WHAT IS THE KEELER ROOKIE

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I don't know the consignor so I will confine my final comments on this affair to Mastro, who I don't know personally but can judge as I would any other business in the public eye. In my opinion as a collector and a lawyer: (1) the after the fact disclosure clearly was made only because they got caught by members of this Board trying to perpetrate, if not a fraud, then a deception -- selling a card whose appearance had been substantially changed, without disclosing the particulars and certainly without disclosing the extent. Whether or not the "cleaning" or "stabilization" is a legitimate restorative technique is a subjective question, and in a public auction, with no clear standards on what is and what is not acceptable restoration, there is no excuse for not disclosing the true facts and letting the buyers judge for themselves. One can only conclude the omission was intentional. (2) The after the fact disclosure was grossly inadequate. It is poorly worded, does not reveal the true reason for adding to the description (inquiry was not made about the pinholes, it was made about the cleaning, so the message is a non-sequitur), and does not in any event reveal the EXTENT to which the appearance of the card had been changed (to use a neutral word). (3) One is left wondering how many other items past and present are/have been similarly deceptive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

PAS....

Do you practice in Boston?

If so, I think I bought my T205 PSA 7 Walter Johnson card from you years ago.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

As I emailed you, yes as to Boston, but you are thinking of a 15 CJ Wagner PSA 7.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

If this would have been Greg Schwartz, instead of the party(ies) involved, everyone here would have been all over him! In my book, this is far worse than what Greg did or didn't do to the E95 Cobb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Yeah...

I am guessing that "BOTN" has not seen this thread yet...

or he is showing more restraint than is humanly possible.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

I think it is necessary to respond to Mr. Counter's comments. I mentioned earlier that after I handed over my cards for consignment I was told by one of the Mastro representatives, in passing, that they would clean up the cabinet. I didn't give the comment much thought and never responded. My lack of response was undoubtedly taken as my agreement as the next time I saw, or heard of the cabinet, it was when I got the catalog. Thinking back when "cleaning up" was mentioned I guess I would have assumed that this meant trying to remove the glue on the front. After my post this morning began generating questions about whether the cabinet had been restored beyond repairing the pinholes I called Kevin Struss, who was one of the people who picked up the consignment, and asked him if there was any other restoration beyond the pinhole repair. He was in transit to Chicago for the auction but later Doug Allen called me back. He talked to the outside conservator and then examined the cabinet under a black light. He related that the cabinet's only restoration was the pinhole repair and, at that time, he made the addition to the lot's description. I'm not sure why you are attacking me. I'm also not sure why making comments about my use of capital letters or my financial resources have any relevance to the discussion. Personally, I see no problem removing glue and pencil marks from a cabinet. I think this is cleaning not restoring. If you think otherwise then we can just agree to disagree. Repairing pinholes is restoration and needs to be disclosed. I don't know how you deacidify paper but I seriously doubt that it would involve removing the photo. Should that also be disclosed--I don't know, couldn't hurt. According to Andy's post, bidders have been notified about what has been done to the cabinet. If you intended to bid and choose not to now that is your choice. Whether this impairs the final realization on the lot I don't know. I'm not sure what else I can add but if you would like to discuss it further please email me at curl777@aol.com.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

If Jay had wanted to "fool" people...

then he would have had the cabinet professionally restored and/or cleaned BEFORE sending it to Mastro.

They would have put it up for auction without asking any questions, and NOBODY would know the truth.

The fact that he sent it to them in the "original" condition tells me that he had no plans of trying to put one over on anyone.

In fact, he probaby wet his pants at how GOOD the card looked ... and probably tried to get it BACK from Mastro but it was too late!!


---

JAY: ONE QUESTION:

Did Mastro CHARGE you anything for the cleaning and repair of the holes?????

[Archive]

Posted By: a more rational Scott

The "everyone hates Greg" line is very old and tiresome and I don't buy it. I'm not going to fire up that fight again by telling you the obvious reasons why this is a totally different situation, besides - you're smart enough to know that already.

(edited to remove harsh words)

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I don't know. However, I do know the last card I consigned to them (T207 Red Cross Blackburne) was "stabilized". There was a big stain toward the top of the back (more like a "burn" mark). This can be seen in Lipset's Encyclopedia. They cleaned this - did a good job, as the back looked almost perfect except for a small spot of paper loss near the right side.

They (Mastronet) DO ask the consignor before doing so!

The consignor HAS to agree or disagree - no in between!

The consignor HAS to know the extent of the restoration (stabilization) - b/c there is the "new and improved" example in full color in their catalog (which the consignor receives a copy of - of course)!

Also - if "mending pinholes" is not that bad - why did several people attack Greg Schwartz regarding the 1914 CJ Johnson - in which he simply pressed a pinhole together??????????

[Archive]

Posted By: Wesley

The two of you may be the only ones here who have seen the cabinet prior to it being sent for cleaning.

I could see where the cleaner removed the yellow glue residue across Keeler's jersey. I am less sure about the white spot on the bottom of the photo. Can either of you remember whether the white spot on the bottom of the photo is glue residue or whether the white spot is paper loss?

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

The truth will out. I wonder if Mastro will be so decent as to reveal which lots in their current and future auctions have been subjected to the services of an "outside conservator," and what services were performed by said conservator. Even better, let 'em post before and after photos of each items. Think it'll happen?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I don't recall saying what you stated in the first place. In the second place, I am NOT kissing anyone's backside as you put it!!!!! If anyone is doing that, it would be YOU and the others (if anyone else is defending Jay) who are defending Jay and Mastronet!!!!! YOU, my friend, are doing the A@@ kissing - not me!!!!! I am simply stating the facts, as they can be seen on this post and the ones involving Greg! Maybe YOU should look at this with a little more "unbiased" eye!?!?!?!?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Jay OR Scott E.:

Did Mastro charge YOU for the services of the "conservator"...

or do THEY take care of that?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

...because it was a bit rude and uncalled for. But I think you're being ridiculous. To tell us we're kissing someone's *ss because we state our opinions and you disagree with them is just plain ignorant. The best you can do is try to divert attention by bringing up your buddy Greg? That's pathetic.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Jay,

Any idea who Doug Allen/Kevin Struss had restore the card? If removing tape and writing isn't "true restoration" then I'm guessing that other members of this forum might be interested in learning more about the process. Perhaps the company involved can shed more light on what exactly was done.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

And, not the "more rational scott". Anyway - Mastronet did NOT charge me for what they did to the T207 Red Cross. Doug said they would just touch it up with a little bleach or something to that extent. However, I don't know for more extensive "stabilization" - if they charge or not.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Scott,

Doug Allen said he used bleach on your card and performed the work in-house? Are you sure?

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

"They would touch it up with a little bleach..." Now according to what I have learned today from petecld I think it was and perhaps others, even folks who think cleaning is OK do not approve of bleach because in the long run it can damage a card. How does Mastro justify that I am left wondering. This is getting more interesting by the minute. (Note, once again, my comments are directed at Mastro, not at any consignor as I have no reason to believe they had any involvement.)

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

"Bleach or something to that extent" - Scottie, you do realize that there is a difference between bleaching a card and cleaning it? You might want to check your facts before you post such ambiguous accusations. But if nothing else, this latest post of yours sheds some light on your need to "plug" Greg in this thread.

[Archive]

Posted By: Paulie

Jay,


What about the Keeler Bingoes cabinet?
Did Struss or Allen offer their restoration service for this one too?




A bad hobby day for Wee Willie Keeler

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

YES - Doug did state "they" - Mastronet would clean the card. He knew I was opposed to "altering" a card, so he told me something to the effect they would simply clean it with a little bleach - convinced me it was "cleaning". I have no idea HOW the card was cleaned, as I was not there of course. I do know the back looked "whiter" than before. Also, I think I have some Before picures in an article I helped with in Beckett. I do know I have the after pictures from Mastronet's catalog (which I still have). Anyway, the before pictures can be seen - not too clearly - in Lipset's Encyclopedia - I will try and get both the Before and After scans to you MW (If that Beckett has the before scan - I will have to look - my memory is not as good as John Spencer believes it to be).

One last thing - runscott - YOU are the one bringing Greg up in EVERY post of late - NOT ME!

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Scott,

Thanks for the information. I'll post before and after images as soon as I receive them from you.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Is it just me...

or is it pretty funny that we can't ESCAPE the guy from C.A.R.D.S. all week...

and then we finaly get a thread that would interest him...

and he's missing all the fun!

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

What (if anything) did they PROPOSE to do that you turned down as being unacceptable alteration? Your message suggests that had you not been opposed to alteration they would have done more. Thanks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Several questions to answer:

1-Hal:As far as I know I am not being charged for the work-no one ever told me I would be. I assume that if I were being charged someone would have to OK the bill with me.

2-Mike: I know it was an outside service but I don't know who. I'm sure one of the guys at Mastro could tell you

3-As I said before I did not OK any restoration work. The only thing I heard was that they would clean up the cabinet and, as I mentioned previously, I didn't give the comment much thought. I never was asked specifically about pinhole repair or anything else specific for that matter.

4-Scott did not own this cabinet before me. I bought it on ebay. I obviously remember the glue and the pencil marks but I don't remember any paper loss.

5-I would suggest addressing any other questions about the work to the guys at Mastronet. It's not like I don't want to help but I've basically recounted everything I know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Like I said...

where is "The Man From C.A.R.D.S." when we need him!

He would call Mastro and get to the bottom of this...

but here is a chance for him to do it BEFORE an auction ends.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

First, Doug knew from my position on different topics on this board that I did not like any card to be altered in any form! The only alterations Mastronet wanted to do was to "clean" the card. I apologize if I mislead anyone into thinking Mastronet wanted to do more. Doug just knew I was opposed to any alterations!

Just found the Vintage Beckett Nov. 2002 issue that Leon and I helped Wayne Grove with the T207 Red Cross article on page 14. Unfortunately, the article does picture the Blackburne. However, the pictures are the "After" pictures from Mastronet's catalog. However, the article shows Leon's Weaver - it is from the same "find" as the Blackburne and has the same spot at the top (in the middle) as the Blackburne had before the "cleaning". I guess the only before picture left is in Lipset's Encyclopedia - unless someone here on the board might have a scan I sent them. I know I sent several scans of card backs to different people working on websites or doing articles or just wanting a scan for the rare type cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

"2-Mike: I know it was an outside service but I don't know who. I'm sure one of the guys at Mastro could tell you"

Jay,

Any chance you could call (or email) and ask? I'm not doubting they would tell me, but just in case.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Just speculation on my part based on geography and apparent expertise.
http://www.graphicconservation.com/

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

Hey, what a coincidence!

This website's explanation matches what I posted earlier:

They DO remove the photographs from the backings and RESTORE/CLEAN them separately because they are made from different materials.

They DO repair "paper loss" with pulp and Japanese tissue.



Quite frankly ... their work is INCREDIBLE ...

and should be FULLY DISCLOSED to any potential buyer.

----

Andy: Are these the folks doing your Burkett?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Doug,

The statement is not really inaccurate. You did state something to that
effect to me. The card did have the "burnt" mark at the top - just like
Leon's Weaver. It is pictured in Lipset's Encyclopedia like that! There
was nothing on the "surface" of the card - it was some kind of a stain that
resembled a "burnt" mark.

Like I stated - I really have no idea what you guys did or did not do to the
card. However, in my conversation with you at the time, I remember you did
mention about cleaning up the back and I am almost certain you mentioned
bleaching the card.

Regards,

Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Allen" <dallen@mastronet.com>
To: <tycobb@optidynamic.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 10:34 PM
Subject: Bleaching?


Scott,

I would appreciate if you would rescind your comment on Network 54 Board
that I "bleached" your card.

I honestly don't recall if your card had any stain or if we had it removed,
but I can tell you that I or no one at my firm would ever bleach a card. I
have nothing against erasing pencil, removing glue or having a conservation
house remove something on the surface of a card to improve its appearance as
long as it does not add to the card or alter the surface in any way.

This statement you made is very troubling to me and absolutely inaccurate.

Regards,
Doug

Doug Allen
President
MastroNet, inc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott

All you did was confuse the terms "bleaching" and "cleaning" when posting in a public forum conversations you had with another person. I don't understand at all why Doug would get upset - it must be clear to him that you simply don't understand the difference. After all, since you are totally against restoration, you certainly would have adamantly said "no" if someone had suggested "bleaching"...if you had known what that term meant.

And I have to give you credit - at least now you are posting personal correspondence from others directly on this board, as opposed to simply typing down from memory what you think others might have said to you. Kudos!

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

From further conversing with Doug via e-mail. He still states they did not bleach the card. I seem to now (after thinking about it harder) remember Doug or someone (ever who called me to ask if it was OK to clean the back) mention to me that the cleaning process would only involve a little bleach and a Q-Tip.

Of course, neither one of us (Doug nor myself) can be 100% correct on the exact specifics of the conversation. I do know there was a "Burnt" mark at the top of the card - this can be seen in Lipset's Encyclopedia (and on Leon's Weaver) - Doug cannot remember. I can b/c I owned the card for a while. Anyway, I can just tell what I remember from the conversation with the person from Mastronet. I WAS NOT THERE WHEN THE CARD WAS CLEANED - I DON'T KNOW IF BLEACH WAS USED OR IF THEY USED SOMETHING A CONTESTANT ON "FEAR FACTOR" WOULD HAVE TO EAT TO REMOVE THE BURNT MARK ON THE CARD! I have stated before I have no idea how the card was cleaned, as I was not there. However, I am stating it again, so Doug will know I am not swearing that I saw them do something he says they did not do to that particular card. One thing, however, I will stick by what I remember from the conversation - Q-Tip and Bleach. Though, again, I cannot say this was what Mastronet used to clean the back, as I was not there!

runscott - I don't know what your agenda is - other than kissing Jay's A@@ and showing your ignorance. However, I have never stated the converation did not include the word bleach - in fact, I can remember being told that it would be applied with a Q-Tip to "CLEAN" the card! Do you not know that bleach is used to clean????????? Also, you want to attack me for not being able to remember EVERY WORD from a conversation that took place 3 or more years ago - then you MUST criticize Doug for not even remembering the card was stained and Mastronet did clean it!!!!!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Scott,

So let me get this straight. Doug can't specifically remember if he removed a stain from your card but if he did, he recalls that he definitely did not use bleach. According to your recollection, he mentioned both bleach and a q-tip. Is that correct?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

Too bad "runscott" cannot comprehend this as well as you! I can SPECIFICALL recall being told the "cleaning" process involved "only a Q-Tip and some bleach to clean the card up, so it will look nicer"! Like you stated - Doug cannot remember the card even being cleaned, but YET he CAN remember no bleach was used and never telling me bleach was used - maybe "runscott" should question Doug's memory - not mine regarding this issue??????

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

Scott, why post private email conversations?

I know this is a hot topic, but I would suggest deleting Doug Allen's email piece.


Hope you understand.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

I have no problem with your mentioning did work to clean the surface as we absolutely did. I am just sensitive to inference that we used techniques that alter the surface of the card which we would never do.

Enough on this.
Doug

Doug Allen
President
MastroNet, inc.



Jim - sorry about posting e-mail conversations. However, it seems runscott does not trust my Word! I will go back and delete the contact information however, as I have on the above e-mail.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Hal,

I'm wondering the same thing as you are -- does a photograph or photographic stock have to be removed from its backing in order for a card or cabinet to be de-acidified/stabilized?

David?

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Doug was not saying he SPECIFICALLY recalled not using bleach on Scott's card, only that (so he claims) it is his practice never to do so. I think that there is a bit of linguistic sorcery involved in how you have characterized what he said. But, having said that, my impression is that Scott has a clear and accurate memory of the conversation that sounds entirely credible to me. As we know from other contexts, people denying things sometimes "doth protest too much."

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

PASJD,

You are correct. Doug's statement was more general -- i.e., "I can tell you that I or no one at my firm would ever bleach a card." (-Doug Allen)

From this statement, I concluded something more specific, but still reasonable -- that Doug did not bleach Scott's card. I should have clarified that in my previous statement.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

You are doubtless far more knowledgeable about the folks involved then I am. My initial assessment of the relative credibility of the parties to the conversation is based on intuition and professional experience. I would be interested in how you came to your opinion that the card was not bleached, if you care to share it.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

PASJD,

I do not claim to know the truth of the situation. The only thing that I'm sure of is that one party claims that bleach and a q-tip were used and the other is sure that while restoration might have been done, bleach was never involved.

When I used the word "conclusion", I did not mean to apply it in a deterministic way; it was only meant to draw a specific conclusion from one that was general and more inclusive in scope.

[Archive]

Posted By: Andy Baran

I have been given permission by Doug Allen to post Mastro's Official Stance on Restoration. This e-mail was their response to my inquiry about the Keeler Cabinet that I made earlier today.

>From: "Doug Allen" <dallen@mastronet.com>
>To: <abaran0427@hotmail.com>
>Subject: An official word on restoration...
>Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 21:56:32 -0600
>
>Andy,
>
>In response to your inquiry here is our official comment regarding
>restoration when it comes to cards:
>We believe it is acceptable to remove glue, pencil, paste, stains, etc. off
>of the surface of a card as long as it in no way alters the surface. If any
>of these processes alter the surface of the card we believe that
>alteration needs to be disclosed. We believe it is unacceptable to add
>to the surface or alter the surface of a card in any way. This includes
>adding color, bleaching, filling lost paper, etc.
>
>Sincerely,
>Doug
>
>Doug Allen
>President
>MastroNet, inc.
>10 S. 660 Kingery Hwy.
>Willowbrook, IL 60527
>
>Phone: 630-472-1200
>Fax: 630-472-1201
>e-mail: dallen@mastronet.com

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

"We believe it is acceptable to remove glue, pencil, paste, stains, etc. off
of the surface of a card as long as it in no way alters the surface."

-Doug Allen


Question for Doug: How does your company remove such a stain from a card? What chemical or additive is used and how do you know that this chemical will not degrade the surface? Also, do you offer any guarantee in your auction catalogs that the work you perform will not have any adverse future impact on items you sell to collectors?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy Leiderman

After reading Mastro's official comment on this issue, I have to agree 100% that lot description changes are in line and provide full disclosure of any work done with the Keeler cabinet.

I think they did the right thing, the way a major and professional auction house should do after fully reviewing their clients complaints.

I do like the fact that Mastro's staff read the complaints and showed interest in solving this issue in a timely manner. Remember this debate started less than 24 hrs ago.
How many times have we read in the past about other auction houses not responding to questions and complaints the way they should do?



As a side note, I still don't agree on why some board users are allowed to start threads to hype their consignments everytime the auction circuit season starts.


JL

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

but it appears that this cabinet was the 'original art' used to make a picture in a newspaper, magazine or such. The pencil marks and writing would have been a part of the publication's original production. Perhaps the pencil lines would likely the editor's or printer's cropping marks showing how the photo was to be 'cut down' for publication and the numbers would relate to the size of the magazine's picture.

These original production marks are an interesting part of the photo or any publishing photo, showing how it was used and confirming it's unusual history. I can tell you that these types of 1800s baseball "wirephotos" are rarely found.

Even if I were to restore or clean up this cabinet, I would choose to have the front marks left on as they are an integral part of what the photo is.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I should add that, in its current state, the cabinet is pretty as a flower. Even when advertised as restored or gussied up or hosed off, I don't see the current bidding as unexpected. I understand and appreceate posters who refuse to buy restored items (I prefer my memorabilia au natural), but there are collectors out there don't have the same philosophy especially when an item is to be displayed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Us folks here at R-Ville have truly enjoyed this thread.
I want to take this opportunity to thank Mark M. for bringing it to my attention.
I will not discuss the conversation that we had.
I will say this, that after reading this thread so far, I feel a slight restoration of hope for my hobby.

The questions are being asked.
Pat answers that worked before, are now totally unacceptable.
If I want a restored 1952 MG and I can afford it, I'll go for it.
If I want my vintage cards unrestored, that's the way I want them.
If an auction house, a seller or a trader is offering a restored item, I want to be told.
Anything less than that is deceitful period.
You have seen with your own eyes what can be done.
You have seen with your own eyes the before and after Keeler.
You now know about their third party MO.
You know damn well that this is not an isolated case.
You've also heard their response after being caught with their Dr's Kit.
Are your eyes and ears liars?

Or is it?
Yes Virginia, Authenticator Gods do live on Mt. Olympus.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

David (hankron):

What can you tell us about "restoration" of old photographs that would be DIFFERENT than deacidifying an old piece of cardboard???

My understanding is that the photograph would have to be REMOVED from the backing before the cardboard is immersed in the deacidifying solution.

And what can you tell us about my earlier post (about 50 posts ago) that mentions RE-DEVELOPMENT of the photograph after being immersed in some sort of solutions (perhaps bleached with something like a copper chloride solution or a potassium permanganate solution)??

You are the PHOTO expert, so help us out!!



By the way ... if the work that was done on this cabinet went so far as to REMOVE the photo from the backing ... then I will say two things:

1) This conservator is very good at what they do, and I would trust them with any rare pieces that I wished to have restored. BUT...

2) This DEFINITELY goes beyond the realm of "cleaning" a card and should be disclosed to the hobby World.