Mastro Winslow Helmet- Am I Nuts?

[Eric]

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]

"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]

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]

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

[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.

[both-teams-played-hard]