Memory Lane sold cards they didn't have per SCD

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

If you're insurance company asked you to do so I would at least understand. Again I seriously doubt that ML did this on their own because it was convenient, and again I have NEVER done business with ML and don't know anyone there personally.

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

[calvindog]

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Can we interpret that to mean you decided not to bid in the ML auction because a little birdie told you the cards might not actually have been available?

Surely there were a number of cards in that auction you would have loved to have added to your collection, no?

I won a couple of lots with bids that held up in ML, but I spent 6 figures on Goldin earlier that night and felt it might be best to exercise some self-control with ML. And no I don’t represent ML and never have.

Edited to add: I would have possibly run up some cards in ML that I already own but I didn’t want to get caught holding the bag and have to buy those cards if I wasn’t outbid. You know how that goes, no fun at all.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I won a couple of lots with bids that held up in ML, but I spent 6 figures on Goldin earlier that night and felt it might be best to exercise some self-control with ML. And no I don’t represent ML and never have.

Edited to add: I would have possibly run up some cards in ML that I already own but I didn’t want to get caught holding the bag and have to buy those cards if I wasn’t outbid. You know how that goes, no fun at all.

What did you win, Jeff?

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by 4815162342

What did you win, Jeff?

Just a couple of T206s in ML; but in Goldin I won the three Cherokee Parks Final Four and National Championship rings. I went to Duke so those were pretty special to me.

And for what it’s worth, I was mostly aghast at the theft of the Cobb Mello Mint that you had won. Of all the cards stolen, that was the one that made me nauseous as I know how rare that card is for your set. Really hoping it turns up for you. For the longest time no one knew if the card even existed.

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Just a couple of T206s in ML; but in Goldin I won the three Cherokee Parks Final Four and National Championship rings. I went to Duke so those were pretty special to me.

And for what it’s worth, I was mostly aghast at the theft of the Cobb Mello Mint that you had won. Of all the cards stolen, that was the one that made me nauseous as I know how rare that card is for your set. Really hoping it turns up for you. For the longest time no one knew if the card even existed.

Wow, that’s awesome! Congrats! And many thanks, Jeff. I really appreciate it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by calvindog

I’m just thankful that I spent a ton of money in Goldin the same night; I was asleep by 1 am and ignored the ML ending.

That was a good one! Thanks for the laugh.

[Exhibitman]

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

ML's new ad campaign for bidders:

Now that was the laugh I was looking for!

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

No, he's knocking down an often-repeated claim in this thread. Values are NOT determined by phantom auction listings (already.)

Seems to me he was saying show me a policy that requires X. That sounds like a focus on the terms of a policy.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Seems to me he was saying show me a policy that requires X. That sounds like a focus on the terms of a policy.

Parsing again. His larger point is as I stated. Insurance companies do not use phantom auctions to determine loss value.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Parsing again. His larger point is as I stated. Insurance companies do not use phantom auctions to determine loss value.

On what basis other than his words can I deduce his true meaning?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

On what basis other than his words can I deduce his true meaning?

I understand him. Do you understand what my previous post said? It's a simple concept.

It's only hard to understand what he's saying when you don't want to.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Nobody has suggested that was an explicit term of the policy, now you're just knocking down a straw man.

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

No policy requires it and thus no credible insurance company is going to demand you run a fraudulent auction to value the items, because that is illegal or extremely unethical and is not within the terms. This is a BS excuse and blatantly so, being made over and over again in this thread

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

There’s a transcript we both have, and I replied to the most recent rendition of the ‘insurance told them too’ bunk, even though no policy known to man has terms to use fraudulent auctions to determine values of claims and no credible insurance company is going to ask people to do such blatantly shady and what seems to be illegal things. How is who said it first relevant or any kind of refutation? I don’t remember every post by now lol.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

There’s a transcript we both have, and I replied to the most recent rendition of the ‘insurance told them too’ bunk, even though no policy known to man has terms to use fraudulent auctions to determine values of claims and no credible insurance company is going to ask people to do such blatantly shady and what seems to be illegal things. How is who said it first relevant or any kind of refutation? I don’t remember every post by now lol.

I was just curious how that got started, is all. Was too lazy to look back, thought you might remember.

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I've lost track, who originated that claim?

First mentioned here...https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...7&postcount=10

Not blaming Phil as he was only making a suggestion but other respected posters jumped on board validating the choice.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Lorewalker

First mentioned here...https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...7&postcount=10

Not blaming Phil as he was only making a suggestion but other respected posters jumped on board validating the choice.

And seems another leap from there to the proposition that the insurance company required it.

[gunboat82]

Originally Posted by sportscardpete

This doesn’t make sense, why would ML keep an auction running if the items were stolen? Something doesn’t add up.

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I'm not sure how else would you establish insurance value?

Originally Posted by calvindog

Correct

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

I received a call after Sunday night (a day after auction ended) telling me that a box of cards had been stolen. First, I was assured that I will be paid out 100%, on the final value of the auction, which I have no doubt will happen, whether insurance covers it or not (and I am sure they will). Second, I was told the auction had to continue in order to establish the fair market value of the cards, otherwise, how does anyone establish the value/hammer price. Third, I was told anyone who won a stolen card will be given the option, but not obligation, to buy the card at the hammer price + BP if they are found. Plus, they are optimistic the cards will be found.

A few other things:

1. The cards were stolen, not lost or misplaced. The cards got to their intended destination, were signed for and stored, and then taken. As far as I can tell, ML has done nothing wrong or irresponsible.

2. It sucks for the buyers, but they are out no money, only expectations. They may have missed out on another card, but they are in no worse position than before the auction started. The bigger issue would have been how much do you pay the consignors? Do you guess, do you just settle, do you litigate? Running the auction, which I am sure was done at the advice of both counsel and insurance, to establish value is certainly the best path with the least damage given the crappy situation that’s nobody’s fault. There is no winning answer under these circumstances. It sucks, millions $$ of cards got stolen and ML is on the hook. No bueno all around

3. ML owes me a lot of money. I have complete confidence I will get every dime (and have proactively been assured numerous times of that and I will get paid before insurance ever kicks in). I do not blame ML for this and I think they are doing all the right things under real crappy circumstances. I think it sucks balls for the collecting community bc the cards may be gone from the hobby forever. Hopefully the turn up.

Originally Posted by Leon

What does that mean? There is no con. ML had to do what they had to do and no doubt they took advice from counsel as well as others. There is a possiblity of the cards being recovered. It sucks for everyone involved. Hopefully, the cards will eventually be returned. Most of our pre war cards are like fingerprints, so there is a possibilty......
.

Originally Posted by 4815162342

+1

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

+2 (coming from the consignor with the most to lose and a bidder who won a very rare and expensive card that will almost certainly not come up again for sale for many years).

The people most impacted understand and are satisfied with how ML is handing it. The situation sucks and is unfortunate, but there is no perfect answer. That said, I am sure that ML proceeded on the advice of counsel, the insurance company, the cops, etc.

It looks like it started with affirmation from a lawyer that running the auction without disclosing that the items were stolen was the best way to establish insurance value, and then Ryan drove it home by stating that consignors are the only real stakeholders, and that running the auction without the cards in hand was the best way to make sure consignors get a reasonable appraisal for insurance purposes.

[Bigdaddy]

Would people feel differently if, instead of being stolen, the cards had been destroyed in such a way that there was zero chance of recovery?

For everyone's sake - consigners, ML, auction winners and the hobby in general - lets hope the cards are recovered unscathed and do not go that way that Yogi's rings did after they were stolen. Melted down and sold by the ounce.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

For the third time, please show me literally anyone in the world ever who has an insurance policy that requires them to host a fake fraudulent auction to value stolen goods. That’s extremely unlikely. I guess ML isn’t the only house that thinks this is fine behavior.

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

No policy would say this, but after the theft happens and I call my insurance company they advise me to complete the auction then yes we're just another evil auction company who is going to continue the auction.

If they give me a choice and are going to pay me either way that would be entirely different.

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

We're simply at an impasse at this idea. A number of people, including those closer to the situation than either of us have suggested insurance, counsel or even law enforcement influenced the decision to continue the auction.

"Running the auction, which I am sure was done at the advice of both counsel and insurance, to establish value is certainly the best path with the least damage given the crappy situation that’s nobody’s fault. There is no winning answer under these circumstances. It sucks, millions $$ of cards got stolen and ML is on the hook. No bueno all around"

If this was an independent decision made by ML with no outside influence than I disagree with that decision. That being said I simply can't imagine that being the case.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s use some common sense. When in all of history in any jurisdiction has an insurance company demanded a fake fraudulent auction be run in order to value a claim? This is not how it works. No real insurance company is going to do that. It’s ludicrous. If you want to defend lying to hundreds or thousands of customers to run a fake auction, get a more realistic reason to justify it.

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by hcv123

I agree that it is unlikely the insurance company would demand or require the auction to run. That said, it IS required for the insured (ML) to provide substantiation of the value of the loss. The insurance company can look for alternative means of valuation and the process becomes a dispute/negotiation which in a best case scenario is settled and a worse case scenario is litigated. Given the rarity of at least some of the cards involved and the conflicting interests in low vs high valuation, there could be some big differences in perceived value between the insurance company and insured party (ML) not to mention the complicating consignor factor. Running the auction gives a pretty hard to argue value basis for all the cards involved.
I don't have a horse in the race, just believe I understand some of why things unfolded the way they did. Once the cards were stolen the only better and "easy" ending would have been for them to have been recovered prior to the end of the auction. When that possibility expired, there was no good way for things to end. Some group (consignors, bidders, ML) was not going to be happy. I do hope that more information is revealed once the case is closed and (hopefully) the cards recovered.

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by G1911

Yes, it is one way to value it - a convenient way for consignors perhaps, but required a fraudulent auction that appears to even be illegal in CA and lying to thousands of people. No even half-way professional insurance company is going to advise doing this - they may accept those values but there is no realistic chance any legitimate insurer demanded, told, or advised to do this.


Since Memory Lane is promising an options on a contingency if they turn up, it appears there is actually a high chance there is no insurance here whatsoever. The insurance company owns recovered goods if they have paid on them, in pretty much any policy covering stolen goods. Memory Lane cannot promise these options deals to bidders if there is an insurance claim paid - the cards would become the property of the insurance company to sell or do with as they please (definitely sell somehow). Perhaps the options are just another lie, but I am surprised the ML fans have tried to go so far with the insurance claims that just makes no sense at all - this is probably the worst route to try and justify it.

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Seven

That's exactly what I'm asking. I'd imagine they have to do SOMETHING with them

I have no idea on collectables. I do know vehicles because I have a friend who owns a business that buys them from the insurance company. If you total a vehicle and insurance pays out they own it. The insurance company already has a network set up to buy the wrecked vehicles. I would assume they have the same for collectables.

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

Replace novel with comedy and I agree.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Leon

You make so many assumptions you should write a novel....
.

For the fourth time, I will repeat my request for an example of any insurance policy, demand or decision in all of human history anywhere in the world that a company run a fake fraudulent auction to value items.

This narrative so many of you are pushing makes absolutely no sense. What insurance company has ever done this? How are they paying out $2M but not securing the assets if recovered?

Please, correct me! All I’m seeing is claims that make no sense with no precedent. The story should make sense.

[mannequin1]

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

This is posted near the top of every page. Please adhere to it in the future.

If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. It's one of the most important rules on the forum.



.

"

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I know 2 million dollars of cards were stolen, but wasn't that only a small percentage of the number of items in the entire auction? Could that be why they let the auction run in its entirety?

Another question to many would be couldn't ML have the missing items bid up for insurance purposes? I'm NOT saying ML would do something like that with their stellar reputation in the business, but some people might suspect that.

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

what would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

20%?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Same incentive they always have on every lot in every auction. As does every auction house.

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Deertick

20%?

Again, be logical. First, these were all the big time cards in the auction, so ML gave up part of their 20%. Second, do you really think a long-standing auction house that likely makes over $1.5mm each auction would commit insurance fraud for an extra 12%-15% on $2mm (or and extra $250k - $300k)? I am sure there are businesses who would do something crazy like that, but memory lane (like most businesses) would not. Third, they just had $2mm+ of other people’s property stolen, and they are more than half way through an auction and trying to figure out what to do, and you think the conclusion is shill the stolen cards so we get X% more for insurance? I doubt ML would do that ever, but under these circumstances I think that thought was further east from their minds.

[mannequin1]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What would be the point of that? They would then have to pay the higher figure to the consignor.

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by mannequin1

I was thinking of the insurance company, not the consignor.

We know. Peter was explaining that your position doesn't make sense, as any "extra" that ML received from the insurance would then have to be paid to the consignors.

[Republicaninmass]

Why on earth wouldn't they just ship them to the guys house who is driving to the show? Did they pay for his flight then go "all in" for a best Western plus? Hindsight...wow.