Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think a seller has an obligation to go into detail about the defects on a card with the lowest possible grade, as long as it doesn't misrepresent anything. If it was important, you should have asked for a bigger scan.

+1

[Bpm0014]

+2. When you buy a PSA1 or SCG10, pinholes, back damage, and scrap book remnants are expected. Not trying to sound harsh, but you're always allowed to ask for better scans. Sorry.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

+2. When you buy a PSA1 or SCG10, pinholes, back damage, and scrap book remnants are expected. Not trying to sound harsh, but you're always allowed to ask for better scans. Sorry.

You can assume if a card looks VG or VGEX but is in a "1" holder that it has a technical problem that just might not detract from eye appeal even if you aren't spotting it.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

You can assume if a card looks VG or VGEX but is in a "1" holder that it has a technical problem that just might not detract from eye appeal even if you aren't spotting it.

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

[Sean1125]

Originally Posted by vargha

Two of the cards had obvious back damage (one has 4 holes and one has the pinhole). That is a guaranteed "1". The other two have wear consistent with a good at best card, and one of them also has a stain. None of the cards were even close to VG/EX in appearance. My assumption (wrongly) was that there were multiple creases in the cards. But prewar black and white issues are all over the place sometimes on grading. I submitted a bunch of ice cream cars to SGC a while back and was stunned at how a good third of them weren't within a grade+/- of where I thought they would be. I had an SGC 5 that I was sure was a 2.

So, the long-winded answer is that I didn't see a NM looking T3 that obviously had a pinhole because it was in a "1" holder. Did you look at the scans on the link? Did anything jump out at you to cause you to be suspicious on the cards.

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Sean1125

Scans are disgustingly small and I cannot see the issues in them. Do you have your own scans so I can see the difference before I say anything more?

Sean, I will get something up tomorrow.

[nolemmings]

So legally, I have no real recourse

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

With all of the board lawyers here on my (pro bono) team, it just might be the thing to do!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

Not so, although as a practical and economical matter it may not be worthwhile, and the process is often exasperating from a client's standpoint. You have a colorable claim, particularly as I noted the AH used the pinhole description with other lots and admits it would disclose them if known, thereby vitiating any caveat emptor defense IMO.

They are apparently taking the position that they had no duty to inspect for holes once they saw the cards were graded 10. A good lawyer (and no, that is not a contradiction in terms) could have some fun with that. Of course and as I mentioned before, it is a fair or open question as to whether the small scans and lack of complete description were intentional. While you might not have enough to prove or even allege that now, there is this wonderful thing called discovery that lawyers love to you use in efforts to get to the bottom of things. I'm sure Legendary would love opening its records for review and subjecting its employees for deposition. Nothing to hide, right?

So if he doesn't have enough to ALLEGE fraud now, what's his colorable claim? Negligence?

[scooter729]

I had been bidding on the same lot as well. I hadn't seen the lot until the last day or so, so I didn't have time to delve with any further questions, so I went with what was given.

Since you could see some of the issues on the cards, I assumed worst case scenarios on those I couldn't see which were graded SGC 10's and assumed there were other faults which I couldn't see. I think my max bid was about $1,000 all-in, expecting there could be some other issues which weren't totally clear.

I can understand where you're coming from and could see both sides - not sure exactly how to proceed, as it's a bit of a tricky one, since the scans could've been better (a Heritage scan wouldn't have this issue), but you could've asked questions ahead of time....

[Peter_Spaeth]

The scans are just small. They aren't deceptive.

[RGold]

It took David a couple of sentences to describe the defects. Too bad Legendary couldn't do the same rather than wax poetic about the primitive charm of the set.


Each card has been graded by SGC. Presented is a 10-card Hall of Famers collection of E253 Oxford Confectionary baseball cards issued in 1921. Oxford Confectionery issued this unusual and very rare set in 1921, at the same time its larger competitors were also issuing baseball cards with caramel treats. Collectors have always appreciated the rarity and primitive charm of this distinctive early candy issue. Oxfords appear to have been somewhat of a regional issue as they are seldom found outside of the Pennsylvania area. The all Hall of Famers array includes: Graded SGC 35 GD+ 2.5: 3 cards w/Grimes and Rousch (2); SGC 30 GD 2: 1 card, Schalk; SGC 10 PR 1: 6 cards w/Alexander (4), Frisch and Grimes.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Better to wax than to let the price wane.

[Piratedogcardshows]

While I go agree with others who say ask for a better scan or description if the pinholes aren't visible they should mention it.Quick question were all the scans undersized in the auction or just this lot?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Jason

While I go agree with others who say ask for a better scan or description if the pinholes aren't visible they should mention it.Quick question were all the scans undersized in the auction or just this lot?

The "enlargements" weren't big enough to see the holes. I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed. Obviously, I was wrong. I didn't go through a ton of listings, but individual cards like the E107's on page 1 all had huge scans. Some of the group lots I looked at had bigger scans. Some of the others seemed smaller like the Oxfords that I bought.

[bigfish]

I was bidding on this lot as well. The cards are graded so I based my bids upon the grades. If they were raw, I think you are onto something....I agree with Jay.

[Gradedcardman]

+1