Mastro Thorpe

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I am losing all respect for Mastro. After reading the joke of a description they have for m101-5 Thorpe in their auction, I am left to conclude that Mastro is no longer knowledgeable about vintage cards. How can any respectable auction house claim to be the best in the hobby when they claim m101-5s come with TSN backs and that the F&B back for Thorpe to be rare? The F&B back is the most common back for Thorpe.<br /><br />I don't know about anyone else, but Mastro just keeps digging a deeper and deeper hole. Why would anyone want to consign to them when they can't properly describe their lots, admit to doctoring cards and other claims that make them look bad.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>In regard to the Thorpe, the blank back is more pleniful than Famous & Barr (but the F&B is far from the toughest M101-5 back).<br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Famous and Barr and Blank backs. The card is an M101-5, not an M101-4, and is NOT found with a Sporting News back, as the Mastro description claims. The description even claims the Thorpe is most commonly found with a Sporting News back - not so, it does NOT even exist with a Sporting News back period!<br /><br />As for the most common back for a Thorpe, personally, I have seen more Thorpes with Famous & Barr ad backs than I have seen with blank backs over the years. So, while it is impossible to determine which is more common (blank or Famous & Barr), my experience coincides with Jay's that the Famous & Barr add is more common (again, this is from my experience of the Thorpes I have seen). The one thing I can be certain is that the description in Mastro is incorrect, as Thorpe CANNOT be found with a Sporting News back.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>I think what Jay is saying is the Sporting News back Thorpe is unlikely. Thorpe was in the M101-5 only and not the M101-4 series and the Sporting News back can only be found on the M101-4. So when Mastro says "....a total of nine cards of #176 Jim Thorpe has been graded by PSA, and nearly all of these bear the standard Sporting News stamp on their reverses", that is not true.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>For what its worth, I have seen a Thorpe with blank reverse. I think PSA until a few years ago did not do a good job identifying the backs on these series of cards. So it is possible, that the population report is simply not identifying all the F & B Thorpe cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>They messed up the last card I consigned to them as well in Dec. - it was a RED print Croft's Candy card and their description stated it was a red CROFT'S COCOA card. Either knowledge is lacking at Mastro or they need a better proof reader and/or editor for their catalogs it seems, as these are only two examples of several errors in descriptions. I have even noticed several improper grammatical errors in the descriptions - I chuckled to myself wondering if Barry Sloate (the English Prof.) caught these as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Scott- I have spoken to them about their writing style, and that they should streamline it and use simpler sentences. But this is the way they prefer to do it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>If you guys don't stop bashing Mastro the price for the catalogue will go up to $150. How else can they maintain their position as a "first class" operation with all these mistakes? Oh wait -- it's all in the packing tape.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Jeff- you sure love their packing tape. Maybe they will send you a complimentary roll if you win a lot or two. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I have to say as an auctioneer myself that even though I proofread my little catalog several times before it goes to press, I still find typos in it later. It's inevitable. And as far as the error on the Thorpe, they'll amend the catalog if you point it out.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>'role'. Non Non, it is roll if you please. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />You could wait all year for such an opportunity <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You're right Daniel- see what I mean about typos! Boy, when someone catches me with a word misspelled it makes their day. That's a lot of pressure! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>for every time you mis-spoke or misspelled, you'd be stone cold sober at the end of the night.<br />It's a treat to have you on the board, a classier guy I'm yet to meet.<br /><br />And yes, the pressure stays on the standard bearers, but for that you get to feel good about yourself at night...what do the rest of us have? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Well, actually my wife is kind of hot.<img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Kindest regards<br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>That's very kind Daniel, thank you.<br /><br />But it's still no excuse for a misspelled word! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>To everyone - especially in a catalog as large as Mastro's. I think what Jay was trying to point out is that the error of stating the Thorpe is mostly found with Sporting News backs is a "Hobby Error". This might lead people to bid more on the Thorpe simply b/c they think the F&B back is rare - going by the misrepresentation in the description. It really sounds like whoever wrote the description for Mastro doesn't have enough Hobby experience to know that the Thorpe cannot be found with a Sporting News back. Either that, or the person was trying to mislead bidders into thinking the card was rarer than it actually is (personally, I believe the writer simply did not know).<br /><br />We all expect grammatical errors, but Hobby errors (especially one like this one - an easy one) should not be in a major auction catalog - it makes the auction house look less knowledgeable!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I agree, but if it is pointed out to them and they recognize the error, they will amend the catalog. I'm sure they don't want to misrepresent anything.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I agree with Barry.<br />Its not an error in description that worries me, it's inflexibility to correct a mistake, or refund a purchasers payment post auction if the mistake were only known after, that would give me any pause in doing business with them. Thus far I've only seen Doug Allen to be extremley amenable to working with hobbyists on this board.<br />The fiddling with cards Jay mentions I find a much more egregious fault, but after discussions aplenty on various threads it seemed there wasn't even consensus that this was terrible, so I'm doubting this is a make or breaker for Mastro.<br /><br />Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Did anybody else notice the same Original Artwork in both Mastro and Heritage?<br /><br /><a href="http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=69363&LastLotListing=Lot" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=69363&LastLotListing=Lot</a> Search List&CurrentRow=1<br /><br /><a href="http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=824&Lot_No=44293" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://comics.ha.com/common/view_item.php?Sale_No=824&Lot_No=44293</a><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>Errors in listing will never make or break Mastro. If raising their Buyer's Premium right before an auction in Dec. and Doug Allen admitting they alter cards before grading didn't hurt them, I seriously doubt errors in listings will either.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rhett Yeakley</b><p>This is coming from someone eho has handled hundreds of cards from this series, I was simply stating that there are more blank back M101-5's out there than Famous and Barr's. Therefore, it is logical to believe that there would be more Thorpe's with the blank reverse. I am not disputing the fact that Mastro's write up is in error, I just found it kinda funny that Jay would bash them about a mistake and make a comment that isn't necessarily correct in the same sentence. I'm not sticking up for Mastro's error, they should know better than to get the M101-5's and M101-4's mixed up.<br />-Rhett

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I've just gone from my limited experience, that being that I've seen about a half dozen Thorpe's and they all had F&B backs.<br /><br />My point wasn't that this was some sort of typo. This is an egregious error that should not be made by an organization such as Mastro. There is far too much knowledge around there for something like this to happen. This leads one to wonder, given the other things they do to maximize prices, if this isn't jsut another one of those things that they hope no one will notice and let slide by.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Did you notify them Jay?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Nope. <br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Since I was a bidder on the Thorpe card, I was e-mailed the modification. It certainly does not appear that any misstatement was intentional.<br /><br /><br /><br />"Lot Number 1013, 1915 M101-5 Famous and Barr #176 Jim Thorpe Rookie <br />Card, has had its description modifed from the catalog.<br /><br />Please Note: This description has been modified in the interest of clarification. Of the nine graded examples on PSA's Population Report, just one is confirmed to have the Famous and Barr back. The anecdotal experiences of individual collectors notwithstanding, the Population Report, as strictly interpreted, supports the claim (as noted in the original description) that Famous and Barr is not the most common back in this subject. Although most of the hobby's graded Thorpe examples are known to be blank-backed, PSA and SGC have historically labeled M101-5's with blank backs as "M101-5 Sporting News" cards. The continued use of the "Sporting News" title by price guides and grading services led to the apparent confusion inherent in our published description."<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I think Mastro handled this issue well.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Yes and no. The modified description states "This particular card, however, the Famous and Barr variety, is the only one of its specific, rare type ever graded by PSA. Its determined condition is moot—there are none inferior, and there are none better."<br /><br />There may be no other PSA examples, but SGC, whose name is cited in the amended description, has graded two Thorpe's--a 20 and a 40. Thus, the offered example is not unique as Mastro would imply.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I own the SGC20 and it would grade higher if it didn't have a name stamped on the back. <br /><br />I still don't like the explanation. Too much double speak and as pointed out, it still leaves things very unclear. Not very professional, in my opinion.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>I encourage everyone to withdraw their bids on this card. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Paul has a very good idea. Call Mastro and ask to have your bids retracted. I'll do the same. Promise. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Cat<br />fingerscrossedbehindhisback

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I just noticed another bit of puffery in the listing which is wrong. I never read the title closely before, but I just noticed that it claims to be Thorpe's rookie card. This is incorrect as this Colgan Chip Tin Top is rookie. They were issued in 1913, beating the m101-5 by 2 years.<br /><br />Let's see if they change Title. For some reason, I doubt it. If anything, they will pull another double speak stunt and bury it in the addendum, so it will still look like rook card the same way they want it too look like the F&B back is rare, which it is not.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>stop showing your ignorance. Per our own Peter Chao and his beloved Beckett, Thorpe's rookie card has got to be the 1933 Goudey Sport Kings (here's a hint--when in doubt, look to Goudey). Although, come to think of it, that's a multi-sport issue---hmm, better be safe and say it's his 1955 Topps All-American Football. But wait, that's a college-related set.....can't remember the Beckett rookie rules...probably best we just conclude that Thorpe had no rookie cards at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Actually, Thorpe's SK card would be his rookie football card since it depects him as a football player. So you are right in one aspect.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>We may have to get Peter involved in this one. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14> According to Beckettpedia (all genuflect now):<br /><br />"Rookie Card - A player's regular issue card from an officially licenced brand issued in the first year the player is eligible to appear on a trading card."<br /><br />Now, Beckett would tell you that Colgan's and m101-5 were not "officially licenced", so those can't be rookies, and Thorpe was done playing football for quite some time before the Sports Kings cards came out, so it technically wasn't issued in the first year he was eligible to appear. Heck, Babe Ruth himself had to wait until he'd played 19 seasons before his Beckett rookie card came out.<br />It's all so confusing....Oh wait, that was the beauty of the Beckett definition, or so we were told--it is clear cut and easy to follow. Never mind, must just be me.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>How are Colgans and m101-5s not officlally licensed and Goudeys are? MLB did license anything until 1969 that I am aware of.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Paul</b><p>"issued in the first year the player is eligible to appear on a trading card".<br /><br />What does that mean? It is utterly meaningless when applied to vintage cards. Babe Ruth was "eligible" to appear on a trading card as soon as he left his mother's womb.<br /><br />For modern cards, I think this is a reference to the fact that MLB, Topps, and Upper Deck have an agreement not to issue a card of a player until he meets certain elibility conditions. (I forget what those conditions are -- but it probably has to do with major league games played, or designation on a team's roster, or something similar).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>you're preaching to the choir. Let's see if Peter can help out.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scott Elkins</b><p>A PSA 5 example in the Nov. 2000 Mastro catalog that is a FAKE! The other two M101-5 Thorpes I found BOTH have Famous and Barr backs and BOTH were in Mastro auctions, so Mastro DID know there were more than one F&B Thorpe! The two real M101-5 Thorpes with F&B Backs are Lot #215 in the Nov. 2000 Mastro catalog (an ungraded VG/EX example) and lot #829 in the August 2002 Mastro auction (an SGC 40 example). Again, BOTH of these M101-5 Thorpes have F&B Backs. The ONLY Blank Backed example I could find in any of my past auction catalogs was lot #1184 in the Mastro Nov. 2000 catalog and the card is FAKE! I have included a scan of the lot and item description below. As you can see, there is toooooo much space between the image of Thorpe and the black line outlining the image - easy catch on this one being fake! I have also included a scan of the PSA 3 real Thorpe I won in the last Mastro auction for comparison with the fake example.<br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1178495113.JPG"> <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1178495122.JPG">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I expect that we'll be hearing from the owner of that fake and his claims that PSA swapped out a real card for the fake in the slab. Hopefully he doesn't have a new ISP as I think Leon has blocked him.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I am not sure we have anyone that is not a troll blocked. There is one guy in MI that I blocked a long time ago because he screwed me over in a deal on ebay. He is the only one I am aware of besides the 11 yr old that is blocked. As for fake Thorpes I agree the one in the PSA holder, with the blank back, doesn't look good from the scan.....To me it's hard to tell too much though from that scan.....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tim Newcomb</b><p>That Thorpe is absolutely a fake. The scan is perfectly clear. I don't know what all "Tom" has to do with this card, but Mastro apparently auctioned a stone fake in that case.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>He (Tom) might very well be blocked. I forgot about him.....That was an easy call when he was banned. Way overboard....