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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[encinorick]

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

Here is the original, unaltered PSA/DNA letter:

[bigtruck260]

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

This is why I always look at auction houses' offerings...but rarely buy.

Almost everything in the Game Used 'industry' has some sort of loose description when being sold - or facts are left out, or things are altered...the usual case is that a story is exaggerated - or fabriacated altogether to justify the value of an item.

It happens all the time on eBay, and by the looks of things, it happens in the major auction houses...where an average joe who has some cash laying around can be lured into buying a potentially 'rare' piece with some over-reaching statements. The Ruth bat might be one instance, but when you are contantly hearing about this stuff ALL THE TIME, there is merit to it.

What if some of the watchdog people in this forum stopped posting? What if GUU did not exist? Folks would be relying on the auction houses (and their professional and honest approach) to buy future heirlooms.

I commend Mr. Allen for refunding Rick - that is amazing, considering there is at least one auction house that is just now paying consigners after a MARCH auction...2 years is awesome. But the point is, if it had been 5 years down the road, and the bat would have been listed wrong - the seller is still responsible for the item description.

I doubt that every person who bids on an item knows that MEARS 4.5 is not the most terrific grade...I think there is a great population of naive people who will buy anything as long as it has a COA attached...even if it is signed by Santa Claus. If you don't believe me, search completed autograph auctions on eBay.

I think it would be more appropriate to list exactly what the 4.5 means in the description. The more detail, the better....

[trsent]

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

I understand both sides and I see where people want descriptions for items to the letter T, but they don't own auction houses, so they are giving recommendations to auction houses how they should list and describe their merchandise.

I understand the concern, but telling someone how to run their business is not going to change things. They give a description that they find honest and think will bring the highest value to their items.

Were facts left out? Maybe, and that is not acceptable, but telling an auction house, or for that matter The Sears Catalog how they have to describe their inventory is not our responsibility. I know when I don't like how a business does something I complain to their web site's feedback department and hope they listen, even though I know they will not.

Too many people want to be God-like figures to companies we just shouldn't shop with in the first place if we do not like their business practices. If you do not like how a company lists their descriptions, don't buy from the company, duh.

[CollectGU]

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

I understand the concern, but telling someone how to run their business is not going to change things. They give a description that they find honest and think will bring the highest value to their items.

Were facts left out? Maybe, and that is not acceptable, but telling an auction house, or for that matter The Sears Catalog how they have to describe their inventory is not our responsibility. I know when I don't like how a business does something I complain to their web site's feedback department and hope they listen, even though I know they will not.

Too many people want to be God-like figures to companies we just shouldn't shop with in the first place if we do not like their business practices. If you do not like how a company lists their descriptions, don't buy from the company, duh.

Actually Joel there are statutes in every state against what is known as deceptive trade practices and the onus is on corporations to follow the guidelines or face potential puntive damage judgements against them for many times more than the simple cost to refund the buyer's money.

Some more info on it:

Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.

Regards,
Dave

[bigtruck260]

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

I understand the concern, but telling someone how to run their business is not going to change things. They give a description that they find honest and think will bring the highest value to their items.

Isn't this why the original post was made Joel? The descriptions might be 'honest' to some, but totally dishonest to others. There has to be a benchmark...

[both-teams-played-hard]

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

There are many collectors who do not read this forum or The New York Daily News.

[trsent]

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

Actually Joel there are statutes in every state against what is known as deceptive trade practices and the onus is on corporations to follow the guidelines or face potential puntive damage judgements against them for many times more than the simple cost to refund the buyer's money.

Some more info on it:

Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.

Regards,
Dave

Dave, you should call the proper legal agencies and take action then if you believe they are intentionally defrauding the public. I do not understand, they write a description, and we bring it to their attention that we do not like the description and they change it, but they still have to be harassed over it because now the GUU Fourm has decided they were attempting to commit fraud - Not that maybe they made a judgement call that we found was not the best judgement?

Call the police if you are really so concerned.

Warren, I cannot use the theory day in and day out that the public has to see this forum or the NY Daily News articles. So, we are now the police for the industry (I have no problems with this) but we also are now going to judge and sentence those who we feel are in violation?

Time and time again an auction house makes an effort to work with us, and time and time again instead of us cooporating, we have to tell them what scumbags they are over and over again.

Doug Allen has offered to reply personally to any concerns via his personal email address as he claims he will not longer contribute to this forum. That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!

If Dave O'Brien is really concerned, or anyone else, they should contact the proper legal avenues on behalf of the public.

[b.heagy]

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

Doug Allen has offered to reply personally to any concerns via his personal email address as he claims he will not longer contribute to this forum. That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!


Joel,
Doug prefers to communicate via email, he already made that clear. He was hardly bullied away. I appreciate him taking the time to communicate with the members about the concerns that were raised.

[both-teams-played-hard]

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

That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!

Right up there with the "go to your basement with your bricks" quote.
The hookers and drug dealers don't do much business in front of a cop-shop, either.

[encinorick]

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

Joel: So we're at fault here, the consumers, and auction houses like AMI, Bricol, Mastro, etc are the victims?

And Doug, who before your very eyes altered a third-party LOA simply to prove a point is also a victim? And we scared the "little bunny" because we were "bullies" and he ran away never to be heard of again. Poor bunny, Doug.

What Dave said was the truth. There's no "nod and wink" with facts, there is no "overreaching" with facts. Facts are.

If you have opinion, that's another thing. But if you have 2 LOA's that date a bat differently and neither says anything about game use, how the hell can you describe it as game-used?

How do you not explicitly state to the consumer that there are two LOA's from reputable experts that say different things about the bat and they are inherently contradictory to one another?

And if there's no agreement as to what the heck the bat is, why would you put it up for sale?

[earlywynnfan]

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

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com