PDA

View Full Version : Mastro Winslow Helmet- Am I Nuts?



Eric
04-09-2007, 03:45 PM
Hey everyone

I am looking into a Kellen Winslow game used helmet being offered on Mastro

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=70593&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1

Please note the facemask photo below which is in the listing. Also note the marks on the helmet. THIS IS FROM MASTRO'S CURRENT CATALOG
4688

I asked for more photos of the winslow helmet to see what the numbers on the back looked like, because that can tell you what the facemask is supposed to look like. Look at the photos of the helmet Mastro sent me. Note the same marks on the helmet but a different facemask!!! THIS IS WHAT THE HELMET LOOKS LIKE SINCE THEY SHOT THE CATALOG

I asked them what the story was and they said it's the same facemask. Am I crazy?
4687

Here's the thing. I know this helmet. I had the opportunity to buy it last year. When I inspected it, it looked like the helmet on the mastro site- 2 bars to the facemask.

I had a problem with it because the numbers on the back of the helmet dated it from the late 80s when winslow wore the three bar helmet. I couldn't find pics of winslow with the late 80s numbers and the early-mid 80s facemask.

I returned it to the person who sold it to me. Now it seems to have changed before my very eyes!

And before anyone makes a comment on there being a Lampson COA, don't jump the gun. There isn't one in Mastro's possession yet.

Lot Description


Offered here is a San Diego Chargers game used helmet worn by Hall of Famer Kellen Winslow during the 1980s. This blue Riddell helmet displays the Chargers' bolts insignia on opposing sides, and the raised strip running down the center of the helmet is flanked at the back by two yellow-and-blue vintage stickers denoting Winslow's number "80." A blue "CHARGERS" sticker has been adhered to the front side of the snubber, and also accompanying the item is the two-bar facemask and Riddell chin strap. The interior possesses its original foam padding and ear pads, and a sticker within the piece displays the helmet's size "7-1/8-7-3/4." Moderate game use is evident, as scuffing and light paint chips are visible throughout. After a brilliant, 9-year career with the Chargers, Kellen Winslow was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1995. LOA from Lou Lampson.

Am I Nuts?
Eric

otismalibu
04-09-2007, 03:53 PM
Maybe it's like American Idol and people can phone in and vote for the facemask they prefer.

I vote for a Theismann single.

Eric
04-09-2007, 03:54 PM
I honestly don't get it. I originally returned the helmet with 2 bars because it should have 3 bars and now it has 3 bars.

otismalibu
04-09-2007, 04:08 PM
I honestly don't get it. I originally returned the helmet with 2 bars because it should have 3 bars and now it has 3 bars.

Did you mention the reason you returned it? In the world of game worn memorabilia, if someone returns a 2 bar helmet because it should have 3 bars (and states that ), it wouldn't be terribly shocking to see it appear looking a little different in the future.

I think it could simply be authenticated as a "beautiful Getty adjusted helmet".

Sometimes it may take a few tries before an item is 100% Authentic.

Eric
04-09-2007, 04:11 PM
To be clear
(i just got an email about this)

Here's the order of what happened

Mastro put up photos of this helmet with 2 bar facemask.

I asked for more pics today. When they sent it, it now has 3 bar facemask.

It changed while in their possession.

The "higher ups" are apparently looking into it

Eric

ChrisCavalier
04-09-2007, 04:37 PM
And before anyone makes a comment on there being a Lampson COA, don't jump the gun. There isn't one in Mastro's possession yet.
Hey Eric,

Just so I'm clear, are you saying that Mastros doesn't have the Lampson LOA? I may be misunderstanding this because I noticed the Mastros description states "LOA from Lou Lampson".

Thanks in advance for the reply.

Sincerely,
Chris

Eric
04-09-2007, 04:41 PM
I was told the Lampson LOA is not in yet. Sounds like it exists.

Mastro says the LOA states what's in the write up. If that's true, then that would mean the letter is about a 2 bar facemask, and not a 3 bar facemask.

I don't know what any of this is about, but I am really really steamed.

Eric

Eric
04-09-2007, 04:54 PM
Here are two other photos from the reverse side- both photos are from mastro.

I'd like opinions on the position of the screw on the side
Thanks
Eric
4692

4693

Eric
04-10-2007, 10:48 AM
The Kellen Winslow helmet has 4 bids and is up to $440

I have not heard what the higher ups have to say about it, and I have asked for in focus shots of the sides and front of the helmet.

Eric
04-10-2007, 03:33 PM
Here's a non-update update. After following up I have been told 1) to be patient (which is very hard to do with something as troubling as this) and 2) Mastro has contacted their helmet expert and they have yet to hear back.

No word yet on the photos I asked for.

Meanwhile it's up to 8 bids and $587.

Eric

kingjammy24
04-10-2007, 04:11 PM
why a "helmet expert"? you're not so much disputing the legitimacy of the facemask as much as simply saying it literally changed overnight.
all they need is someone with a) the gift the eyesight b) the cognitive ability to tell the difference between 2 bars and 3 bars. they need a "helmet expert" to tell them that one picture has 2 bars and the other picture has 3 bars? what are they..unionized?

rudy.

Eric
04-10-2007, 04:14 PM
Here's the official word from Mastro

1) The helmet is from the Duke Hott collection. It came in over a year ago.

(Note- this is what was told to me when I was offered the helmet last year and rejected it because the facemask was wrong)

2) The helmet was photographed prior to authentication taking place

(Note- yesterday i was told that the information in the item description describing a two bar mask was the same info on the authentication letter)

3) Lou Lampson looked at the helmet and said the shell was correct for Kellen Winslow but the mask was incorrect.

(Note- this isn't exactly the case. For the record, when I was offered the helmet the emails, which I still have, say Lou looked at it and it's a good helmet. The only reason he determined that the mask was incorrect is because that was my reason for rejecting the helmet.)

Specifically Lampson said "a very good Winslow representation.It’s a 1985-86 era. All original with triple color number 80 identifiers on the back of the helmet. Nice wear throughout, gold facemask."

4) According to Mastro, since it was determined the facemask was wrong, Mr. Lampson "found the correct mask to replace it with"

(Note- I didn't know you could do that)
Eric

otismalibu
04-10-2007, 04:20 PM
That's beyond pathetic.

Someone needs a Pacman-type suspension.

I wonder how often Lou has to "find the correct tag to replace it with".

kingjammy24
04-10-2007, 04:28 PM
"4) According to Mastro, since it was determined the facemask was wrong, Mr. Lampson "found the correct mask to replace it with"

:eek:

had you not engaged them, would anyone know the facemask was a replacement? apparently mastro didn't even know at first. the description makes no mention of a restored facemask.

if lou authenticates a jersey and finds the tagging is wrong, does he replace it with the correct tagging?

frightening lou, frightening.

rudy.

RobSteinmetz
04-10-2007, 04:40 PM
Eric,

Does Mastro see anything wrong with Lou's decision to swap out the face mask? How do they plan to proceed?

kingjammy24
04-10-2007, 04:52 PM
as it currently stands, all pics show a 2-bar mask. the loa/description mentions a 2-bar mask. (apparently lou realized the mask was wrong and replaced it after he "authenticated" it?) there's no mention whatsoever of a 3-bar mask anywhere. it's likely that the bidders are basing their decisions on the pics and the description; ie: a 2-bar mask. boy is the winner going to be surprised when they get that helmet in the mail and see a 3-bar mask.

rudy.

staindsox
04-10-2007, 04:58 PM
This is a serious fraud. I am not a lawyer, so if someone is, please chime in, but begally speaking, I don't think anyone could even do anything about it unless they were the one to have purchased it. Any volunteers?

Eric
04-10-2007, 05:09 PM
New photos are up showing a 3 bar facemask.

I wrote them back and asked if Mr. Lampson switched the facemask out with the permission of the consignor? Or perhaps is her the consignor?

I also asked if it was switched with a game used facemask of Winslow's?

Mastro also said that there will be "a modification note" on the website.

I just got an email saying Doug Allen has left me a voicemail, so I'll see what that's about.

This doesn't explain why the authenticator would switch out a facemask on something because it was the wrong facemask and why the auction house had photographed the wrong one.
Eric

sammy
04-10-2007, 05:14 PM
Why the surprise here?

Mastro's has gone South every since Bill sold the company.

They started using Lampson to save money and sell very questionable items, and jacked their rape to 20 percent.

I don't even bother looking at their junk anymore.

I'll stay with Robert Edwards Auctions, as they are one of the very few left in this business that haven't sold their soul and reputation for the mighty greenback.

Eric
04-10-2007, 05:17 PM
Justin listened to the voicemail.

Doug Allen says they got the Winslow from the Duke Hott collection. They determined the facemask was incorrect and he and Mastro, based on the fact that the facemask was incorrect for what Winslow wore during this time period, asked Lampson to go find a vintage-style facemask similar to what Winslow would have worn.

Allen said that request was not documented properly and the wrong photos and description were put on the site.

He says the proper one will be put on, noting that it's a vintage-style facemask and not the game used original.

He admits there were miscommunications and was quite apologetic.

Eric

Eric
04-10-2007, 05:20 PM
None of this by the way explains why everyone was fine with the helmet and facemask when it was offered to me a year ago for $5500!!!!, and it wasn't until I determined there was a problem, that there was a problem.

Now of course everyone is saying they determined the facemask was bad. I did the research on it when everyone was talking about the great provenance and authenticator and saw that something wasn't right...

Eric

Eric
04-10-2007, 05:57 PM
I have been told by Doug Allen that Lou doesn't now, nor has he ever had a financial interest in the winslow helmet.

kingjammy24
04-10-2007, 06:42 PM
- initially, mastro didn't know that the facemask was changed. they even said the 2-bar and 3-bar mask were the same. the change hadn't even occurred to them. once made aware, they had to "investigate" what happened. this seems to indicate that they weren't the ones who initiated or requested the change nor were they even aware that it had occurred.

- it was then either the consigner or lou who took the initiative and neither of them told mastro.

- mastro said it was lou who changed the facemask.

- the facemask change occurred after the helmet arrived in mastro's possession, after mastro took the pics and after lou wrote the loa.

- they said lou has no financial interest in the helmet.

it would be insane to think lou could've changed the facemask without letting the consigner know beforehand. (it's apparent he didn't let mastro know until after he did it).

all of this begs the question of why? if lou realized, after the fact, that the facemask was incorrect why would he even care to change it? he's already authenticated it, he's been paid for the authentication and yet wants to change the facemask for some reason? why? there's a complete lack of motive. who paid for/obtained the new facemask?

it's one of the most bizarre things i've heard in this hobby. sorry but i don't believe lou was sitting around, having completed his work and been paid, and suddenly, without telling the auction house, decided to see if he could dig up and apply a 3-bar facemask to a helmet that didn't belong to him and that was already in mid-auction.
the only story that seems plausible to me is that the consigner realized the issue after they had submitted it and asked lou to see if he could change the facemask. given that the pics and description were already online for a 2-bar mask i don't really see the point.

very, very strange. lou has no motive for changing the mask yet was purportedly the one to do it. mastro had no clue he did it. so you've gone a rogue authenticator changing items without informing the auction house and the best scenario is a consigner with a weak motive? maybe the consigner is a mastro employee? after all, if lou's not the consigner, can't change it without the consigner's consent, and the helmet was in mastro's possession the whole time....

something tells me i'd never make it on Law & Order.

rudy.

Eric
04-10-2007, 06:47 PM
- initially, mastro didn't know that the facemask was changed. they even said the 2-bar and 3-bar mask were the same. the change hadn't even occurred to them. once made aware, they had to "investigate" what happened. this seems to indicate that they weren't the ones who initiated or requested the change nor were they even aware that it had occurred.

- it was then either the consigner or lou who took the initiative and neither of them told mastro.

rudy.

I think Doug Allen knew, but the people I was talking to didn't know. That's why they were as suprised as I was that it didn't match what was described...

If I had to guess, I'd say Doug Allen is the consignor and asked Lou to switch out the facemask. I don't know why it didn't occur to him that it then wouldn't match what''s in the auction catalog.

Also, I don't understand how they could list it as the 2 bar helmet and leave it there getting bids saying it's geniune, and then switch the facemask.

An uninformed person pointed the finger at lampson. He works for the auction house. Apparently if the auction house asks him to replace the facemask, he does it. Allen said he asked Lampson to make the change.

The new facemask will be mentioned on the Mostro listing tomorrow.

Also, here's why I think Allen is the consignor.

I was originally offered this helmet by an auction house who traded Mastro a HOF game used jersey for it. They offered it to me as being a gem from the Duke Hott collection signed off by Lou. Two of the biggest names in the hobby. They wanted $5500 for it. I looked at the helmet and didn't like the facemask on that era helmet, so I bounced it back to the auction house, who eventually could not match the helmet style and facemask (1985-87) in a photo, so they bounced it back to Mastro for credit. Apparently, Mastro has had the helmet for a year. If Mastro was making trades, doesn't it seem plausible that it's their piece? I don't know, maybe I'm making one too many assumptions.

What I don't get is, once it got bounced from the auction house back to Mastro, how could Lou write a letter on it if he knew the 2 bar facemask was bad?

I'll just email him. Oh wait....

CollectGU
04-10-2007, 06:54 PM
Please clarify Eric. It was Mastro who asked Lou to find them a new facemask?

Thanks,
Dave

Eric
04-10-2007, 07:03 PM
Please clarify Eric. It was Mastro who asked Lou to find them a new facemask?

Thanks,
Dave

Yes, look at the last post on page 2 of this thread where I describe Doug Allen's voicemail. He explains that he asked Lou to replace the facemask since they all determined it was bad (despite the fact that the auction listing says it's good and comes with a lou lampson loa)

kingjammy24
04-10-2007, 07:07 PM
"If I had to guess, I'd say Doug Allen is the consignor and asked Lou to switch out the facemask."

eric, here's what mastro says:

"Mastro 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."

if mastro feels that running items owned by the auction house owners is an "unreconcilable conflict of interest" then it's difficult to think they'd engage in such activities. given his education and vocation as a cpa, i'd wager doug's taken a class or two in ethics and as such knows that these sorts of activities are a no-no.

the thing is, lou's very hard to get a hold of. his contact info isn't given to the average outside consigner. if the consigner wasn't related to mastro, then you'd think it'd be difficult for them to contact lou to tell him to change the facemask. if they did want to contact lou, then they'd likely have to do it by passing a message to him via mastro in which case mastro would be aware of the request. they were not. however, mastro apparently doesn't believe in allowing employees to consign items. lou, of course, wouldn't alter someone's item without being asked. so when you put all 3 together, it's all very bizarre. if mastro is truly a "pure consignment house", then the consigner would be an outsider. as an outsider, how did he contact lou without going through mastro? strange stuff.

rudy.

Eric
04-10-2007, 07:14 PM
Again, the people I was talking to at Mastro didn't know that Doug Allen had asked Lou to switch out the facemask.

Doug said it wasn't properly noted, which was a miscommunication and caused the wrong photos and description to be listed on the site.

yankees159
04-10-2007, 08:30 PM
Mr. Allen Can you please let me know why this happened? I've spent thousands of dollars with your company and would like to find out why something like this could happen? This is alarming and makes me wonder why I should continue to participate in your auctions.

Thank you.

kingjammy24
04-10-2007, 11:49 PM
i'm genuinely interested in whether or not the helmet belongs to a mastro employee. their own policy seems to prohibit consignments from their employees. of course, in the same breath they also state "all qualified bidders in good standing are eligible to bid on any lot in the auction, including employees and executives of Mastro Auctions, Inc.". to me, allowing doug allen and brian marren to compete against private collectors on mastro auctions seems to be a huge "unreconcilable conflict of interest".

ever wonder why the fine print in almost every contest states "employees of XX company and/or their relatives are prohibited from entering..". it's because you can't have the people running the contest also competing to win the prizes. it's a bewildering decision to let the people who have access to the bid records and auction software compete with people who don't. why do you think lottery employees are prohibited from playing the lottery? practically every lottery has fine print that reads "All employees and members of their immediate family, regardless of where they live, are prohibited-by-law from playing..". it's same thing in an auction.
you're supposed to running an impartial auction and yet you let your own employees (the same ones who administer the auction software, who can see everyone elses bids and their maximums, and who record all of the bids and results) compete against people who don't have access to that info. how completely fair! it's like watching a hurdle race between a 2-legged runner and 1-legged runner. plus, once you allow your employees to bid, then that opens the whole "shill bidding" can of worms.

anyway, eric, you stated that allen said the current photos and current loa/description were mistakenly used. if it was a mistake are they saying that they've got another lampson loa with a 3-bar description that was written prior to the auction starting?

i wonder how they're going to deal with the current bidders. retracting bids is not allowed on their auctions. should be interesting.

"What I don't get is, once it got bounced from the auction house back to Mastro, how could Lou write a letter on it if he knew the 2 bar facemask was bad?"

lou wrote the original letter on it when it was offered to you. you mentioned the facemask issue. it now has another, more recent lampson letter on it that fails to mention the facemask issue. either lampson forgot or he didn't care. consider the fact that this is the same man who, knowing that the 94 elway throwback was only used in 1 game, proceeded to write multiple loas on multiple versions of it. 2 of them within several weeks time of each other! how often do you see a 94 elway throwback? you'd think you'd remember if it was only weeks apart. sort of shatters the "he forgot" explanation and lends more weight to the "he didn't care" one.

rudy.

reed1216
04-11-2007, 04:18 AM
Just for the record, I sold Mastronet an uncut 1948 Leaf Boxing set last year, which was sold in one of their more recent auctions (the most recent one if I'm not mistaken). I would be happy to provide the exact listing number, but I haven't figured out how to access their archives, if they have one.

I was strongly encouraged to consign the item, but I needed the funds to do some home repairs, prior to selling my last home and didn't want to wait until the slow season to put my home on the market after the auction concluded. That would have to be an obvious instance where the auction house sold one of their own pieces because it was theirs when I received payment from them.

With that said, they were more than professional with me during the transaction. They covered all the shipping fees for me to send it to them. Moreover, they paid a very fair price for it. If my memory serves me, I rec'd about $7,500 for it and it sold for just over $10K in their auction. They also were careful to inspect the piece, prior to purchasing it. It was framed and they informed me that they would have to remove it from the frame to inspect the condition of the sheet. If I'm not mistaken, it was listed and sold unframed, but all of that was done well before it was ever listed in their catalog or online.

To be honest, I wasn't at all aware that their was a problem with an auction house selling its own memorabilia. While that was the first time I sold an item that was later auctioned to Mastro, I have sold several things to Grey Flannel, which were subsequently auctioned off. I have consigned items to them as well, but initially I sold them. I got a lot wiser after watching a 1977 game worn Reggie Jackson helmet, with a LOA from Michael Grosbardt (team photographer) go for around $13K, after selling it to them for a small fraction of that.

staindsox
04-11-2007, 06:41 AM
I had a terrible experience with Mastro. I sold a Thompson Honus Wagner print through them. They did a terrible job listing the item and ended up allowing bids to be retracted. I could have eBayed the item for more money. Their incompetence cost me a lot of money. I was furious, but what can I do? I will never deal with them again. After my experience, I thought they came off as dishonest and bumbling.

Chris

jonincleve
04-11-2007, 07:06 AM
does this mean the auction house can give lou lampson a game issued bat and he can go out in the field and do some hitting? or take a game issued jersey and do a head first slide into some dirt? the possibilities are endless. what is the difference from changing the appearance of a helmet vs a bat or jersey? where is the line drawn?

reed1216
04-11-2007, 07:21 AM
I can't wait to one day see a Lampson LOA that states, "The jersey displays solid authenticator wear from multiple inspections. Final grade GU- 9.5"

Eric
04-11-2007, 09:54 AM
Couple of exchanges with Doug Allen this morning. He has been very quick to get back to me, so i thank him for that.

In the first email he described that his firm (Mastro) acquired the winslow helmet as part of the Duke Hott collection.

When it became apparent that the facemask was incorrect, Doug requested the replacement be found. He said this was a lengthy search, as it took almost 2 years.

He said the switch was entered into their system with "notes to 're-shoot' the photo and 'document the replacement mask.'" and those requests were not followed through. They are making attempts to fix those things now.

I responded with this question:

Doug

You said your firm (Mastro) acquired the helmet as part of the Duke Hott collection. So that means you have a financial stake in this helmet, correct?

Thanks
Eric

His response was that he has been "transparent as to what has transpired as it relates to the helmet" and that I have all of the information. I should use that information to decide whether or not to bid.

That's the update.
Eric

kingjammy24
04-11-2007, 02:26 PM
"To be honest, I wasn't at all aware that their was a problem with an auction house selling its own memorabilia."

for the same reason an authenticator isn't supposed to authenticate items they own, an auction house shouldn't offer items they own. (people point to john taube but i don't believe taube actually grades the bats he sells. at least that's what he told me when i asked him to grade a bat i bought from him). judging by their behavior you'd think the auction houses weren't aware it's a problem either. my guess is they know it is and simply don't care. ethics don't come cheap. must be a sweet deal to be a seller who can dump his items into his own auction house and also conveniently employ the authenticator looking at your item. surprising that lou positively authenticated his bosses' item. couldn't see that one coming. i wonder if the president of mastro has the ability to see the the bid maximums on his item?

"what is the difference from changing the appearance of a helmet vs a bat or jersey? where is the line drawn?"

maybe the line isn't drawn at all. after all, mastro publically states they "aren't dealers" and feel that dealers "putting items they own into their own auctions is a unreconcilable conflict of interest" yet they do it anyway. by the president no less! it's one thing to have a low level employee secretly subverting company policies but if the guy at the top is publically doing it, then you can just imagine what a stellar example he's setting for the rest of the employees. additionally, mastro allows its employees to bid on items. what a wonderful situation doug has set up - mastro owned items, in a mastro auction, being bid on by mastro employees. thumbs up doug! what a level playing field that is.
mastro could've kept it all fair by simply choosing to consign the helmet to AMI, GFC, Lelands, etc as a private consigner. apparently, they thought it better to keep it in-house thereby making their own policies nothing but meaningless drivel.

eric, something still doesn't make sense:

"When it became apparent that the facemask was incorrect, Doug requested the replacement be found. He said this was a lengthy search, as it took almost 2 years. He said the switch was entered into their system with "notes to 're-shoot' the photo and 'document the replacement mask.'" and those requests were not followed through. They are making attempts to fix those things now."

doug allen realized the facemask was wrong almost 2 yrs ago but lampson wrote an loa on it for doug within the last 2 months and his loa made no mention of the facemask issue. if doug knew the facemask was bad almost 2 years ago, then why does lampson's loa fail to mention this?
it has nothing to do with the replacement mask and new photos. lou's loa/description isn't a year old. it was maybe 2 months old. doug KNEW the facemask issue existed 2 months ago when he gave the helmet to lou. whether he found a replacement or not, the description should've stated the facemask issue. doug knew about it when he consigned it and yet the info didn't show up.

"His response was that he has been "transparent as to what has transpired as it relates to the helmet" and that I have all of the information. I should use that information to decide whether or not to bid."

how very forthcoming. whenever encountering questionable items or practices, i've always loved the "don't like it? don't bid" explanation. right up there with "don't bother me" and "i'm an expert".

rudy.

lon lewis
04-11-2007, 03:04 PM
For Eric I have been following this thread with some fascination, just out of curiosity,I would like to know what year, if you know, this helmet is supposed to be from. It seems to me that if it's from a season prior to 1985 the mask should have the older "thicker" bars rather than the RS (reverse strap)"thinner" bars version. If the helmet is supposed to be from 1985 forward then it should have the RS version of the facemask. If that's the case why did it take 2 years to find something that's a stock item?

Eric
04-11-2007, 10:10 PM
For Eric I have been following this thread with some fascination, just out of curiosity,I would like to know what year, if you know, this helmet is supposed to be from. It seems to me that if it's from a season prior to 1985 the mask should have the older "thicker" bars rather than the RS (reverse strap)"thinner" bars version. If the helmet is supposed to be from 1985 forward then it should have the RS version of the facemask. If that's the case why did it take 2 years to find something that's a stock item?

Lon-

Nice to hear from you. Interested in what you think about this thread.

Kellen retired in 87, so I dated it between '85 and '87 because of the block numbers on the back of the helmet (the Chargers switched from yellow numbers to block numbers on the back of the helmet in '85) Winslow went to the bulky 3 bar facemask in '84.
Eric

Eric
04-11-2007, 10:21 PM
Here is the addendum on the Winslow listing

Please Note: The images accompanying this description have been revised. When Mastro Auctions initially acquired the item, the facemask was inconsistent with the type actually used by Kellen Winslow. It has been replaced by the appropriate style of facemask, thus, the facemask accompanying the helmet is not original.

Eric
04-11-2007, 11:19 PM
I went back and re-read the emails from the time. Correction- I was offered the helmet (when it had the two bar mask) 6-20-05. I arranged to get my refund 8-8-05.
Eric

rose14
04-12-2007, 08:56 AM
Mastros Auctions have turned into one of the most unethical auction houses in the business. The continue to use a very questionable authenticator even after several of their auction items have been exposed and they continue any way to leave them in their auction. Now the president of the auction house is basically admitting to being the owner and "fixing" the helmet that he has in his own auction where he or his employees can manipulate the bidding. Isn't it great to employ an authenticator that can write a COA for you when he had previously looked at the item a year or so earlier and knew the facemask was wrong?

It would be great if Sports Collectors Digest would write a story to expose Mastros, Doug Allen along with Lou Lampson on this helmet issue but I'm sure they don't have the stones to do it since Mastros is one of their advertisers. There are so many stories that they could do on the likes of this but they are too afraid they might ruffle some feathers rather than report it for the good of the hobby.

lon lewis
04-12-2007, 01:26 PM
Eric
could you email me @ shadowsdad@worldnet.att.net I'd like to discuss chargers helmets with you.

EndzoneSports
04-12-2007, 03:37 PM
His response was that he has been "transparent as to what has transpired as it relates to the helmet" and that I have all of the information. I should use that information to decide whether or not to bid.

Eric

Having read through this thread with some interest, here's one more opinion to throw gas on the fire...

With some amount of suspicion, I can accept that internal miscommunication within the Mastro organization is what led to the incorrect photos/description originally being posted. Though some elements of the story/time-line seem to be somewhat inconsistent, I would be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. It should be noted that I have a neutral opinion of Mastro as I have neither consigned with them nor bid on any of their items (for no reason other than they've never offered any item that was of particular interest, based upon my personal interests).

From a personal standpoint, I would have no problem with an auction house offering items for which it has an ownership interest, when and only when, such interest is openly and plainly disclosed as part of the item's auction description. Similarly, I would have no problem with an authenticator consigning items for auction which they've personally authenticated, again with the caveat that this information be disclosed.

Such open disclosure would allow individual bidders to fairly weigh the potential conflicts that inherently exist and then bid accordingly, giving considerably more credence to the "if you don't like it, don't bid" policy that most auction houses take.

The somewhat incestuous relationship that exists within our hobby is to be expected considering the relatively small number of both the major players on the supply side (dealers, auction houses, authenticators) as well as the number of collectors creating the demand for this niche product. As a result, our hobby is fraught with the potential for conflicts. Without consistent industry-wide policies and a governing body to enforce them, it is highly doubtful that such potential can be eliminated.

What can and should be done, however, is a movement toward a policy of true transparency. By making all known information available to potential bidders/buyers, those on the supply side place the collectors on a more level playing field, allowing us to utilize this information in making our purchasing decisions.

Regards,

lund6771
04-12-2007, 04:49 PM
here's a thought...since this site is much wiser than Lampson...auction houses should preview their auctions here for feedback...it would save them the embaressment of pulling items all the time and would allow the hobby to get cleaned up....Lampson's reputation is garbage, so get rid of him once and for all...now, since they won't have to pay the authentiaction fee, their overhead will diminish, thus they can lower their consignment/hammer fees...Everyone wins!!!!

kingjammy24
04-13-2007, 05:15 PM
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5880/lampnd1.jpg

rudy.

Eric
04-14-2007, 10:54 PM
More fallout from this story:

Citing a December thread on the vintage card forum where Doug Allen said he "had no problem disclosing what we (Mastro) own in the auction" Dave Grob of MEARS has made some interesting statements.

Despite the fact the MEARS has a contract with Mastro for 2007, Dave Grob has announced that he will no longer examine/evaluate any item for Mastro as long as Doug Allen is with the company. He also says he will not bid on any Mastro items while Doug Allen is with Mastro.

Mr. Grob made this announcement on the MEARS board recognizing it could mean he doesn't work for MEARS for the rest of 2007

Eric
04-16-2007, 10:50 AM
Dave Bushing has weighed in on the Winslow helmet situation. There is one part of his description which I find troubling. Specifically...

Mr Bushing wrote:

"Next, Doug had mailed this helmet previously to a forum regular who is a football expert and collector. It was returned with notes on the wrong faceguard. Doug had the helmet corrected with a period replacement and then deliberately put it up for auction without disclosing this fact hoping to get it by the collecting public and risking his company reputation for a profit of maybe $1000 and hoping that said expert who watches and bids on many football items in their auction does not notice it and blow the whistle. Possibly, but it does not make any logical sense to me."

First of all, I am not an expert. I am a collector who does the best to research items when buying. I have never represented myself as an expert, because I am not.

What actually happened is, Doug Allen sold this helmet to Vintage Authentics (traded actually) as a game used helmet from the Duke Hott Collection.

Vintage offered it to me for $5500 saying Mastro liked it, Lou Lampson liked it and besides it's from the Duke Hott Collection.

To say "It was returned with notes on the wrong faceguard" minimizes the situation. In actuality it was returned by an angry customer who felt let down by all of the entities involved. I was angry that it took me and not all of the actual experts (people paid to be experts) to realize something was wrong here. My $5500 was at stake here,. It wasn't "sent" to me. It was SOLD to me.

Mr Bushing then wrote: "...hoping that said expert who watches and bids on many football items in their auction does not notice it and blow the whistle."

I would really hope that my bidding tendencies were not a topic of discussion between Mr. Allen and Mr. Bushing. That is not information that should be disclosed.

And something that Mr. Bushing did not comment on which has baffled many people. Why would an auction house modify an item? Is that really the road we should be going down in the hobby?

Should I be wondering what has been modified by an auction house when bidding on an item?

And finally, I think Mr. Grob's comments about disclosure were more about Mastro identifying which lots they have a financial interest in, and less about the switching of the facemask.

Eric

kingjammy24
04-16-2007, 02:07 PM
i've read bushing's post. on one hand, i'm really surprised how he completely missed the entire issue. on the other hand, i'm not surprised considering he's got a solid history of missing the real issues.

anyway, in a nutshell: "the foul here is that it was not disclosed and had it been disclose, it would not have hurt the value all that much and everyone would have been happy." dave then goes on to discuss the mixups that can occur within a large organization.

the foul here is not that a "photo mix up" occurred. in an incredible display of cluelessness, dave seemed to completely fail to mention that the helmet was owned by doug/mastro and yet their website states they aren't dealers and don't consign their own items. big deal, a photo mixup occurred. i couldn't care less if some schlub put the wrong photo up. the fact that the president of an auction house is intentionally contradicting his own corporate policies is the foul here.

"Everybody, and I do mean everybody, makes mistakes."

let's clear one thing up here once and for all. a mistake implies that the error is unintentional. when the president of an auction house that clearly states they don't consign their own items goes ahead and consigns his own item, this is not a mistake. when you're fully aware of what you're doing and you're fully aware of right and wrong, it's not a mistake. it's like saying wayne bray just made some mistakes.

"In conclusion, it is my opinion that Doug's explaination is feasible."

doug never explained how he could consign his own item when his own policies state that this is not permissible. doug also never explained why, if he knew the facemask was bad a year ago, this didn't make it into lou's loa that was issued 1-2 months ago.

"I just don't buy the theory that they deliberately tried to get this one over"

was this ever a theory? again, typing this as simply and succinctly as i possibly can:

issue 1 - president of mastro contradicts his own "conflict of interest" policy

issue 2 - at least a year go, president of mastro knows that the facemask is incorrect. lampson writes an loa on it max. 3 months ago. loa fails to mention any facemask issue. why did allen not inform lampson of the facemask issue/why didn't it make it into the loa? OLD HELMET or NEW HELMET, BOTH HAD A FACEMASK ISSUE.

anyway, i suppose i shouldn't be surprised that dave completely missed the issues and thought it was all about a photo mix up. in my experience, he's adept at failing to understand conflicts of interest. with each statement he makes, he reinforces my feelings that he's the weakest link at mears. after seeing his reply on this issue, i've got a new sense of appreciation for what it must be like for specht, caravello or others to desperately try to get him to understand the pertinent issues and concepts. it's like stumbling upon a murder scene with a smoking gun lying next to a body on the ground. completely missing the gun and body, he asserts that no murder could've taken place because the weather is too wonderful to put anyone in a bad mood.

the conflict of interest dave, the conflict of interest. did you completely just miss that elephant in the living room? not the first time is it?

rudy.

kingjammy24
04-16-2007, 02:13 PM
"I think Mr. Grob's comments about disclosure were more about Mastro identifying which lots they have a financial interest in, and less about the switching of the facemask."

eric, that's how i took grob's comments as well. it's good that at least 1 member of mears comprehended the real issues. i mean that earnestly.

perhaps dave would be best served by relegating himself to bat topics and refraining from discussing ethical issues. they seem to slip right by him.

also good to see the stand taken by grob. i think it's clear he realizes the real faux pas made by doug and it has nothing at all to do with a photo mixup.

rudy.

ChrisCavalier
04-17-2007, 12:32 PM
Doug Allen says they got the Winslow from the Duke Hott collection. They determined the facemask was incorrect and he and Mastro, based on the fact that the facemask was incorrect for what Winslow wore during this time period, asked Lampson to go find a vintage-style facemask similar to what Winslow would have worn.

Allen said that request was not documented properly and the wrong photos and description were put on the site.
Based on the initial online description (which I assume matches the description in the catalog...I did not receive one), it appears the original description did not include anything regarding the facemask change. Therefore, based on the explanation above, should we assume there was a separate description written by Mastro prior to this thread that was supposed to be used for this item? Personally, I would have liked to see the “right” description.

I guess the reason I ask is that I was very surprised to read on the vintage baseball card forum a while back how Mastro felt it was okay to do to certain things to baseball cards without having to disclose them to potential buyers. This included "taking out light creases or surface wrinkles" and "laying down corners or 'flips' caused by handling”. Here is a link to the post:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1164339760/last-1164778122/Feedback (http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1164339760/last-1164778122/Feedback)

Apparently I wasn't the only one surprised to see these things being done. In fact, I thought the following quote by an apparently seasoned card collector was particularly insightful “I too believe that removing even minor wrinkles comprises alteration. Doug, even if you disagree, you must admit that the question is both unsettled and important to collectors. That being said, why doesn't Mastro simply disclose the ‘work’ performed on each card, so the collector can factor that into his bid?” Here is a link to the overall thread:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1164306390/Questions+for+Doug+Allen (http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/message/1164306390/Questions+for+Doug+Allen)

Does anyone know if Mastro now discloses these card preparation “practices” when listing them for sale? Judging from the posts on the thread linked above, it seems they should definitely be disclosed as at least some buyers would want to know if the card they are bidding on has had a surface crease or wrinkle removed. It also leads me to wonder if there are certain preparation “practices” regarding game used items that certain sellers may feel are okay to do without disclosing them to potential buyers.

As a side note, I hope everyone has seen from our efforts to help collectors make truly informed decisions (as well as the way we conducted our pilot auction) that those involved with Game Used Universe absolutely believe in full disclosure for the potential buyer. In fact, I think the Lou Brock bat description in our pilot auction disclosed some facts that probably prevented the bidding from going higher on that item. While we realize this did not maximize our profits from the auction, we would not have even considered doing it any other way.

Sincerely,
Chris Cavalier

Eric
04-17-2007, 01:11 PM
Five days ago I emailed Mastro and asked for a copy of the Lampson letter that goes with the Winslow helmet.

I have not gotten a response.

Eric

Eric
04-17-2007, 03:08 PM
In response to the Mastro Kellen Winslow helmet situation (the lack of disclosure of lots in which they have a financial interest), Dave Grob of MEARS has issued the following statement,

"I have decided ... that I will no longer do business on a personnel or professional basis with Mastro’s Auctions...For now, or until such a time as MEARS is no longer under contract with Mastro’s, my role within MEARS will be limited STRICTLY to editorial support for MEARS On Line."

both-teams-played-hard
04-18-2007, 03:08 AM
http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9173/lampsonassemblylineyr2.jpg

Eric
04-28-2007, 01:01 PM
The Winslow helmet which I was orignally offered for $5500 as a piece from the Duke Hott collection and authenticated by Lou Lampson, which I determined had the wrong facemask causing Mastro to ask Mr. Lampson to replace the facemask with one of the correct style sold at auction for $646.

I am glad I did my own homework.

By the way, weeks ago on two different occassions I asked for a copy of the Lampson revised COA and never even got a response from Mastro.

Eric

guDon
05-04-2007, 08:59 AM
$646? Thats a steal if Winslow wore that helmet.