Hank Aaron HR Bat: Mastro and a tale of slippery provenance

[trsent]

Actually Joel there are statutes in every state against what is known as deceptive trade practices and the onus is on corporations to follow the guidelines or face potential puntive damage judgements against them for many times more than the simple cost to refund the buyer's money.

Some more info on it:

Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.

Regards,
Dave

Dave, you should call the proper legal agencies and take action then if you believe they are intentionally defrauding the public. I do not understand, they write a description, and we bring it to their attention that we do not like the description and they change it, but they still have to be harassed over it because now the GUU Fourm has decided they were attempting to commit fraud - Not that maybe they made a judgement call that we found was not the best judgement?

Call the police if you are really so concerned.

Warren, I cannot use the theory day in and day out that the public has to see this forum or the NY Daily News articles. So, we are now the police for the industry (I have no problems with this) but we also are now going to judge and sentence those who we feel are in violation?

Time and time again an auction house makes an effort to work with us, and time and time again instead of us cooporating, we have to tell them what scumbags they are over and over again.

Doug Allen has offered to reply personally to any concerns via his personal email address as he claims he will not longer contribute to this forum. That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!

If Dave O'Brien is really concerned, or anyone else, they should contact the proper legal avenues on behalf of the public.

[b.heagy]

Doug Allen has offered to reply personally to any concerns via his personal email address as he claims he will not longer contribute to this forum. That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!


Joel,
Doug prefers to communicate via email, he already made that clear. He was hardly bullied away. I appreciate him taking the time to communicate with the members about the concerns that were raised.

[both-teams-played-hard]

That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!

Right up there with the "go to your basement with your bricks" quote.
The hookers and drug dealers don't do much business in front of a cop-shop, either.

[encinorick]

Joel: So we're at fault here, the consumers, and auction houses like AMI, Bricol, Mastro, etc are the victims?

And Doug, who before your very eyes altered a third-party LOA simply to prove a point is also a victim? And we scared the "little bunny" because we were "bullies" and he ran away never to be heard of again. Poor bunny, Doug.

What Dave said was the truth. There's no "nod and wink" with facts, there is no "overreaching" with facts. Facts are.

If you have opinion, that's another thing. But if you have 2 LOA's that date a bat differently and neither says anything about game use, how the hell can you describe it as game-used?

How do you not explicitly state to the consumer that there are two LOA's from reputable experts that say different things about the bat and they are inherently contradictory to one another?

And if there's no agreement as to what the heck the bat is, why would you put it up for sale?

[earlywynnfan]

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[trsent]

Guys, all I was hoping for is cooperation with an auction house who posted on this forum for a change - Look in the mirrors and stop blaming me for speaking the truth - Every time one comes to us they are bullied and scared away in a matter of minutes.

I just think someone needs to contact legal authorities if you really believe they are intentionally attempting to defraud the public - This is a serious deal.

Every time we get close all that happens is people attack the person non-stop and do not make an effort to maybe help the system.

Live with blinders on and think I am the bad guy...Keep it up and you'll see.

[trsent]

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken

That was one part of the discussion that intrigues me, but when you are asking about a bat and then pile on everything at once, it becomes silly.

Rudy is right. Why is the bat authenticator named but the jersey authenticators not? Someone should email Doug Allen this question and post his reply.

[CollectGU]

Dave, you should call the proper legal agencies and take action then if you believe they are intentionally defrauding the public. I do not understand, they write a description, and we bring it to their attention that we do not like the description and they change it, but they still have to be harassed over it because now the GUU Fourm has decided they were attempting to commit fraud - Not that maybe they made a judgement call that we found was not the best judgement?

Call the police if you are really so concerned.

Joel,

I never said that anyone was intentionally defrauding the public and I am not interested in calling any authorities. I was simply providing information on what the statute says what all companies are to be held to when selling to consumers and thought it was relevant to the discussion.

Regards,
Dave

[kingjammy24]

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

ken

no. doug answered my abbreviated questions. here are his replies (his replies are in all caps):

1) did john taube really not disclose what he knew about the bat?

RESPONSE: FIRST OF ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK JOHN WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE BAT. FOR US ALL HE DID WAS AUTHENTICATE THE BAT AND GRADED IT A 10. I BELIEVE HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT HE DID NOT COMMUNICATE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THIS INFORMATION UNITL HIS CONTACT WITH ME VIA EMAIL YESTERDAY.

[re: what taube knew about the bat before it even went at mastro:
from rob lifson: "When REA auctioned the bat in 2004 it was accompanied by an LOA from Taube/PSA but at that time not graded by him - and the LOA was only for the bat itself. I shared my concern with him at the time before we got the Taube LOA...So, while he has obviously written a new letter on the bat since it is now (according to the description) graded GU10 by Taube and was not graded by him in 2004". i asked john taube if he passed along this information to mastro's staff. rather than answering the question, he simply told me he'd contact doug and that was the last i ever heard from john. the fact of the matter is you can't grade this bat simply as a "hank aaron game-used bat" which is what john said he did because it's not simply a hank aaron gamer. it's being sold, with a premium, as THE #534 bat therefore it also needs to be authenticated as the #534 bat. if john had a bat that was billed as a derek jeter 1996 world series gamer would he simply authenticate it as a derek jeter bat or as a world series gamer?]

2) why do mastro's descriptions differ from their authenticators' letters?

RESPONSE: DESCRIPTIONS SHOULD NOT DIFFER FROM THE AUTHENTICATORS LETTER. OUR AUTHENTICATOR WAS JOHN TAUBE AS LISTED IN THE WRITE UP OF THE ITEM. I BELIEVE OUR WRITE UP IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOA HE PROVIDED. AFTER BEING MADE AWARE OF THE BATS HISTORY WE WERE ABLE TO GATHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION WHICH WILL NOW BE ADDED TO THE WRITE-UP (THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE POSTED THIS EVENING).

[the loa is not consistent in its entirety because it doesn't address the #534 aspect of it at all. the letter is just for an aaron gamer and if i simply wanted just any old aaron gamer then i wouldn't go out and pay the premium for this #534 bat.]

3) why was there no research done on a bat signed by a man 40 yrs after he used it?

RESPONSE: OUR JUDGEMENT WAS THAT HIS INSCRIPTION REFERRING TO THIS AS THE BAT HE USED TO HIT IS 534TH HOME RUN WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE BAT HAD GREAT GAME USE CONSISTENT WITH AARON AND WAS TURNED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. THAT BEING SAID I AGREE THAT THE FACT THAT THE INSCRIPTION WAS PENNED SOME 25 YEARS LATER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUSE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.

[i want folks to read this again. specifically: "HIS INSCRIPTION..WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE BAT HAD GREAT GAME USE CONSISTENT WITH AARON AND WAS TURNED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME." holy smokes. i don't even know where to begin with that logic. when was it turned..july 15, 1969? great game use is consistent with it being the one to hit #534? good lord. there's no logic in there anywhere.]

anyway, here's the original 2002 listing for the bat sans inscription:

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=205&lot=1448

personally i think it was nicest at the time lelands had it, before an old ballplayer was cajoled into going along with a 34 yr old story for the sake of increasing the bat's value.

rudy.

[trsent]

Here is the email I just received from Doug Allen:

Hey Joel,

I am happy to answer the questions regarding unnamed authenticators.
When it comes to Game Used Bats and Autographs we utilize the services of third party authenticators who supply us letters and therefore we disclose this in the catalog.

When it comes to game used jerseys and equipment....after concluding we could no longer use the services of MEARS we did not feel there were any other viable third party services we could turn to to provide this service. Instead we decided he best course of action was to issue our own letters of authenticity backed by a team of experts that we would adjust based on the particular item. For instance we would have a different team of individuals examine a football helmet than a vintage baseball flannel. Why are they unnamed? Some of the guys have no problem with us using their names but some love authenticating but do not want the notoriety. I will tell you one guy that helps is a person I consider to be the best in the world when it comes to vintage jerseys. He is very willing to do the work for us but will not allow his name to be associated with this work. So the bottom line. We issue a letter of authenticity, we communicate the fact that there are multiple independent authenticators that examine each and every piece and we stand behind each and every piece with a money back guarantee if a mistake is made.

Let me know if you have additional questions about this process.

Thanks,

Doug

Doug Allen
President & COO
Mastro Auctions Inc.