Robert A. Siegel Auction Galleries

We have continually responded to [redacted] ***'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 [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 meI find with the sole exception of your May [redacted] email, Andrew has always answered you promptly, courteously and professionallyYour 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 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 # [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 descriptionAs to the third imperforate edge on the [redacted] # [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 BoardI, 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 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 [redacted] for your records.Respectfully, [redacted]