Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Response to Business (Siegel)response Thebusiness response does not address the damage done to my stamps. Siegels substituted the initial declarationof stamp condition and values which were made available to Seigel before thetime of contract signing. Siegel madethe substitution of stamp condition and value with their own values aftercontracts were signed and used thosevalues in the auction conducted by SiegelThese whole operation was madewithout Siegel advising me of such changes, the reasons why, and proceed withsuch changed values to an auction without my approval Upon receipt of my shipment last Dec 2014, Siegel must have gone over mystamps, the listings, the descriptions of condition and the values of eachstamp. The values for each stamp werederived based on a canvass of price lists of internationally known dealers.These are current market values . Theyare not Catalogue values. Dealer'sprices are lower in most cases than CatalogueI included in the shipment aspecial lot of Canadian imperforate and imperforate stamps which I did not assign estimated values forbecause some are varieties of the valuable types normally traded in themarket. My varieties were hardly tradedin the market or not even mentioned in Unitrades Specialized CanadianCatalogue. I wanted to discuss thesestamps with Siegel to properly convey the scarcity of the lot in the bidding tofollow. I expressly wanted to beinvolved in this operation per my Novemail and I followed this uppersistently with Siegel in my emails. Siegel prepared a ConsignmentAgreement which they first signed and sent to me for my acceptance. I signed the agreement as Siegel did not takeany exception to the stamps, listings, descriptions and values. Had Siegel gone to auction using theconditions and values that were provided, I would have no objection. There would have been no disputes as Siegelwould be basing their description and estimates of value in their catalogue onthe same data available at contract signing. Moreover, I am prepared to give a substantial discount vs current market to bidders at the auction.But Siegel changed the conditiondescription and values after contract signing and before their auction. Siegel did this without going back to me,without hearing me out and without seeking my approval on the changes. My current market values based on price listcanvass place my stamps at $12,170. Siegel's value estimate is only at $or 5.75%of mineEven if I gave the bidder a discount of 50%, Siegel's value is stilltoo low! Is Siegel thinking of giving a94% discount to the bidder??? everyoneknows that 5% of market is the valuation for defective and filler stamps. My collection is definitely not this!Siegel can see such a huge discrepancy, should have blown a whistle and shouldhave come back to me But Siegel didnot! For what reason, I do not know? An entrusted, careful and professionalmanager would see the huge disparity in the values and would have gone out offhis way to try to find out what is going on! He should also try to resolve very apparent, substantial differencesI could not see this discrepancybecause Siegel never mentioned any valuation problems on these stamp lots I received Siegels description and estimatesof value used in the bidding catalogue only after they bidded out my stamps.In his June * email ** ***alleges two "polluting" Canadian stamps. He does not seem to know that the two singleimperforate stamps are rarely traded. *** #*** seems like a booklet stamp and not a sheet stamp as heclaims. He does not mention the extramargin between frame and edge of Scott #E3c, which makes it very rare. He states 5/ Sydney Harbour Bridge is not MNH as described by me. Why does ** *** raise these issues afterhe has auctioned them? Why notbefore? He had five (5) months forhim and his staff! He should have comeback to me earlier with these problems and not after he had conducted theauction.Concerning my Canadian specializedstamps, the rare and hardly traded issues which I wanted to highlight in anauction were discarded. Siegel had madeup its mind on what this stamps were. Indescribing this stamps in their catalogue they gave a value estimate based onthe type that was normally traded at $400. No mention of the rare and hardly traded stamps varieties. No mention was made of their particulardissimilarities. In Siegel's May *, 2015email which was in response to my earlier email follow up on the rarity andhardly traded issues, Siegel's answerwas that they received my email on those issues. They did not mention that on April **, 2015they set a value estimate of $400. Whatwas their point in not advising me on May * that they have made up their mindslast Apr ** and resolved the issues unilaterally? Siegel up to now has not come back to me onhow they valued the stamps in this lot.*** *** seems to rely on Sec 5of the Consignment Contract titled "The Manner In Which The Sale willbe Held:" to give him authorityto do as he pleases. This is pushingSection 5's intent too far for his benefit. Section refers to the mechanics of the sale and not the subject matterof the contract. Siegel had access to mystamps, description of condition, and estimate of prices from a price listcanvass. The subject matter of thecontact are my stamps and my representations over it. After accepting the subject matter of the contractand signing the contract, Siegel cannotchange the subject matter materially without advising me and securing myconsent. Siegel must conform to mylisting of stamps, their condition as described, and estimate of selling pricesin "preparation for the manner in which the sale will be held". With the Consignment Contract in force andthen setting up its own description and valuation which is substantiallydifferent from mine, without notifying me and securing my consent, and using asubstantially altered description and valuation in the auction, Siegel hasviolated the contract. For all the stamps Iconsigned, Siegel has unilaterallychanged my stamps description and the valuations. I do not know how they came to $for myAustralian and Canadian Stamps. Presentmarket prices are at $12,170. 5% ofestimated market ($770) is junk statusThis is Siegel's estimateThecondition of the stamps do not warrant junk status. Where in the world do you keep junk onLighthouse hinge less albums. Except for used kangaroos, all my Australianstamps are MNH and are mostly f-vf and vf. My Canadian are MNH and MM and are f-vf and better grades. That is not junk. If an auction house does not properlydescribe condition and gives a valuation of 5% of market, the bidders willsuspect that what is offered is junk and will bid accordingly. This is unfair treatment for my stamps.Siegel has deprived my stamps of betterbids and better potentials.To summarize, my complaints are:- Siegel did not question my stampsdescription and values when we signed Siegel's offered contract. This and theircontinued silence on such matters led me to believe that the condition and the values were acceptable toSiegel. When I complained after theirbidding exercise, ** *** brought out the different problemsonly on his June * email after his auction. months is a long time totake this complaints to me. I would havedefended my position if Sigel brought thisup earlier If unresolved I could havewithdrawn the affected stamp from auction with Siegel'spermission.- Apparentlyafter signing on the contract, Siegelchanged the condition and values of my stamps.This exercise was not conveyed to me nor their results. I got this from ** ***'s June * email. This exercise must have given Siegel their own condition and values -$1,100. No mention was made of the $1,except on May ** afterthe May** auction. Siegel was not transparent on an exercise thatdetermined the values used for their auction of my stamps! A blackbox was in place until everything was kind of done.- Siegel shouldsee the extreme disparity between my values and theirs. For stamps that I had values totalling $12,to their equivalent value of$there is a huge 94% difference. If $12,is market (I have my pricecanvass available), 5% is junk category. My stamps are not junk. They are of good quality and Siegel wasattracted to them. They made the offerfor consignment, when theysaw my stamps. - Siegel, whosaw the 95% disparity, kept quiet. Aprudent and careful professional would have blown the whistle and pointed out thedifferences between the Siegel and me. Idid not see Siegel's worksheets and figures. Siegel is the only entity who had knowledgeof the disparity. They had my worksheets. Siegel should attempt to reconcile figures. Butthey did not make the effortwhich I found not responsible - I am at a losson Siegel's dismissal of my hardly traded and rare stamp lot. No reasons were given. I vehementlydisagree with ** ***' reasoning in his June email where he found my single imperforate as having apolluting effect on the other Canadian stamps. The two imperforates belongnaturally to the Canadian Confederation lotIt enhances the rarity and hardly traded category of the lotbecause what is often traded in themarket are double imperforates,not single. -To simplify ourcase, I have requested Siegel to hang on to my stamps and to return them to me in the condition that I shippedthem. I have the scanned materials asreference for these return operation. *** * ***
** *** ***
Your Answer Here]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

We have continually responded to *** ***'s alleged complaintsI wrote a detailed and final response to him, which I reproduce belowHis complaint(s) is unfoundedWe have a signed contract allowing us to sell his stamps.Dear *** ***,I have taken the time to review all of yours and
***s correspondence from your initial contact, as well as your most recent email attachments to meI find with the sole exception of your May *** email, Andrew has always answered you promptly, courteously and professionallyYour May *** email was not answered about getting a certificate on an item as the sale of your material had just occured the day before.Before I get into a specific response I must comment about your not so veiled threat to "avoid" lawyers and official complaints to various societies or entitiesI am responding to you not because of your suggestion that lawyers become involved, but because you are entitled to a professional responsePlease know that both my personal reputation in the stamp auction business, along with that of the Siegel organization, is unblemished and we have established the reputation of America's largest and most respected auction house, and have been for decadesI am also a life member of almost every major philatelic organization and sit on many professional boards within philatelyI would not have the reputation I have worked so hard for if I, or anyone on our staff, acted unprofessionallyI would defend any suggestion to the contrary vigorously.When you first initially expressed displeasure with us you stated that you gave us no authority to sell your stampsThis is simply not trueWhen your consignment arrived - and after much email correspondence - we sent you our "Consignment Agreement" to carefully read and signYou sent back a copy of our Agreement with your signature, a scan of which was sent to you in my last email to youIn that document you gave "Siegel complete discretion and authority to conduct the sale(s), including (i) the exact place and date of the sale(s) and the manner in which such sale(s) is conducted, (II) the description of the Property in the sale(s) catalogues and other literature, (iii) seeking the views of any expert before and after the sale(s), and (iv) the division of the Property into separate lots and sales as Siegel may deem appropriate (see Paragraph of the Agreement)So, as you can see, you authorized us to use our best judgement and professionalism to market y our stamps and that is exactly what we have done.In addition, your claim that we misdescribed some of your material is also not trueMyself, along with our lotting staff, have decades of experience in selling and describing stamps - together we have sold well over $billion worth of stamps and our descriptions are considered some of the most accurate and compelling in the industryBut let me be specific on some of your suggestions of inaccurate descriptions:Lot #*** - First, the two stray imperforate singles, which are not desirable by themselves, were not included in this lot as it would have "polluted" this lot's desirability, so they were included in your lot #*** and the two imperforate commemoratives were specifically mentioned in the large lot descriptionAs to the third imperforate edge on the *** #*** - that is NOT rare, but actually a detrement as it would have been from the straight-edge portion of the sheet (a natural, non-error occurrence)Imperforate pairs from straight-edge positions are LESS desirable.Lot #*** - We mentioned the presence of the 5/- Sydney Harbor Bridge, along with other better sets and we specifically excluded this stamp as being never hinged as, in our opinion, it would never pass a certification process of being declared "never hinged"I can say with authority about what passes as never hinged, or not, as I have been an expert consultant at the Philatelic Foundation in New York City for literally decades and I also sit on their BoardI, along with my describing staff, know what will pass as never hinged or not.Lot #*** - The reference to "some Mint N.H." in the lot refers to all of the stamps found in the lot in general and not specifically your Admirals or notPlus, we made an internal note on this lot (not published in the catalogue, but my describers private note to me), that this lot was not that clean and there were small faults found on several stamps.While it regretful that you never received a copy of the catalogue before the sale, I can guarantee one was sent to you and that all other consignors in the sale (many of whom were from around the world) received theirsOur past experiences with the Philippines post office have not been that good in terms of their delivery process.Lastly, your request that we cancel the sale of your lots cannot be granted for a number of reasonsFirst, you gave us authority to sell your stamps (see above)The stamps were accurately described by the best professionals in the businessThe buyers of your lots paid full market value for the stamps in a competitive auction environmentAnd, finally, the controlling document in this entire transaction is the above mentioned "Consignment Agreement" and I must quote, in part, from Paragraph which states "No Property may be withdrawn from offering by the Seller after this Consignment Agreement has been signed."In short, we handled the sale of your stamps in a professional manner, in a luxurious sale catalogue (and online) and were offered to one of the industry's best mailing lists of philatelic buyers in the world.I trust this answers your concernsI have asked that another sale catalogue be sent to you *** ** for your records.Respectfully,*** ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# ***, and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:
[Response to Business (Siegel)response Thebusiness response does not address the damage done to my stamps. Siegels substituted the initial declarationof stamp condition and values which were made available to Seigel before thetime of contract signing. Siegel madethe substitution of stamp condition and value with their own values aftercontracts were signed and used thosevalues in the auction conducted by SiegelThese whole operation was madewithout Siegel advising me of such changes, the reasons why, and proceed withsuch changed values to an auction without my approval Upon receipt of my shipment last Dec 2014, Siegel must have gone over mystamps, the listings, the descriptions of condition and the values of eachstamp. The values for each stamp werederived based on a canvass of price lists of internationally known dealers.These are current market values . Theyare not Catalogue values. Dealer'sprices are lower in most cases than CatalogueI included in the shipment aspecial lot of Canadian imperforate and imperforate stamps which I did not assign estimated values forbecause some are varieties of the valuable types normally traded in themarket. My varieties were hardly tradedin the market or not even mentioned in Unitrades Specialized CanadianCatalogue. I wanted to discuss thesestamps with Siegel to properly convey the scarcity of the lot in the bidding tofollow. I expressly wanted to beinvolved in this operation per my Novemail and I followed this uppersistently with Siegel in my emails. Siegel prepared a ConsignmentAgreement which they first signed and sent to me for my acceptance. I signed the agreement as Siegel did not takeany exception to the stamps, listings, descriptions and values. Had Siegel gone to auction using theconditions and values that were provided, I would have no objection. There would have been no disputes as Siegelwould be basing their description and estimates of value in their catalogue onthe same data available at contract signing. Moreover, I am prepared to give a substantial discount vs current market to bidders at the auction.But Siegel changed the conditiondescription and values after contract signing and before their auction. Siegel did this without going back to me,without hearing me out and without seeking my approval on the changes. My current market values based on price listcanvass place my stamps at $12,170. Siegel's value estimate is only at $or 5.75%of mineEven if I gave the bidder a discount of 50%, Siegel's value is stilltoo low! Is Siegel thinking of giving a94% discount to the bidder??? everyoneknows that 5% of market is the valuation for defective and filler stamps. My collection is definitely not this!Siegel can see such a huge discrepancy, should have blown a whistle and shouldhave come back to me But Siegel didnot! For what reason, I do not know? An entrusted, careful and professionalmanager would see the huge disparity in the values and would have gone out offhis way to try to find out what is going on! He should also try to resolve very apparent, substantial differencesI could not see this discrepancybecause Siegel never mentioned any valuation problems on these stamp lots I received Siegels description and estimatesof value used in the bidding catalogue only after they bidded out my stamps.In his June * email ** ***alleges two "polluting" Canadian stamps. He does not seem to know that the two singleimperforate stamps are rarely traded. *** #*** seems like a booklet stamp and not a sheet stamp as heclaims. He does not mention the extramargin between frame and edge of Scott #E3c, which makes it very rare. He states 5/ Sydney Harbour Bridge is not MNH as described by me. Why does ** *** raise these issues afterhe has auctioned them? Why notbefore? He had five (5) months forhim and his staff! He should have comeback to me earlier with these problems and not after he had conducted theauction.Concerning my Canadian specializedstamps, the rare and hardly traded issues which I wanted to highlight in anauction were discarded. Siegel had madeup its mind on what this stamps were. Indescribing this stamps in their catalogue they gave a value estimate based onthe type that was normally traded at $400. No mention of the rare and hardly traded stamps varieties. No mention was made of their particulardissimilarities. In Siegel's May *, 2015email which was in response to my earlier email follow up on the rarity andhardly traded issues, Siegel's answerwas that they received my email on those issues. They did not mention that on April **, 2015they set a value estimate of $400. Whatwas their point in not advising me on May * that they have made up their mindslast Apr ** and resolved the issues unilaterally? Siegel up to now has not come back to me onhow they valued the stamps in this lot.*** *** seems to rely on Sec 5of the Consignment Contract titled "The Manner In Which The Sale willbe Held:" to give him authorityto do as he pleases. This is pushingSection 5's intent too far for his benefit. Section refers to the mechanics of the sale and not the subject matterof the contract. Siegel had access to mystamps, description of condition, and estimate of prices from a price listcanvass. The subject matter of thecontact are my stamps and my representations over it. After accepting the subject matter of the contractand signing the contract, Siegel cannotchange the subject matter materially without advising me and securing myconsent. Siegel must conform to mylisting of stamps, their condition as described, and estimate of selling pricesin "preparation for the manner in which the sale will be held". With the Consignment Contract in force andthen setting up its own description and valuation which is substantiallydifferent from mine, without notifying me and securing my consent, and using asubstantially altered description and valuation in the auction, Siegel hasviolated the contract. For all the stamps Iconsigned, Siegel has unilaterallychanged my stamps description and the valuations. I do not know how they came to $for myAustralian and Canadian Stamps. Presentmarket prices are at $12,170. 5% ofestimated market ($770) is junk statusThis is Siegel's estimateThecondition of the stamps do not warrant junk status. Where in the world do you keep junk onLighthouse hinge less albums. Except for used kangaroos, all my Australianstamps are MNH and are mostly f-vf and vf. My Canadian are MNH and MM and are f-vf and better grades. That is not junk. If an auction house does not properlydescribe condition and gives a valuation of 5% of market, the bidders willsuspect that what is offered is junk and will bid accordingly. This is unfair treatment for my stamps.Siegel has deprived my stamps of betterbids and better potentials.To summarize, my complaints are:- Siegel did not question my stampsdescription and values when we signed Siegel's offered contract. This and theircontinued silence on such matters led me to believe that the condition and the values were acceptable toSiegel. When I complained after theirbidding exercise, ** *** brought out the different problemsonly on his June * email after his auction. months is a long time totake this complaints to me. I would havedefended my position if Sigel brought thisup earlier If unresolved I could havewithdrawn the affected stamp from auction with Siegel'spermission.- Apparentlyafter signing on the contract, Siegelchanged the condition and values of my stamps.This exercise was not conveyed to me nor their results. I got this from ** ***'s June * email. This exercise must have given Siegel their own condition and values -$1,100. No mention was made of the $1,except on May ** afterthe May** auction. Siegel was not transparent on an exercise thatdetermined the values used for their auction of my stamps! A blackbox was in place until everything was kind of done.- Siegel shouldsee the extreme disparity between my values and theirs. For stamps that I had values totalling $12,to their equivalent value of$there is a huge 94% difference. If $12,is market (I have my pricecanvass available), 5% is junk category. My stamps are not junk. They are of good quality and Siegel wasattracted to them. They made the offerfor consignment, when theysaw my stamps. - Siegel, whosaw the 95% disparity, kept quiet. Aprudent and careful professional would have blown the whistle and pointed out thedifferences between the Siegel and me. Idid not see Siegel's worksheets and figures. Siegel is the only entity who had knowledgeof the disparity. They had my worksheets. Siegel should attempt to reconcile figures. Butthey did not make the effortwhich I found not responsible - I am at a losson Siegel's dismissal of my hardly traded and rare stamp lot. No reasons were given. I vehementlydisagree with ** ***' reasoning in his June email where he found my single imperforate as having apolluting effect on the other Canadian stamps. The two imperforates belongnaturally to the Canadian Confederation lotIt enhances the rarity and hardly traded category of the lotbecause what is often traded in themarket are double imperforates,not single. -To simplify ourcase, I have requested Siegel to hang on to my stamps and to return them to me in the condition that I shippedthem. I have the scanned materials asreference for these return operation. *** * ***
** *** ***
Your Answer Here]
In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above
Sincerely,
*** ***

Further to [redacted]'s most recent response to our response to his initial complaint, we have nothing further to add to our response, which was detailed and spoke to each of his complaints - which are unfounded. [redacted] is simply rehashing his initial concerns. We have plainly stated that he authorized us to sell his stamps in an unreserved auction by signing our standard Auction Consignment Agreement. That Agreement also gives us "complete discretion and authority to conduct the sale", including complete discretion in "the description of the Property". We have supplied the mediator in this complaint, [redacted], with a scan of the complete Auction Consignment Agreement which [redacted] signed. Our Auction Consignment Agreement is the overriding document in this transaction, in which it details ours and our consignor's rights and responsibilities. Our firm conducted ourselves in accordance with this document and within industry standards. Our reputation, earned over six decades of continuous business as the leasing stamp auctioneer in the United States, is unblemished. The sale of [redacted]'s stamps was conducted no differently than the thousands of other consignors whom we have serviced successfully over the years.

We have continually responded to [redacted]'s alleged complaints. I wrote a detailed and final response to him, which I reproduce below. His complaint(s) is unfounded. We have a signed contract allowing us to sell his stamps.Dear [redacted],I have taken the time to review all...

of yours and [redacted]s correspondence from your initial contact, as well as your most recent email attachments to me. I find with the sole exception of your May [redacted] email, Andrew has always answered you promptly, courteously and professionally. Your May [redacted] email was not answered about getting a certificate on an item as the sale of your material had just occured the day before.Before I get into a specific response I must comment about your not so veiled threat to "avoid" lawyers and official complaints to various societies or entities. I am responding to you not because of your suggestion that lawyers become involved, but because you are entitled to a professional response. Please know that both my personal reputation in the stamp auction business, along with that of the Siegel organization, is unblemished and we have established the reputation of America's largest and most respected auction house, and have been for decades. I am also a life member of almost every major philatelic organization and sit on many professional boards within philately. I would not have the reputation I have worked so hard for if I, or anyone on our staff, acted unprofessionally. I would defend any suggestion to the contrary vigorously.When you first initially expressed displeasure with us you stated that you gave us no authority to sell your stamps. This is simply not true. When your consignment arrived - and after much email correspondence - we sent you our "Consignment Agreement" to carefully read and sign. You sent back a copy of our Agreement with your signature, a scan of which was sent to you in my last email to you. In that document you gave "Siegel complete discretion and authority to conduct the sale(s), including (i) the exact place and date of the sale(s) and the manner in which such sale(s) is conducted, (II) the description of the Property in the sale(s) catalogues and other literature, (iii) seeking the views of any expert before and after the sale(s), and (iv) the division of the Property into separate lots and sales as Siegel may deem appropriate (see Paragraph 5 of the Agreement). So, as you can see, you authorized us to use our best judgement and professionalism to market y our stamps and that is exactly what we have done.In addition, your claim that we misdescribed some of your material is also not true. Myself, along with our lotting staff, have decades of experience in selling and describing stamps - together we have sold well over $1 billion worth of stamps and our descriptions are considered some of the most accurate and compelling in the industry. But let me be specific on some of your suggestions of inaccurate descriptions:Lot #[redacted] - First, the two stray imperforate singles, which are not desirable by themselves, were not included in this lot as it would have "polluted" this lot's desirability, so they were included in your lot #[redacted] and the two imperforate commemoratives were specifically mentioned in the large lot description. As to the third imperforate edge on the [redacted] - that is NOT rare, but actually a detrement as it would have been from the straight-edge portion of the sheet (a natural, non-error occurrence). Imperforate pairs from straight-edge positions are LESS desirable.Lot #[redacted] - We mentioned the presence of the 5/- Sydney Harbor Bridge, along with other better sets and we specifically excluded this stamp as being never hinged as, in our opinion, it would never pass a certification process of being declared "never hinged". I can say with authority about what passes as never hinged, or not, as I have been an expert consultant at the Philatelic Foundation in New York City for literally decades and I also sit on their Board. I, along with my describing staff, know what will pass as never hinged or not.Lot #[redacted] - The reference to "some Mint N.H." in the lot refers to all of the stamps found in the lot in general and not specifically your Admirals or not. Plus, we made an internal note on this lot (not published in the catalogue, but my describers private note to me), that this lot was not that clean and there were small faults found on several stamps.While it regretful that you never received a copy of the catalogue before the sale, I can guarantee one was sent to you and that all other consignors in the sale (many of whom were from around the world) received theirs. Our past experiences with the Philippines post office have not been that good in terms of their delivery process.Lastly, your request that we cancel the sale of your lots cannot be granted for a number of reasons. First, you gave us authority to sell your stamps (see above). The stamps were accurately described by the best professionals in the business. The buyers of your lots paid full market value for the stamps in a competitive auction environment. And, finally, the controlling document in this entire transaction is the above mentioned "Consignment Agreement" and I must quote, in part, from Paragraph 8 which states "No Property may be withdrawn from offering by the Seller after this Consignment Agreement has been signed."In short, we handled the sale of your stamps in a professional manner, in a luxurious sale catalogue (and online) and were offered to one of the industry's best mailing lists of philatelic buyers in the world.I trust this answers your concerns. I have asked that another sale catalogue be sent to you [redacted] for your records.Respectfully,[redacted]

Review: The auction house is also at: [redacted]. Their website is: [redacted]To the above address, I consigned my stamps ( approx S13,500) together with my appraisal of condition and estimated canvassed dealers' prices for each stamps. I also adviced Siegel that included were some rarely traded stamps whose value and presentation I wished to discuss with them. Siegel unilaterally appraised all my stamps without advising me of their value estimates and auctioned them last May **, 2015. They did not get back to me at all with their findings.Their value estimate described in their catalogue only added to $1,100 - only 8% of my estimate. With unresolved issues and with such widely different estimates, Siegel should have gotten back to me to inform me of their values. They did not but acted as owners and not consignees. They kept me in a black box. They used their widely different estimates and condition of my stamps and described and valued them in their write ups on their catalogues. My stamps did not get a chance for better values from their biddders.I have scans of my stamps, my appraisal list of my stamps, all my correspondence with Siegel. I can provide you with them if you wish.Desired Settlement: I have emailed Siegel to please return the stamps back to me in the condition that they received it from me. They should use as their reference point my lists and the scans which I provided when I sent the shipment.

Business

Response:

We have continually responded to [redacted]'s alleged complaints. I wrote a detailed and final response to him, which I reproduce below. His complaint(s) is unfounded. We have a signed contract allowing us to sell his stamps.Dear [redacted],I have taken the time to review all of yours and [redacted]s correspondence from your initial contact, as well as your most recent email attachments to me. I find with the sole exception of your May [redacted] email, Andrew has always answered you promptly, courteously and professionally. Your May [redacted] email was not answered about getting a certificate on an item as the sale of your material had just occured the day before.Before I get into a specific response I must comment about your not so veiled threat to "avoid" lawyers and official complaints to various societies or entities. I am responding to you not because of your suggestion that lawyers become involved, but because you are entitled to a professional response. Please know that both my personal reputation in the stamp auction business, along with that of the Siegel organization, is unblemished and we have established the reputation of America's largest and most respected auction house, and have been for decades. I am also a life member of almost every major philatelic organization and sit on many professional boards within philately. I would not have the reputation I have worked so hard for if I, or anyone on our staff, acted unprofessionally. I would defend any suggestion to the contrary vigorously.When you first initially expressed displeasure with us you stated that you gave us no authority to sell your stamps. This is simply not true. When your consignment arrived - and after much email correspondence - we sent you our "Consignment Agreement" to carefully read and sign. You sent back a copy of our Agreement with your signature, a scan of which was sent to you in my last email to you. In that document you gave "Siegel complete discretion and authority to conduct the sale(s), including (i) the exact place and date of the sale(s) and the manner in which such sale(s) is conducted, (II) the description of the Property in the sale(s) catalogues and other literature, (iii) seeking the views of any expert before and after the sale(s), and (iv) the division of the Property into separate lots and sales as Siegel may deem appropriate (see Paragraph 5 of the Agreement). So, as you can see, you authorized us to use our best judgement and professionalism to market y our stamps and that is exactly what we have done.In addition, your claim that we misdescribed some of your material is also not true. Myself, along with our lotting staff, have decades of experience in selling and describing stamps - together we have sold well over $1 billion worth of stamps and our descriptions are considered some of the most accurate and compelling in the industry. But let me be specific on some of your suggestions of inaccurate descriptions:Lot #[redacted] - First, the two stray imperforate singles, which are not desirable by themselves, were not included in this lot as it would have "polluted" this lot's desirability, so they were included in your lot #[redacted] and the two imperforate commemoratives were specifically mentioned in the large lot description. As to the third imperforate edge on the [redacted] - that is NOT rare, but actually a detrement as it would have been from the straight-edge portion of the sheet (a natural, non-error occurrence). Imperforate pairs from straight-edge positions are LESS desirable.Lot #[redacted] - We mentioned the presence of the 5/- Sydney Harbor Bridge, along with other better sets and we specifically excluded this stamp as being never hinged as, in our opinion, it would never pass a certification process of being declared "never hinged". I can say with authority about what passes as never hinged, or not, as I have been an expert consultant at the Philatelic Foundation in New York City for literally decades and I also sit on their Board. I, along with my describing staff, know what will pass as never hinged or not.Lot #[redacted] - The reference to "some Mint N.H." in the lot refers to all of the stamps found in the lot in general and not specifically your Admirals or not. Plus, we made an internal note on this lot (not published in the catalogue, but my describers private note to me), that this lot was not that clean and there were small faults found on several stamps.While it regretful that you never received a copy of the catalogue before the sale, I can guarantee one was sent to you and that all other consignors in the sale (many of whom were from around the world) received theirs. Our past experiences with the Philippines post office have not been that good in terms of their delivery process.Lastly, your request that we cancel the sale of your lots cannot be granted for a number of reasons. First, you gave us authority to sell your stamps (see above). The stamps were accurately described by the best professionals in the business. The buyers of your lots paid full market value for the stamps in a competitive auction environment. And, finally, the controlling document in this entire transaction is the above mentioned "Consignment Agreement" and I must quote, in part, from Paragraph 8 which states "No Property may be withdrawn from offering by the Seller after this Consignment Agreement has been signed."In short, we handled the sale of your stamps in a professional manner, in a luxurious sale catalogue (and online) and were offered to one of the industry's best mailing lists of philatelic buyers in the world.I trust this answers your concerns. I have asked that another sale catalogue be sent to you [redacted] for your records.Respectfully,[redacted]

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID# [redacted], and have determined that my complaint has NOT been resolved because:

[Response to Business (Siegel)response Thebusiness response does not address the damage done to my stamps. Siegels substituted the initial declarationof stamp condition and values which were made available to Seigel before thetime of contract signing. Siegel madethe substitution of stamp condition and value with their own values aftercontracts were signed and used thosevalues in the auction conducted by Siegel. These whole operation was madewithout Siegel advising me of such changes, the reasons why, and proceed withsuch changed values to an auction without my approval. Upon receipt of my shipment last Dec 2014, Siegel must have gone over mystamps, the listings, the descriptions of condition and the values of eachstamp. The values for each stamp werederived based on a canvass of price lists of internationally known dealers.These are current market values . Theyare not Catalogue values. Dealer'sprices are lower in most cases than Catalogue. I included in the shipment aspecial lot of 1927 Canadian imperforate and imperforate stamps which I did not assign estimated values forbecause some are varieties of the valuable types normally traded in themarket. My varieties were hardly tradedin the market or not even mentioned in Unitrades Specialized CanadianCatalogue. I wanted to discuss thesestamps with Siegel to properly convey the scarcity of the lot in the bidding tofollow. I expressly wanted to beinvolved in this operation per my Nov. 2014 email and I followed this uppersistently with Siegel in my emails. Siegel prepared a ConsignmentAgreement which they first signed and sent to me for my acceptance. I signed the agreement as Siegel did not takeany exception to the stamps, listings, descriptions and values. Had Siegel gone to auction using theconditions and values that were provided, I would have no objection. There would have been no disputes as Siegelwould be basing their description and estimates of value in their catalogue onthe same data available at contract signing. Moreover, I am prepared to give a substantial discount vs current market to bidders at the auction.But Siegel changed the conditiondescription and values after contract signing and before their auction. Siegel did this without going back to me,without hearing me out and without seeking my approval on the changes. My current market values based on price listcanvass place my stamps at $12,170. Siegel's value estimate is only at $700 or 5.75%of mine. Even if I gave the bidder a discount of 50%, Siegel's value is stilltoo low! Is Siegel thinking of giving a94% discount to the bidder??? everyoneknows that 5% of market is the valuation for defective and filler stamps. My collection is definitely not this!Siegel can see such a huge discrepancy, should have blown a whistle and shouldhave come back to me. But Siegel didnot! For what reason, I do not know? An entrusted, careful and professionalmanager would see the huge disparity in the values and would have gone out offhis way to try to find out what is going on! He should also try to resolve very apparent, substantial differences. I could not see this discrepancybecause Siegel never mentioned any valuation problems on these stamp lots. I received Siegels description and estimatesof value used in the bidding catalogue only after they bidded out my stamps.In his June * email [redacted]alleges two "polluting" Canadian stamps. He does not seem to know that the two singleimperforate stamps are rarely traded. [redacted] seems like a booklet stamp and not a sheet stamp as heclaims. He does not mention the extramargin between frame and edge of Scott #E3c, which makes it very rare. He states 5/ Sydney Harbour Bridge is not MNH as described by me. Why does [redacted] raise these issues afterhe has auctioned them? Why notbefore? He had five (5) months forhim and his staff! He should have comeback to me earlier with these problems and not after he had conducted theauction.Concerning my Canadian specializedstamps, the rare and hardly traded issues which I wanted to highlight in anauction were discarded. Siegel had madeup its mind on what this stamps were. Indescribing this stamps in their catalogue they gave a value estimate based onthe type that was normally traded at $400. No mention of the rare and hardly traded stamps varieties. No mention was made of their particulardissimilarities. In Siegel's May *, 2015email which was in response to my earlier email follow up on the rarity andhardly traded issues, Siegel's answerwas that they received my email on those issues. They did not mention that on April **, 2015they set a value estimate of $400. Whatwas their point in not advising me on May * that they have made up their mindslast Apr ** and resolved the issues unilaterally? Siegel up to now has not come back to me onhow they valued the stamps in this lot.[redacted] seems to rely on Sec 5of the Consignment Contract titled "The Manner In Which The Sale willbe Held:" to give him authorityto do as he pleases. This is pushingSection 5's intent too far for his benefit. Section 5 refers to the mechanics of the sale and not the subject matterof the contract. Siegel had access to mystamps, description of condition, and estimate of prices from a price listcanvass. The subject matter of thecontact are my stamps and my representations over it. After accepting the subject matter of the contractand signing the contract, Siegel cannotchange the subject matter materially without advising me and securing myconsent. Siegel must conform to mylisting of stamps, their condition as described, and estimate of selling pricesin "preparation for the manner in which the sale will be held". With the Consignment Contract in force andthen setting up its own description and valuation which is substantiallydifferent from mine, without notifying me and securing my consent, and using asubstantially altered description and valuation in the auction, Siegel hasviolated the contract. For all the stamps Iconsigned, Siegel has unilaterallychanged my stamps description and the valuations. I do not know how they came to $770 for myAustralian and Canadian Stamps. Presentmarket prices are at $12,170. 5% ofestimated market ($770) is junk status. This is Siegel's estimate. Thecondition of the stamps do not warrant junk status. Where in the world do you keep junk onLighthouse hinge less albums. Except for used kangaroos, all my Australianstamps are MNH and are mostly f-vf and vf. My Canadian are MNH and MM and are f-vf and better grades. That is not junk. If an auction house does not properlydescribe condition and gives a valuation of 5% of market, the bidders willsuspect that what is offered is junk and will bid accordingly. This is unfair treatment for my stamps.Siegel has deprived my stamps of betterbids and better potentials.To summarize, my complaints are:- Siegel did not question my stampsdescription and values when we signed Siegel's offered contract. This and theircontinued silence on such matters led me to believe that the condition and the values were acceptable toSiegel. When I complained after theirbidding exercise, [redacted] brought out the different problemsonly on his June * email after his auction. 5 months is a long time totake this complaints to me. I would havedefended my position if Sigel brought thisup earlier. If unresolved I could havewithdrawn the affected stamp from auction with Siegel'spermission.- Apparentlyafter signing on the contract, Siegelchanged the condition and values of my stamps.This exercise was not conveyed to me nor their results. I got this from [redacted]'s June * email. This exercise must have given Siegel their own condition and values -$1,100. No mention was made of the $1,100 except on May ** afterthe May** auction. Siegel was not transparent on an exercise thatdetermined the values used for their auction of my stamps! A blackbox was in place until everything was kind of done.- Siegel shouldsee the extreme disparity between my values and theirs. For stamps that I had values totalling $12,170 to their equivalent value of$700 there is a huge 94% difference. If $12,170 is market (I have my pricecanvass available), 5% is junk category. My stamps are not junk. They are of good quality and Siegel wasattracted to them. They made the offerfor consignment, when theysaw my stamps. - Siegel, whosaw the 95% disparity, kept quiet. Aprudent and careful professional would have blown the whistle and pointed out thedifferences between the Siegel and me. Idid not see Siegel's worksheets and figures. Siegel is the only entity who had knowledgeof the disparity. They had my worksheets. Siegel should attempt to reconcile figures. Butthey did not make the effortwhich I found not responsible. - I am at a losson Siegel's dismissal of my hardly traded and rare stamp lot. No reasons were given. I vehementlydisagree with [redacted]' reasoning in his June 2 email where he found my single imperforate as having apolluting effect on the other Canadian stamps. The two imperforates belongnaturally to the Canadian Confederation lot. It enhances the rarity and hardly traded category of the lotbecause what is often traded in themarket are double imperforates,not single. -To simplify ourcase, I have requested Siegel to hang on to my stamps and to return them to me in the condition that I shippedthem. I have the scanned materials asreference for these return operation. [redacted]

Your Answer Here]

In order for the Revdex.com to appropriately process your response, you MUST answer the question above.

Sincerely,

Business

Response:

Further to [redacted]'s most recent response to our response to his initial complaint, we have nothing further to add to our response, which was detailed and spoke to each of his complaints - which are unfounded. [redacted] is simply rehashing his initial concerns. We have plainly stated that he authorized us to sell his stamps in an unreserved auction by signing our standard Auction Consignment Agreement. That Agreement also gives us "complete discretion and authority to conduct the sale", including complete discretion in "the description of the Property". We have supplied the mediator in this complaint, [redacted], with a scan of the complete Auction Consignment Agreement which [redacted] signed. Our Auction Consignment Agreement is the overriding document in this transaction, in which it details ours and our consignor's rights and responsibilities. Our firm conducted ourselves in accordance with this document and within industry standards. Our reputation, earned over six decades of continuous business as the leasing stamp auctioneer in the United States, is unblemished. The sale of [redacted]'s stamps was conducted no differently than the thousands of other consignors whom we have serviced successfully over the years.