Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

Legitimately, the consignor had no reason to disclose once this auction was live. He states he e-mailed Mile High on the 23rd and contacted legal counsel on the 27th so as to help in the cards return. His focus changed from selling the card to getting it pulled from the auction and getting it returned (no need for disclosure at that point).

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

My, bad from the post above. I missed Roger's response on this issue and, I think he has a legit gripe. (it's only 3:00am) I think I reconize that Anni Summerville card as well

I forgot about Steve V. comments on his auction which used many facts. I still wonder how Mile High fetches some of stupid out of reach prices on many issues? I do not think I would place any top all bids for awile, in the auction.

How many times does one "advertiser" on this chat room, have to be pointed out for mis-leading people, before it gets PULLED?

[Archive]

Posted By: Millerhouse

Am I the only person amused to learn that the last name of the consignor is "Alter?"

Dan

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

JC, that's exactly what I am wondering too. Just what will it take for Leon to finally ban an advertiser? I'm not saying that is what should be done to MIle High, but personally I would given this situation and what Verkman brought posted.

I guess since this is a baseball related forum they get 3 strikes.

As to questioning Leon's integrity, if you've been around long enough on this board, Leon has done more than enough over the years to question his integraty.

Jay

I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

can someone post a link to the thread where Verkman says something?

i keep seeing talk about it but i must have missed it when it was originally posted.

or maybe a brief synopsis?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Whew, I went to bed early last night. Did I miss anything?

This has become an extremely convoluted matter, and if I were the arbitrator here, I might recommend that Brian return Roger's consignments and just move on. Sometimes you have to do the right thing, and given the poisoned atmosphere I can't imagine why Mile High would want to auction whatever consignments they have of his. They may lose a few bucks but at this point I think that no longer matters.

Yes Dan, I caught that too but I think it might be hitting a little bit below the belt.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Please don't post anymore in this thread unless it's on topic. You, my idiot friend, have 2 and a half strikes. Everything Roger posted in the email has been categorically denied by Brian, on the phone, inlcuding the way the email reads. You need to call Brian if you want to get more answers. Email me pesonally if you want to discuss anything else. thanks

edited to say one more thing....Jay B..if you want to start a thread about everything I have done wrong you are welcome to do that. I will go head to head with you...though I honestly believe you have a mental issue I will do it..

[Archive]

Posted By: John S

In a hobby where alterations are severely frowned upon, why would an individual go to such great lengths to change the appearance of a card?

Both parties, as stated before, share the guilt.

My personal preference would have been to auction both cards in their unaltered states as a single lot. This would have allowed for a somewhat satisfying presentation for the collector (being able to view the missing ad on the other card) without destroying another card in the process.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Anybody still want to debate why the hobby needs a code of ethics?

This will no doubt be a topic for discussion at the NY dinner.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Well the 75 different threads you started about the topic didn't convince any of us, but I'm sure we're all swayed after your last post with your generous debate offer. Certainly you deserve to feel as proud as you sound.

I think we're all just waiting for Team Crandall to swing into action and save the day. Looks like you had some poor intelligence on this one, but I'm sure the next won't slip by you.

"Mile High, Mile High....Whatcha gonna do?....Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?"

I think it's great of you to take such a stand since I know Mile High routinely auctions tons of PSA 7 and higher cards from sets you are building in those very grades. The fact that you refuse to bid in their auctions shows you really stand behind your principles.

I'm sure you would never consider bidding with such an auction house, right?

-Ryan

P.S. It's not a code of ethics that the hobby lacks. It's the impossibility of enforcing such a code that's the problem.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

is that once slabbed, the card would only be labelled as Authentic, not Restored.

That in my mind would only give further legitimacy to the fused cards, and more greatly cloud a buyers ability to judge the cards' condition.

In fact, keeping the card unslabbed would also at least alert any potential buyer to the red flags often associated with ungraded material in todays
market.

And what exactly is wrong about asking to be the #1 lot? If I had a seriously amazing piece of memorabillia, along with trying to swing a negligible sellers fee - I would push for a prominent position in the catalog for best marketing purposes. Who knows, perhaps this was even promised to Roger, and for that reason alone he feels he has been wronged.

Either way, it is all very, very wrong, and hopefully all involved in the industry look on and see the potential for disaster to their businesses if they try to pull the wool over the collecting hobby's eyes.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh Adams

It appears as though the auction house tried to pull a fast one, but got called out by the consignor?

Doesn't put alot of faith in the hobby now, does it?

Go Go White Sox
2005 World Series Champions!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Unlike Jay B., the more I think about it the more I like seeing the Mile High ad up on the board. It will always serve to remind me of this incident.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve M.

If this post and similar posts in the past do nothing more than make the Auction houses be more careful with consignments we (Net 54) have done a great service to our hobby.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

It seems at this point that you have two parties with two conflicting stories. Why not let some dust settle before impugning the integrity of either party? As for a "code of ethics," I have to agree with Ryan on this. No way can anything such as this can ever be enforced.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Koteles

if you are speaking about the card referenced here, there is no way you could slab this or any other fused card. A card of this magnitude AND the fact that it wasnt holdered should had set off EXTREME warning signs. The auction houses need to back to the direction it had aimed for.....others are definetely gaining or have passed them fully on issues concerning collectors.These sit- uations should go as well for dealers passing on crap ,knowing that the card has a huge problem, but....anything for the buck .Just rememeber w/o a collector or customer....YOU DO NOT MAKE A DIME. Grading is still another issue,you can see slabbed
trim cards all over ebay and othere places notibly. This is like steroids: soon something severe will come crashing down and.....

Jimmy "CRASH" Crandall....Iam waiting to hear more from you. Thanks

[Archive]

Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth

Jay Miller,

Let's not forget that fine day where you attempted to spam your Mastro consignment and someone recognized that the item had undergone restoration. http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1102513863/last-1102805205/WHAT+IS+THE+KEELER+ROOKIE

Greg

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Greg--Restoration that was done by Mastro auctions, without my consent, if you read the whole thread. BTW, what does spamming a consignment mean?

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Forgive me if I don't totally rely on the grading companies to act as we would expect .

Considering the rarity of the issue, and both SGC and PSA's history of previously slabbing truly scarce cards that have condition issues that would prevent more common cards being entombed........its not all that hard for me to picture it behind some PSA or SGC acrylic and the big A. Certainly from reading Mile High's email, that was their intended direction.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Ryan,

I have had no reason not to do business with Brian in the past--too early to say on the future. There are dealers, however, that I do not deal with based on things I have heard. But hey, instead of taking pot shots why don't you pitch in and help.

Jeff,

I would love to have you join our group dinner later this month. You have a lot to add--not a big commutye for you to make it into NYC either.

Dan,

You will more likely hear of the conclusions of the group--I hope it will be the conclusions of a group of concerned collectors/dealers who ncare about the future of the hobby. We would love to have you contribute in a positiv3e way.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I don't see anything wrong with the disclosure in the original auction listing in the catalog I received (OK, forget grammar; I'm making a point here). It says in pertinent part: "It must be noted that the card has been professionally restored, and is without question being sold as such. The restoration appears to be at the bottom of the card, and more so, on the reverse of the card, where it appears as if the restoration was done in an attempt...." I read the description and thought immediately "altered, ugh!" I just do not see the misrepresentation in this. Anyone who reads the paragraph describing the card and who understands English can plainly see it is a restored card; the paragraph says so THREE times, as quoted above. The material fact to be disclosed was that the card had been restored, and it was disclosed. Only a complete idiot would try to claim he didn't know the card was restored after reading that description. As we say in law, we protect a fool, maybe even a damned fool, but not a Goddamned fool.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Adam- I think the issue is the extent of the restoration. If the bottom had a very heavy crease that caused the lower half to crack, a conservator could repair that crack. That is significantly different than adding a section from a different card. Everyone, including myself, saw the word "restoration", but virtually noone who read it understood the magnitude of the repair.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

The following bold text is an excerpt from the item description:

It must be noted that the card has been professionally restored, and is without question being sold as such. The restoration appears to be at the bottom of the card, and more so, on the reverse of the card, where it appears as if the restoration was done in an attempt to strengthen the bottom portion of the card to the rest of the card, due to a heavy crease or small tear. Whether or not the offered card has had any restoration really isn`t the point of this exceptional offering, as the unbelievable rarity outweighs any of this.

I think the part that doesn't seem right is where the item descriptions indicates "the restoration appears to be...". The item description should have included full disclosure regarding the work that was completed on the card. With that said, the item description does say the card is restored but not to what extent. If Milehigh knew the extent of the restoration then they should have just acknowledged what was done rather than gloss over the restoration and focus on the rarity of the card. If they didn't know the extent of restoration (the union of two cards) and only provided (in the item description) what was told to them, then the only thing Milehigh did wrong was not research the card a little more.

You have two different sides to the story. It's hard to judge and choose a side unless you have all the facts. At this time both sides differ. How can anyone conclude who's right and who's wrong at this point in time.

[Archive]

Posted By: ErlandStevens

If you didn't know the truth about the card (two pieces), I think most people would be hard pressed to conclude that the card was assembled from two parts. Once you know the truth, the wording of the description does accurately describe the card. By refering to the "bottom portion" and the "rest of the card", the writer infers (my opinion) that there are two pieces. It seems to me that the writer certainly knew the true nature of the card.

I have no experience with auction houses, so I'll ask the board - Would an auction house be able to fight a return based on this description?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I don't see where the consigner claims he fully disclosed the alterations made to Brian. He does not even claim that the reason he was mad about the auction description had anything to do with the description of the restoration being insufficient. If, as Colt suggested, he was simply mad that it was not placed at lot #1, then where is there any fault of Brian's or MHCC? We still have seen no evidence that they knew in advance that the restoration was the mending together of two different cards. Like with Verkman's utterly unsubstantiated accusations, I will wait to hear some evidence before casting judgement.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Equally without basis are the accusations flung at Leon. Give me a break! He is about as fair and even as one could possibly hope for in a moderator. I have no doubt that a myriad of opinions that he disagrees with get thrown around here on a daily basis, including those directed against advertisers on this site. Let's try to abstain from knee-jerk accusations.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

All good points Jim, but lots 4-6 have been withdrawn and returned to the consignor, so I suspect no evidence is forthcoming. We are left only to postulate!

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Sounds painful Barry...should I be sitting down when I try that - postulate thing?

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: Jim Clarke

Just for the record.. Forget everything I said on my first post as I was half asleep and did not read every thread in this post. Most of my issues or questions were already answered earlier and 5 minutes after I realized that I could not edit my response as another poster came in after me.. JC

[Archive]

Posted By: Judson Hamlin

If I win the card, can I soak it?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

At least I didn't say "pustulate" (to be covered with blisters and pustules)

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

having a trimmed and soaked Annie Summerville under him back in the day, but as we can see from all this hullabaloo, apparently nowadays, it's just wrong.

Anyone else noticed that there has still been no mention as to who is restoring cards? The motive with such a rarity is easy enough to discern... what with the holiday bills piling up, I am tempted to start scissoring up my old beat-up Star Wars collection and Scotch-taping some fine bottoms from Playboy sets to Darth Vader's nether-regions - I'll be rollin in moola by Valentine's Day!...allegedly

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Is the Code of Ethics similar to the Raiders' Commitment to Excellence?

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Just Win, Baby...

Edited to ad:

Hahahahahahaha, yup, 2-14 - just win, baby!

[Archive]

Posted By: Rhys

The two cards actually make for an interesting combo. John Ward's first wife was Helen Douvray was an actress and she was just about the most famous and desirable woman of her time. Later Ward upgraded to a younger Maxine Elliott who was also one of the most famous actresses of her day. I wonder if Ward (who was speculated to have been a womanizer and obviously had a thing for actresses) ever did have a real life "merging" with Annie Summerville?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And when the two parts were merged the Ward was on top and the Summerville was on the bottom (did I really say that?)

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

I think Mile High may have done itself a favor by pulling lot no. 5 as well. That was the postcard picturing Walter Johnson as a minor leaguer. The description said the card was issued during Johnson's minor league playing days. I am absolutely not an expert regarding this postcard, but I had always thought there was general agreement in the hobby that this card was issued long after Johnson joined the Senators.

[Archive]

Posted By: RC McKenzie

Look at ebay current auction # 200065045382 of Cora Winslaw...

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

That's pretty funny. We've seen baseball players misidentified, and here is a misidentified actress. But who is the real Summerville?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason L

was that he needed 5 to win the batting title.

ba dum bum!

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

Wow. How could a "professional" dealer not notice that this card is comprised of two different pieces. He obviously looked at the card long enough to determine that some restoration was done. How could he possibly come to the determination that the restoration was only to the reverse as a result of crease or small tear.

I do not even want to know what else this guy may have missed on cards that he gave even less scrutiny to.

Scary.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I believe the post you posted at 2:15 was your first attempt to protect Mile High in this thread. Kudos to Barry for catching this however!

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

To reiterate here is the message cut and pasted:

"1. Whomever posts in this thread needs to be well known by their Net54 ID or put their full name. Sam from NY....nothing personal but you need to put your full name in this thread. It's the rule.

2. The auction house has done the right thing at this point. Might it have taken too long? Yes. Did the auctioneer know everything going into this? No.

3. Mile High has said any current bidder on that card can withdraw their bid if they want to. Can't be more fair than that at this point.

We can continue griping about this, or that, but the full disclosure is now made and everyone is well apprised of the situation....happy collecting ....."


As of this time at 2:15 they had done the right thing.....when it was found out what more was done to the card I changed my thoughts. Please keep taking things out of context and we can continue debating.....Full disclosure wasn't made at this point though I thought it had been.....

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Leon is as entitled to his opinion here as anybody. I don't see any evidence that he tried to squash other opinions. In fact, after talking to Brian Drent about this at the time, it sounds like his name was unjustly dragged through the mud on this one just as it was with by our favorite 1930 Goudey salesman.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

According to YOU and YOUR statements, you KNEW ABOUT THIS FOR DAYS!

Here is whaty you typed. It seems you KNEW about this for 4-5 days. So, now you are taking this out of context - acting now like you didn't know, when you stated you DID know!!!???

Anyway, what you typed is below. I took NOTHING out of context. If people can seriously read this and believe you were not taking up for this advertiser at first, there is something wrong. In fact, in your last e-mail to me, you admitted to taking up the for advertiser at first!!!!! In the end you did the right thing. BUT, at first, you did the WRONG thing.

Jim - Leon is entitled to his own opinion. HOWEVER, taking up for advertisers, as Leon even stated he did at first in this thread is WRONG! Just look at how CU does (not saying Leon goes to the extreme CU does - but he has admitted to taking up for the advertiser at first here)! This is why I have ALWAYS called for no censorship on these boards, nor advertisers. If you want the entire truth, there can be NO sides nor potential for taking sides with site owners, administrators or moderators!!

leon
(Premier Login leonl)
Forum Owner since you asked..timing January 3 2007, 8:27 PM


I have known about this for 4-5 days as well as a few other board members. There was a New Year in between now, and then, so things couldn't happen as quickly as normal. It seems as though there were some communication issues, I am told, and this took some time too. Since multiple, respected board members knew about it, and myself, I doubt it would ever be kept a secret. This affects several different parties and there was no need to rush it. There's still 2 weeks left to the auction. Hope this explains the timing portion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I guess I'll wade into this one before I go bury myself in studying for the rest of the evening.

Scott - I really do agree with your misgivings on advertising and understand why you have them. They are legitimate concerns and I think many here are mindful of the negative effect they could potentially have on the community.

But in this case, I think the concerns (at least on my end) are more theoretical or potential only. I myself have not seen any indication that the outcomes that worried me are coming true - not at all.

I believe Leon has the right to post his opinions along with everyone else. If his opinion happens to be favorable to an advertiser, so be it. I think that's probably coincidental. He also has some negative opinions about several of the organizations that advertise here.

The issue of self-censoring works both ways. If we would insist that Leon not allow advertiser pressure to get him to withhold negative comments (reflecting his opinion) about a given company, we should similarly allow him to post his positive opinions without assuming that they are related to any ad revenue.

Personally, I don't think I've seen any change to the board tenor, nor to Leon's positions specifically, since the advertising started. And believe me, I have been very sensitive to it and all but looking for it because of the same concerns noted above. I have the concerns, but so far have not seen any sign at all that they are turning out to be true or valid. So far so good, as far as I can tell.

And I know that the comments you reference came in a personal email between you and Leon, so I really don't know what all was exchanged. But if Leon said he initially took up for Mile High, or Brian, or whatever during the FBH episode, that doesn't mean he took up for the advertiser. He is allowed to state an opinion regarding any company's practices or statements, and if he expresses a positive opinion it doesn't necessarily follow that it was purely because of the advertiser status of that company. So in that sense, maybe he took up for the company or for Brian, but not for the "advertiser". But as I said - these were private emails so I really don't know.

Good to see you back posting again here. In this case I think we have different opinions, but in general I'm glad that you are giving input.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

I agree with Joanne - Ive seen no evidence that opinions are being censored on this board due to advertising. I am kind of curious as to why this thread was dug up after 3+ months, however. Edited to add that I just saw the Memory Lane thread and the comments related to this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

You did take it out of context in that all you brought up was my very first post about the Mile High incident. Had you brought everything up then it wouldn't have been taken out of context. So "yes" you did take it out of context in that respect. Barry and I spoke about the issue and I told him to post it. If you feel that is protecting something then you are entitled to your opinion. I repeat...I have never protected anyone, or any company, advertiser or not, nor will I..Do you really think I was protecting them by telling Barry he was free to post the incident? ..take care

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I posted one of your comments from after 8:00PM. The comment you made about KNOWING about this for four or five days! This was a biggie to me. I know if I was bidding on the item and something was not as described, I would want someone to come public the FIRST day they KNEW something.

Joann and Josh - you are two nice people (BTW - Josh your Cobb went out in today's mail - PLMK when it arrives and that it arrives safely). I think you are both missing my point on this however and I would like to restate it. Leon IS entitled to an opinion - this is America, you are correct. However, in this case, Leon seemed to take sides (with the advertiser) right up until the very end (simply go back and start at the beginning of the thread and you will see). If you will look on my board about the Verkman incident, I even stated I was going to WAIT until I took sides either way on that until a time when I could make a more informed decision and knew the facts. THEN, I came back a few days later, when I had all the facts and made my decision (it is still there for all to read). In this thread, ANYONE can see Leon did not want to wait and was defending the advertiser from the start!!! Would this have been done if this company/person was NOT an advertiser - - - probably NOT!

This is my last post on this. I know what I see in this thread, as do the others who have e-mailed me about this. If some people want to take it that I am saying Leon is not entitled to his opinion or turn around what I am saying, that is fine - I am not stating any of that - only stating what I see. This all started when Leon made a challenge earlier today (so please, all you people - I am not "off-topic" here), I answered the challenge and defended my statements. I just don't want people to take anything I have stated incorrectly.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

Seems to me if you are running your own board, you are still entitled to an opinion. What I do not understand why if Scott and Jay, et al, have "their" own board, why they keep coming back to this one? Do you really feel the need to bash Mastro about an error on both boards, or to try and nail Leon to the wall because you don't agree with advertisters? It seems there is vehement disagreement on this issue; just let it go.