Why All Auction Houses Should Publish A Code of Ethics

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Dorskind

We were very pleased to receive the e-mail below from Mastro Auctions.

We believe it is the best interest of the hobby that all auction houses
publish (and honor) a code of ethics/professional conduct.

Whilst there is no reasonable way of ensuring that auctioneers who issue
said code will adhere to it, pressure from the collecting/investing community,
will certainly go a long way to ensuring that they, in fact, do.

Perhaps. our hobby, has finally matured to the point, where all of the partiipants
recognize that without trust and integrity all one really has a bunch of pictures
of men on old cardboard. The market in rare sports collectibles trades in the hundreds
of millions of dollars, and the total value of the collections is well in excess
of $ 2 billion dollars.

We're pleased that Doug Allen addressed the challenges of the market and the concerns
of his customers in a direct and professional manner.

We expect the same from those firms that have yet to do so. At very least all auction
houses MUST note when they own an item, and what their policies are with regard
to employees bidding.

Mastro Auctions

Code of Professional Conduct

1. Disclosure of Ownership

Mastro Auctions allows employees, authenticators, the Mastro Auctions corporate entity and other third party affiliates to own and consign items in Mastro Auctions’ sales. Mastro Auctions will disclose in its catalogs which items are owned by any of the aforementioned parties. PLEASE NOTE: The definition of ownership extends to spouses and immediate family members associated with the aforementioned groups.

2. Mastro Auctions Employee Bidding Rules

Certain Mastro Auctions employees are also collectors, and, similar to the practices followed by other major auction houses (e.g. Sotheby’s, Christies, etc.) are permitted to bid in Mastro Auctions sales. The following restrictions have been placed on the bidding practices of employee(s) to ensure fairness for all auction participants: · Mastro Auctions employees do not have access to ceiling or “top-all” bids. One designated administrative employee will have access to this information for the sole purpose of responding to bidding questions or for correcting bid errors. That designated individual will not be allowed to bid in the auction. · Mastro Auctions employees, the Mastro Auctions corporate entity, and all third party affiliates (authenticators, service providers, etc.) are considered related parties. These related parties are prohibited from bidding on each other’s consigned items. PLEASE NOTE: The definition of the Mastro Auctions “related parties” extends to family members.

3. Disclosure of Restoration

If Mastro Auctions believes or has knowledge that an item has been altered in any way, this information will be fully disclosed in the auction catalog. Occasionally, we will have items restored in order to improve their presentation quality. In these cases, the extent and nature of any restoration will be fully disclosed. Under no circumstances will we have restoration work done on trading cards.

4. Trading Card Guidelines

Mastro Auctions prohibits its employees from altering trading cards. Our policy on altering trading cards is in strict compliance with standards set by all major grading companies.

5. Use of Third Party Authenticators

Mastro Auctions is a company of experts. In almost all of the collecting genres handled by the company, there is an employee on staff who specializes in that area. As a result, before an item ever reaches a third party authenticator, it must first pass our scrutiny. Once an item that requires third party authentication has been accepted by Mastro Auctions, the following process will be employed: for each auction, the catalog will identify approved third party authenticating sources by category. We will not sell an item unless it has been authenticated by one of the listed third party authenticators.

6. Bidding Records

Effective for auctions held in 2007, all Mastro Auctions bidding records are maintained into perpetuity. These records are considered private and confidential. In order to maintain the privacy of our customers’ information, these records will not be voluntarily shared with any third parties.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Bruce,

You are right--this is most encouraging. I think Mastro Auctions is paying attention to collector concerns and trying to address them.

Certainly Doug has changed his tune since when he admitted taking creases out of cards to prepare them for grading. Obviossly it bears watching to see if they live up to theie standards they set but it is an encouraging step.

Maybe I will even start bidding again in Mastro's Auctions and my mini-boycott will end??

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

They are doing the right thing and should be commended.

One funny aside is that Doug cited his decision was made speaking to customers at the national, among other places. No mention was made that he responded as a result of discussion held on this board.

But no need to be cynical, because they are willing to hold their business to a higher standard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

I always had complete faith in Mastro so, for me, this was unnecessary. However, I think it sets a good example for other auction houses to follow.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Basilone

The new policy definitely puts pressure (internal or external) on the "one" person in the company who has access to all of the bids. Ideally, it would be nice to see a "whistle blower" protection program in place to protect said individual against possible legal action.

[Archive]

Posted By: rand

doug will respond to any issues

[Archive]

Posted By: shane leonard

this is good.
Whilst we think it is important to have standards, we think it is about time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

You can wrap your fish with a Memory Lane Code of Ethics.

Bruce, you're too cynical to think that going forward the auction industry will be clean. It will not be clean.

Yes, I applaud Mastro for this. I also am laughing my ass off over the line about bidding records being maintained going forward. I guess you know what that means for auctions going backwards....

Why on earth would Mastro destroy bidding records after each auction? Gee, I wonder why?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brian

"Perhaps. our hobby, has finally matured to the point, where all of the partiipants
recognize that without trust and integrity all one really has a bunch of pictures
of men on old cardboard. "


Huh?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob C

This is the exact reason I am not comfortable with this auction house...allowing employees to bid, perhaps even on their own items, then using Christies and Sotheby's, two companies that have had legal problems with shill bidding etc. in the past, as examples of other companies with similar practices. I am sorry but this is not the way to provide confidence or win trust from my point of view. I will say it is better that they identify which items are owned by Mastro or its employee's.
Interestingly enough, when I or someone I know win something at a decent price from this auction house, we usually comment "it must have been a consignor lot". This is a very logical statement based on the fact many items are owned and watched by Mastro employees and I suspect don't go to the highest Mastro employee bidder.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

Doug Allen's e-mail indicates that they were not able to include their code of ethics for the October auction, so it will begin with their December auction. Why not just include the disclosure of ownership, etc., in an e-mail for the October auction?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

"I am not comfortable with this auction house...allowing employees to bid, perhaps even on their own items"

Where did they say employees can bid on lots they consign? Consignors are blocked from bidding on lots they consign. Let's not fabricate things. Of course consignor could get a friend to bid on their lots, but that is the same situation wether or not one is an employee of Masto. Let's stick to what they actually said.


This is a positive step that they are taking and they should be commended for it. It is so frustrating when this board turns a positive into a negative.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

though Jeff is right about the vanished bidding records of previous auctions.

Now I'd just like to see one amendment off the top of my head.

Employees and their families shall not under any circumstances bid on lots they themselves have consigned for sale. Penalty for transgression should include being fired, and being targeted for prosecution by the relevant authorities for shill bidding.


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: rand

Why on earth would Mastro destroy bidding records after each auction? Gee, I wonder why?

***That is a quote from Jeff Lichtman"s last post***

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim -- they've basically admitted that they destroy bidding records once an auction is over. That is a bad, bad thing. So going forward they will be more - but not totally - transparent. That's a good thing but not so good as to ameliorate concern over past destruction of bidding records which would, coincidentally, erase evidence of shill bidding.

Look, Mastro is the leader, the biggest auction house out there. They should be at the forefront in providing transparency. Most of the small auction houses are a total joke in my opinion and cannot be trusted in any way -- Barry's is the only one that I'll even bid in anymore. But for Mastro, REA, Sotheby's -- all of these guys should have total transparency. Why should we stand up and applaud something that should have been given to us years ago?

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

We believe that one doesn't need a Code of Ethics when all that is required is following the law and good business practices.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Cobby, did you just post Memory Lane's Code of Ethics?

[Archive]

Posted By: rand brotman

Jeff, take a look at the post i just placed, this is interesting

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

good one jeff.

[Archive]

Posted By: David R

I think this is a good and positive development -- honesty, transparency and integrity are good things. But, absent fraud or misrepresentation, I guess I don't fully appreciate why this is as big an issue as others seem to think. The folks who bid on these items (including those on this board) are presumably as knowledgeable and expert as anyone about what is being offered and what it's worth. As long as the description and photos are fair and accurate and everyone has full knowledge of exactly what's for sale, it seems to me that each bidder can decide how much they are willing to pay. If the price goes higher, for whatever reason, then you don't buy it if you don't think the item is worth the price. If you think the item is worth the price, then you buy it.

I do agree that bid maximums should be kept confidential from anyone who is allowed to bid so that no one has an unfair advantage.

[Archive]

Posted By: John Basilone

Um..this audit is going to take some time.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

First of all I think this a positive step Mastro Auctions has put forward.

Otherwise, T206Dav, you, and everyone else need to have your full email and name in this thread. If they are not there I will delete them. No anonymity whatsoever. I have taken up for PSA and everyone else in these same anonymity situations....Please post your name and email or edit/delete your post....nothing personal....best regards



edited spelling and grammar but they still aren't very good...and I am approaching David R in the "edits-to-one post" contest.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Hey Joseph- you are unfortunately in this boat for anonymity. Please edit out all of your posts or put your name out here....thanks again...

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron M.

Most of this is a step in the right direction and welcome (if long overdue) change, but man, does Jeff have a point about bidding records.

Why in the world would Mastro have destroyed bidding records? That is so suspicious as to make my stomach turn when I consider some of the prices I paid for my Mastro won items.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

When did Mastro say they destroyed bidding records? People seem to be presuming or inferring things that just are not there. I seriously doubt they don't know the bidding records of everybody who has bid in their auctions since they have been doing them online (and probably before).
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"Effective for auctions held in 2007, all Mastro Auctions bidding records are maintained into perpetuity."

This line makes clear that all bidding records for auctions prior to 2007 are NOT being maintained into perpetuity. I don't see how you can read that sentence in any other way. Clearly, if Mastro had all prior bid records they'd have said so.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Jeff,
I don't agree that that is a necessary implication of that statement. It would be easy enough to call Doug and ask him.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: rand brotman

doug will listen to anyone with any issues

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"One thing I discussed with the FBI is the fact that during discovery, Mastro could produce no records about the lot," Daniels said. "They could not produce records about who the runnerup was or whether there were even any other bidders."

--Bill Daniels

Combined with Mastro's very clear language about maintaining (and not maintaining) bidding records, do we really need to push this further?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Rand,
I am neither in defense of Mastro nor concerned enough about it to take the time to call them. If you are concerned go ahead. I don't even feel like debating it on this forum.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Gary Weatherhead

Obviously this is something to be considered as an attempt to enhance the integrity of a section of our hobby. If it is the result of an alternative dispute resolution or settlement, it is still a step in the right direction as regards consumer protection.

My only question is why this code is not being made applicable to the October auction. Besides the e-mail we received which could be incorporated by reference into the rules of the October auction; there is still plenty of time to add or send out a 1 or 2 page notice of the code.

Best
Gary

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I find this statement laughable "...taking a leadership role..." They are still lightyears behind REA in this area.

JimB, your responses are puzzling in the least. You come Mastro's defense when people mention that statements made by Mastro read that they have destroyed previous auction records. When someone calls you a Mastro defender, you deny it and then say the issue isn't worth discussing. Why in the world did you get involved in the topic in the first place if you felt that way? I really don't know how you can read the Mastro statement any other way.

Let's hope that their in house game used equipment experts get better and that they stop using Lew Lampson. Using him is a total joke and just makes them look bad. With MEARS and other more respected experts out there, there is no reason to use him.

I also wonder if they truly will stop altering cards. Mastro's stance used to be that if the slabbers can't detect it, then it's OK. What's to stop them performing alterations that can't be detected? Their word isn't good enough for me anymore given all the problems recently.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Wallace (HW)

Bob C,

When has Sotheby's and Christies been in trouble regarding shill bidding?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Do google search for Sotheby's and law suits. They have been found guilty of price rigging, shill bidding and other things. I used to have the link, but lost it when I built this new computer

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: rand brotman

Jim, your 2 posts clearly show your opinion, defending Mastro and you stated for Jeff to call mastro.

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

I guess it should not suprise me that those who impute implications into other's statements will do so with mine as well. All I can say is: Read the words I actually wrote. They deal only with facts and are absolutely neutral in tone. I said I did not take Mastro's statement to mean any more than the words stated. I said that I did not believe they do not have bidding records for previous auctions. I do not see those statements as either supporting or denigrating Mastro Auctions.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jim, are we still debating this issue? You wrote that you doubt that Mastro does not have the bidding records of all of its bidders in all of its prior auctions -- and yet their language in their latest Code of Ethics as well as discovery in a civil lawsuit suggests otherwise. Can you at least appreciate that your words on this thread are a bit puzzling?

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Jeff,
My last contribution was directed toward Jay and Rand.
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: rand brotman

Nice duck, but your comments are confusing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

I think it's a positive step even if it might not close every loophole. It's still progress.

I also can't help but think that the content of this forum over the past year must have had at least some influence. There is so much money here, and so many big players, that it's kind of inconceivable to think that there was absolutely no thought of the opinions here in making this new policy.

As to records, I don't think that saying that all records will be kept for all time is the same as saying that no records were kept for any time in the past. Organizations change their record retention policies all the time. Maybe they only kept records for six months, and maybe it was only on lots that sold for a given minimum price. If now they are saying that records for all lots will be kept permanently, that may just be an expansion of past practices.

(Although the discovery issue is troubling. I don't know how much time had passed between the auction in question and the request for records. Also, when unable to produce records on request an organization will definitely state that the records were disposed according to written policy, and then produce the policy if they have one. It doesn't sound like they produced a policy supporting the lack of records.)

Finally, I think it's interesting that they specifically say they will not voluntarily share the records with any third party. With that statement they are basically saying they will not be using MEARS to authenticate memorabilia in 08.

Still though, there are positives in the progress represented by the new policy, and I think the positives can be appreciated for what they are.

Joann Kline

[Archive]

Posted By: JimB

Rand,
Your presumption that you know what I mean by my words better than I do is beyond arrogant! I do not know you. I do not think we have ever met or conversed. What is confusing to me is why you think you understand my intentions better than I do, why you can't take my words at face value, and why you even care what I think. I clearly stated that I was not defending or denigrating Mastro auctions by my comments. Even if I was defending Mastro Auctions (which I wasn't), who cares? I work in a profession in which a premium is placed upon the precision with which one chooses their words. I am very careful with what I say, particularly on potentially sensitive topics such as this one. That is why I repeatedly suggested you go back and look at what I actually said. If it is still confusing to you, I am sorry. I am not interested in prolonging this debate any further. It seems like a senseless waste of time to me.
Happy collecting,
JimB

[Archive]

Posted By: GaryM

There is nothing in the language of the release that says that records have been destroyed. They are almost certainly just saying that they will be continuing to save all bidding records in the future just as they have in the past. This is very positive and should be applauded.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Gary, your interpretation is wrong. Did you not read the above quote about Mastro's retention of bidding records in a recent lawsuit?

[Archive]

Posted By: GaryM

Never mind

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

....said Emily Lutella

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Davis

Has anyone else noticed that Mastro no longer lists Lou Lampson as one of their authenticators on their website? The still list Mears though. Does this mean they have agreed to the terms and conditions laid out by MEARS as discussed in a separate thread?