Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[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.