Mastro Winslow Helmet- Am I Nuts?

[rose14]

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]

Eric
could you email me @ shadowsdad@worldnet.att.net I'd like to discuss chargers helmets with you.

[EndzoneSports]

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]

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]

rudy.

[Eric]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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

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

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