Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
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