Hey everyone
I saw something which caught my interest last night on the local news. They had one of those consumer reports on Fox 5 WNYW where a baseball card collector bought two Mickey Mantle rookies from a dealer in New Jersey.
The cards were sent for authentication to SGC and they were deemed to be counterfeit.
The collector went back to the dealer and asked for a refund and the dealer said he didn't have the money.
Arnold Diaz (known as the Shame On You guy here in New York) busted in with a camera and confronted the dealer who said he had nothing to hide.
The dealer gave many excuses like "I was selling the cards for someone else and she has the money." and "How do I know these are the same cards I sold him?" (a comparison of the cards and the photos emailed to the collector by the dealer showed they were the same cards)
What I thought was interesting was, the collector is taking the dealer to court and the judge said there was enough of a case against the dealer for this to go forward.
This sheds light on an important topic. If the dealer truly was a middleman in the situation- then there is a legitimate case to be made against said middleman.
These were doctored cards sold to an unsuspecting buyer. Does that suggest that auction houses are responsible in cases like this if a jersey is found to have been doctored?
Interested in people's opinions on this. Is there anyone with a legal background who wants to chime in?
Here's a link to the story (my favorite detail- the dealer is wearing an XFL hat)
Eric
I saw something which caught my interest last night on the local news. They had one of those consumer reports on Fox 5 WNYW where a baseball card collector bought two Mickey Mantle rookies from a dealer in New Jersey.
The cards were sent for authentication to SGC and they were deemed to be counterfeit.
The collector went back to the dealer and asked for a refund and the dealer said he didn't have the money.
Arnold Diaz (known as the Shame On You guy here in New York) busted in with a camera and confronted the dealer who said he had nothing to hide.
The dealer gave many excuses like "I was selling the cards for someone else and she has the money." and "How do I know these are the same cards I sold him?" (a comparison of the cards and the photos emailed to the collector by the dealer showed they were the same cards)
What I thought was interesting was, the collector is taking the dealer to court and the judge said there was enough of a case against the dealer for this to go forward.
This sheds light on an important topic. If the dealer truly was a middleman in the situation- then there is a legitimate case to be made against said middleman.
These were doctored cards sold to an unsuspecting buyer. Does that suggest that auction houses are responsible in cases like this if a jersey is found to have been doctored?
Interested in people's opinions on this. Is there anyone with a legal background who wants to chime in?
Here's a link to the story (my favorite detail- the dealer is wearing an XFL hat)
Eric
Comment