Analysis of current AH's rules regarding shill/internal/sketchy bidding practices

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If they won't answer maybe the people vouching for them will answer? It's a simple enough question, it's now been established they sold a butchered card for 70K or whatever it was. What should they be doing about it? And if they aren't doing anything, is that deserving of criticism?

I'm not sure they should be doing or saying anything publicly about it unless the buyer of the card made a public complaint. Maybe the new owner of the card is fine with it. Or perhaps he is already in talks with heritage or PSA. I would hope they would do something for the buyer if a request is made. But I don't think we should expect auction houses to monitor online forums and notify customers that they may own an altered card.

[robertsmithnocure]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

No, I'm not. When I was in hot and heavy acquire mode, I would never pay 25% vig to anyone anytime to buy from them EVER for anything PERIOD what a total JOKE.

I do not understand what difference the buyer’s premium would make to the buyer. Whether it is 10% or 25%, I would assume that a buyer takes that into consideration and if he wants to bid a total of $100 all in, he would bid $91 with the one auction house and $80 with the second to come up with that number.

If anything, the buyer’s premium should matter more to the seller since his proceeds are calculated on the hammer price. I think that when buyer’s premiums are high that the seller is receiving part of it.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The HOUSE does not pay BP, or if it does, it pays it to itself.

Chris did say he and the employees do pay the bp and sales tax.

I would imagine if employees are in the business of buying and selling, they could easily incorporate, fill out resale certificates and not have to pay sales tax.

The small costs of incorporating and maintaining a business could be far smaller than the sales tax Chris mentioned that he and the Heritage employees pay.

But when Heritage the company, buys an item, I would imagine they are not paying sales tax (because the item would be for resale), and if they are writing a check to Heritage or a BP, then the BP fee is a wash since they are writing the check to themselves.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I'm not sure they should be doing or saying anything publicly about it unless the buyer of the card made a public complaint. Maybe the new owner of the card is fine with it. Or perhaps he is already in talks with heritage or PSA. I would hope they would do something for the buyer if a request is made. But I don't think we should expect auction houses to monitor online forums and notify customers that they may own an altered card.

Should we expect auction houses not to take consignments from known card doctors, or is that also asking too much of them?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

Have you tried emailing or calling Chris Ivy? That is what he said to do with further questions.

I'm not playing by his rules. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

I think that when buyer’s premiums are high that the seller is receiving part of it.

As far as I know, it's almost impossible for a consignor to get a crack at some of the BP.

In very rare circumstances, perhaps a Mantle Rookie Card (8, 9 or 10) or a T206 Wagner card consignment could bring an opportunity for an AH to offer a percentage of the BP.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Should we expect auction houses not to take consignments from known card doctors, or is that also asking too much of them?

Very good point...if Newport Beach is telling owner of said altered card in their holder to go back to seller then he’ll yeah it shouldn’t be asking to much for them to not take consignments from known doctors.

I find this very interesting.....a couple thoughts come to my mind....

How can any auction house have any confidence in PSA?

It doesn’t seem to stop any of them from submitting cards to PSA for their clients to have in their up coming auctions.

The most important thing for all seems to maximize the value of their said card......until Market Share has exponentially declined I see nothing changing just more submissions to NB

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Should we expect auction houses not to take consignments from known card doctors, or is that also asking too much of them?

This has come up before. Who determines what people are known card doctors? What prevents their wife, family member, or friend from submitting on their behalf? I'm not sure that's the solution.

[sports-rings]

On another note, heritage has vintage and collectible guitar auctions.

That market has gone way down in the last 10 years. I keep track of those sales, and unlike sports memorabilia, most of the guitar consignments do very poorly in the Heritage auctions.

This is not a reflection on Heritage, but more so the state of that market place.

So these Heritage Guitar auctions are a great place for buyers and not great for consignors. I guess sports memorabilia is way too hot a collectible segment and it's a shame for sports collectors that buyers compete with so many others and the AH's and their employees.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

This has come up before. Who determines what people are known card doctors? What prevents their wife, family member, or friend from submitting on their behalf? I'm not sure that's the solution.

If I were a lawyer I would say non-responsive.

[Exhibitman]

I can't believe I agree with Jesse but he's right w/r/t the Hull: it all comes down to the buyer. First of all, we don't know what is going on with the buyer or behind the scenes; a refund may be in the works. Second, if there is no complaining victim then, frankly, it is not anyone else's place to be indignant on behalf of that person. To take the most extreme example, Ken Kendrick owns a Wagner that was sheet cut and then trimmed and has said that he is aware of the card's history and is happy to own it regardless. What is the seller supposed to do with that, try to force him to accept a refund? If the purchaser of one of the Frankencards doesn't care, we are wasting our time complaining for him. At this point we don't know one way or the other, so all we really have a nice juicy story to gossip about.

Again I hate to agree with some folks here, but the more appropriate target of the lynch mob on the Hull card is the idiocracy at PSA who validated the card. Those incompetent buffoons have blown it on an ungodly large number of allegedly high grade cards. That's the really awful story for collectors, not that some slab-collecting nitwit spent a ridiculous amount for the flip of a hockey card.

[Johnny630]

Adam....

100% in agreement with your statement....

hate to agree with some folks here, but the more appropriate target of the lynch mob is the idiocracy at PSA who validated the card

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If I were a lawyer I would say non-responsive.

Lol, well add "no, however" to the beginning of my comment and hopefully that will qualify as responsive.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I would expect an auction house that sold a 70k card, and learned after the fact it was hacked, at least to inform the buyer. Nobody is saying they should force the buyer to give it back, that's a complete red herring.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Lol, well add "no, however" to the beginning of my comment and hopefully that will qualify as responsive.

Much better, though of course we disagree.

[benjulmag]

Didn't PSA say in regard to the outed PWCC cards that the card owners should look to PWCC for restitution and return the cards to PWCC? If that is what PSA said, I suspect their rationale is their viewpoint that PWCC was complicit in the fraud (by working hand in hand with the card doctor(s)) and therefore should bear responsibility before PSA.

In the case of the outed Bobby Hull 8 recently sold by Heritage, I doubt anyone could credibly argue Heritage was complicit in the doctoring/regrading of the card. Accordingly, because the Hull case on its facts appears to differ significantly from the outed PWCC cards, I wonder what PSA's position will be if/when the card is returned to them? In such an instance, the card owner should have no problem establishing damages, as selling an outed "8" is a lot different than selling a non-outed "8". To go even further, IMO the owner when trying to sell the card will have a duty to disclose to any prospective purchasers the card has been outed. Good luck trying to get your 78 grand back in that instance.

So what will PSA do? I would think the dumbest thing would be to try to pin the mess on Heritage. Putting aside the legal creativity needed to come up with a theory that could even survive pretrial motions, from a purely business perspective IMO it would be insanity. The value of the PSA brand hinges directly on the cards' marketability. Think of the impact on this marketability if PSA by trying to shift liability to the AHs make AHs worry about their legal exposure if PSA cards they sell are subsequently outed. What might happen? Probably something along the lines of AHs putting in large red print in their terms and conditions that they make no opinion as to the accuracy of PSA grading and that such cards are sold "as is" at the sole risk and expense of the winning bidder. (As an aside, IMO AHs current terms and conditions almost certainly suffice to shield them from liability. But that will not help them in the court of public opinion, and that likely will be their main concern.)

So let's suppose AHs do respond along such lines. Talk about giving a poison pill to the marketability of the PSA brand. After all, how many authenticators get singled out in bold red print in AHs' terms and conditions?

This situation with outed cards and the current questions swirling around PSA is very fluid, and I wonder how carefully PSA has thought about where it could lead. By their public statements, they are trying to give the impression they are not worried. But as I try to show by discussing the 8 Hull, there are a lot of moving pieces. If/when the 8 Hull is returned to PSA, I think the smartest move for PSA is to not look to involve Heritage and instead promptly and without hassle refund the owner the $78k he paid for the card. And if the card owner comes first to Heritage, if I was them I would on behalf of their customer return the card to PSA and put their muscle behind the demand that PSA make full restitution.

[pokerplyr80]

Peter I see what you're saying and don't disagree completely. It would certainly be nice of them to notify the buyer, especially given the value of the card.

But again I don't think we can expect that, and wouldn't want to be the one to decide where to draw the line.

As to Adam and others who agree despite disagreements in the past I appreciate that. My defense of Heritage in this case is not much different than my less popular opinions. I think the focus should be on how these cards got into the incorrect holders. Not who is selling them.

[Stampsfan]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I'm not sure they should be doing or saying anything publicly about it unless the buyer of the card made a public complaint. Maybe the new owner of the card is fine with it. Or perhaps he is already in talks with heritage or PSA. I would hope they would do something for the buyer if a request is made. But I don't think we should expect auction houses to monitor online forums and notify customers that they may own an altered card.

No, they are likely too busy monitoring new consignments to see what they want to bid on.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Chris did say he and the employees do pay the bp and sales tax.

I would imagine if employees are in the business of buying and selling, they could easily incorporate, fill out resale certificates and not have to pay sales tax.

The small costs of incorporating and maintaining a business could be far smaller than the sales tax Chris mentioned that he and the Heritage employees pay.

But when Heritage the company, buys an item, I would imagine they are not paying sales tax (because the item would be for resale), and if they are writing a check to Heritage or a BP, then the BP fee is a wash since they are writing the check to themselves.

Why would they have to incorporate?
I had a tax number for a while, no incorporation, and all I had to do was fill out a form online. Totally free except for the effort to track that I had exactly 0 in-state sales over 2-3 years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

Peter I see what you're saying and don't disagree completely. It would certainly be nice of them to notify the buyer, especially given the value of the card.

But again I don't think we can expect that, and wouldn't want to be the one to decide where to draw the line.

As to Adam and others who agree despite disagreements in the past I appreciate that. My defense of Heritage in this case is not much different than my less popular opinions. I think the focus should be on how these cards got into the incorrect holders. Not who is selling them.

I cannot believe it is even open to debate that someone who sold an altered 70k card should inform the buyer.

As for accepting consignments from card doctors, would you be OK if an AH took a consignment from Gary now?

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I cannot believe it is even open to debate that someone who sold an altered 70k card should inform the buyer.

As for accepting consignments from card doctors, would you be OK if an AH took a consignment from Gary now?

We can agree they should notify the buyer. Assuming they're aware of the situation it would be the right thing to do. But I don't think they should be compelled to do so. Or that we should expect it, or a public statement.

As for Gary my guess is many auction houses are accepting consignments from others on his behalf without their knowledge. I doubt any would knowingly accept one directly at this point. I would prefer not to bid on items he consigned.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I cannot believe it is even open to debate that someone who sold an altered 70k card should inform the buyer.

As for accepting consignments from card doctors, would you be OK if an AH took a consignment from Gary now?

Agree that this is an absolute no-brainer. With all due respect to Jesse and Adam, why are you assuming the buyer of the altered Hull Card knows about its tainted history? How would he know, unless he frequents these forums? Of course the person should be notified.... immediately.

Most collectors do not read (and are not even aware) of these forums. If Heritage fails to notify the buyer, who will? Nobody else has his contact info.... only Heritage does. LOTG and REA would contact all parties involved without hesitation... so should Heritage.

Provide the Buyer with the card's history/info, and let him decide if a refund is warranted. Assuming he wants recourse/restitution, it should come from PSA (who's oversight on this obvious re-coloring is inexcusable).

As for the consignor of the card... Law Enforcement should definitely be made aware. Let the Feds decide if the consignor's story is credible.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If we ever had visibility into who is consigning to some of these auctions...

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Agree that this is an absolute no-brainer. With all due respect to Jesse and Adam, why are you assuming the buyer of the altered Hull Card knows about its tainted history? How would he know, unless he frequents these forums? Of course the person should be notified.... immediately.

Most collectors do not read (and are not even aware) of these forums. If Heritage fails to notify the buyer, who will? Nobody else has his contact info.... only Heritage does. LOTG and REA would contact all parties involved without hesitation... so should Heritage.

Provide the Buyer with the card's history/info, and let him decide if a refund is warranted. Assuming he wants recourse/restitution, it should come from PSA (who's oversight on this obvious re-coloring is inexcusable).

As for the consignor of the card... Law Enforcement should definitely be made aware. Let the Feds decide if the consignor's story is credible.

No matter how many years this stuff goes on, or what is revealed, some people's instincts to defend and excuse never seem to change. Oh well. Santayana surely was right.