems like you selectively picking points and comments to support just your thinking and opinions, and summarily discard those of others that don't help or support you.
"My friends who actually do this for a living set up at shows but do far more buying through web presence, referrals and leg work than via walk-ups. it just isn't an efficient paradigm."
Great, don't disagree at all. But once again, the OP's original question was about setting up at shows, and maybe how best to get attention and potential sellers to show him their collections he may then have a chance to buy. I, and no one else, ever demeaned or put down any of your ideas. I even said in an earlier post that they were good ideas and made sense for the OP to help develop a better long-term plan and technique in his attempts at acquiring collections. So why do you continue to put down and dismiss others ideas that are just as true and relevant to the OPs original main question? There can be many good and relevant ideas for the OP to look at and think about. Why do you take it upon yourself to try and make it seem like yours are the only opinions/ideas that truly matter?
"As for outside the show buys, maybe you have not waited in line to get into a show, but it is not unusual to see someone working the line before a show opens. If someone is there to sell, getting that first shot is a viable strategy. I got one of the best deals of my life doing that in the 1990s."
Another great example of your selective memory. I never said anything about people in lines outside the show. Isiahfan in an earlier post kind of already covered the potential conflict and hypocrisy with that above statement. And as for the attack on me and implied potential lawsuit I could face, I'll deal more specifically with that in a little bit. Why no mention of the fact that you also said - "Hit the PARKING LOT and entrance areas instead before the collectors get in the door." Soooo convenient how you forgot about suggesting the parking lot for the OP to go after collectors and potential sellers. Like I honestly said, someone approaching me in a parking lot would have all my alarms going off. especially when I'm likely carrying valuable cards, along with a lot of cash to spend at the show. Someone doing that to me, I wouldn't waste a second going to the show promoter, I'd go straight to the property/business owner the show venue was in, and/or maybe just contact the local police directly.
"Am i saying that the OP shouldn't try it? Of course not. How he spends his time is his choice."
Then why all your BS and having to put down other people's ideas and thoughts? You did start your first post in this thread with your "peeing in someone's Cheerios" comment, did you not? But of course, since you started that very first statement with a "Sorry", that absolves you from anything else you say afterwards, right? Why not just state your ideas for a long-term plan for the OP, which was in line with his secondary question he started the thread with? Why couldn't you just post your opinions and ideas without also having to belittle others and trying to show/demonstrate how you think you know so much more than them? And exactly what in that statement of yours are you saying you didn't tell the OP not to try? Interesting how you sometimes seem to purposely not be specific in what you say. Seen that tactic and technique used for decades. Give no specifics so if someone does respond about it and assumes what they think you meant, you can deny and say that wasn't what you said or what you were really talking about. And before you give me some more crap that that is exactly what I do, I also respond and always try to fully explain what I said and meant so as to remove any misunderstanding or miscomprehension on the part of the reader. But then when they try throwing their TLDP crap back at me, it just helps show how they don't really care what is being said after all, and just want to keep spewing their "I'm right, and you're wrong!" mantra at me and others. When I'm wrong about something, I also admit to it. There are many people on this forum that I've found will never admit when they are wrong or could have been mistaken in their opinion or thinking.
"As for content of my post, I mentioned my blog in passing (and it is free, so no monetizing there; I like to pontificate there rather than here because I can cuss freely and editorialize as snarky as I want). Most of the post was devoted to offering some concrete examples and suggestions for what it takes in this tech-savvy age to effectively promote a card business, I even went to the trouble of posting links to articles about finds that illustrate how major hobby-fresh strikes go to those with strong online presences and networks of referrals, not people who sit at a local show."
You've been doing it quite a bit more frequently lately. I'm not going to waste the time going back and quoting some of your recent posts where instead of actually posting any comments, you simply mention working on a blog about it that will be up in a few weeks or so. So why not also post your thoughts in the thread then as well? I don't really have any problem with what you are doing, or even that you want to do it, but it does come across as you advertising for yourself. Which again, is fine. What I do dislike though is you using me as someone to help you advertise for your blog. You may not have quoted anyone in your earlier post, but you clearly included me as one of the references/comments you were ranting about when you talked about the Rosen stuff, which I alone had originally brought up and mentioned. As for the blog site being free to people that are going to it, great, but that wasn't my point. My understanding is that there are literally millions and millions of people that post stuff online that you and I can access for free. But then I also hear how they can be making tons of money from advertisers and others sponsoring their sites. Sometimes ridiculously huge amounts in fact if they have enough subscribers/traffic. I was merely inquiring if that is maybe your ultimate goal. I always feel it is important to try and be as upfront and honest with people as possible. And as for the articles you posted, those are fine, but the chances of the OP ever coming across a find like those is probably none and none. Really relevant examples then. And even if the OP ever did get that lucky to come across such a collection, is he really going to be able to ever afford to buy it? The OP was not coming across as some multi-millionaire with tons of money to blow on cards, so I was merely trying to respond to him in what I thought was a more relevant manner. Also thought it comical how you went on about Rosen and put down his tactics, but then use/reference someone like Goldin who is the main party in one of those linked articles you posted. Are differences between those two really that great? If memory serves, Goldin was a Don West/Shop At Home fixture for while, right? Not over the top at all, huh? And I also never heard of Rosen being arrested for anything. Interesting how you show Goldin as possibly a good role model, but chastise Rosen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-hqbuM6y3I
"One last point: while you may pat yourself on the back for telling the walk-in to "maybe not just talk to REA, right in front of the REA rep", if you'd done that to me at a show I would have asked the promoter to throw you out. It is called "intentional interference with prospective advantage" and it is actually grounds for a lawsuit. People who set up at shows pay substantial sums to transact and walking up and suggesting that people dealing with them go elsewhere is tortious interference and bad card show etiquette, IMO. How would you feel if you were set up and some know it all came over and started telling your customers to go elsewhere? Not cool. As Guido the Killer Pimp said:"
Finally, the one part of your commentary I was especially waiting to respond to. You can take your sick, demeaning, typical attorney BS commentary and threats and shove them!!! To everyone on the forum, here is a perfect example of how some attorneys think and operate, to try and bully others and impose their will and self-assumed superiority over everyone else.
First of all, did you really pay attention to everything I said in that story? Because if you did, I don't think you'd be spewing all the crap you have been. I thought I was pretty clear in the story that I did not just walk up and tell the couple with the OJ cards to not do business with REA. I was INVITED by the local card shop guy working as one of the REA reps, through a mutual friend, to come over and help them AND the couple to figure out what they may have, and what it may be worth. I was not working for REA or the couple, REA offered me no deal, commission or payment, and neither was I in the employ of the couple. In fact, after seeing the couple didn't even have the OJs in penny sleeves, I went and spent my own money to buy a pack of penny sleeves and at least put the OJs in them so the REA bozos didn't keep manhandling the raw cards and possibly damaging them. You talk about a "prospective advantage" that REA supposedly had, but the fact that they would have two bozos manning a booth at a major, strictly vintage/pre-war card show, who had no real clue as to what OJ cards were and would not even know how to properly handle raw cards, demonstrated to me that REA clearly threw any possible advantage they may have had right out the door. So Counselor, when I'm standing in front of everybody and the couple asks me for my opinion and I what I think, after having been invited by the REA people to help and answer such questions, I don't believe that can in any way be construed as "intentional interference" either, since I was specifically asked what I thought by the couple. Or Counselor, would you have rather I lied to the couple's face and told them to immediately sign with REA. Or maybe I should have done what I'm wondering if someone like yourself may have been inclined to do, excuse myself from the couple for a second to then take the REA rep aside, and negotiate my cut of what they were going to make off the couple by advising them to immediately consign with REA at a full seller's commission? Because totally contrary to your earlier statement that everyone walking into a card show with cards apparently already knows how best to sell them, this couple obviously did not. I was merely an innocent third-party asked to help, which I did. And along comes you, implying I should be subject to a lawsuit for doing exactly what I was asked to by the parties involved. I also did not do so behind the backs of the REA guys, I had the balls to speak the honest truth in front of them. Too bad you never really hear of many attorneys ever doing that, speaking the truth clearly and with no confusion in front of others, huh?
And your further BS story about how if I had done that to you at a show, you'd have had me removed by the promoter, is a made-up crock of $hit!. First off, at the time, I had known the show's promoter, and his wife, for over 20 years. As soon as I had told him the complete, true story and what actually happened, want to bet who he would have sided with? And had you been at a show, would you really have been that stupid that you would have had to ask someone like me to come over and help you with a couple like that? (But with the way you've been going on with your comments, you're beginning to make me wonder!) And assuming you are not that ignorant, why do you still find it necessary then to make up such a BS story that would never have actually happened? Unless it was just a way for you to spew more of your crap at me and try to project to everyone on the forum how brilliant and smart you are, and how dare anyone else ever say or imply anything differently? But the threatened lawsuit liability allegation is your lowest point of all. I would have loved to have run into you in the above situation, and then had you try to sue me after the fact for supposedly screwing you over. I would have loved to be able to sit in front of a jury and tell them how YOU had been the one to invite me over to assist you and the couple in what best to do, and then how you got mad because I wasn't going to be part of your attempt to take as much advantage of the couple as you could. I can only imagine how little sympathy you'd get from the jury after I spoke. And the follow-up lawsuit against you for filing your frivolous suit against me, along with defamation to my character and whatever else I came up with, would be even sweeter!
And to be fully honest and open, before I saw your last garbage filled response, I had already PM'd the thread's OP and apologized for having somewhat taken over his thread. I went into a lot of detail and explained more fully how I don't take this kind of BS from anyone. I also specifically mentioned how you actually are a good guy, and that your ideas are not bad at all and well worth looking into and that he should think of trying and implementing them as well. I also mentioned how I thought he was likely more someone like me, without a lot of excess cash to just go off buying things left and right, and to maybe try some of the card show and other less involved ideas presented as well, first, to see if he even really likes doing it. At the end, I wished him luck and said the most important thing he should do despite anything else, is to make sure he enjoys it and has fun. Why bother doing it otherwise, right? Ever since I later saw your comeback, I've been rethinking and regretting some of what I said to him in that PM!
In summation, I helped a couple to make a decision on what to do. I also told them REA was a great AH to consign with, despite the two idiots they had manning their booth that day. They didn't cheat or take advantage of REA, and I merely helped got a fair and equitable deal for BOTH parties, that REA should have offered the couple from the start. I got, and expected, absolutely nothing out of it at all. Yet to you, I am somehow the bad guy, and you have the audacity to insult me and put me down with your sarcastic remark about patting myself on the back for doing exactly what I was asked by the parties involved. How dare you! I acted as a simple, honest, and compassionate human being, and for that, I apologize to no one.....especially not the likes of you! Your ill-conceived and inaccurate commentaries on my actions and involvement in the REA story shows me, and everyone else on the forum, exactly how you are and think, and where your true colors are when it comes to being a decent human and working with and dealing with other innocent and unknowing people in the hobby. If I have the choice of being someone like I was at that show, or being like you appear to be, I'll easily take being nothing like you, and patting myself on the back for that decision every single day for the rest of my life!!!