Collector of US Coins Hugh Stiel vs Heritage Auction

I voted NO. I have been a coin collector for 64 years. When I start to sell my coins through auction or at shows, I will determine the grade (been collecting rarities before grading services existed so many are raw) based on 64 years of experience and at last 6 grading guide books and the PCGS grading site, the current auction prices realized and current retail prices. At auction, I WILL PUT A RESERVE. If the auction house will not accept a reserve, I will go to another Auction House who will fulfill my wishes. As long as I get my price, I don't care what a dealer gets for the coin and hope they make a profit. If you educate yourself on selling your coins, you will enjoy the hobby, learn History, learn subjective and suggestive grading, learn eye appeal, learn pricing, learn varieties, make lots of coin collecting friends and won't make attorneys rich. I am now starting to protect my rarities in SEGS holders which my research indicates are the strongest in the industry. I want the holder, not necessarily the grading even when they get it right. I say drop the civil action and accept your price realized. We come on this earth with nothing and we will leave it with nothing. Learn by your mistakes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

That is how I understand it to have happened and I’ve seen the spreadsheets of his transactions from heritage. Hugh has not made this claim publicly as far as I know.

Hugh was sending them more a month than most of us will spend in a lifetime on coins and was relying on a manager to select coins for him to purchase and to sell. I have not seen information regarding what the manage was buying and selling, nor do I know if it was necessarily in Hugh’s best interests or not. I think a major disconnect that is common collectors have is that we are not used to these sort of transactions and don’t have anywhere near this sort of investment. Hugh’s collection is museum worthy, check out his registry sets.

 

A manager who buys expensive coins on behalf of a client? I wouldn’t even dare to buy a pair of shoes for my sweetheart

 

I was just thinking the same thing.

 

I think he's hurt and venting to his peers. Find a soft spot in your hearts

 

Is that like selling the coin last after the crowd dies down then pick it up after big money is spent. Plus herritage knows who wants what at which price. So many ways for herritage to gain possession of said coin

 

You nailed it. Sad huh.

 

Not without gifting the receipt

 

If this is the case, if he has the relevant evidence to support the claims, and if there was a misrepresentation in inducing him to sign the contract or the conduct is in violation of his contract, then I would refile subject to this advice of his attorney. Admittedly I haven't gone through the pleadings, but given the length of litigation, I suspect there is much more to it than suggested in this thread.

 

What I am getting from reading these posts is that: the consigner should have a reserve on item (s) to be auctioned off to protect themselves from this occurence. Is that right? I wonder if Mr Stiel had a reserve for his coins?

 

As others have said, a confusing situation. Here is my take [not necessarily accurate]: Items were going in the Heritage auction at a ridiculously low prices, so Heritage bought them, then resold later at higher, reasonable price. The contract said they could do this. Reminds me of a documentary about giant software company I saw on TV a few years back, accused of screwing some suppliers. Software company exec says "If someone is stupid enough to sign a contract that says we can screw them, they deserve to be screwed, even though verbally, we said we would never do that." As Geoff Miller in effect says above, if you consign with Heritage, be sure to insist on reasonable reserves.

 

Fairly simple. A businessman signs a contract with a business. Said business acts within their right, and engages in activities permissible within the bounds of said contract. Those aforementioned activities are legal, pursuant to the contract.

After the fact, businessman who signed the contract realizes that the situation has not worked to his financial advantage, and wants to be compensated for this disadvantage. When company holding contract refuses, businessman wants to sue.

My take on it is: a) read all contracts before signing them.
b) not all legal contacts benefit both parties.
c) not liking the results of a contractual action is not a
right or reason to renogiate a contract.
d) businessman who signed contract should have
obtained legal advice before entering into contract.

So, in short—win some, lose some. Learn the rules of the game before you play.

 

Has anyone actually seen a written contract? Due to the amount in controversy and the fact that most states have something called the statute of frauds specifying that contracts over a certain dollar threshold must be in writing to be valid, there is almost certainly a written contract. Without seeing it, everyone is speculating.

 

Agreeing to participate in their auction is acceptance of their rules and regulations. If you bid on an item on eBay, that indicates acceptance of their rules and regulations. Auction houses encourage one to read their rules before participating.

 

This is from my actual contract I had with them - I hope it is not an issue posting it. But the way I read it they can post a starting bid or estimate on any lot.

My question to you - is 38 posts to go for what?

 

That was the amount of posts he had left until hitting 20,000 (as of that post).

 

Never ever sign a contract without having your lawyer review and make changes to the provisions that are not in your favor such as the auction house is allowed to bid. I can pretty much guarantee that for the very high end material the consignor does not sign a standard contract.

No one is saying that the auction house should not make money. In fact they do on EVERY lot sold.

 

He's not far!

 

Implied contracts exist, yes, but the law requires them to be signed and in writing (in most jurisdictions) over a certain dollar amount in order to be legally enforceable.

 

Thanks for sharing. Your post sent me back to some earlier work I did on the difference between morality and ethics.

When I was completing my master's in criminology, I took a physics class in research ethics. It so happened that the program for social workers held a seminar on ethics; and I attended that as part of the background for my term paper. Just about every scientific society has an Ethics Statement that usually runs about one page. The social workers' Ethics pledge runs 18 pages. And the presenter at the seminar said that you cannot just measure cases against it. It is a guide, only. So, too, here, do we have a lot of statements that might be guides.

That said, I believe that morality is objective. (Alone on a desert island, you would need morality to survive.) We tend to confuse the two in common talk, like power, work, and energy; or speed and velocity.

Anyway, thanks.