Problem with Legendary Lot . . . Opinions?

[nolemmings]

You asked for potential resolutions.

Although I seldom sell and have no experience with unsatisfied buyers (at least I recall no complaints), my approach has always been to offer a full refund so long as the item is returned to me in the same condition. No discounts--if there is something about the card that buyer believes makes it worth less than what he wanted to pay, then give it back. I don't believe in post-sale dickering over what might be a fair price--the cynic in me says that it could just be a buyer's tactic to chisel me down, and I'm not about to waste my time.

An auction house may have different marching orders or objectives, however, as there is (supposedly) a "keep the customer satisfied" and "larger picture" business model often in play. I can see them offering a discount to the underbidder's price, but little or no more. Assuming no shilling took place, someone else was willing to pay that next lower price, and even though no longer obligated to do so, those parties might have struck a deal. IMO, you can't assume that the underbidder would not have factored the possibility of pinholes or other undisclosed defects and would have withdrawn his bid had he known "the truth". IOW, there is an established market price of one bid less, and you maybe should get that price. Anything less is at least arguably unfair to the consignor.

So those are my two outcomes--you should be allowed to rescind if that is your wish, or take a slight one-bid discount.

[Runscott]

Legendary posted plenty of large scans for less valuable lots. I won a lot of 7 inexpensive Conlon photos that had huge scans of both fronts and backs: Conlon photos

I was also interested in this very large premium that I thought would go for around $1,500, but it baffled me that the scan posted was so small. Because of this, I assumed they were hiding something: 1904 Pittsburg supplement

My choice was simple: either bid on the supplement expecting the worst-case scenario, or ASK FOR A LARGER SCAN. I was lazy, but I bid low. It turned out that the scan hid some restoration of the item (description: EX/MT appearance with a single fold at center and minor creasing.), but it also hid the quality of the supplement and the frame-job. I luckily did better than expected, but it was pure luck.

David, I think Legendary should have provided larger scans AND described the pinholes, but they didn't, so you should have bid expecting the worst-case-scenario, or asked for larger scans. The fact that the scans were so small should have been a red flag.

Edited to add: The fact that these were in '1' holders also bit you, since '1' includes almost any kind of damage. I once won a holdered 'NM' T206 from Legendary, that had a dot of paper loss. Prior to paying, I was told about it by a fellow board member, so I called Doug Allen and he took it off my invoice immediately.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Legendary posted plenty of large scans for less valuable lots. I won a lot of 7 inexpensive Conlon photos that had huge scans of both fronts and backs: Conlon photos

I was also interested in this very large premium that I thought would go for around $1,500, but it baffled me that the scan posted was so small. Because of this, I assumed they were hiding something: 1904 Pittsburg supplement

My choice was simple: either bid on the supplement expecting the worst-case scenario, or ASK FOR A LARGER SCAN. I was lazy, but I bid low. It turned out that the scan hid some restoration of the item (description: EX/MT appearance with a single fold at center and minor creasing.), but it also hid the quality of the supplement and the frame-job. I luckily did better than expected, but it was pure luck.

David, I think Legendary should have provided larger scans AND described the pinholes, but they didn't, so you should have bid expecting the worst-case-scenario, or asked for larger scans. The fact that the scans were so small should have been a red flag.

Edited to add: The fact that these were in '1' holders also bit you, since '1' includes almost any kind of damage. I once won a holdered 'NM' T206 from Legendary, that had a dot of paper loss. Prior to paying, I was told about it by a fellow board member, so I called Doug Allen and he took it off my invoice immediately.

Scott, I wanted to make a comment on your supplement on the memorabilia side, but it appears you deleted it...just wondering if you took the back of the frame off to see what was on the other side. With the crease in the middle I'm wondering if it came out of a magazine.

[vargha]

Okay, here’s my take as well as what happened. Take it for what it’s worth, but no scans from me today as I have a crapload of stuff to get done. Maybe I’ll post one tomorrow so all of the board lawyers here can start in on their very gracious offers of representing me pro bono.

First of all, let me say that I do believe that I have some responsibility in this as I should have done better due diligence. I didn’t think a call or request for a better scan was needed, but I obviously misjudged the character of the auctioneer. As Scott and others have said, there is a disturbing pattern of certain scans appearing to be selectively smaller where others are not. While in and of itself, it is not enough to come to a final conclusion, it certainly lends to the narrative that someone was being less than fully upfront in disclosure.

Next, there is a difference between what is “legal” and what is “right” in many instances. Just because I can do something legally, it doesn’t mean that I will do it. I completely disagree with Peter’s “ethics” on disclosure. If I know that there is something that can substantially affect the value of a card or piece, I will disclose it, and will do so on these four cards. I don’t believe that caveat emptor is the way to treat people, and I certainly don’t want to be treated that way either. When listing and selling cards, I have always fully disclosed what I knew. If there were a legitimate problem on the back-end that was not disclosed and that I was unaware of, I made good. My reputation as a buyer, seller and collector is more valuable to me than a few extra bucks.

Someone posted elsewhere about how Rob Lifson offered to make good on a lot that was thought to have been altered, but ending up not being so. I will be listing on the BST a somewhat controversial piece graded SGC Authentic of Black Sox pitcher Claude Williams on the Sacramento PCL team. It was cut to card size from a fan. When I mentioned it on Net54 some years back, after winning it in Goodwin (for around $350, I think), Bill Goodwin personally e-mailed me and told me that if I didn’t want to pay for it, then he had no problem with that. I never contacted him about not paying, and I never implied that in my post on this board either. Yet Bill was so concerned about his reputation, that he said that he should have listed what it was in the listing but did not know the full history of the piece. He didn’t hide behind the SGC slab. That’s what I’m talking about when it comes to doing what is right instead of just what is legal. Apparently, Legendary doesn’t really care in that regard.

When I spoke with Jeff Marren (VP Operations) at Legendary, he basically told me that I had no leg to stand on, and hid behind the SGC 10 label. He said, “I feel like we did our due diligence. They are graded ‘1’.”His position was that he would offer me nothing as compensation for the non-disclosure. I would have liked to see him offer me the buyer’s and seller’s premium back (around $400), but felt that refunding the approximately $260 I paid in buyer’s premium was certainly reasonable. He compared me to dealers who buy large lots of cards in his auctions but then complain that they thought the condition should be better. When I said that holes in cards were a glaring problem for their value, he countered that SGC 10 is “a tick above authentic”, so I needed to deal with that reality (something several people on this thread apparently agree with). When I told him that holes are something that collectors care about, he actually had the audacity to say, “I don’t think everyone will care.” He told me that, “you are getting into some very minute details.” If so, why did other lot descriptions have pinholes mentioned (as someone pointed out earlier)? When I asked him if they knew about the holes when they listed the Oxfords, he flatly denied it and said that they would have put it in the listing if they had known. But why put it in the listing at all if it’s just a “few minute details” that not “everyone will care” about?

I found it very unsatisfying to say the least, but the character of the people who work at Legendary, at least Jeff Marren’s character, has been revealed. I know better next time. So legally, I have no real recourse. And for those of you who take that letter of the law approach, as long as you let it cut both ways in your personal lives, at least you are being consistent. For me, I choose not to take that path. Life is too short for me personally to try to screw people for a few extra bucks, whether it was done with malice or without.

So let’s see if we can get another 100 posts out of this thread.

[vargha]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

You asked for potential resolutions.

Although I seldom sell and have no experience with unsatisfied buyers (at least I recall no complaints), my approach has always been to offer a full refund so long as the item is returned to me in the same condition. No discounts--if there is something about the card that buyer believes makes it worth less than what he wanted to pay, then give it back. I don't believe in post-sale dickering over what might be a fair price--the cynic in me says that it could just be a buyer's tactic to chisel me down, and I'm not about to waste my time.

An auction house may have different marching orders or objectives, however, as there is (supposedly) a "keep the customer satisfied" and "larger picture" business model often in play. I can see them offering a discount to the underbidder's price, but little or no more. Assuming no shilling took place, someone else was willing to pay that next lower price, and even though no longer obligated to do so, those parties might have struck a deal. IMO, you can't assume that the underbidder would not have factored the possibility of pinholes or other undisclosed defects and would have withdrawn his bid had he known "the truth". IOW, there is an established market price of one bid less, and you maybe should get that price. Anything less is at least arguably unfair to the consignor.

So those are my two outcomes--you should be allowed to rescind if that is your wish, or take a slight one-bid discount.

Returning the lot at my expense was the very first offer that I made, and it was roundly dismissed.