Misdiscribed Lots At Kelleher Auctions, Aldrich Auctions

I'd appreciate some advice, please.

Some time ago, I bid and won an auction at Aldrich for a block of four advertised as mint "63a Ultramarine" with an estimated value of $10K. I waited about a year to have it APEX certified... mostly because I wanted to batch up a number of items and send them together. The block came back certified as a much less rare 63 Pale Blue shade for which I clearly overpaid. I know that shade is tough to get right in photos, but a check with a reference copy shows that it is pretty clearly not the much rarer ultra shade. Michael Aldrich, enjoy your markup fee.

Recently I bid and won two lots in Kelleher Auction #698...

First item purchased: listed the color in advertising materials differently than the what the PF cert described it. I was searching for an obscure but scott listed shade, which this as advertised as, but it definitely was not.

Second item purchased: advertised as an "exquisite little gem, PSE cert graded XF-SUP 95". All materials failed to disclose what was clearly marked on the cert when the item arrived, that it was "REGUMMED".

In each of these cases, the auctioneer deliberately altered the advertised description to increase the hammer price. I am losing faith in the honesty and integrity of these auctioneers, who clearly must have a lot of mail/phone/online bidders that cannot travel to connecticut, new york, san francisco, or elsewhere to visually verify each of the interesting lots in their auctions.

I have called these auction houses, and they make themselves very difficult to get ahold of. At this point nobody at Kelleher has returned my call. I feel ripped off by these "experts."

Any suggestions?

Keep at it, and let them know that you intend to bring the situation to the attention of the APS and ASDA if you do not receive satisfaction. The Aldrich lot and the first Kelleher lot seem to be clear examples of misdescription. A less-than-scrupulous seller could argue that the second Kelleher lot was correctly described (insofar as it went), but I think the consensus is that Kelleher is above that sort of thing. At least they have been....

The 63a ultramarine shade is controversial. I have a one that is certified and I would possibly recognize the shade, but a reference would be needed to confirm it. However, it is possible to find an expert willing to disagree. Check the Institute for Analytical Philately web site. Some studies of 1861 shades using advanced equipment have already been published. I don't recall if the 1 cent 1861 issue has been studied.

As far as descriptions are concerned, be prepared to return misdescribed stamps immediately, even if the cert is less than five years old if the auction and cert descriptions are inconsistent.

Kelleher has moved to new offices as of two weeks ago. On Tuesday try 203-830-2500. The old number is still active, but does not always roll over to the receptionist. I would also send an e-mail describing the problem with your lot. Some of the higher ups are in Hong Kong for an auction, but there should be someone around for assistance.

On the Aldrich item, I agree with Clark and the implications of his post: this item should have been purchased only on extension, i.e., with a promptly requested clean 63a certificate as a condition of your payment. By waiting so long to get a cert, not inspecting it, and not using the extension process if available from Aldrich, I don't think you can accuse Aldrich of deception.

On the Kelleher items, phone calls just waste time in my view. My approach would be to immediately write a demand letter requesting a refund no later than a specified date about two weeks out, with an offer to return the stamps after refund. All relevant facts should be stated objectively including providing copies of the lot description from the catalog, the certificates, and the terms of contract governing the sale. The demand would assert breach of contract, false advertising, and fraud. It would be sent via FedEx, or certified mail with return receipt requested, or some other trackable courier service. I would point out that any "terms of sale" or "contract terms" in the auction agreement, providing some different refund policy, will not be enforced by a court in a case of fraud. If it made me feel better under the circumstances, I might include a sentence stating that I am sure the situation must have involved an honest mistake on their part, and I would like an amicable resolution, but that my demand is firm and expected to be addressed.

If there is no relief by the two week deadline, I would write a second demand on similar terms that contained an express threat to sue. If there is still no relief, then you have to consult a lawyer about filing a breach of contract lawsuit in state court.

These are legal matters involving objective error, and should be approached as such; this is not the time to be a nice, gentle collector. This type of approach sometimes causes anxiety for those who dislike conflict in life, but it gets rapid results.

As a revenue collector and long time buyer of Aldrich I am more and more disliking his over zealous approach of incorrectly listing the higher priced catalogue listing. Examination and return in five days or less and the use of extension for a certification have become a must.

I've had dealings with both of these and have generally had no issues. But not mentioning regumming that is mentioned on the cert is a clear error and you should absolutely be able to raise that with them. If you are buying a rare item that isn't certed extension is clearly the way to go to protect yourself.

No auction house is going to refund your money without return of the lot to them. From your description of the problem it should be simple to rectify the situation. I do have one request. How were the lots at Kelleher described? Was the regummed item described as unused with no mention of gum? Was it a 19th Century or 20th Century stamp? At most US auction houses 19th century stamps prior to the Columbian issue are to be considered as without gum or regummed unless specified otherwise. As to viewing of the lots, all reputable auction houses allow for postal viewing. If time is too short many houses such as Kelleher have auction agents attending the sale and they will view the lot for you and give you their opinion. If you do not want others to know what you are collecting feel free to contact me off line with the information. This does not need to rise to DEFCON 1. I know both parties, Aldrich and Kelleher, but at this time I can only help you with Kelleher.

Aldrich is notorious for misdescribed and spurious items. I've experienced this numerous times firsthand, and he has threatened to blacklist me due to my large number of returned items. I would always be wary and purchase anything remotely scarce or that might not possibly the number or variety described,on extension.

It's the Apfelbaumian strategy whereby if you throw enough crap out there, a large enough percentage of buyers either won't know enough to demand a return, or as in the case of the OP will wait too long. Repeat it enough times and there is money to be made.

Once, when I returned a number of items to Aldrich for nondisclosed major faults, his justification was "cancel collectors don't care about faults". The hell they don't. Yes, I will buy stamps with major faults for the cancel or a plate variety, but faults most certainly are a major factor in determining how much I am willing to pay. Not revealing them is unethical.

The latest and most egregious incident was two lots in the same auction that were described as having thins. No, they weren't thins, they were facial scrapes that had been amateurly colored in (not visible in the auction images). NOT the same as a thin. One is on the back of the stamp and does not impact visual presentation, whereas the other is on the front and has major detrimenal effect.

Caveat SERIOUSLY emptor.

I do not believe this is accurate.

My own personal attitude is I am somewhat more tolerant of a small fault on a fancy cancel stamp, but I still won't value it as much as one without a fault. I have seen auctions (don't recall which one(s?) where for fancy cancels they don't describe faults because they claim cancel collectors don't care, in which case I assume they all have faults and I head for the exit.

If an auction house does not say specifically in their description of an unused 19th century stamp that it is with OG or original gum, it should not be assumed to have original gum. It will either be without gum or regummed. Description practices do vary from house to house, but the above rule of thumb will help you avoid some mis-understandings with the house.

A quick search of Kelleher's auction #698 didn't turn up any lots with "exquisite little gem, PSE cert graded XF-SUP 95" in the description. What lot are you talking about?

Aldrich is notorious for misdescribed and spurious items.

I wish I had seen this sooner!

I agree with WTCROWE about KELLEHER ,you have to return the item and they are much easier to work with about getting a refund . I had two or three lots returned and still do regular business with them . Don't step up your level of threats ,it doesn't make things easier . Work with them .

I simply do not bid anymore on auction items that do not have a cert unless the gamble is worth it. An example would be a MOG 17 that I picked up at a Siegel auction for 7 % of CV. Had it certed and it came back good. If the lot does claim a cert than I ask them for a copy via email or post. If they are unresponsive I simply do not bid. Harmer is good. Siegel is excellent. Rasdale single lots can be very good. Cherrystone is very good. Never depend on an auction house to tell you what a cert says. Let the actual cert do the talking.