new member introduction

[scgaynor]

Originally Posted by botn

It appears Nate retracted his entire post and probably the other post he made on another thread in which he refers to Goldin being on AAN tv. So Goldin's company nor Goldin are profiting from the sales of these products to which Nate was referring?

Goldin Collectibles sells wholesale to venders who in turn resell at a higher price. I am sure that he made something on the original sale.

Scott

[wonkaticket]

My last post on this topic....

Robert....that’s a quick way to solidify your place in the auction world sue your future customers. That would surely make folks feel right at home and ready to place bids and hand over consignments.

I don’t see all that much leap of faith statements in here. I don’t see too much in the way of true slander either but I’m no attorney so I’ll let them chime in I think we have one or two here.

Videos are there everyone here knows that the SAH home days were over the top. Even Ken himself admitted it in this thread it “it was how it was done”. He calls it an “aggressive sales style” but any hobbyist with even a simply understanding of collecting knows that “aggressive sales style” equated to inflated claims, crazy hyped pitches that just didn’t quite add up and in some cases out right misinformation.

Examples selling cards today for 2k because next month lesser cards will be worth twice that…in talks of values quotes from Don West to Ken, “Honus Wagner only has like 4 cards” we all know Honus appears in more issues than that etc. etc.

Look we all laughed because we all for the most part are in the hobby and were not sold on the crazy pitches. It was as one person said entertainment a guilty pleasure if you will. For Shop at Home it was a business and a profitable one that Ken benefited from like it or not.

But there is an ugly side to this that we seem to be forgetting here that’s deeper than Ken and his new venture.

There were lots of folks who weren’t in the hobby. There were plenty of people who took these Shop at Home gentleman at their word as experts. These innocent people made justified buying decisions based upon inflated claims and so called trusted expert pipe dreams. To me anything that is spun from the root of the truth to inflate or get more out of something is a basic con sorry if you feel different. May not be illegal but can be called unethical.

Sadly many of these innocent people were left holding a worthless bag. That bag was meant to be a nest egg, a father son bonding experience etc. what a horrible taste to leave in someone’s mouth about our beloved hobby. What a message to send to future generations of collectors who we all depend on for the values of our own collections.

I never claimed Ken was at the root of all Shop at Home games. However he was present and accounted for on a few. The videos are public record.

Those for me in my personal opinion were enough for me to not trust or want to do business with Ken and his company and to voice that view here. Where he announced his business open to his potential customers (me).

I think the videos are to me an insight of where Ken used to draw the line and most likely draws the line today.

If the line for Ken has moved great and good for him! However it’s on him to prove that to his new customers, not on me to bend my position.

Cheers,

John

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by wonkaticket

My last post on this topic....


I don’t see all that much leap of faith statements in here. I don’t see too much in the way of true slander either but I’m no attorney so I’ll let them chime in I think we have one or two here.


John

I think the potentially troublesome posts have since been edited and retracted - thankfully.

[cmcclelland]

I am sure Nate probably retracted his post because "Tough Guy" Goldin most likely sent him a message threatening to have his lawyers contact him.

Just a little legal advice for everyone - any action for defamation, slander, etc. would require that someone INTENTIONALLY state something that they know to be FALSE about the other person thereby inuring the other person's reputation.

These elements would all cause problems for Mr. Goldin if he ever tried to pursue this type of action based on the statements I've read on this board so far. First, nothing I've read appears to be something that any reasonable person could think was intentionally stated when it was known to be false. Second, it would be tough to argue that Mr. Goldin's reputation has been injured by statements on this board since he has already done so much to injure his reputation himself based on his past actions and business practices. Just the youtube video alone is probably enough for a reasonable person to believe that Mr. Goldin's reputation was already at such a low level that nothing here could change that for the worse.

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by cmcclelland

I am sure Nate probably retracted his post because "Tough Guy" Goldin most likely sent him a message threatening to have his lawyers contact him.

Just a little legal advice for everyone - any action for defamation, slander, etc. would require that someone INTENTIONALLY state something that they know to be FALSE about the other person thereby inuring the other person's reputation.

These elements would all cause problems for Mr. Goldin if he ever tried to pursue this type of action based on the statements I've read on this board so far. First, nothing I've read appears to be something that any reasonable person could think was intentionally stated when it was known to be false. Second, it would be tough to argue that Mr. Goldin's reputation has been injured by statements on this board since he has already done so much to injure his reputation himself based on his past actions and business practices. Just the youtube video alone is probably enough for a reasonable person to believe that Mr. Goldin's reputation was already at such a low level that nothing here could change that for the worse.

This only holds true if the defamed is deemed by the court to be a public figure. I'm not sure Mr. Goldin would be deemed to be a public figure known to the lay person outside of the hobby.

If the person is deemed not to be a public figure, you can be sued and lose just by publishing something false about that person.

However, the key point you made is valid. He would have to prove damages/loss of money based on that statement -- and that would be very tough.

[npa589]

Well, my post gradually turned into everyone interpreting "seen" out of "heard". As you know, there is a marked difference between "seeing" and "hearing". I went back and altered posts to not even POSSIBLY imply that I saw Ken on aantv. I did not say that initially, since, in fact, I didn't.

I do not care enough to fight about this, really I don't, I simply have too much to worry about.

Also - just because I want to - it's being implied that I retracted posts because of him contacting me? Not sure how that arose... For a couple reasons this isn't true. 1. He hadn't contacted me. Also, I hadn't even retracted any post. I'm just clarifying some things because people have ran with this "seeing" him on AANtv thing. At this point, I'd rather focus on some other things. Peace!

[David R]

Originally Posted by RobertGT

This only holds true if the defamed is deemed by the court to be a public figure. I'm not sure Mr. Goldin would be deemed to be a public figure known to the lay person outside of the hobby.

If the person is deemed not to be a public figure, you can be sued and lose just by publishing something false about that person.

However, the key point you made is valid. He would have to prove damages/loss of money based on that statement -- and that would be very tough.

The other problem with a defamation lawsuit is that "truth" is a defense so if you sue someone saying their statements about you are untrue, you open yourself up to a lot of discovery about the topics in question. In a situation like this one, that would probably mean a lot of close examination and digging into things in the past that Mr. Goldin would probably prefer to leave alone.

[travrosty]

sometimes the exposure of the suit is more embarrassing than the initial complaint and could possibly reach more people too. that is taken into account.


i was a night owl and many a times i watched those sah shows and it was time after time after time I kept shaking my head wondering how they could do that to people.

buy todd van poppel or brien taylor or whoever and they are going to be the next nolan ryan, and ryan's rookie sells for x and this is the chance of the lifetime. I think of it now and it gives me goosebumps how they could do that, it was nonstop hype over and above any type of balance, and there had to be people grabbing the phones time and time again wondering how sah could be so stupid to let these incredible cards go for such an incredibly low price because west and goldin said so.

[botn]

Originally Posted by scgaynor

Goldin Collectibles sells wholesale to venders who in turn resell at a higher price. I am sure that he made something on the original sale.

Scott

Thanks Scott.

Seems I was wrong. Nate's post is still there.