REA Lot 1307 Frank Baker Pin (I think Not)

[batsballsbases]

Well I usually dont like to call someone out but I feel I must and would like an explanation about this Frank Baker Pin. When going thru the REA catalogue I came upon lot 1307 the Frank Baker pin. Well in all my years of collecting I have never know that there ever was a pin made of this . Yes there is a Pocket Mirror that looks just like that pin. Fact is that this is just a "BROKEN" pocket mirror that has had a pin put to the back of it. I also believe that this Broken pocket mirror is the same Pin that is in Paul Muchinskys book but is described by Paul as X11 " A stunningly beautiful mirror of Frank Baker but is also pictured in Pauls book as having a pin coming out of the back of it. I found that very odd as this item has never been a pin. I also believe that the lot pictured in REA is Pauls BROKEN pocket mirror. I emailed Rob about my concern that this is being called a pin. Rob himself was also a big collector of pins and I cant believe he would let it be called a pin. With a $1000+ estimate I believe people should know what this really is. To Robs credit down the description he does say that this might be a broken mirror. My other question is to Paul I know you are a board member here so if this is your consignment you know full well its not a pin. If you sold it and someone else has put it up for sale then so be it, but if the consignment is yours then please explain to me how YOU think its a pin. And please dispense with the theory that well its a new find! 2 scans of what this item looks like. Front and back.

[springpin]

It is not clear who you are "calling out." In my book I described this item as a "stunningly beautiful mirror," which it is. I never said nor represented this item to be a pinback. When I acquired this item it came with a pin, and I photographed it as such. When I consigned the item to REA, I made no representation to REA of it being a pinback. REA writes their own descriptions of items, not consignors. At some point in the item's history, I believe the mirror broke out and someone replaced it with a pin. Neither I nor REA altered the item.

On the subject of needing to "call out" someone, consider this case. A collector won a pinback on eBay. He was delighted to win it, and more delighted to actually received it. It seems a third party contacted the seller immediately after the auction was over and attempted to obtain the pinback by offering the seller more than the buyer's winning bid. Fortunately, the seller was honorable. Would you believe the exact same thing happened a few months later? Different seller, different buyer, same third party.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by springpin

It is not clear who you are "calling out." In my book I described this item as a "stunningly beautiful mirror," which it is. I never said nor represented this item to be a pinback. When I acquired this item it came with a pin, and I photographed it as such. When I consigned the item to REA, I made no representation to REA of it being a pinback. REA writes their own descriptions of items, not consignors. At some point in the item's history, I believe the mirror broke out and someone replaced it with a pin. Neither I nor REA altered the item.

On the subject of needing to "call out" someone, consider this case. A collector won a pinback on eBay. He was delighted to win it, and more delighted to actually received it. It seems a third party contacted the seller immediately after the auction was over and attempted to obtain the pinback by offering the seller more than the buyer's winning bid. Fortunately, the seller was honorable. Would you believe the exact same thing happened a few months later? Different seller, different buyer, same third party.

First I guess Im calling you out Paul. You know that this isnt a pin and I now assume that You are the consignor. I have consigned items also with REA and I was involved in the write ups. It is now listed as a pin in the catalogue. It takes months to print that catalogue and you mean to tell me that Rob never told you it was going to be listed as a pin? I find that hard to believe Paul. And also knowing you if it was a "one of a kind pin" there would be no way YOU would let it go my friend. So as for the write up its just pure bunk! Its a broken pocket mirror and should really say that. Case closed!
Second as for offering more money I know that you cant be talking about me as I never offer more money for pins that I lose on the bay!
Third as for another little story there seems to be someone out there that every time a rare or hard pin comes on this person emails the seller and tells them that they shouldnt take the pin down and let it run the full auction as its worth alot. I wonder who that could be.

Last point you wrote a book and since you did that you are held to a higher standard when it comes to pins. Well if you know its a pocket mirror which you say it is then you should have told Rob as such. You and I both know as advanced collectors there is no such thing as that Frank Baker PIN but yet you looked the other way when the write up came out. I also invite Rob to come on and explain to me why and who wrote it up like that. Also I never said that you or Rob altered the item in any way,its just not what it appears to be and should have been written as such!

[Robert_Lifson]

Wow – This is a tough crowd! I described the item as I saw it. It is a pin. (It has a pin on the back). But I have never seen this item as a pinback before. I have always seen it with a mirror reverse. Therefore, I thought it could very well be a mirror that had been converted into a pin. (This can be done by removing the mirror). That’s exactly what the description says. For the record, I never sent Paul the description. I’ve also never discussed the piece with Paul. But from this thread Paul is saying that this is how he got it (as a pin) and if I understand what he wrote correctly, he thinks the same thing that I suggested on my own in the writeup. It appears that Al has a certainty that it was originally a mirror, and of course he could be 100% correct. But whether that is definitely the case or not (and again, it may be), it is a pin now, and could have been a pin all the way back to 1911, so that is why I called it a pin (because that is the form that it is in). But I think I make very clear that it might be a mirror that had at some time been converted into a pin. That was certainly my intention. I will look over the description and see if there is any slight change in wording anywhere that is called for. I’m not sure there is, but if you have suggestions regarding this, please feel free to write me with them at info@robertedwardauctions.com.

Sincerely,

Rob L

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by REA

Wow – This is a tough crowd! I described the item as I saw it. It is a pin. (It has a pin on the back). But I have never seen this item as a pinback before. I have always seen it with a mirror reverse. Therefore, I thought it could very well be a mirror that had been converted into a pin. (This can be done by removing the mirror). That’s exactly what the description says. For the record, I never sent Paul the description. I’ve also never discussed the piece with Paul. But from this thread Paul is saying that this is how he got it (as a pin) and if I understand what he wrote correctly, he thinks the same thing that I suggested on my own in the writeup. It appears that Al has a certainty that it was originally a mirror, and of course he could be 100% correct. But whether that is definitely the case or not (and again, it may be), it is a pin now, and could have been a pin all the way back to 1911, so that is why I called it a pin (because that is the form that it is in). But I think I make very clear that it might be a mirror that had at some time been converted into a pin. That was certainly my intention. I will look over the description and see if there is any slight change in wording anywhere that is called for. I’m not sure there is, but if you have suggestions regarding this, please feel free to write me with them at info@robertedwardauctions.com.

Sincerely,

Rob L

Hi Rob,
Its not a tough crowd. I just dont want to see anyone buy this item being called a PIN when in fact all it is is a broken pocket mirror with no glass mirror. Rob I know what you looked at when you first saw it but you of all people should have known its NOT A PIN. All the double talk aside I think your write up is just a little creative as to what this is. It puts doubt in someones mind that hay maybe it is a RARE one of a kind pin when infact its not. Spin it anyway you want bottom line its just like a broken piece with a great front. As for Paul not doing the write up I do believe that but it goes without saying he knew what the item was.

[drcy]

Not only that, it doesn't even look like Babe Ruth.

[batsballsbases]

ttt

[batsballsbases]

Well auction ended and the ITEM went for 1100 with the juice. Just goes to show as P.T. Barnum said it best. Some sucker put down 1100 dollars on a creative write up for a broken pocket mirror, But hay just like the main page Joss PSA 8 that is maybe trimmed you take a chance. Im a little saddened but I guess money talks in this case. And for the record Paul your R309 babe ruth PIN that you call a pin is really a BROKEN scorer with the guts taken out and a pin stuck to the back. Waiting with baited breath for the next auction to see how this one is written up.