Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

[kingjammy24]

wow. where to start with this. doug allen has outdone himself this time. currently, legendary is auctioning off a 1911-12 Frank Chance game-used jersey. here it is: http://www.legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=101753

mastro estimates this jersey to go for around $50-$60k. the description, in part, reads "The then-trademark deep blue "C" measures 5-1/4" and is proudly situated on the left chest portion of the majestic garment. (Affixing thread color variations and the extensive edge wear suggest strongly that the "C" is original and that the Bear logo was replaced after initial season usage. Both felt identifiers are definitely from the period with period style affixing, and they are correct in composition, size, color hue, and detailing.)"

got that? legendary (aka doug allen who ran mastro for years until it shut down amidst an FBI investigation) believes that the "C" is original and the bear logo "..was replaced after initial season usage". hmm. yeah..the problem is that doug already sold this shirt in dec 2004 and it didn't have the logo it has now. here it is from when doug sold it in 2004:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/6316/reggieu.jpg

so when doug now states that the "C" is original and the bear logo was replaced sometime around 1913, he knew it had actually been replaced within the last couple of years. how? because mastro was the one who requested the alteration! dave bushing chimes in: http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1257982058/Frank+Chance+jersey+in+Legendary+Auctions

"About three years ago, this shirt came into Mastro's and was all original save the front had a modern restoration of the Cubs logo. They (Mastro's) had, at the time, an all original Jack Pfiester shirt of the same era and style that had an original Cubs logo still attached. I know and use one of the best seamstresses in the business. As such, they (Mastro's) asked me to take the two jerseys and have the front logos switched. The Pfiester shirt was sold with the modern logo and the original logo was affixed to the Frank Chance. The Chance is restored with original vintage parts so everything on the Chance shirt is Cubs and of the era, just that it was reaffixed within the last two years."

none of that appears in the current mastro description. the legendary description hides doug's alteration as well as the details behind it. sure i know selling altered items without disclosure is a mastro trademark (after all, the FBI didn't go in because bill and doug were running a wonderfully clean shop), but its disheartening to see that doug has taken the same old bullsh*t practices with him to his new auction house. maybe doug has a penchant for FBI investigations and is gunning for legendary to follow mastro's footsteps?
a $60k jersey and the buyer still apparently doesn't deserve to learn the full truth behind the shirt from the person who knows it best. for others who've purchased from mastro and legendary, it almost makes you wonder what other alterations doug has failed to disclose and/or "forget" the origins of, etc.

bid with confidence!

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

"none of that appears in the current mastro description"

i meant in the current legendary description. mastro, legendary, all the same anyway i guess.

anyway, another interesting facet to it all...i was perusing this article, which was written in 2006:
http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4763&universeid=314&type=1

in it doug mentions personally owning a frank chance uniform. what are the odds right? well in the current legendary auction print catalog its listed that the frank chance shirt is owned by a legendary employee. for those following at home, when folks were bidding on the frank chance uniform at mastro a few years ago, apparently they were bidding against the head of the auction house. holy smokes, doug won. better luck next time bidders. a part of me wonders if anyone else really ever had a shot. i mean, how on earth are you supposed to bid against a guy who controls the entire process? so then doug takes the jersey to bushing who alters it. i believe thats what doug would call "maximizing the grade". then sticks his jersey into his own auction and when writing up the description for it he develops temporary amnesia (or is it selective amnesia). he completely forgets that only a couple years ago he asked bushing to alter the logo. woops. no need to reveal that.

legendary's own policies state "15. Although Legendary Auctions employees, executives and principals are prohibited from bidding in the auction, from time to time they will own items that are consigned to the auction. In those cases (1) It will be clearly disclosed...". clearly on the print catalog but apparently it's not mentioned at all online. nowhere in the frank chance listing online does it mention that, by the way, the president of the auction house owns the jersey. and by the way, mastro uses max/ceiling bids. good luck with that setup.

honestly, i can't believe people still operate like this. mastro shuts down and apparently none of it phases doug in the least. business as usual. anyway, to end off on a funny note, here are a couple of lines from the aforelinked article/interview:

"....creating a level of confidence in the way we present things and oversee the items we sell that they would not get anywhere else....
Bill instinctively knew that people would prefer to have an item properly described in a catalog".

yeah. he really does say that.

rudy.

[corsairs22]

That is really amazing. I suppose if you've been getting away with things for years, it's difficult to accept that anyone will catch you. I don't plan to consign anything to Legendary and probably won't bid on anything, either. Unless it's both cheap and something I really, really, really need. But now I know that I need to look at the hard copy catalog

[flaco1801]

thanks, rudy wonderful expose

[yanks12025]

http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1257982058/Frank+Chance+jersey+in+Legendary+Auctions

[aeneas01]

a $60k jersey and the buyer still apparently doesn't deserve to learn the full truth behind the shirt from the person who knows it best. for others who've purchased from mastro and legendary, it almost makes you wonder what other alterations doug has failed to disclose and/or "forget" the origins of...

the thing is this isn't just a matter of not revealing the full truth or failing to disclose the history of this shirt which of course is bad enough. instead this is a matter of blatantly stating untruths about the shirt despite clearly knowing otherwise.

"Affixing thread color variations and the extensive edge wear suggest strongly that the "C" is original and that the Bear logo was replaced after initial season usage."

this really is unbelievable. and so is legendary's response to this issue which they've now included in the lot description:

"We had a question from a prospective bidder regarding the bear logo and thought it appropriate to clarify. As documented in the write-up: although it is period, “the Bear logo was replaced.” This replacement is a vintage logo from the same year! This begs the question, where does one get a 1911 bear logo? When this jersey originally turned up in the hobby in 2004 it did not have the bear logo. Since that time a bear logo from a 1911 Jack Pfeister Cubs jersey was painstakingly re-applied."

yes, the legendary write up does indeed state that the bear logo was replaced. but no one is asking that question. what they're asking is when was it replaced. according to legendary it was replaced "after initial season usage" which clearly implies it was replaced at some point during that era rather than a few years ago. and it clearly implies that this shirt has been in this state, with the bear logo attached, for decades.

what's particularly galling is legendary's stab at trying to turn this serious matter into a positive in their nonsensical addendum to the lot description - reminds me of the current directv campaign if you know what i mean...

...

[encinorick]

Doug Allen has a big heart, much like that other Chicago native, Al Capone. I wonder what he did with that game used 32 oz. Babe Ruth bat he sold me, which was dated around 1947? Oh, yeah, it wasn't actually game used, but, perhaps it was a coach's bat, or maybe the Babe used it to help him around the house when he was old and tired; but, clearly, according to Doug, it was "in his hands at some point."

Wouldn't be surprise if it shows up in Doug's next auction. :cool:

[kingjammy24]

from legendary's update: "As documented in the write-up: although it is period, “the Bear logo was replaced.”. no. the initial write-up did not state the logo was replaced. doug simply said there was the "strong suggestion" that it had been replaced. almost as if he wasn't 100% sure. it was the "Affixing thread color variations.." that "suggested strongly" to doug that the logo was replaced. was that what it was doug? it was the threads that "suggested" to you the logo was a replacement? it wasn't the fact you personally requested and paid dave bushing to do it (and even supplied the very patch) only a few years ago? no of course not. it was your astute authenticating and noticing the threads. unbelievable. its like some sort of schizophrenia or multiple personality disorder. doug the jersey-alterer apparently doesn't talk to doug the authenticator. doug alters a jersey and then puts on his little experts cap and tries to authenticate what he just did. bizarre.

only after dave bushing comes out stating doug asked him to change the logo only a few years ago and i post a pic showing doug auctioned the jersey off (to himself apparently) in 2004 does doug's memory finally come back. oh yeah, it was him who replaced it! yeah thats right.. so much for those "thread color variations".

secondly, the reason doug intentionally failed to state the full truth behind the replacement is because all replacements are not created equal. (i say intentionally because who would be so stupid as to forget that they personally requested and paid for their $60k jersey to be altered?).

the problem behind merely saying it was "replaced" gives absolutely no indication as to the nature of the replacement. there are different kinds of alterations and the specific kind has a profound impact on the desireability and value of a piece. was it a team alteration? if the logo, for example, had been replaced by the cubs then there would minimal-to-no hit on the value of the piece. a team alteration is seen by all collectors as a legitimate alteration. was it a minor league replacement? again, that opens up a whole other can of worms with regards to usage and value. was it an after-market replacement? of course, doug knew exactly what it was all along but simply chose not to disclose it until this and dave bushing's post were made.

by reading the initial writeup, you'd almost think it was likely to be a team replacement. after all, if a 1911 jersey was restored recently, it seems a lot less likely that it'd be restored with actual pieces "from the period" than with reproductions. it being his own jersey, doug helps this train of thought along by stating that the logo "..was replaced after initial season usage". yeah... 93 years after! sort of an important point. the way it reads, you'd think it was done shortly after the initial season, in which case it would've likely been done by the cubs. obviously doug knew the truth but having people believe it occurred shortly after 1911 made the jersey a lot more attractive.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

i started wondering why the original bear would be missing from the chance jersey. seems kind of odd for part of a logo to be missing. so i went back and re-read the original auction description when the jersey was sold in 2004. it seems it was removed because the jersey was used in the minor leagues. in the current legendary description, there isn't a single word about minor-league re-use.

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/2856/steiner1.jpg

seems like minor-league re-use is a pretty important issue that one ought to bring up about a $60k jersey. so then the next obvious question for any potential bidder is how much of the use came from chance and how much came from some scrub minor leaguer.

rudy.

[Giants00]

This is a very interesting thread. I think the real issue here is the issue of "vintage restoration"; ie taking bits off one jersey and then using them on another. This practice seems to be on the rise, and i have seen some bizarre behaviors around this. While i fully respect people's desire to have a perfect jersey, to me restored jerseys are always worth less. First, you have cases like this where there may have been no evidence of that logo being there. Now we have imposed one and what does it mean. There are different people out there who want different things, and clearly there are collectors who want this.
I have jerseys which i could easily do the same thing, but i think it takes away from the authenticity of the jersey. It takes some of the science out of things (do we really know there was a patch there, or was logo applied in what spot). Imagine if we find a photo match of this jersey and it never had a cubs logo, what then, take it off?
Again, for me i wish that people would leave well enough alone. Part of the charm of jerseys is the imagination of what they might have been.
I have of course bought some restored jerseys. I have known what they are and i have always paid less.
I am usually silent here, but being in the swirl of this I wanted to post something which is hopefully constructive.
dan

[kingjammy24]

restorations are a personal preference as to whether or not they're acceptable. for many they aren't acceptable, while others are ok with them.

aside from restorations, i think the fact that the chance jersey was sent down to the minors and this was not revealed by doug allen (even though he knew it) is huge. many collectors would likely find the minor league re-use even more off-putting than had it simply been restored. at least if its just a restoration then the jersey stayed at the major league level. everytime i see a well-worn shirt that's been recycled through the minors i wonder how much of the game-use evident on the shirt came from the original major league player and how much of it came from minor leaguers beating on it for years. it then begs the question that if doug knew the shirt was sent through the minors and did not reveal it, how many other big name, big dollar shirts has he sold and not disclosed such information?

i think the other very unfortunate aspect in all of this is that the pfeister shirt was destroyed simply to artificially inflate the value of the chance. if the pfeister was all-original then it was a cubs shirt that had managed to stay intact for 93 years which i think is incredible. until it met the hands of doug allen. in one fell swoop it was destroyed. how many all-original 1911 cubs shirts exist? doug allen intentionally reduced that number by 1. before he had 1 incomplete jersey and 1 all-original. now all he has is 1 incomplete and 1 restored. doesn't seem worthwhile to me.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

i know i'm likely boring everyone to death but the more i think about this jersey the more interesting it becomes. i think the "semi-pro" use is a significant hit on the value. i began wondering why doug chose to reveal this fact in 2004 but not in 2009. after all, in 2004, the more the jersey sold for the more money mastro would make so if he's ok with hiding that fact (as witnessed by his current auction), why didn't he do it in 2004? why not try to sell the jersey for as much as possible in '04 even if it means hiding a fact or two? was it because he knew he was going to buy the jersey? the more he sold it for the more he would've had to pay for it and the less profit he'd make when he flipped it.

the problem of course is the blistering conflict of interest. the president of the auction house is selling an item, for a consigner, that he personally intends to buy and later flip for a personal profit. the consigner wants it to sell for as much as possible but the president of the auction house needs it to sell for as little as possible so he can buy it himself. wow.

theres a difference between mastro making a profit as a corporation, from which doug would get a small slice, and doug allen making a profit as a private individual from which he would reap the entire pie. when the original consigner gave the piece to mastro, mastro was only going to make a small percentage off the hammer price. when doug sells the piece now, he is the consigner AND the auction house and so he'll reap everything. in 2004, doug felt it appropo to mention that the jersey had a "semi-pro afterlife". when he went to sell his shirt this time around, that fact was nowhere to be seen.

in dec 2004, doug bought the chance uniform for $40k. only 2.5 yrs later, he boasted that he had been offered $100k for it: http://books.google.com/books?id=6cYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA63&dq=mastro+doug+allen#v=onepage&q=mastro%20doug%20allen&f=false

it hadn't been photomatched since 2004 nor had any additional provenance been discovered yet it had risen $60k in value (well over 100%) in only 2.5 yrs? of course, whether or not doug really had been offered $100k for it is anyone's guess. i suppose its theoretically possible that saying someone had offered $100k for it was done to create a sense of value way above and beyond what it had actually sold for only a couple of short years earlier. after all, if the uniform really was worth $100k in 2008, then it seems to me that mastro should've done far better than $40k in dec 2004. perhaps it only sold for that amount because at that time they chose to mention the semi-pro usage whereas now such usage isn't being mentioned at all? that might account for some inflated value.

rudy.

[nickacs]

I, for one, do not find this boring or beating a dead horse :) While I don't have any interest in this piece, I always admire the people on here that take their free time and find information that reveals more about an auction item.
Most times people don't know and some unsuspecting person is going to bid on items like this and not realize the history or just how "bad"/non game-used an item really is. Auction houses <> 100% legit game-worn items, no matter what LOA's/lot description they have!

I remember the pages and pages of info on the Jordan "first jersey" back in the Sept GFC auction that was most informative and seeing all the board members take their free time to help others.

Thanks! :)

[corsairs22]

I, too, enjoy the thoughtful analysis of the situation. While I think it's a very cool item and wouldn't mind owning it in its present condition, I also think that this sheds important light on the way the auction houses do business.

[kingjammy24]

I also think that this sheds important light on the way the auction houses do business.

i think its interesting that the president of an auction house may actually have a deep, vested interest in seeing a consigned piece sell for as little as possible simply so he can personally snatch it up, sell it for more and pocket the entire difference himself. while the auction house as a whole and the original consigner lose money from the reduced premiums, the actual loss that the president personally takes is minimal because the loss is distributed amongst many different people. on the other hand, while the auction house and consigner take a loss, the president personally profits because he then subsequently flips the item in his own private sale. if the item had originally sold for a high amount by the house, then any premiums would've been split amongst many hungry mouths (especially if that house is owned by a much larger corporation with a very hungry mouth of its own). why not cut all of those mouths out of the picture and use the auction house to attract and authenticate consignments while you personally cherrypick the lots you want to flip privately and keep the entire proceeds yourself? you're basically using the resources of the auction house to drive your own personal side flipping business. here's a little math: lets say you're an auction house president and a jersey is consigned to your auction. the jersey should sell for $40k. you do all you can to make it sell for $30k so you can personally buy it. assuming 20%/20% buyers/sellers fees, the auction house makes $12k. (had the jersey sold for $40k, they would've made $16k. only $4k difference between the two prices) anyway, at $30k hammer price the $12k in fees is split amongst a ton of people. employees, overhead, investors, etc. maybe you'll see 1/10th of it. peanuts. but now you own the jersey at $30k. you turn around and sell it for what it should sell for - $40k. you've just pocketed $10k. the best the auction house could've realized between selling it for $40k instead of $30k is $4k. you exploited the same difference in price and reaped $10k personally. you personally pocketed much more than you would have had you let the auction house sell it for $40k and use the proceeds to feed everyone else.

i've heard a certain authenticator operated in a similar fashion; downgrades pieces so he can intentionally buy them at a reduced price and then magically upgrades them and pockets the difference in price. for those who doubt that anyone has the power to substantially alter the hammer price of items, you can look no further than GUU. some guy recently posted and lamented that the same helmet he sold on ebay for $181 just sold on GUU's auctions for $1141. the main reason given? robert. hypothetically speaking, what if robert had intentionally downgraded the helmet when it was on GUU, had it sell for $200, picked it up himself, turned around and sold it for $1141 privately? $941 personal profit. much more than he would've seen had GUU sold the helmet for $1141. banning house bids is not only good for bidders but its also good for the house itself to prevent staff from deliberately trying to make pieces sell for less.

when doug didn't own the chance jersey, it had a semi-pro afterlife. now that he owns it and all of the profit would is his, no such afterlife is mentioned.

if anyone had consigned a piece to mastro, had it sell for $40k, and then saw the head of mastro boasting only a little over 2 yrs later how it was worth $100k, i think they'd be pretty pissed. of course, for his own sake i can't imagine that doug wanted to pay anywhere near $100k. it was worth $40k when the original consigner owned it in 2004 but in aug 2008, well into the worst recession since the 30s, doug owns it and its worth $100k?

i'm also very surprised at how some of these houses were set up and that collectors seemingly went along with it all. house reserves the right to bid in its own auction, house will employ hidden reserves thus having bidders bid against themselves, (have you checked the reserve on the chance shirt this time around? holy smokes, $45k and reserve still not met. what was the reserve back in 2004? $7500?), house reserves the right to view everyones max/ceiling bids, house will not reveal that it owns a lot, house will not reveal who authenticated a piece, etc. and collectors went along with it all and paid a premium to do so. its a system entirely designed to be gamed by the house itself. its nice that mastro finally went down but unfortunately the main players are still carrying on.

rudy.

[xpress34]

Rudy -

This article shadows the issue you are discussing:

http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=5947&universeid=314

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stretching the Truth



Joe Orlando - November 17, 2009
This topic has been covered before but, since it has been on my mind as of late, I thought I would cover it again. When it comes to memorabilia, we are all familiar with the issue of outright forgeries and counterfeits. Part of the reason companies like PSA exist is because of this problem in the marketplace. Third party authentication services may not be the police and may not be perfect but they certainly help make the industry a safer place to buy.


In addition to the issue of forgeries that plague all collectibles markets, there is another problem that is rarely discussed but equally as sinister. It is the seller’s intent to stretch the truth when it comes to a piece that is actually authentic to begin with. I know you are probably wondering why anyone would do that. It is very simple. There can be a huge difference in value between one type of authentic item and another based on the story behind it. Greed has been, and always will be; the downfall of many in this world and our hobby is certainly not immune to it.


You could argue that this act is equally as disturbing as the act of forging something because you are tainting a collectible that was already authentic in the first place. Here’s an example, let’s say you have an authentic game-used glove. It can be of any player you choose. Let’s assume the glove is 100% authentic for the purposes of this hypothetical. The glove changes hands and is now in the possession of another hobby figure.


The new owner tries to sell the glove, not only as an authentic game-used glove, but one that was used to catch the final out in a historic game, perhaps a World Series clincher or perfect game. If that is in fact true, it is a wonderful piece but what I am finding is that more and more stories are being told about the items without the evidence to support the claim. In some cases, the sellers are stretching the truth about a piece that was fine as is but they do it so you will stretch your wallet.
Here’s another example. There is a ball signed by Babe Ruth and it is inscribed “To Joe” on the side panel. It is sold, originally, for $7,500 as a personalized Babe Ruth ball. The next seller puts it up for auction and claims the “To Joe” actually refers to Joe DiMaggio. He concocts an elaborate story and the same ball sells for $50,000 to a buyer who bought not only the ball but, more importantly, the story. There is no question that buyers need to do their homework and due diligence before spending their money but, if the truth has been stretched, it is still wrong nonetheless.



Keep in mind that there are great items that are wonderful on their own merit AND they come with great provenance or significance. They do exist but, since they are rare, the greed factor is pushing some sellers into misrepresentation. They want to make a great item even better and more appealing than it already is. Sometimes, when things get tough, people get desperate. Is the tough economy possibly playing a role? It certainly isn’t helping matters but I am sure there may be a lot of factors at work.


As a lifelong hobbyist, it is frustrating to see this occur. It not only helps devalue the truly great items in the marketplace but it also may scare off new people from collecting altogether. The reality is that there are plenty of incredible and completely authentic items to buy if you are interested in starting a collection. Sure, some items are incredibly scarce but that is no excuse for sellers to stretch the truth and ruin a good thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Chris

[genius]

This is an interesting topic. I've often wondered whether some collectors intentionally "talk down" an item that they are interested in, in an effort to keep the prices down and competing bidders away.

[Giants00]

Rudy and others,
I am going to agree and diagree with some of the points. First, I think sometimes we all get a bit heated (but hey what is a message board for). Doug is entitled to make money, and he is entitled to sell his own stuff at auction as long as it is disclosed. Even though i have not sold any of my stuff yet, i would hate to have someone tell me what i can or cant make from the sale based on how long i have owned something. I also believe that there are few truly bad people running around. I think we all have to be clear that people can and should make money and that we dont begrudge that.
On the other side, I am very pro-disclosure and i (and i think Rudy shares this) am not a huge fan of messing with real proven vintage jerseys to "improve" others. I think that continuing to shine a light on the imperfect disclosure here will help us dramatically improve standards for the next go around.
dan

[kingjammy24]

dan

doug is entitled to make money. i didn't mean to imply that i was somehow stipulating what anyone can or can't make at auction. obviously that would be absurd. i was simply pointing out my confusion at how a jersey goes up over 100% in value in a little over 2 yrs. i guess anythings possible. i do begrudge someone making money when i think they've done it unethically. i think knowing your jersey has seen "semi-pro" use and not disclosing that fact is unethical.

secondly, ethnical behavior would seem to dictate that if doug wants to sell his own items in his own auction then he at least ought to disclose that. i can't find anywhere on the legendary website where the disclosure on this lot has been made. i've looked everywhere and cannot see any disclosures. i was told that the disclosures have been made in the print catalog. not sure why they wouldn't also be made online.

i did run into this though:

"We are not dealers.
Legendary Auctions is a consignment auction house. Many auctions are run by dealers offering material they own. And in addition to offering an infinitely inferior service, these auctions expose consignors to numerous unreconcilable conflicts of interest"

doug criticizes auction houses that offer material they own because of the "..numerous unreconcilable conflicts of interest". tee hee.

rudy.

[Giants00]

I think we have exhausted the issue, but last ping. I dont believe that Doug is a bad guy or trying to do bad things. The description, well that could have been better. I think that we have to make sure that we get to full and open disclosure. What i worry about is that we end up coming down pretty hard on people here, and that after awhile we are going to drive the good out with the bad.
I do not begrudge anyone a price on anything. I have seen jerseys go 10X in 2 years. I think Doug deserves to get a great price. I also am a believer in disclosure. I think he would get a higher price with that disclosure.
I am a buyer of old flannels only and i know most of these people. We need to continue to move this thing in the right direction. If we do, it will only help all of us when we come to sell.
dan

[sammy]

It is not the first time Doug has been caught and exposed for his unethical behavior over the years.

I see nothing in his current behavior to think this unethical behavior has changed, or will change.

Hopefully he will keep getting caught and exposed when his moral compass falters.

Keep up the good fight Rudy.

[TNTtoys]

I also am a believer in disclosure. I think he would get a higher price with that disclosure.

No, I am sorry, I strongly disagree with this statement. The disclosure will greatly diminish the value of the item. I think there is speculation that the disclosure was intentionally left out for this purpose.

[TNTtoys]

This is an interesting topic. I've often wondered whether some collectors intentionally "talk down" an item that they are interested in, in an effort to keep the prices down and competing bidders away.

Though I have never "talked down" an item I am interested in to keep competing bidders away, I have certainly contacted the sellers and asked them to revise their descriptions when they are blatently misleading or overly embellish an item to the point that it is what it is not. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

[kingjammy24]

"I dont believe that Doug is a bad guy or trying to do bad things."

he just happened to run an auction house that closed down amidst an FBI investigation that, as the NY Daily News put it, "..focused on shill bidding, card doctoring and other allegations of fraud". i guess it depends on your definition of "bad".

"I think he would get a higher price with that disclosure."

this confuses me on 2 ends. 1 - you believe that people would pay more if they thought a jersey had been re-used through the minors than if it hadn't? this certainly goes against everything i've ever known. 2 - if you're correct and it would've gotten a higher price with that disclosure, then why didn't doug put it in? did he not want to make more money? or did he just forget? the former is nonsense so i assume you believe he just forgot. he auctioned off, as he put it, "the most significant piece in his collection" and you don't think he labored and sweated over that description? does that make any sense? if you auctioned off your holy grail, a jersey that you boasted was worth $100k, into your own auction, do you really think you would've just forgotten to mention something that would've made you more money? absurd. clearly you think doug is far dumber than i do. i believe doug didn't include it for a reason and it certainly wasn't because he forgot or wanted to make less money.

rudy.

[Giants00]

One last. There is a ton of academic work that open markets are way more efficient and lead in the end to higher prices. The immaturity in our market is that people have not come to standards on what constitutes openness. If we had clearer standards and we had real evaluators, indeed full disclosure leads to higher prices. The art market is way past this and there have been some very controversial art pieces that have sold with the controversy for higher prices. An open and standards based market in the long benefits all.
On Doug, I think that it is really unfair to essentially accuse him of what you are without any access to his side of the story. I am not sure what good it does to label him. I am not sure how it helps anyone. If you dont want to buy from legendary, skip it.
In general, i think our goal should be things which drive transparency! I think we should avoid attacking, and I love the dialog.

[Giants00]

And further to add, i believe that we have a great person to evaluate jerseys in Dave Grob. We need to have a few of these folks! The more we have the better!