Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 1, 2015 at 8:51am

Ok deal Steve. What we want to bet? Go easy on me, remember were friends.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 9:14am

Cool Rick. Define the term "smoked in court." Watching the depositions so far, which I'm still doing, RR offered to refund all of the plaintiff's money if he sent them the autographs he purchased from them, which reportedly he would not.

Now would you agree that's a normal, reasonable request any dealer or auction house would make, and that any reasonable customer would agree to? So since they have always been willing to refund the customer's money (and certification costs), would you consider "smoked in court" a verdict that awarded substantial penalties beyond that (legal fees and costs, punitive damages, etc.)?

If you'll agree to that, I'll give you 10 to one odds up to $100 (you bet up to $100). 

What do you think?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on February 1, 2015 at 9:47am

They also (sarcastically perhaps) told him to keep the items and that they would refund him the money anyway.  Who knows how sincere they were to begin with?  It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.  I don't think there's enough information from either side yet to make a call.

What's most telling to me is that when he first approached them for a refund after PSA failed them, their first response was not "ok send them back and we'll refund you", it was "we'll talk to PSA about it".  That doesn't sit right with me, and that's not how it should have happened.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 9:54am

Mike,

I think you're right, let's let both sides of the story come out. We can talk about it, but no lynching.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 1, 2015 at 10:56am

Steve I think smoked is him being awarded the price for the items that PSA rejected, authentication fees and legal fees.

I think what you said here is reasonable for a dealer or auction house to do. So far all I've seen is them claiming this. In court they will have to prove they offered this.

Reason why I believe the plaintiff wins is first he documented everything as it occurred where the depositions appears RR going off memory and bit and pieces of recollection. Then deposition they can't remember half. Hard to give weight to the little they do recollect. Lastly we all know how hard it is explaining to others how experience is the best training for authentication. I believe it is anyway. Trying to convince a judge or a jury of folks with no experience collecting autographs that those with no formal training can do this is very difficult. To those outside the hobby everyone looks shady.....even the good guys. That's why it's so hard getting law enforcement or news agencies to jump on a lot of the problems in the hobby.

It's gonna be interesting how this plays out. In any case I think the hobby comes out the loser no matter which way this turns out.

I'll wager the $100 bucks for kicks.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 12:42pm

Rick, PSA/DNA rejected 10 items, worth roughly $10,000 or so. Not $90,000.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Meyer on February 1, 2015 at 1:58pm

I agree with that Steve. PTSD kicking in.

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on February 1, 2015 at 2:03pm

I was under the impression that the Led album alone was 10k. Is that not the case?

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 2:05pm

I just realized there were 12 autographs submitted to PSA/DNA, but only 10 were on the home page. A Farrah Fawcett signed photo and Doobie Bros album were missing. 

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 2:06pm

It's all confusing, Rick. 

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on February 1, 2015 at 3:28pm

Sam Iam,

The Led Zeppelin has nothing to do with RR Auction. Roger sold that. It's discussed early in the RR discussion, though, and Roger took part of the discussion.

Permalink Reply by Sam Iam on February 1, 2015 at 4:04pm

Same buyer though correct? And no refund given?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page