Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

Kenny Cole · #1 12-03-2013, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vargha

So to play devil's advocate, lets say I have an SGC 10 that was ripped horizontally in the lower half, about a third of the way across the card. As it lays it in the slab, it isn't obvious at first blush in a smaller scan but is obvious when looked at with the naked eye. I list it on eBay with smaller scans. A bidder asks if there are any holes in the card that can't be seen. To gain credibility I post his question on my auction and "guarantee" that there are no holes. Am I still cool? It's an SGC 10 after all.

According to Peter, you're cool. You didn't affirmatively misrepresent anything and your omission doesn't matter. I'm sure he would be willing to represent you in the resulting lawsuit.

Peter_Spaeth · #2 12-03-2013, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

According to Peter, you're cool. You didn't affirmatively misrepresent anything and your omission doesn't matter. I'm sure he would be willing to represent you in the resulting lawsuit.

Paying client? Damn straight.

Kenny Cole · #3 12-03-2013, 09:18 PM

Yep, if the client can pay to defend a fraud, that's much better than if they can't.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 12-03-2013, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Yep, if the client can pay to defend a fraud, that's much better than if they can't.

You can take the case on a contingency and then give the client objective advice on whether to take my settlement offer.

Kenny Cole · #5 12-03-2013, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You can take the case on a contingency and then give the client objective advice on whether to take my settlement offer.

No. I would always try that case because your client is a POS and that matters to juries.

Peter_Spaeth · #6 12-03-2013, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

No. I would always try that case because your client is a POS and that matters to juries.

And they also see through plaintiffs trying to pin the blame on someone else, so it's back to 50-50 whether you get paid or not.

Kenny Cole · #7 12-03-2013, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

And they also see through plaintiffs trying to pin the blame on someone else, so it's back to 50-50 whether you get paid or not.

LOL, its far better than 50/50. Try again.

calvindog · #8 12-03-2013, 09:25 PM

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

Peter_Spaeth · #9 12-03-2013, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

As if you are objective.

calvindog · #10 12-03-2013, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As if you are objective.

I don't see this one as even a remotely close call, regardless of the fact that Legendry is run by criminals.

Kenny Cole · #11 12-03-2013, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As if you are objective.

But Jeff's alleged lack of objectivity is based on the fact that your client is a POS and there's an abundance of evidence, both objective and subjective, to support that fact.

vargha · #12 12-03-2013, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Is there any question that Legendary purposely failed to mention the holes in the cards because they knew that had they done so the price realized on the lot would have been less? Of course not.

It certainly looks very suspicious, but I'm not willing to go as far as to say that the omission on the condition was definitely done on purpose without doing more investigation. And even then, I still would be basing an opinion on the so-called "preponderance of evidence". Let me ask you this. What do you feel would be an appropriate response if they only found out about it on my phone call?

Rob D. · #13 12-03-2013, 09:43 PM

Despite the fact that I think Legendary is in the wrong here, the Mystery Theater act warrants me checking back in the morning for the conclusion.

tbob · #14 12-06-2013, 08:33 PM

I went back and looked at the original listing. Legendary normally uses an increased size scan when you click the scan and then one more larger scan when you click the "magnifying glass" icon. In this case, clicking the magnifying glass icon didn't increase the picture. If it had, there wouldn't have been a problem.
The problems with SGC 10s are they vary all over the place from horribly trashed cards to nice looking cards which might just have some back problems. I wish there were a way to grade cards SGC 50 BPL (paper loss on back) or SGC 50 WOB (writing on back). That would be more helpful and fair but I guess it causes more work for the company and some collectors wouldn't care for it.

Tabe · #15 12-08-2013, 03:24 AM

My thoughts:

First, "chomping at the bit" is as correct as "champing".

Second, I come down on the side that believes the auction house here was being deceptive and I think it was intentional. I can't fathom that they would not have a company standard as to the DPI card scans should be. The fact that the scans in this auction are so much smaller than those in other auctions tells me they were being intentionally deceptive with their choice of scan size. Yes, it takes longer to do a larger scan - a could seconds at the absolute most. Choosing a smaller scan is deceptive.

Third, I think the auction house should have offered a full refund and no other options. I just fundamentally don't believe in partial refunds.

Fourth, I absolutely do NOT agree that the buyer had any obligation to ask for a better deception or larger scan.

Ch.ris Ta.bar

Shouldabeena10 · #16 12-08-2013, 06:23 AM

I'm not sure what's worse;

1) The auction house selectively choosing when to mention pinholes / cuts / paper loss in their descriptions, and when to omit them.

2) The auction house obviously having the capability to provide decent sized scans on a $1500 small lot of cards, and choosing not to use it on some, while using it on others.

3) The grading companies, being able to lump together so many different "issues" under the heading of their lowest grade.

4) Or me, spending 30 minutes of my life reading through all 5 pages of lawyer speak in this thread, only to find out at the end ... that Vargha never posted larger scans of the cards either... after promising multiple times to do so.

I'd like to request a pro bono team of Net54 lawyers assemble and file a lawsuit against David for wasting my time, building up my curiosity to see such scans, and then failing to provide them as promised.

David, .... with the let down of expectations, broken promises, bad customer service, and lack of decent sized scans you've failed to provide in this thread .... you could basically run an auction house! ;-) lol

howard38 · #17 12-08-2013, 09:17 AM

[

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Anyone else having problem w/SGC set reg?	Vegas-guy	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	8	02-13-2012 12:02 PM
Legendary Auctions - Problem last night	Shoeless Moe	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	21	11-18-2010 06:24 PM
Problem with SCD	IronHorse2130	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	10	11-09-2010 06:08 AM
Looking for honest opinions on Legendary's T-206 Eddie Plank	JP	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	74	03-15-2010 07:38 PM
SGC Problem	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	09-07-2008 06:59 AM