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

[trsent]

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

whether it's your statements on the winslow helmet, jordan shirt, or this aaron bat, there are always massive logical loopholes in what you say.

Rudy, I didn't put words in anyone's mouth.

The quote above is what I meant by you bringing up the past. You do not address issues at hand, you address items from the past that have no relevance on the topic of the Hank Aaron bat. You only posted about the Aaron bat? Then why bring up the Winslow helmet and Jordan shirt?

You can accuse me of ruining the forum. I just know that Doug Allen posted on this forum and you decided to attack him and I will post that if Ken doesn't appreciate my "post script" reply, which was me trying to avoid what irritated me about your reply to Doug Allen.

You only read what you believe is in your best interest to attack and abuse instead of working with those we so eagerly wish to add to the discussions here.

I know, you and your fans wish I wouldn't post so y'all can attack and attack and not have anyone to balance comments and concerns.

[kingjammy24]

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

an addendum has been posted to the auction:

"Please Note:
Additional research has suggested that we emphasize pertinent documentation relating to Aaron's later-added inscription on the bat:
This bat was originally sold as part of the famous Thomas C. Eakin collection in January 2002. A letter signed by Mr. Eakin accompanying the bat at that sale indicated that this very item was given to Mr. Eakin following the completion of a game at Crosley Field in 1969, a contest in which Mr. Eakin recalled that Hank Aaron hit a home run. Acting on this information, Bob Allen, Aaron's press agent at the time, sought verification from the Home Run King himself that this lumber was in fact wielded by Aaron at Crosley Field when he struck home run number 534. Upon establishing that Aaron hit three home runs at Crosley Field in 1969 (no. 534 in 7/15/1969, no. 548 in 9/5/1969, and no. 549 in 9/7/1969), Mr. Allen met with Aaron at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in November 2003. In a signed and notarized letter dated November 4, 2003, Mr. Allen attests, "This letter is to serve as authentication for Hank Aaron's career #534 Homerun bat. Hank Aaron verified and signed this bat on November 1st, 2003 at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, WI. Mr. Hank Aaron personally signed and inscribed the bat, 'Hank Aaron, HR 534, 7/15/99.' I personally witnessed the signing. - Sincerely, (signed) Bob Allen." Consequently, while Aaron's inscription was added at a much later date, he himself confirmed that of the three possible dates on which this bat might have been employed, it was in fact used on July 15, 1969 when he struck home run number 534. Mastro Auctions acknowledges that questions can present themselves with respect to a bat that has not been in the possession of Hank Aaron since 1969; accordingly, we note the foregoing circumstances as pertinent information that relates to the bat's provenance."

so aaron gives away a bat in 1969. 34 yrs later, he's met a hotel by his press agent and asked in which of 3 possible games, in 1969, did he use this bat to hit #534. aaron then confirms that "it was in fact used on July 15, 1969". wow.

anyway, all of it seems to fly in the face of what occurred when REA did their research. as rob lifson told me: "..I even tracked down the original owner (the one who received the bat) to clarify that he did not get it right from Aaron..When I asked Aaron's office, I was told that he did not know...they said very clearly that Hank Aaron was not saying that this was the bat he hit home run #534 with, he was not saying it was not, he was saying that he did not and does not know."

rudy.

[ndevlin]

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

Rick, not to jump into what seems to be a one-sided heated battle, but I appear to be missing the continued venom. Did he misprepresent the bat? YES, and he admitted it. Did they refund your money? YES. Do you trust them? NO. Should we trust them? MAYBE.

I think he was right: take your money elsewhere. I guess I don't know what more you want Doug to do. And I guess I don't see what the point is of continuing this on a public forum.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Yep!

And you just said....

"The description stated explicitly that it was "game used and or a coach's bat used by the Great Bambino during the latter part of his career." The description also suggested that the bat was might "light" for the Bambno and it's length was also much shorter than any other Ruth bat, but that those oddities could be explained for this reason or that."

You knew what you were buying. Why would you even bother spending that amount of money on a bat that not only is light, but is much shorter than any other Ruth bat, then turn around and get mad about it?

Not only was it all that relevant to the Aaron bat, I dont know why you felt the need to bash someone publicly for an incident that happened a year ago, on something it seems you knew what you were buying.

Not trying to start an argument, it just doesnt make much sense.

[encinorick]

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

Rudy: Doug would simply say he was "overreaching" with the facts and leave it at that. Be advised Rudy, you too may be put on "double secret probation" if you don't stop, so be careful.

And stop reading those Mastro descriptions! They're there to entertain and bemuse and tell a good story, nothing more, nothing less.

[encinorick]

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

Nate: The purpose of the thread was to expose the problems with Mastro's descriptions. Rudy's presented evidence regarding the Aaron bat and I also had an experience with Mastro's description of the Ruth bat.

Read the description that Doug included in his post: "Babe Ruth 1934-1944 H&B Game Used Player/Coaches Bat."

The LOA from PSA/DNA was entitled "George 'Babe' Ruth Professional Model Bat (Post Career Bat), Labeling Period 1944-47."

Now is this something you'd say was "overreaching" or something else.

As I stated in my letter to Doug (please print it, Doug) I was a loyal customer of Mastro for 10 years. I bought and consigned items with them worth thousands of dollars. I'm not a pro, I do this strictly as a hobby to enjoy with my son. I depend on experts to tell me what is, or is not, real.

I trusted Doug...foolishly.

Again, if Doug had simply said, "my bad" here's your money back, I'd have no problem. But, he said I was "outrageous" when I questioned him, and then he closed my account to be spiteful.

A couple of years ago I won a Gretzky gu hockey stick from Lelands, I showed it to an expert who said it wasn't gu. I sent Lelands the letter and they returned my money. They even said they were sorry about it. I still buy stuff from them to this day.

[ndevlin]

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

I just read the description. It even says its "small by Ruth's standards." Wouldnt that give you a red flag, especially on something this pricey? Its even graded a 4.5.

What exactly were you upset about with this bat?

[b.heagy]

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

Rick,
Any chance you have copies of the LOO's from MEARS and PSA? Would love to see the paper work for the bat. Which company got it right?

[encinorick]

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

Just my point Nate. Why would Doug claim the bat to be "Babe Ruth Game Used/Coaches Bat."

Let's make this clear, Nate, Doug's making the representations here, not me. Despite what I flippantly said to Rudy, these descriptions are, in fact, representations which are relied on by non-experts as myself to our detriment. They are legally binding, just like a contract.

I am a consumer and the Mastro descriptions target people like me to induce us to buy their goods and they hold themselves out as experts whom we can rely on. It's not my bad, but Doug's.

[b.heagy]

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

As a 10+ year customer it is a shame that you had a falling out with Mastro like this one. Was this the first Ruth bat that caught your attention? A situation like this is proof that customers need to do their own research regardless of what an auction house or LOO says. When someone is interested in buying an item from me that they are on the fence about, I ask them how knowledgable they are in that particular field, if they are a beginner or still in the process of learning more I always tell them not to buy the item until they learn more and are more comfortable with the purchase. We all make mistakes, it's how we deal with them that separates the good from the bad.

[dallen]

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

Rick,

I will post the two LOAs from PSA/DNA and MEARS tomorrow. I am sorry but I can only find your most recent emails and discarded the legal letter after I bought the bat back. If you have them feel free to post them.

Maybe I am missing something here but the only reason I got aggressive is I did not appreciate your language and stated such. I have never been able to stand people I have never met or treated with disrespect throwing "F" bombs into conversations. Can't imagine what you would have called me if I was not willing to buy back the bat.

There was no hesitation in refunding you the money. I believe you got great value buying a Ruth Coaches bat for around $5,000. This is a bat that contrary to your statement was manufactured while he was alive and I believe matched records of bats ordered when he was a coach.

The bottom line is we sell 1,000+ game used items annually and really try to do a good job of authentication and cataloging. A forum like this is a great way for collectors to point out mistakes and I am sure I speak for a lot of auctioneers that we like this type of feedback because we don't ever want to sell something that is not good. A person on this forum sent me a helmet he spent a lot of money on a couple of years ago. I took that very seriously and providing him 20+ pages of data that I believe proved his helmet was in fact authentic. We do not take this lightly. I have no problem with a forum pointing out the handful of mistakes we have made for the past few years but give us some credit for the literally 10s of thousands of good items we have sold.

Yes Rick...you were the victim. You relied on what I agreed was an overreaching statement and bought an A MEARS 4.5 Ruth Coaches bat for $5,000. Then two years later you reviewed the documentation, sent me an aggressive legal letter and within 24 hours I offered to take back the bat for a full refund. No questions asked.

There is nothing more I can think of to do but try harder not to make the same mistake again.

Sincerely,
Doug Allen

[encinorick]

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

Bill: Thanks for your comments. Once Doug posts the two LOA's read them carefully, then look at the Mastro description which Doug included in his previous post.

How Doug came up with his description based on those LOA's is beyond my comprehension, but I'll let you judge that independently from my opinion.

Afterward, I'll post my September 1, 2008 letter to Doug, which simply states the obvious.

Again, the descriptions in these Auction House catalogues are legally binding contracts. They make representations based on information given to them and consumers, non-professionals, like myself (and perhaps you, too) rely on them to their detriment.

Doug, may not think spending over $5,000 is not alot of money, but I do.

[dallen]

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

Here are the letters from MEARS and PSA

I confirmed with John Taube that he places the labeling period at 1937 to 1940 vs. MEARS broader dating of 1934 to 1944. We inaccurately latched onto the broader date in our write-up. The light weight most definitely places this bat later in the range....most likely in the 1937 to 1940 pegged by John Taube. This is the reason I had no problem issuing a refund regardless of this being two years after the fact. In discussing the bat we both agree the value to be in the neighborhood of $6 to $8k. By the way I did not say the $5k was not a lot of money. It absolutely is. I just indicated I thought at $5k he got good value.

[Vintagedeputy]

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

I offer no comment on the dispute, but I give great props to a company that will issue a 5K refund after 2 years.

[encinorick]

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

Doug, you are such a disappointment. The Malta/Taube PSA/DNA that you sent to me with the bat explicitly stated: "Labeling Period: 1944-47."

In your post below you've deleted the dates and now allege that Taube pegged the bat between "1937-40."

Look at your own post #7, in which you said "Mears placed the bat at 1934-44 and PSA at 1944-47."

I still have a copy of the original PSA/DNA which I post, but, my question to you is why would a professional like yourself purposefully alter a third-party LOA in order to prove a point. Isn't that being dishonest?

[kingjammy24]

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

doug allen: "MEARS placed the bat at 1934-44 and PSA at 1944 to 47".
"I confirmed with John Taube that he places the labeling period at 1937 to 1940"

doug, why is the LOA you posted missing the labeling year range?



please tell me the president of mastro auctions isn't photoshopping LOAs.

rick, can you post the original LOA?

rudy.