Did anyone see this item at the Huggins and Scott website?

[mighty bombjack]

In their upcoming auction (which is pretty stacked, as usual), Huggins and Scott has a multi-signed Reach scorebook, kind of a patchwork to be sure.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=59202&catid=270&lotno=366

Now, did anyone besides me see the original listing? They have altered it to show that many of the autos have been deemed clubhouse, but what really strikes me is that the original listing stated that it included an Amos Rusie auto, which got my attention right away. They have removed any mention of that, as well as the photo of the auto. It does not seem that they have deemed it to be a clubhouse sig, but that they are hiding its original presence, perhaps even removing that page from the book completely. This rubs me the wrong way.

Did anybody see it?

[tazdmb]

To be honest, I have been following their updates near daily and did see this item around when first listed and don't recall Amos Rusie being attached to the item. Additionally, I don't see how Rusie (who, I believe, was out of the game by 1902) fits in with these players, time-wise.

[mighty bombjack]

I just did a google search for "huggins and scott rusie" and the first link that came up had the original title and the reference to rusie on the google search page, as I hope you can see here "1930s Reach Baseball Scorebook Signed by (71) With Alexander, Ott and Rusie". The link takes you to the present, altered listing.

https://www.google.com/#safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=huggins+and+scott+rusie&oq=huggins+and+scott+rusie&gs_l=hp.3...2550.2995.1.3347.2.2.0.0.0.0.70.128.2. 2.0....0...1c.1.19.psy-ab.RWAovRTryBo&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_qf.&bvm=bv.48705608,d.aWc&fp=807fed8cf617a84f&biw=1280&bih=897

[thecatspajamas]

You can click on the green arrow to the right of the link in the google search to view the original cached version of the page, fwiw. If they changed the lot description though, there had to have been a reason for doing so, which could also include a request by the consignor. In circumstances like these, it's best to communicate with the AH directly to find out what is going on before blowing it up with public speculation.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/vp.pl/contact.htm

[Leon]

You can click on the green arrow to the right of the link in the google search to view the original cached version of the page, fwiw. If they changed the lot description though, there had to have been a reason for doing so, which could also include a request by the consignor. In circumstances like these, it's best to communicate with the AH directly to find out what is going on before blowing it up with public speculation.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/vp.pl/contact.htm

agreed

[drcy]

As a writer, I always say judge me only by the finished product. If you want to get me mad, pick up some in-progress papers from my desk and read them. I'll ban you from getting near my desk ever again.

Granted, I don't upload in-progress paper to the internet.

[mighty bombjack]

You can click on the green arrow to the right of the link in the google search to view the original cached version of the page, fwiw. If they changed the lot description though, there had to have been a reason for doing so, which could also include a request by the consignor. In circumstances like these, it's best to communicate with the AH directly to find out what is going on before blowing it up with public speculation.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/vp.pl/contact.htm

Thanks for the green arrow tip, that shows the original title and description, though it does not include the original photo that was there.

I will contact the AH, but they open themselves up to public speculation when they show these things as work in progress. This is actually what my distaste is about. I do not know the reason for taking the photo and description of Rusie down, but through the auction house's own actions we can see that they are withholding something about the item as they originally presented it.

We were discussing a Mantle ball in a thread about Heritage, with conjecture about whether the ball had or had not been pre-certed by a TPA yet. The auction house came on here and expalined the situation. Do you think that was inappropriate action by the OP?

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171942

[mighty bombjack]

As a writer, I always say judge me only by the finished product. If you want to get me mad, pick up some in-progress papers from my desk and read them. I'll ban you from getting near my desk ever again.

Granted, I don't upload in-progress paper to the internet.

Would you post those in-progress papers on your website, and then hope not to be judged by them?

Oops, I only read the last line of your post after I responded to it!

[mighty bombjack]

I have sent H&S an email with this inquiry and included a link to this thread.

[mighty bombjack]

Well, that was fast. I would also sell the Amos Rusie separately if I were the consignor.


Wayne,
sure, I'll be happy to explain. When we received the item from the consignor, we wrote it and posted it. Since, we took it to JSA for them to examine the autographs again. When we originally received it, it came with a 2001 LOA from PSA and there was no mention of the Mel Ott signature. We wanted to have it re-examined to see if the Ott was good, so we could list it. When we re-took it to them, JSA advised us that there were several "clubhouse" signatures, including the Ott, the Alexander and the entire '39 Tigers page. At the request of the consignor, we have since removed the Rusie autograph and are sending it in for grading and authentication through PSA and it will be offered in our October auction. If you want to post to the thread, feel free.


Thanks,

Josh Wulkan

Vice President

Huggins and Scott Auctions

[thecatspajamas]

Like I said, there has to be a reason. The removal of a key signature from the description and, apparently, from the lot is not something that any auction house would do on a whim.

Heritage's practice of showing "previews" of auction lots before the auction has gone live and/or before they have been reviewed by authenticators is something that has been discussed before as well, and I don't think has any bearing on the situation here. In fact, the last thread that I recall dealing with an H&S auction started with the OP complaining that they didn't change his consigned lot/description to his satisfaction. It really sounds like a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario to me.

Bottom line, and something I need to be reminded of from time to time as well (especially after my "it sounds to me" analysis above), is that it's best to ask questions of the parties who actually know what is going on before speculating about it publicly and risk arriving at a conclusion that has no basis in reality.

That said, I'm now curious as to the reason for the change as well, so hopefully whoever finds out for sure will share now that the ol' worm can is already open :o

[thecatspajamas]

Man, I need to type faster. Thank you Josh (and Wayne) for clearing up the question.

[mighty bombjack]

The Ruisie from the original listing has been cut, slabbed, and included in their next auction

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-bin/showitem.pl?itemid=61804&catid=270&lotno=849

[Sean1125]

Josh Wulkan is always incredible about getting back to e-mails very quickly. I've never had a problem with H&S and hold them in very high regard - for full disclosure I rep for them out in Phoenix...


Anyway if you e-mail "josh@hugginsandscott.com" I'm sure he will be back to you within 24 hours.