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

[encinorick]

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

Here is the original, unaltered PSA/DNA letter:

[encinorick]

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

So I guess the answer to my question is yes, you deleted the dates.

Interesting.

Now there are 3 LOA's attached to the bat, I guess. And the theory behind this is to pick a fact from this LOA and some from that one and spin a story about a bat that was purported to be owned by the Babe, so some guy, some non-professional, like me would be stupid enough to buy it.

Got it. Nice.

All I asked was that you post the items which you sent me when I purchased the item, which included the Mastro description and the two original LOA's and let everyone here make up their own mind as to whether Mastro engages in deceptive practices when it writes its description.

But, you couldn't do that Doug, could you.? You had to alter this document and that, and make this absurd assertion and that, and then blame the whole problem on me for being an idiot for buying the damn thing from you in the first place.

Nice.

[kingjammy24]

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

if possible, i'd like to keep this thread on some sort of coherant track. i think the main gist of what's being said revolves around overly aggressive descriptions, or as doug put it "overreaching". the thing is, it's not simply a case here or a case there of overreaching. in my opinion, it's a pattern. doug, this isn't a circus. it doesn't behoove anyone for you to make like PT Barnum, up on the mastro platform with a bullhorn shouting that you've got the most stupendous, tremendous, fantastical thing ever seen by man! so step right up kids! pay your nickel and come see the bearded lady! look:

- the JB jersey: in the accompanying video, you stated you had a "photomatch showing JB wearing this particular jersey". those were your exact words. when you uttered them you knew you had no photomatch. you knew all you had a stylematch which is no different than what MEARS offered when the jersey previously sold at REA. you know the difference between a stylematch and a photomatch. yet you wanted to create a frenzy. wet all those buyers whistles. oh boy, doug allen's got a photomatch to the JB jersey! holy smokes! if it went for $70k before, a photomatch will surely drive it to at least $100k! what a big letdown to find out it was nothing more than a stylematch and a promo photo at that. more "overreaching" right? an accidental slip of the tongue?

- still on the JB jersey: you said it had a "game used" inscription. doug, you need to get yourself to optometrist ASAP because your JB jersey says nothing of the sort. a "game used" inscription would be pretty impressive if your jersey actually had one. what it has is a "game jersey" inscription and there is a world of difference. more overreaching right? another slip of the tongue? "game jersey" does not mean "game used". it might but it might also mean a myriad of other things. again, just like you seriously believe aaron identified a bat 34 yrs after it was given away by an equipment manager (did the fact that aaron was paid a substantial sum to sign it "help jog his memory"?), you seem to purport to know exactly what jim brown meant when he signed "game jersey" and fortunately for mastro's coffers, it meant, as you explicitly stated, that he was saying he "wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform". that's what JB meant when he wrote "game jersey" right doug? he meant "game used". you're like kreskin over there. yet more "overreaching".

- this ruth bat: taube put the date range at a close 1944-47. MEARS put it more broadly at 1934-44. what range did you end up going with? the broader range. big surprise huh? you chose the range that would give you the greatest leeway and pin it closer to ruth using it. another accident.

- you truly believe that 70 yr old aaron positively identified that bat 34 yrs after an equipment manager gave it away as being the same one he used on july 15, 1969 in 1 specific at-bat. do you believe that because it's so overwhelmingly likely or because it makes the bat more valuable? in your addendum you failed to mention any of the conclusions reached by REA in their investigation. of course, those conclusions make the bat less valuable.

doug, some auction houses err on the side of caution; on the side of being conservative lest they overhype an item and fail to deliver. mastro seems to err on the side of exaggeration; on the side of trying to oversell the hell out of an item as if your buyers are little kids paying a nickel at the circus and they won't be too disappointed if they find out the "pregnant man" is really just a guy with a pillow stuffed under his shirt.

rudy.

[dallen]

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

This is my last post on this forum. I sent an email responding to Rudy's questions on the Aaron bat and we have posted a modification. I have responded to questions on the handling of the Ruth bat so judge us as you will.

From this point on I am happy to correspond via email and if you want to post it on this forum that is great. I can be reached at dallen@mastroauctions.com

All the best,
Doug Allen
Mastro Auctions

[dallen]

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

Since the letters were issued over two years ago I sought John's approval to display the letter and sent him the bat. He reaffirmed this as a post career bat but indicated the labeling period would be correctly placed at 1937 to 1940. That is why I excluded the year range and noted it in my post. John did not ask me to exclude it I just didn't want an inaccurate letter flying around.

My reason for offering the scans is so you can see why it was pretty obvious that we should have never purported this bat to have any chance at being a game used bat during his career. Even though MEARS offers a broader range other facts clearly point to this being Post Career.

Bottom line we blew it. Two years later we owned up to it and gave you your money back. Beyond that there is nothing more I can say unless someone points out some other flaw in the way I handled this situation. Obviously the goal it to get it right the first time which I believe we do. Beyond that I think it is how you handle yourself when you screw up. The way I handle it is to own up to it and get you your money back which I did.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

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

[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.

[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

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?

[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?