View Full Version : Lot withdrawn from Mastro auction
Archive
10-26-2007, 06:33 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>I received the following e-mail about a Babe Ruth card on which I'd placed a bid being withdrawn today. The thing I find interesting is the card was graded by SGC, so I wonder what details Mastro wasn't able to confirm? And there's a mention of authenticity, so does that mean the holder was tampered with but not noticed until the last day of the auction? I sent an e-mail but didn't receive a reply. To be clear: I'm not implying any wrongdoing by Mastro; I just find it curious. Here's the e-mail and below it a link to the lot:<br /><br /><b>Lot Number 1386, 1933 R319 Goudey #144 Babe Ruth - SGC 40 VG 3, has been <br />withdrawn due to our inability to absolutely confirm some of the details <br />originally include in the item's description in the catalog. If we are able to <br />confirm authenticity beyond a doubt, we may re-offer the item in another <br />catalog. We appreciate your bidding and hope that you will find other items that <br />peak your interest.<br /><br />If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.<br /><br />Thank You<br /><br />Mastro Auctions Inc</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=75989&LastLotListing=All%20My%20Bids%20List&CurrentRow=1">1933 R319 Goudey #144 Babe Ruth - SGC 40 VG 3</a><br />
Archive
10-26-2007, 06:38 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>That's VERY concerning...
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:13 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Calderon</b><p>There is nothing wrong with the Babe Ruth card in question. It is 100% real as SGC would have definitely caught any problem. This was my error. The single Ruth card offered in lot #1386 was not supposed to be sold as a single card, it was supposed to be included in lot #1024. Yes, lot #'s 1024 and 1386 are from the same consignor. We were alerted to the error today and I ended lot #1386. The Ruth card that WAS lot #1386 is now included in lot #1024 and an image of that same Ruth card has been added to our web site.<br /><br />The email Rob received is the standard email we send when an autographed item is withdrawn. Why it was sent in this instance, I don't know. We will figure that out tomorrow but it shouldn't have been sent. Sorry for the confusion.<br />
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:18 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>If I am the seller, I am very ticked off! Theoretically Lot 1024 should go for a lot more then it will since it now has a huge card in it and no one knows about it. What would have been the big deal if they were sold as separate lots?
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Thanks for the explanation. Peter, though I'm sure some will be sorry to read that this simply was an honest cataloging/bookkeeping mistake -- just as others will no doubt breathe a sigh of relief. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />(By the way, the word <i>bookkeeper</i> is the only one in the English language with three consecutive double letters. No charge for that tidbit.)
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:24 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I am with Matt on this one....what would have been the harm in letting them stay as separate lots? Have you notified all the bidders of the Ruth that it is now a part of lot 1024?<br /><br />I wonder what kind of pull the consigner has here in this instance...a guy I know consigned his whole collection of Husker memorabilia to Mastro and he was unhappy with how they lotted it up and tried to get Mastro to stop them and they refused.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p>Seems like the email should have mentioned where the Ruth ended up. Instead it implies the Ruth is a questionable or even a bad card.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:27 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Matt,<br /><br />If I read Peter correctly, the Ruth was listed in the larger lot originally. In effect, the card was offered twice: once by itself and again in the large lot.<br /><br />That's how I read it, at least.<br /><br />If not, I agree with you.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:28 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Rob I don't see where you read that in Peter - he said:<br /><br />"The single Ruth card offered in lot #1386 was not supposed to be sold as a single card, it was <b>supposed to be included</b> in lot #1024."<br /><br />To me that means that is was not included in 1024 originally. If it was, then certainly the only option was to end the other listing, although bidders should have been notified of the issue.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:29 PM
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Doesn't Peter say that a picture of the card was just now added to lot 1024? What is shown in the catalog...I'm at work so I don't have mine handy.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:30 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>the Ruth is not shown as part of 1024 in the catalog.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:35 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Take a look at lot 1024 (the lot that has the Ruth card included with it).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=75627&LastLotListing=Lot%20Search%20List&CurrentRow=1">1930s Vintage Collection (114)</a><br /><br />There's nothing that says the description of the lot has been modified (as of 9:30 p.m. Eastern), so I find it hard to believe that Mastro (or any auction house) would add a Ruth card to a lot at this late stage of an auction. Even though the image has been added, I think the Ruth originally was listed as part of the group.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:37 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>I can't accept a proof from a web page that they control! <br /><br />Peter can just come on and clarify what happened...
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:39 PM
Posted By: <b>Rand Brotman</b><p>I was a bidder on both lots, i noticed from day 1 that lot # 1024 included an sgc 40 Ruth. i also noticed the card on its own. my gut feeling told me the card may have been double listed, mainly due to the lack of scans on lot 1024. i was hoping to snag the lot under the radar. Mastro caught it in time and now has added scans and alerted everyone. With the thousands of cards they handle, its an honest mistake.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:42 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Rand thanks for clarifying - it makes Peter's move much more reasonable, although he should have sent an email to those bidding on the Ruth letting them know where to find it.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Peter Calderon</b><p>The Ruth card offered in lot #1024 and the Ruth card in lot #1386 refer to THE SAME CARD. There is only ONE Ruth card. How could we let both lots continue to run as is? Also, I have talked to the consignor about my error. He is fine with the way we handled this situation.<br /><br />As for that particular email, it shouldn't have been sent. It is generated automatically. I did send another email notice to everyone who bid on lot #1386 about what happened and where that Ruth card is being auctioned.<br /><br /><br />I'd like to add Rob is correct. The mention of the Ruth card in lot #1024 was always there, as there was no modification, the original description was left as is.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:44 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Well, Matt, I guess no one's really asking you to accept proof. I simply was pointing out why it seemed Mastro didn't add the Ruth to a lot with a few hours of the auction closing, thereby costing itself and a consignor money.<br /><br />Set aside the conspiracy theory for a moment and ask yourself what they would gain.<br /><br />Then again, nevermind.<br /><br />Edited to add: Mastro did send an e-mail telling those who bid on the single Ruth card that it is actually part of the larger lot.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:45 PM
Posted By: <b>Brian</b><p><<With the thousands of cards they handle, its an honest mistake.>><br /><br />And probably costly honest mistake for the seller.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:46 PM
Posted By: <b>Matt</b><p>Rob - if I was proposing a conspiracy theory then they would indeed need to have gained something, but I wasn't so there's no need to answer that one. Sometimes, some people, do silly things that cost others money. It happens. It turns out this isn't one of those cases.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:49 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p><i>I can't accept a proof from a web page that they control!</i><br /><br />I guess I misinterpreted the tone of the above post. My mistake.
Archive
10-26-2007, 07:56 PM
Posted By: <b>Mark Evans</b><p>Great trivia question, Rob. I've passed it along to my brother (Rod) who has written several books comprising similar brain-teasers (e.g., longest one-syllable word: strengths). Mark
Archive
10-26-2007, 08:01 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>That bit of trivia was mentioned in the script of the 1976 TV mini-series <i>Arthur Hailey's the Moneychangers.</i> I was 13 years old when I heard it and never forgot it. That probably was a sign that I was destined to someday become a copy editor.
Archive
10-26-2007, 08:10 PM
Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Rob, <br /><br />then you will love the fact that stewardesses is the longest word to type with one hand (unless you hunt and peck)
Archive
10-26-2007, 08:16 PM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>I promise to give due credit when I pass along that gem. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
Archive
10-27-2007, 05:03 AM
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>If I may offer Mastro some good PR, I left a ceiling bid of around $5600+ on one of my lots before I went to bed, and won it for $3879, four increments below my max. For those who are terrified about leaving ceilings, it worked out just fine. And I got a great deal.
Archive
10-27-2007, 06:05 AM
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Hooray for Mastro for not shilling Barry on one of his lots!
Archive
10-27-2007, 06:19 AM
Posted By: <b>Scott S</b><p>I assume you also know that "typewriter" is the longest word using only the top row of keys.
Archive
10-27-2007, 06:26 AM
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Only if you don't count "quoteroperoptery" as word, you mean.