Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

2300 lots. How closely do you think they looked at a few SGC 1s in a group lot?

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

They didn't have to look at them. All they had to do was scan them -- which they did anyway -- and post a larger image.

I don't disagree that they could have posted a larger image. But Jeff is contending they knew the pinholes were there and tried to conceal them. I think that's possible but far from certain.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by calvindog

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

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

Dan, that is probably the best rebuttal to the question of Legendary's culpability so far.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by WhenItWasAHobby

Good point. With the pending indictment, the question begs to be asked why are people even bidding on these auctions?

Because they have cards I want.

[drmondobueno]

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

Exactly.

I can see why someone would want the cards, a sizeable lot of cool prewar cards in good shape for the grade. My first thought on seeing the scans was they were tiny, with no way to blow them up. And where were the back scans? Backs to me show what can not be seen on the front when it comes to serious damage, such as creases, pin holes, tears. Especially with crappy scans. These are worthy of an ebay cheapo screw the buyer auction. Smells of evasion to me. Buyer beware...oh yeah, that is why we are all reading this.

One note. My eyes are not the best, a reason I tend to buy graded cards. My point here is AH know this is typical of older customers and still do this type of piss-poor presentation. I would not do business with this house, except for Leon's rule: they have what I want.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

Not as many as they used to. Tick, tock.

[Kenny Cole]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

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.

Wait I am only defending the guy in David's hypothetical, not Legendary, Jesus!! LOL

[vargha]

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.]

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.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by rob d.

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.

lololololol

[vargha]

By the way, to clarify . . . what I am calling holes/pinholes are pinhole width, but are as long as 1/4" (more like a razor blade cut in shape).

[vargha]

Originally Posted by Rob D.

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.

I'll post what actually happened and what was said by noon CST tomorrow. I'll also post my thoughts about this specifically and in general so we can have something to argue about the rest of the day tomorrow.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by vargha

I'll post what actually happened and what was said by noon CST tomorrow. I'll also post my thoughts about this specifically and in general so we can have something to argue about the rest of the day tomorrow.

You stated in an earlier post that you thought SGC overgraded one of your cards. Did you return that card stating that you thought it was over graded? If so I will not continue to LOL and take you serious.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by bnorth

You stated in an earlier post that you thought SGC overgraded one of your cards. Did you return that card stating that you thought it was over graded? If so I will not continue to LOL and take you serious.

Hi Ben, you may continue your laughing as I neither discussed or disputed the the grades with SGC, including the ones that I felt were undergraded. Like I said, pre-war black and white cards, and especially the ice cream cards and the York Caramel cards seem to have a wide disparity in some of the grades of 5 and lower. But these were for issues like centering and cut, not material like holes in cards. Furthermore, they graded my raw cards, they didn't sell me graded cards with less than complete information.

[tbob]

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]

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]

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

[calvindog]

Lololololol

[howard38]

[

[nsaddict]

Couldn't disagree more than post #144, especially.........

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

If you're spending your hard earned money you should take 2 minutes to send an email to address your concerns period! If the cards were raw and the defects not mentioned I would agree. Whether an auction house,ebay or the b/s/t here, the buyer should be a bit more vigilant and ask any questions prior to sealing the deal. Since they were the lowest numerical grade by SGC (the board's majority choice) he got exactly what he paid for. I'm not defending Legendary in any way but I feel this is somewhat of a frivolous post to begin with. So now I'm curious, will David bid with them in the future?

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by howard38

A "better deception".....I don't know if that was intentional but I like it!

LOL, wish I could say it was

[jhs5120]

Now that I have finished reading..

I agree with Leon, they are only guilty of small scans.

If I am buying a group of cards that are in PSA/SGC 1 (I used to buy bulk t206 cards in low grade back in the day). I generally expect every single card to be mangled and I bid accordingly.

By SGC's grading criteria, a "1" designation is in "poor" condition. You received cards that were in poor condition. You shouldn't have expected anything better.

On a side note, if this happened to me and it legitimately upset me I would have asked for a $50 refund, not $260. $260 seems like you are trying to pull a fast one on them. The cards aren't worth $260 less because they are a low end 1 instead of a high end 1. They are worth virtually the same.

Why did you expect they would offer you the buyers AND sellers premium back?

[vargha]

Originally Posted by jhs5120

Now that I have finished reading..

I agree with Leon, they are only guilty of small scans.

If I am buying a group of cards that are in PSA/SGC 1 (I used to buy bulk t206 cards in low grade back in the day). I generally expect every single card to be mangled and I bid accordingly.

By SGC's grading criteria, a "1" designation is in "poor" condition. You received cards that were in poor condition. You shouldn't have expected anything better.

On a side note, if this happened to me and it legitimately upset me I would have asked for a $50 refund, not $260. $260 seems like you are trying to pull a fast one on them. The cards aren't worth $260 less because they are a low end 1 instead of a high end 1. They are worth virtually the same.

Why did you expect they would offer you the buyers AND sellers premium back?

I didn't "expect" anything, which is good, because I received nothing. I asked for them to take the lot back, but I would have at least grudgingly "settled" for them refunding my buyer's premium.

And your assertion that "They are worth virtually the same" is just silliness. I have two people on this board who made offers on the Alexanders. Should I anonymously contact them back and see if they agree with you?