Heritage Rosen Mantle - Greatest Card Ever Auctioned?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Johnny630

files bankruptcy what happens to your cards then ?

This issue has been discussed before. They go into the bankruptcy estate and you become an unsecured creditor UNLSSS you record a UCC-1 in the state where the vault is located to put the world on notice of your ownership of the items. If you do that you elevate to the status of secured creditor and you are able to ask the court to return your items to you. If you do not, your cards get sold and maybe you get some money after all of the case costs, taxes and secured parties are paid off.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This issue has been discussed before. They go into the bankruptcy estate and you become an unsecured creditor UNLSSS you record a UCC-1 in the state where the vault is located to put the world on notice of your ownership of the items. If you do that you elevate to the status of secured creditor and you are able to ask the court to return your items to you. If you do not, your cards get sold and maybe you get some money after all of the case costs, taxes and secured parties are paid off.

Is it at all in the realm of possibilities that after filing the UCC-1, the court would not return the items and instead use them to pay off the pool of secured creditors? I would assume that even as a secured creditor you are not guaranteed to get back 100% of what you are owed.

If that is even remotely a possibility it would be reason enough to not use a vault. I cannot imagine the bankruptcy court is sophisticated enough or cares enough to liquidate assets in the proper manner.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

This issue has been discussed before. They go into the bankruptcy estate and you become an unsecured creditor UNLSSS you record a UCC-1 in the state where the vault is located to put the world on notice of your ownership of the items. If you do that you elevate to the status of secured creditor and you are able to ask the court to return your items to you. If you do not, your cards get sold and maybe you get some money after all of the case costs, taxes and secured parties are paid off.

Adam,

I defer to your knowledge, but I thought there was a difference in if you say consigned items to an auction house or sent them to a TPG who was holding on to them while being auctioned or graded, as opposed to having a valid lease type agreement where you technically rent space to store your personal items in. For example, if I rent an apartment and the landlord goes bankrupt, I've never heard of a tenant's furniture and belongings suddenly being at risk of sale by the bankruptcy court. Same thing for a bank safe deposit box or even a rental unit space. I've never had a vault space, nor seen an actual agreement they have someone sign. But I'm wondering if it isn't more like an actual leasing of space than just someone else holding your property. Interested in your answer. Thanks.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by BobC

Adam,

I defer to your knowledge, but I thought there was a difference in if you say consigned items to an auction house or sent them to a TPG who was holding on to them while being auctioned or graded, as opposed to having a valid lease type agreement where you technically rent space to store your personal items in. For example, if I rent an apartment and the landlord goes bankrupt, I've never heard of a tenant's furniture and belongings suddenly being at risk of sale by the bankruptcy court. Same thing for a bank safe deposit box or even a rental unit space. I've never had a vault space, nor seen an actual agreement they have someone sign. But I'm wondering if it isn't more like an actual leasing of space than just someone else holding your property. Interested in your answer. Thanks.

those are different forms of property rights.

If you are a secured creditor and your item is there and identifiable, the court will order its return. thats the point of being a secured creditor.

[ElCabron]

LOL. There are hundreds of cards I'd rather have than that, including every single 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth that exists. But the best card in the hobby is one specific example of Oscar Charleston from the 1923-24 Billiken set that is not only the highest graded, but it also has the best image quality, which is critical to a photographic card like Billikens. Plus, I know we've all been familiar with the Rosen find for the last 40 years, but shouldn't anything that went through Mr. Mint's hands be worth considerably less than it otherwise would, due to the scumbag factor? I'll await your kind and gentle comments agreeing with me.

[Schlesinj]

Originally Posted by ElCabron

LOL. There are hundreds of cards I'd rather have than that, including every single 1914 Baltimore News Babe Ruth that exists. But the best card in the hobby is one specific example of Oscar Charleston from the 1923-24 Billiken set that is not only the highest graded, but it also has the best image quality, which is critical to a photographic card like Billikens. Plus, I know we've all been familiar with the Rosen find for the last 40 years, but shouldn't anything that went through Mr. Mint's hands be worth considerably less than it otherwise would, due to the scumbag factor? I'll await your kind and gentle comments agreeing with me.

Do you have a pick of that Charleston?

[ElCabron]

Originally Posted by Schlesinj

Do you have a pick of that Charleston?

Yes. I pick the exact example I described.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

those are different forms of property rights.

If you are a secured creditor and your item is there and identifiable, the court will order its return. thats the point of being a secured creditor.

Okay, but that response didn't really answer the question at hand.

Isn't there a difference in having to file a UCC-1 as a secured creditor between giving your property to someone to do something for you, like when consigning it to an auction house or sending it to be graded by a TPG, as opposed to renting a space/unit and storing your property in it?

If you rent an apartment and put your belongings in it, and the landlord goes bankrupt, I've never heard of a tenant having to file anything to protect their property and stop a bankruptcy court from seizing their belongings. And I've never heard of someone seizing the property all the tenants have stored in their rental units, nor requiring them to have filed UCC-1s to protect what they are storing from being taken by the bankrupt landlord's creditors either. I would think the same would be the case for renting a space to store your items in someone's "vault", because that is technically what you're doing, just renting a space to store your property in.

I seem to remember in a prior thread about this when it was mentioned about bank safe deposit boxes being like these vault accounts, I believe it was you that had indicated there are specific laws in this regard that only apply to banks and customer's safe deposit box contents that protect them from such creditor seizures should the bank go bankrupt. However, aren't there also specific laws in regard to tenant/landlord relationships when the landlord files bankruptcy, such as how a security deposit cannot automatically get taken to satisfy creditors, and remains as an asset that is fully returnable to the tenant? I would assume this would go along with the fact that if a tenant stores property in the space they rented, as long as the rent is paid and current, that lease still continues and goes on and has to be honored by the bankruptcy court and/or creditors despite the landlord filing bankruptcy. And if so, wouldn't that also preclude the bankruptcy court, or any creditors, from violating a valid lease and going in and seizing property a tenant legally has stored there? I believe that is correct, and without the necessity of the tenant in having to file a UCC-1 to further protect themselves or their property.

And that is why I mentioned that I've never used a vault service, nor seen an actual vault agreement/lease to be able to see exactly how it is worded so I could possibly determine if it written similar to an actual tenant/landlord lease type agreement, and therefore possibly subject to the rules/laws afforded to such tenant-landlord agreements.

If it turns out that the way such a vault agreement is written/worded, so that it could possibly afford someone leasing a vault space some additional protections for their property being held in that space, that would be good to know for a potential vault user. Especially in the case of a vault owner/landlord bankruptcy, so a vault user's property was safe and they didn't have to worry about a UCC-1 filing to further protect it. That could be something valuable for members on here to find out about and know. One would hope that the various outfits offering vault services would have worded their leases/agreements in such a way to afford such protections to those choosing to use their vault services. It is possible though that different vault companies have different ways they've worded/written their agreements so that they don't all provide the same protections/assurances for their tenant's/users that they should, or could.

And that is also why I said I defer to the attorneys on here in regard to this issue. They can maybe help to confirm and get such info out to our members so they know if any one of the vault agreements from the various current providers may or may not be safe and protective of their items being stored in them. Or if they do need to go further and potentially need to think about something like a UCC-1 filing to further protect themselves and their property.

[luciobar1980]

If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.

[here2havefun]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.

I saw the super-zoomed in scans of the top edge before the National. I went to the National and took a good look at the card in-person. That top edge looks so much better in-person.

[MattyC]

Folks often forget to parse the difference between the experience of holding a card in hand, and scrutinizing it via scans and enlargements on a screen. The former is the litmus test to me, of a card's beauty. Even in person, if someone likes to look at their cards from say a foot or two away in a wall display, or on desk stands, it is amazing how certain flaws are not bothersome to the eye at all.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by luciobar1980

If any of you are suggesting SGC just gave this card a 9.5 on a whim or because they wanted the notoriety, I think you're crazy. I guarantee that toning isn't very noticeable or significant in person. Of course when you zoom in on it at 500% actual size it's going to look worse.

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

[mrreality68]

Originally Posted by G1911

I am suggesting, stating directly actually, that the card does not meet SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. For over twenty years the grading advocates have been touting grading because it is not based on subjective eye appeal, but revealing the true flaws in a card, which is why many mint looking cards can get a 4, for that funky wrinkle you can’t even see normally. The stain does not seem to be in accord with SGC’s published standards for a 9.5. Even if we pretend the stain does not exist, the centering does not meet the published standard either. It is not my opinion that these defects should keep a card from being called a 9.5, it is SGC’s published opinion that these defects are not Mint+. And yet they gave it this grade anyway, ignoring their own standards, along with a marketing quote from that bastion of honesty (as I have learned from this thread), Mr. Mint. I do not know why they chose to do so.

We all know a Dale Coogan I submit with no backstory, marketing, or spin and the exact same damage would not get a 9.5.

Regardless what we think it does have the 9.5 and if it sells (depending if there is a reserve) then it will set the new Record for Highest Card Sold.

In person it is a beautiful card and in person at the National Show the card looked really good and presented better than the picture of it. In my uneducated humble opinion