Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

Peter_Spaeth · #1 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 · #2 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.

Peter_Spaeth · #3 12-03-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

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. · #4 12-03-2013, 09:39 PM

Quote:

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 · #5 12-03-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

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.

Kenny Cole · #6 12-03-2013, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Peter_Spaeth · #7 12-03-2013, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

So its uncertain that the seller knew the pinholes were there, but, based upon microscopic scans, the potential buyers should have known that. LOLOLOLOLOL. Yeah. That's the ticket.

Cheap plaintiff's lawyer trick, to mischaracterize the argument. Nobody said David should have known they were there, and you know nobody said that. Is there an opening at the White House, they could use another guy in their arsenal of spinners.

Leon · #8 12-03-2013, 09:50 PM

I don't think Legendary purposely left out the mention of the holes or purposely made small scans to deceive. They should make their scans a bit larger, that is what they are guilty of. But they are 1s, if they look too good, you know there has to be an issue. I told David what I thought before he started this thread.....and if I were the auction house would have probably helped a little bit to offset the decreased value of the pinholes.....but not a lot.

I help run a smaller auction so it's not apples to apples, but I prefer to have very large scans, which take some time to do, instead of flowery descriptions.....

nolemmings · #9 12-03-2013, 10:02 PM

Quote:

I assumed that anything that "egregious" would be disclosed.

Your assumption was reasonable. It would not have been difficult to identify the pinholes-- I searched their auction using the term "pinhole" and found 19 lots where that term was used. Granted, almost all were raw cards that perhaps merit a more thorough description, but 2-3 graded wrappers included the term in the description. I also noted a lot of 12 T205s where the scans of individual cards were larger and appeared clearer than these Oxfords.
I believe it a fair question to ask whether these scans were shown as they are on purpose and whether the omission of the pinholes in the description was deliberate.

Peter_Spaeth · #10 12-03-2013, 10:05 PM

Note the date. Lichtman and Schultz on the same side of an argument.

WhenItWasAHobby · #11 12-04-2013, 08:32 AM

Quote:

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 · #12 12-04-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

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 · #13 12-04-2013, 08:49 AM

Quote:

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 · #14 12-04-2013, 10:10 AM

Quote:

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.

vargha · #15 12-04-2013, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drmondobueno

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.

They actually did post the back scans, which is how I knew about the back damage.

calvindog · #16 12-04-2013, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leon

Because they have cards I want.

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

Kenny Cole · #17 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.

Peter_Spaeth · #18 12-03-2013, 09:43 PM

Quote:

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

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