Posted By:
Plastic Dog I have mixed emotions on the current controversy over authenticated bats and Mastro. No excuses for this mistake. But, without knowing all of the details on this one, I think it is possible that Mastro may have intended to fully authenticate the bat after their catalogue deadline (but before the auction) with the expectation based on limited provenance that their examination would confirm the authenticity. People do similar things all the time, publishing events as facts before final confirmation due to time constraints (but which they fully expect to occur). Chicago papers got a certain election wrong earlier this century, and how many networks screwed up the last presidential election? All of them? It's stupid and embarrassing, as Mastro should have been sure of the authentication before putting the item in the catalogue. But as long as they intended to authenticate it fully before they actually sold it, I can forgive them. MW is right that Ischiro's fluent English inscription should have tipped somebody off. But if, (and only if), there was the intention to authenticate the bat before the sale, I think that demonstrates some administrative/procedural auction flaws but not necessarily fundamental problems with its entire authentication process. If somebody else brought it to their intention, and then they discovered the problem, that is more troubling.
All of that said, Mastro did withdraw the lot, and apparently admits that it screwed up. Those are two qualities that I find reassuring. A certain Wilt 100 point basketball has certainly made the auction circuit rounds recently at different auction houses, and I don't believe it was ever pulled even though questions were raised prior to the sale. I also know that more than one lot at Sotheby's Halper sale had questionable provenance (especially some of the uniforms), but they were sold anyway. So Mastro's action is at least reassuring in that regard.
My past experience with Mastro has been all positive. Significant cumulative knowledge, excellent customer service, willingness to research questions with no direct monetary gain. MW raises some excellent points (in spite of their historically anti-Mastro sentiment), but the current issue may be only a procedural flaw and not an authentication flaw. I hope.
By the way, while I agree that SGC is a superior card authentication company, it took me a while to get past their involvement with authenticating the altered Doyle NY Natl. card. That was deceptive and intentional, while Mastro's current misstep appears to be an honest mistake. I just hope those were isolated incidents for both companies and that they've learned from their mistakes. Otherwise, who are we supposed to trust?