|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Jay
Barry-I disagree with you. In my opinion the consignor may be blameless but Mile High is not. Either their original description left out pertinent information or they missed the extent of the card's restoration. Neither is good. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
Barry (or anyone else that might know), |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
To say BOTH the consignor and the auction house have acted entirely above board in this charade is analagous to saying 2+2=7. In regard to the consignor, I don't think I can overstate my skepticism that he BOTH made full disclosure to the auction house AND expected that this information would be included in the catalogue description. In regard to the auction house, if in fact it never had any intention to mislead prospective bidders, then I would respectfully recommend that it take a time out from the business of auctioning baseball cards to acquire some basic knowledge about card doctoring/restoration and telltale red flags (e.g, why wasn't this card slabbed) that suggest that something underhanded might be going on. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: barrysloate
Jay- we are actually on the same page. I can't tell you how much information the consignor offered, but I do believe that when Mile High wrote that description (and awful writing at that, what a bunch of sappy tripe) they knew more about the card than they revealed. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Eric B
This is just wrong. I wouldn't want the card. But I can't say why. It's like going to a house of ill-repute for some "services". You may get what you want at a great price, but if you find out later it was a "guy" you wouldn't be satisfied. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: leon
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Jay
Eric-Call me old fashioned but I am just a little disturbed by the analogy. What brought that to mind? |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: ScottIngold
"they knew more about the card than they revealed." |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: barrysloate
Leon- I'm not at all concerned with timing, just with content. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Tom Boblitt
put this on your docket for dinner conversation...... |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Tom Boblitt
is did HE (or she) contract the conservation of the card or did HE (or she) buy it AFTER that'd been done and did HE (or she) know about the conservation. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Mark
The BST rule actually says "only persons involved in the transaction should be posting" and "there should be no interference in the posts by 3rd parties," that pretty clearly would negate a discussion on the background of any card for sale in BST by anyone other than the seller or a prospective buyer. Thanks for the classy comments though. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)
Does anyone remember how much the card sold for in the Mastro auction (including buyers premium)? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Corey R. Shanus
Leon, to his credit and being the gentleman that he is, wanted to err on the side of giving the auction house more than adequate time to address the issue once it was confronted with the facts. Plenty of time yet remained before the auction closed, and it didn't take a genius to realize that people's reputations could be affected. So why rush things? The straw that broke the camel's back was the woefully inadequate first addendum posted by the auction house which couldn't even unambiguously say that the combined pieces came from two different cards. In addition, I know I was tremendously offended that such an important addendum was buried in the fine print at the end of the catalogue description. Why couldn't the auction house do what others do and put the addendum in red/bold print that would make it impossible to miss? I know I and some others I spoke with didn't at first glance even notice there was an addendum. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: leon
I have heard it went for around 10k in that auction. It's public record somewhere, I am sure. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: brian drent
This will be my first and last post in regards to the following post. The 1887 Four Base Hits John Ward will be withdrawn from my auction later tonight or first thing in the morning as soon as my programer can get it done and cancel the bids. In the last several days I have gained an increasing amount of information that the 1887 Four Base Hits John Ward is two distinctly different pieces of card that have been professionally restored and adheered together(information that I was not aware of at the time of the preporation of the catalog). Although I have made addendums concerning the card on two different occasions and have offered any bidder who has placed a bid on the card the right to rescind their bid, to this point I believe that the best course of action is to withdraw the lot and return it to the consignor. I would agree that there has been a time lag in my decision and that has been in my attempt to contact the consignor who after numerous attempts has not returned emails. I have built my company on a strong accord of personal and business ethics and today we have a strong reputation for doing the right thing. As such, I want to personally assure you that we would never put our client's best interest in peril. I do want to say that I could be best described as a "lurker" to the board. I enjoy the board and feel that there is much knowledge to be gained on the board. As it states in my catalog, MHCC as a firm encourages communication and I welcome any board members call. I can be reached anytime on my cell phone at 303-748-1371 and will discuss this or any issue. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: E, Daniel
The problem for me lies in mile high's original description. Without any doubt, they attempt to foggy the facts, and they were quite clearly in possession of them to a greater rather than lesser extent: |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: JK
"This affects several different parties and there was no need to rush it." |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Hal Lewis
CURIOUS QUESTION: |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: leon
With respect to the card going up in price, since New Years, I am not sure it matters as there are still 2 full weeks left. Had I been the high bidder I would have had ample time to take whatever appropriate action needed to be taken. Of course there was work known to be done on the card but NOT to the extent that it was, at the time of the auction announcement, I am told. I don't think this info was known more than a day before I found out about it. The time really wasn't an issue, again, imo. You can certainly disagree on that matter. After really looking at the card I also agree the restoration job isn't that great and really should have been detected early on. The first addendum was inadequate and I made that known to the auction house. It was further amended later this morning. I trust Brian to do the right thing, as he has done, and continue to run an outstanding auction...which this is certainly one. There are some great pieces and if I am lucky enough maybe I can get a few. best regards ps...I appreciate Brian coming on and giving some details too. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: steve f
I'm wondering if that female lower torso can be amputated from the Ward, and, how much permanent damage (weaving), was done to the top card during surgery. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Max Weder
I just always appreciate an auction where the auctioneer can use the word "ilk" in the description. |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: E, Daniel
If the Ward section of card is further damaged in being disembowled of its feminine self (and now that its history is known, what collector would proudly keep the item as is?), what an incredible botch to such a valuable piece of card to the hobby, and here I am only thinking of the historical significance of the piece. |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: rmacpa
i am the consignor of the four base hits ward |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: David Smith
Hal, |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: E, Daniel
Edited for speechlessness. |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Dan Bretta
Good luck Roger. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Al C.risafulli
Nice. |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: jay behrens
Now the real question...Will Leon continue to cover for one of his advertisers and make the situation seem less than it really is? |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: leon
Please show me where I covered for an advertiser? To the contrary this has been made as public as possible. |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: jay behrens
It's been very public, but your position has been anything but strong against Mile High. Is anything, it has shown great favoritism towards them. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Jay
Not to be repetitive but--WOW! Steve Verkman's assertions before and now this. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: leon
As stated before, some time ago, you are in the vast minority. I am not protecting anyone and will not protect anyone. Go back and read what is in this thread. There is no way I am protecting although I am trying to have some tact in the way the situation is being handled. I was asked this morning, by Barry, if he should post this thread. You can ask him what I said. It's real easy though. I told him if that's the way he feels then go for it. That's protecting someone? As for allowing advertising it's not an issue with anyone but you and a few others and at this point it's not open for debate anymore. The board has been fine, with lots of drama and even some good stuff, the last few months since the banners were put up. I am sure it will continue. If you want to have this discussion any further we can take it to private emails. I told you last time it's not open for debate anymore. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: jay behrens
Never said it was open for debate, but be prepared to take the heat when situations like this arise, because this won't be the last time you will have to handle a situation like this with kid gloves to appease you advertisers. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Cat
Hmmm...not to cover my own b-tt, but I guess Sam really didn't have some unfounded axe to grind. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Cat
These are the nights that the Chat room was meant for. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: RC McKenzie
That actress card looked like it was in pretty nice condition. How many Summerville Four Base Hits were out there before this one was scrapped? She was probably a more desirable card to 'pull' at the time of the issue. Regards |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Colt McClelland
To the "anonymous" consignor: |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Colt McClelland
Jay B, |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Jay
Colt--I know it's late but wake up. Roger posts his name in the post and his log in is his initials--Roger Alter, CPA. It sounds like Roger has alot to be angry about and is just trying to present facts to the board in the form of prior emails. |
#91
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: JK
Based on what Ive read, I echo the following comment: "wow" and recind my comments regarding the consignor/roger as he appears to have done what he could to insure full disclosure. |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Dan Bretta
Colt, Roger is pretty well known on Net54 by the handle that he uses and the evidence as presented in this thread is pretty damning against Mile High...I'm not sure how anyone can see this any other way. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Colt McClelland
A first name "Roger" and some initials is an anonymous post in my opinion. |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Todd Schultz
Mile High claims or at least strongly implies it has just found out the extent of the restoration in the last several days. It appears as if Mile High may have had the card since late September or early OCtober--certainly communications about the alteration were exchanged back then. Back then Mile High makes it appear that they wanted to minimize mention of restoration, which appears to be against consignor Roger's wishes. When Roger sees their description, he wants his items pulled. They are not, and now, Mile High tries to portray itself as being stonewalled in its efforts to get answers from its consignor. I would say Roger has many reasons to be mad. |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Bottom of the Ninth
Prior to making your next post attacking Brian Drent, I think you should take him up on his offer to call him and hear facts regarding this consignment. It seems to be an effortless process for people to come on here and attack the credibility of others under what appears to be an attempt to better the hobby. I feel more tact should be used and more time be spent listening to all of the facts before coming on a public message board and condemning a man. |
#96
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Todd Schultz
but it's a little late right now I think some commentary via this board is fair game, especially as the parties have seen fit to post in this thread. Speaking of the telephone, what I find strange is how each of these guys claims the other is unresponsive to their several e-mail requests, yet it seems neither bothered to pick up the phone. Not to say they had any obligation to call, but if this was such an urgent and time-sensitive matter, maybe just getting on the horn could have cleared up the matter. |
#97
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Colt McClelland
There is a lot to this story that you guys don't know. I have every reason to believe the facts below are true. |
#98
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: cmoking
I only want to comment on this section of Colt's post. He wrote: |
#99
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Bobby Binder
I think that both are at fault and the only reason the owner came forward is because Barry outed this auction. It has been online for more then a week now and he has not said a thing as of yet till now. |
#100
|
|||
|
|||
Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
Posted By: Jim Clarke
I'm with Barry, Jay and almost anyone else on this deal. I think it "stinks" The consignor and auction house are at fault. I do not know the consignor, and I'm sure he a a great guy. However, I would love to hear how he presented the card to Mile High. Even if he presented it as altered, why did he not contact them after reading the write up, on one of their featured lots. I think Mile High is has a lot of explaining to do as well. I think they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar with this one. This will taint their auctions, in the future, on high end items I believe. I would think this issue right now would scare any future consignor including me (not that I consign stuff)on high end items. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Four Base Hits Kelly and Website | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 18 | 03-23-2008 01:09 PM |
O/T Four Base Hits | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 0 | 01-02-2008 07:34 PM |
Help with a value for 1890 base-ball book by John Ward | Archive | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 09-10-2007 02:52 PM |
Four Base Hits Scans | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 13 | 06-07-2006 09:08 AM |
Four Base Hits | Archive | 19th Century Cards & ALL Baseball Postcards- B/S/T | 1 | 12-29-2004 09:57 PM |