Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

Peter, that is exactly your argument. BTW, defense lawyers are masters at mischaracterizing the argument, so if I have made it to your level in that regard, I take that as a compliment. What you don't like is that I phrased "the argument" more succinctly and accurately than you are happy about.

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

Uh, no. There is also a duty not to mislead by speaking half truths, a duty not to fail to inform when you know what you have said may have been misleading, a duty to disclose based upon a relationship and superior knowledge, etc. Misrepresentation, deceit, omission, non-disclosure and concealment are all types of generic fraud. That's fraud 101

[KCRfan1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

My argument, to repeat, is not that David should have known there were pinholes, but that he knew that the grades were 1s and that the scans were tiny and that there was no description, SO... if it was important to him to know WHY they were 1s ... he should have asked. It's that simple. I think there are still circumstances where a plaintiff is held to a duty to investigate, although they may be dwindling. But let's put it in a different framework. Normally, in an omissions case, there is a duty to speak only to make something actually said not misleading. Basic fraud law, right? So what did Legendary say here that made it misleading not to mention pinholes?

Agreed.

[barrysloate]

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

[bobbyw8469]

LOL! Like Memory Lane.....BID TO WIN! GET IT! OWN IT NOW! They are so short, I love seeing what new things they can come up with in 4 words or less!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

Slippery slope. Pinholes were not the only problem. Is Legendary supposed to go through every single card in every single lot and describe every single thing that anyone could possibly consider to be less than perfect?

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slippery slope. Pinholes were not the only problem. Is Legendary supposed to go through every single card in every single lot and describe every single thing that anyone could possibly consider to be less than perfect?

They should supply all the relevant information possible, and leave out all the unnecessary background noise. In the time it takes them to compose all that flowery verbiage, they could point out the pinholes and have some time left over to work on the next lot. Yes, pinholes are an integral part of the lot description, IMO. We're not talking about a surface wrinkle in one card that they may have missed.

[markf31]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

They should supply all the relevant information possible, and leave out all the unnecessary background noise. In the time it takes them to compose all that flowery verbiage, they could point out the pinholes and have some time left over to work on the next lot. Yes, pinholes are an integral part of the lot description, IMO. We're not talking about a surface wrinkle in one card that they may have missed.

Isn't the determination of what is relevant, relative. A missed surface wrinkle on one single card might be extremely important to a specific bidder depending on what that bidder's thoughts are in regards to a cards specific and acceptable defects. That surface wrinkle might not matter to 25 bidders, but it could matter very much to that 1 single bidder.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by markf31

Isn't the determination of what is relevant, relative. A missed surface wrinkle on one single card might be extremely important to a specific bidder depending on what that bidder's thoughts are in regards to a cards specific and acceptable defects. That surface wrinkle might not matter to 25 bidders, but it could matter very much to that 1 single bidder.

You do the best you can, you can't catch everything. I'm just trying to make a simple point: they could spend a couple of extra moments reviewing a lot, and spend less time composing all that dreadful prose. What would the average collector prefer: more detailed condition information, or longer hyped-up lot descriptions?

[Rich Klein]

Original Post with link to lot attached

First of all, this isn't a hit and run post. I do need to leave the computer for a couple of hours or so, but I will be back to answer any questions as well as to respond to posts. Here's the situation:

I won the lot of 10 Oxford Confectionery cards slabbed by SGC in the recent Legendary auction. The description was minimal, and the scans were a tad small in my opinion for what I am about to describe. When the cards came in, the four SGC 10 Pete Alexander cards all had damage that was not evident from the scans. Three of them have four small holes apiece where the cardboard is gone (not just thin spots). The fourth card has a half-inch gouge (indentation) on the front that ends in a small pinhole-sized hole. Two of the Alexander cards have scrapbook/back damage. That wasn't disclosed, but was evident enough from the pictures, so I factored that into my bid.

I called Jeff Marren (VP of Operations) today at Legendary. We spoke for about ten minutes on this. Without going into the details yet, what do you think should have been done on Legendary's part both before and after the sale? Areas of discussion might include, but are not limited to, due diligence on my (buyer's) part, disclosure requirements, if any, on graded cards, especially card graded "1", value of the lot/cards with or without the damage, obligations on Legendary's part (if any) post-sale, etc.

Like I said, I will fill in all of the details in a bit. Fire away, please! I have removed the link to the auction page as that no longer works but gives a 404 error message

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Slippery slope. Pinholes were not the only problem. Is Legendary supposed to go through every single card in every single lot and describe every single thing that anyone could possibly consider to be less than perfect?

So post scans that actually show the card and its issues. The scans they posted of these cards are useless. They might as well have drawn pictures of the cards with crayons. That would have been just about as revealing of the cards' issues.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Kenny Cole

So post scans that actually show the card and its issues. The scans they posted of these cards are useless. They might as well have drawn pictures of the cards with crayons. That would have been just about as revealing of the cards' issues.

I don't disagree that they should have posted a better scan.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

There is some culpability on the part of both parties, but the onus falls largely on the auction house. Sure, David could have called and asked some questions, but he shouldn't have had to. The description, along with the scans, should provide all the information a bidder needs to bid confidently. Could you imagine if every bidder had to call to ask for a better description of lots? It would be a fiasco.

One of my hobby pet peeves (I have many) is the way auction lots are written up. I have never seen worse writing in my life than lot descriptions. Hundreds of useless hyberbolic words, numerous convoluted and hard to follow sentences, when a simple "SGC 10 with pinholes" would tell the bidder pretty much everything he needs to know. But writers of auction text gobbledygook have perfected the art of obfuscating any information that would adversely affect bidding. I hate the wordiness of these catalogs and I'm sure many others do too. Just write short, clear, and precise descriptions and move on.

I don't think it's necessarily obfuscation. For example some of the descriptions in LOTG are pretty flowery but I think that just reflects Al's enthusiasm. Also I can't dispute the proposition that it's good marketing, and if I were a consignor I would probably like it.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I don't think it's necessarily obfuscation. For example some of the descriptions in LOTG are pretty flowery but I think that just reflects Al's enthusiasm. Also I can't dispute the proposition that it's good marketing, and if I were a consignor I would probably like it.

Since I've written up over a thousand lots in my days as an auction house owner, I found there are three main things one needs to do:

1) Write an accurate description of a lot's physical characteristics and condition.
2) Supply historical context where it applies ( more so for memorabilia than cards).
3) Offer a little bit of hype to make the lot seem as appealing as possible.

It's a bit of a balancing act and you don't always get it exactly right. Some are really good at it, others offer nothing more than endless hype, just sentence after sentence stating that a particular lot is the greatest thing ever offered. Meanwhile, the auction house has no idea why the lot is important in the context of baseball history.

And I do agree that LOTG does about as good a job as anybody of balancing the three. And Al has a good sense of humor to boot. But I've read other auction descriptions that are simply cringe worthy and embarrassing.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Since I've written up over a thousand lots in my days as an auction house owner, I found there are three main things one needs to do:

1) Write an accurate description of a lot's physical characteristics and condition.
2) Supply historical context where it applies ( more so for memorabilia than cards).
3) Offer a little bit of hype to make the lot seem as appealing as possible.

It's a bit of a balancing act and you don't always get it exactly right. Some are really good at it, others offer nothing more than endless hype, just sentence after sentence stating that a particular lot is the greatest thing ever offered. Meanwhile, the auction house has no idea why the lot is important in the context of baseball history.


And I do agree that LOTG does about as good a job as anybody of balancing the three. And Al has a good sense of humor to boot. But I've read other auction descriptions that are simply cringe worthy and embarrassing.

One of my all time faves was in an old Drent catalog, he described a card as having the colors of a Hawaiian sunset. Bussineau used to have some doozies too, in fact he may have been the pioneer of the over the top write-ups. He was creative though -- "antique white" as a euphemism for toning, for example.