Heritage Rosen Mantle - Greatest Card Ever Auctioned?

[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.

[Exhibitman]

Bob, it is called a "bailment": an act of delivering goods to a person for a particular purpose, without transfer of ownership to that person. The difference between a bailment and an apartment lease is that the lease gives the renter rights to the space. It is the literal opposite of a bailment: the space is delivered to the tenant. Anything in the space is presumed to be the tenant's property. A safe deposit box is the same idea: the bank gives you the space and whatever is in there is presumed yours. In the case of a bailment, unless there is a public record of the item, it is presumed to belong to the debtor and as such it goes into the general asset pot.

The vault agreements are meaningless in bankruptcy; the bankruptcy law breaks all private agreements...except perfected security interests.

The system for notifying the world that someone is holding your possessions (perfecting the interest) is the UCC filing system. It takes a minute and costs like five bucks. No reason not to do it when you are handing some ass-clown a five or six figure item.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Bob, it is called a "bailment": an act of delivering goods to a person for a particular purpose, without transfer of ownership to that person. The difference between a bailment and an apartment lease is that the lease gives the renter rights to the space. It is the literal opposite of a bailment: the space is delivered to the tenant. Anything in the space is presumed to be the tenant's property. A safe deposit box is the same idea: the bank gives you the space and whatever is in there is presumed yours. In the case of a bailment, unless there is a public record of the item, it is presumed to belong to the debtor and as such it goes into the general asset pot.

The vault agreements are meaningless in bankruptcy; the bankruptcy law breaks all private agreements...except perfected security interests.

The system for notifying the world that someone is holding your possessions (perfecting the interest) is the UCC filing system. It takes a minute and costs like five bucks. No reason not to do it when you are handing some ass-clown a five or six figure item.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is exactly what I wanted to hear, and hopefully have it come from you or one of your attorney colleagues here on the forum, as I myself am not an attorney. So as I surmised and was originally saying, there is definitely a difference between an apartment lease/safe deposit box rental and just sending your items to someone like a TPG or auction House to do some work/service for you.

So, my question/point is to everyone, why don't these "vault" providers actually set there service up so that in fact you are actually renting some specific space in their facility, like with a safe deposit box at your local bank? The "vault" providers charge you for keeping your items with them, why not actually call it rent, actually create specific and separate rooms/spaces/whatever for people to actually lease to then store just their items in, and set/write the "vault" agreements up that way to afford their customers further protection from potential "bailment" issues should they ever go bankrupt?

I fully understand the ease and relative nominal cost to file a UCC-1, but first off, don't you have to actually list all the items that are your property on the UCC-1 filing so the courts know exactly what is and isn't yours then, and therefore protected from a potential "bailment' issue or claim? And if so, doesn't that mean that if you set up a "vault" account and use it in on ongoing basis for continuing purchases and activity, you literally need to be constantly updating and refiling UCC-1s as you buy more items to hold in your "vault", or remove/sell things out of it, so the inventory of your actual assets is always up to date and accurate? To most people, I think they would consider having to do that nothing more than a great big PITA!!! Adam, for you with your knowledge and legal background, filing a UCC-1 is simple and quick. For the vast majority of the rest of us, it is something we've likely never done in our lives, and probably never will. We've had people on here talking about sending cards in to TPGs for grading for decades now. Want to guess an over/under number on how many of them also made sure to file a UCC-1 to protect themselves should the TPG suddenly file bankruptcy? (My suggestion would be that whatever it is, to take lower.)

So again, thank you for helping me to explain to others how they could have an issue and potentially put their property kept in a "vault" at risk if they use one of these "vault" services. And as I've said before, I've never used any "vault' service, nor seen or read any "vault" provider's user contract/operating agreement to know exactly what it says to determine if in fact what they are doing for people would be considered as a valid rental/lease, or as you stated, a "bailment".

Would also be nice to find out if one or more of the "vault" operators set their service up to be able to offer their users this extra protection, and which ones don't. That would say a lot about how much these providers really care about and look out for their customers/users. If these "vault' providers were really smart, they should be sure to intentionally set up their service as a true rental/lease, and let their users know it. And if someone is using a "vault" provider that doesn't provide the proper rental/leasing service to protect them from "bailment" issues, it may behoove them to start putting pressure on their "vault" provider to quickly change things so it does protect them and their assets, or maybe they should start looking for a new "vault" provider that does?

[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

[G1911]

Originally Posted by mrreality68

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

Not a single person has disputed that it resides in a 9.5 slab, that it will set a record, or that is a beautiful example.

None of it changes that SGC has clearly ignored their own standards.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by G1911

Not a single person has disputed that it resides in a 9.5 slab, that it will set a record, or that is a beautiful example.

None of it changes that SGC has clearly ignored their own standards.

Theyve also authenticated the "Zuckerberg " signed rookie, when they state they dont authenticate autographs anymore. The inmates are running the asylum, and nobody cares!