Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

[Giants00]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

And further to add, i believe that we have a great person to evaluate jerseys in Dave Grob. We need to have a few of these folks! The more we have the better!

[Giants00]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

One last. There is a ton of academic work that open markets are way more efficient and lead in the end to higher prices. The immaturity in our market is that people have not come to standards on what constitutes openness. If we had clearer standards and we had real evaluators, indeed full disclosure leads to higher prices. The art market is way past this and there have been some very controversial art pieces that have sold with the controversy for higher prices. An open and standards based market in the long benefits all.
On Doug, I think that it is really unfair to essentially accuse him of what you are without any access to his side of the story. I am not sure what good it does to label him. I am not sure how it helps anyone. If you dont want to buy from legendary, skip it.
In general, i think our goal should be things which drive transparency! I think we should avoid attacking, and I love the dialog.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

"I dont believe that Doug is a bad guy or trying to do bad things."

he just happened to run an auction house that closed down amidst an FBI investigation that, as the NY Daily News put it, "..focused on shill bidding, card doctoring and other allegations of fraud". i guess it depends on your definition of "bad".

"I think he would get a higher price with that disclosure."

this confuses me on 2 ends. 1 - you believe that people would pay more if they thought a jersey had been re-used through the minors than if it hadn't? this certainly goes against everything i've ever known. 2 - if you're correct and it would've gotten a higher price with that disclosure, then why didn't doug put it in? did he not want to make more money? or did he just forget? the former is nonsense so i assume you believe he just forgot. he auctioned off, as he put it, "the most significant piece in his collection" and you don't think he labored and sweated over that description? does that make any sense? if you auctioned off your holy grail, a jersey that you boasted was worth $100k, into your own auction, do you really think you would've just forgotten to mention something that would've made you more money? absurd. clearly you think doug is far dumber than i do. i believe doug didn't include it for a reason and it certainly wasn't because he forgot or wanted to make less money.

rudy.

[TNTtoys]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

This is an interesting topic. I've often wondered whether some collectors intentionally "talk down" an item that they are interested in, in an effort to keep the prices down and competing bidders away.

Though I have never "talked down" an item I am interested in to keep competing bidders away, I have certainly contacted the sellers and asked them to revise their descriptions when they are blatently misleading or overly embellish an item to the point that it is what it is not. And I don't see anything wrong with that.

[TNTtoys]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

I also am a believer in disclosure. I think he would get a higher price with that disclosure.

No, I am sorry, I strongly disagree with this statement. The disclosure will greatly diminish the value of the item. I think there is speculation that the disclosure was intentionally left out for this purpose.

[sammy]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

It is not the first time Doug has been caught and exposed for his unethical behavior over the years.

I see nothing in his current behavior to think this unethical behavior has changed, or will change.

Hopefully he will keep getting caught and exposed when his moral compass falters.

Keep up the good fight Rudy.

[Giants00]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

I think we have exhausted the issue, but last ping. I dont believe that Doug is a bad guy or trying to do bad things. The description, well that could have been better. I think that we have to make sure that we get to full and open disclosure. What i worry about is that we end up coming down pretty hard on people here, and that after awhile we are going to drive the good out with the bad.
I do not begrudge anyone a price on anything. I have seen jerseys go 10X in 2 years. I think Doug deserves to get a great price. I also am a believer in disclosure. I think he would get a higher price with that disclosure.
I am a buyer of old flannels only and i know most of these people. We need to continue to move this thing in the right direction. If we do, it will only help all of us when we come to sell.
dan

[kingjammy24]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

dan

doug is entitled to make money. i didn't mean to imply that i was somehow stipulating what anyone can or can't make at auction. obviously that would be absurd. i was simply pointing out my confusion at how a jersey goes up over 100% in value in a little over 2 yrs. i guess anythings possible. i do begrudge someone making money when i think they've done it unethically. i think knowing your jersey has seen "semi-pro" use and not disclosing that fact is unethical.

secondly, ethnical behavior would seem to dictate that if doug wants to sell his own items in his own auction then he at least ought to disclose that. i can't find anywhere on the legendary website where the disclosure on this lot has been made. i've looked everywhere and cannot see any disclosures. i was told that the disclosures have been made in the print catalog. not sure why they wouldn't also be made online.

i did run into this though:

"We are not dealers.
Legendary Auctions is a consignment auction house. Many auctions are run by dealers offering material they own. And in addition to offering an infinitely inferior service, these auctions expose consignors to numerous unreconcilable conflicts of interest"

doug criticizes auction houses that offer material they own because of the "..numerous unreconcilable conflicts of interest". tee hee.

rudy.

[Giants00]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

Rudy and others,
I am going to agree and diagree with some of the points. First, I think sometimes we all get a bit heated (but hey what is a message board for). Doug is entitled to make money, and he is entitled to sell his own stuff at auction as long as it is disclosed. Even though i have not sold any of my stuff yet, i would hate to have someone tell me what i can or cant make from the sale based on how long i have owned something. I also believe that there are few truly bad people running around. I think we all have to be clear that people can and should make money and that we dont begrudge that.
On the other side, I am very pro-disclosure and i (and i think Rudy shares this) am not a huge fan of messing with real proven vintage jerseys to "improve" others. I think that continuing to shine a light on the imperfect disclosure here will help us dramatically improve standards for the next go around.
dan

[genius]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

This is an interesting topic. I've often wondered whether some collectors intentionally "talk down" an item that they are interested in, in an effort to keep the prices down and competing bidders away.

[xpress34]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

Rudy -

This article shadows the issue you are discussing:

http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=5947&universeid=314

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stretching the Truth



Joe Orlando - November 17, 2009
This topic has been covered before but, since it has been on my mind as of late, I thought I would cover it again. When it comes to memorabilia, we are all familiar with the issue of outright forgeries and counterfeits. Part of the reason companies like PSA exist is because of this problem in the marketplace. Third party authentication services may not be the police and may not be perfect but they certainly help make the industry a safer place to buy.


In addition to the issue of forgeries that plague all collectibles markets, there is another problem that is rarely discussed but equally as sinister. It is the seller’s intent to stretch the truth when it comes to a piece that is actually authentic to begin with. I know you are probably wondering why anyone would do that. It is very simple. There can be a huge difference in value between one type of authentic item and another based on the story behind it. Greed has been, and always will be; the downfall of many in this world and our hobby is certainly not immune to it.


You could argue that this act is equally as disturbing as the act of forging something because you are tainting a collectible that was already authentic in the first place. Here’s an example, let’s say you have an authentic game-used glove. It can be of any player you choose. Let’s assume the glove is 100% authentic for the purposes of this hypothetical. The glove changes hands and is now in the possession of another hobby figure.


The new owner tries to sell the glove, not only as an authentic game-used glove, but one that was used to catch the final out in a historic game, perhaps a World Series clincher or perfect game. If that is in fact true, it is a wonderful piece but what I am finding is that more and more stories are being told about the items without the evidence to support the claim. In some cases, the sellers are stretching the truth about a piece that was fine as is but they do it so you will stretch your wallet.
Here’s another example. There is a ball signed by Babe Ruth and it is inscribed “To Joe” on the side panel. It is sold, originally, for $7,500 as a personalized Babe Ruth ball. The next seller puts it up for auction and claims the “To Joe” actually refers to Joe DiMaggio. He concocts an elaborate story and the same ball sells for $50,000 to a buyer who bought not only the ball but, more importantly, the story. There is no question that buyers need to do their homework and due diligence before spending their money but, if the truth has been stretched, it is still wrong nonetheless.



Keep in mind that there are great items that are wonderful on their own merit AND they come with great provenance or significance. They do exist but, since they are rare, the greed factor is pushing some sellers into misrepresentation. They want to make a great item even better and more appealing than it already is. Sometimes, when things get tough, people get desperate. Is the tough economy possibly playing a role? It certainly isn’t helping matters but I am sure there may be a lot of factors at work.


As a lifelong hobbyist, it is frustrating to see this occur. It not only helps devalue the truly great items in the marketplace but it also may scare off new people from collecting altogether. The reality is that there are plenty of incredible and completely authentic items to buy if you are interested in starting a collection. Sure, some items are incredibly scarce but that is no excuse for sellers to stretch the truth and ruin a good thing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Chris

[kingjammy24]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

I also think that this sheds important light on the way the auction houses do business.

i think its interesting that the president of an auction house may actually have a deep, vested interest in seeing a consigned piece sell for as little as possible simply so he can personally snatch it up, sell it for more and pocket the entire difference himself. while the auction house as a whole and the original consigner lose money from the reduced premiums, the actual loss that the president personally takes is minimal because the loss is distributed amongst many different people. on the other hand, while the auction house and consigner take a loss, the president personally profits because he then subsequently flips the item in his own private sale. if the item had originally sold for a high amount by the house, then any premiums would've been split amongst many hungry mouths (especially if that house is owned by a much larger corporation with a very hungry mouth of its own). why not cut all of those mouths out of the picture and use the auction house to attract and authenticate consignments while you personally cherrypick the lots you want to flip privately and keep the entire proceeds yourself? you're basically using the resources of the auction house to drive your own personal side flipping business. here's a little math: lets say you're an auction house president and a jersey is consigned to your auction. the jersey should sell for $40k. you do all you can to make it sell for $30k so you can personally buy it. assuming 20%/20% buyers/sellers fees, the auction house makes $12k. (had the jersey sold for $40k, they would've made $16k. only $4k difference between the two prices) anyway, at $30k hammer price the $12k in fees is split amongst a ton of people. employees, overhead, investors, etc. maybe you'll see 1/10th of it. peanuts. but now you own the jersey at $30k. you turn around and sell it for what it should sell for - $40k. you've just pocketed $10k. the best the auction house could've realized between selling it for $40k instead of $30k is $4k. you exploited the same difference in price and reaped $10k personally. you personally pocketed much more than you would have had you let the auction house sell it for $40k and use the proceeds to feed everyone else.

i've heard a certain authenticator operated in a similar fashion; downgrades pieces so he can intentionally buy them at a reduced price and then magically upgrades them and pockets the difference in price. for those who doubt that anyone has the power to substantially alter the hammer price of items, you can look no further than GUU. some guy recently posted and lamented that the same helmet he sold on ebay for $181 just sold on GUU's auctions for $1141. the main reason given? robert. hypothetically speaking, what if robert had intentionally downgraded the helmet when it was on GUU, had it sell for $200, picked it up himself, turned around and sold it for $1141 privately? $941 personal profit. much more than he would've seen had GUU sold the helmet for $1141. banning house bids is not only good for bidders but its also good for the house itself to prevent staff from deliberately trying to make pieces sell for less.

when doug didn't own the chance jersey, it had a semi-pro afterlife. now that he owns it and all of the profit would is his, no such afterlife is mentioned.

if anyone had consigned a piece to mastro, had it sell for $40k, and then saw the head of mastro boasting only a little over 2 yrs later how it was worth $100k, i think they'd be pretty pissed. of course, for his own sake i can't imagine that doug wanted to pay anywhere near $100k. it was worth $40k when the original consigner owned it in 2004 but in aug 2008, well into the worst recession since the 30s, doug owns it and its worth $100k?

i'm also very surprised at how some of these houses were set up and that collectors seemingly went along with it all. house reserves the right to bid in its own auction, house will employ hidden reserves thus having bidders bid against themselves, (have you checked the reserve on the chance shirt this time around? holy smokes, $45k and reserve still not met. what was the reserve back in 2004? $7500?), house reserves the right to view everyones max/ceiling bids, house will not reveal that it owns a lot, house will not reveal who authenticated a piece, etc. and collectors went along with it all and paid a premium to do so. its a system entirely designed to be gamed by the house itself. its nice that mastro finally went down but unfortunately the main players are still carrying on.

rudy.

[corsairs22]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

I, too, enjoy the thoughtful analysis of the situation. While I think it's a very cool item and wouldn't mind owning it in its present condition, I also think that this sheds important light on the way the auction houses do business.

[nickacs]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

I, for one, do not find this boring or beating a dead horse While I don't have any interest in this piece, I always admire the people on here that take their free time and find information that reveals more about an auction item.
Most times people don't know and some unsuspecting person is going to bid on items like this and not realize the history or just how "bad"/non game-used an item really is. Auction houses <> 100% legit game-worn items, no matter what LOA's/lot description they have!

I remember the pages and pages of info on the Jordan "first jersey" back in the Sept GFC auction that was most informative and seeing all the board members take their free time to help others.

Thanks!

[kingjammy24]

Re: Legendary: Frank Chance jersey

i know i'm likely boring everyone to death but the more i think about this jersey the more interesting it becomes. i think the "semi-pro" use is a significant hit on the value. i began wondering why doug chose to reveal this fact in 2004 but not in 2009. after all, in 2004, the more the jersey sold for the more money mastro would make so if he's ok with hiding that fact (as witnessed by his current auction), why didn't he do it in 2004? why not try to sell the jersey for as much as possible in '04 even if it means hiding a fact or two? was it because he knew he was going to buy the jersey? the more he sold it for the more he would've had to pay for it and the less profit he'd make when he flipped it.

the problem of course is the blistering conflict of interest. the president of the auction house is selling an item, for a consigner, that he personally intends to buy and later flip for a personal profit. the consigner wants it to sell for as much as possible but the president of the auction house needs it to sell for as little as possible so he can buy it himself. wow.

theres a difference between mastro making a profit as a corporation, from which doug would get a small slice, and doug allen making a profit as a private individual from which he would reap the entire pie. when the original consigner gave the piece to mastro, mastro was only going to make a small percentage off the hammer price. when doug sells the piece now, he is the consigner AND the auction house and so he'll reap everything. in 2004, doug felt it appropo to mention that the jersey had a "semi-pro afterlife". when he went to sell his shirt this time around, that fact was nowhere to be seen.

in dec 2004, doug bought the chance uniform for $40k. only 2.5 yrs later, he boasted that he had been offered $100k for it: http://books.google.com/books?id=6cY...0allen&f=false

it hadn't been photomatched since 2004 nor had any additional provenance been discovered yet it had risen $60k in value (well over 100%) in only 2.5 yrs? of course, whether or not doug really had been offered $100k for it is anyone's guess. i suppose its theoretically possible that saying someone had offered $100k for it was done to create a sense of value way above and beyond what it had actually sold for only a couple of short years earlier. after all, if the uniform really was worth $100k in 2008, then it seems to me that mastro should've done far better than $40k in dec 2004. perhaps it only sold for that amount because at that time they chose to mention the semi-pro usage whereas now such usage isn't being mentioned at all? that might account for some inflated value.

rudy.