Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Barry (or anyone else that might know),

Can you please tell us the final hammer on that card (including the juice - was it 17.5% back then?)

Thanks!

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

Not that I would know.

Edited to add "Not that I would know"

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Eric-Call me old fashioned but I am just a little disturbed by the analogy. What brought that to mind?

[Archive]

Posted By: ScottIngold

"they knew more about the card than they revealed."

Very true imho. This looks very much to me like someone getting caught with there pants down.

I have a very sick feeling about all of this. I mean with all of the recent posts regarding this stuff.

Leon,

I see that Brian is a subscriber to the banner ads. Because of this i would think he would come on to defend himselfe against some pretty damning photos.

I for on do not believe that this was missed by mistake. This is called make the best of a bad situation. But i will never look at another auction by Mile High again.

Trust in our hobby is to important.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Leon- I'm not at all concerned with timing, just with content.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

put this on your docket for dinner conversation......

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

Does anyone remember how much the card sold for in the Mastro auction (including buyers premium)?

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I have heard it went for around 10k in that auction. It's public record somewhere, I am sure.

...best regards

edited to start new thread...

[Archive]

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.

Regards,

Brian Drent
President
Mile High Card Co.

[Archive]

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:

"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"

"appears to be at the bottom of the card", HUH? Not IS at the bottom of the card, only "appears" to be? You've got to be trying to bend me over, right??

"more so, on the reverse of the card" is clearly an attempt to suggest the front of the card is original, and not that an entirely new FRONT and BACK lower section has been glued on!

It's not as if they belive this card was simply creased. Who 'reinforces' a crease with paper? A slight tear? You don't guess at the possibility of a tear, you either know it to have been torn, or know it not to have been torn. If a tear isn't directly visible, why would you come up with the theory? There is NO way they didn't spend a HUGE amount of time fawning over and discussing at the senior management level - how best to market and sell this this fabulous card, and what language could safely be used to minimize likelihood of legal action afterwards whilst maximizing the sale price.
They ABSOLUTELY would have asked the consignor for everything he knew, and could not have just been guessing at what had been done to it in its restoration. And obviously the consignor knew - as he has already been passing around pics. of the cards pre-marriage and does not appear to be attempting to hide the work done..

The secondary, and third addendums by Mile High......Just unbelievable! A chance to come absolutely super clean and at least portray the event as a 'missed' call - and they limply come to play with such weak language.

Leon, you may be willing to be supportive at every turn and give the benefit of the doubt - but seriously, imagine you yourself selling the card and playing with the truth like that!


Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

"This affects several different parties and there was no need to rush it."

Leon, I respectfully disagree here. This card has continued to go up since New Years. Some of the early bidders may not even know about the addendum (unless of course, the auction house emailed them separately - which I doubt). Further, it seems to me that there had to have been knowledge that some work was done on this card before the auction began - even if the full extent of the work was unknown (giving the auction house the benefit of the doubt). On an item such as this, it is inappropriate IMO to list first and vett the card later.

Next, with regard to the consignor - even if he disclosed the restoration (as those who know him assure us he did) he is still at fault. How could he not take issue with the description as originally written (and please dont say he may not have seen the original description)? How could he not demand full disclosure? Of course, if the auction house is to be believed, the consignor never provided the full extent of the restoration.

Its real simple to me - either the consignor lied about the card or failed to disclose the restoration and the auction house turned a blind eye to what appears to be obvious work; or the consignor fully informed the auction house but failed to follow up after seeing the misleading description, the auction house felt it was not obligated to disclose the restoration (or thought it would decrease profits), then updated the listing to save its ass.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

CURIOUS QUESTION:

Would it make any difference to anyone if the auction house thought that the repairwork was done to the card because the ORIGINAL bottom of the card had been ripped accidentally from the top?

In other words... are there "lesser degrees" of restoration in anyone's mind?

I know that I would be more inclined to buy a card like this one (with full disclosure) if the repairwork was done to RE-attach two pieces that were once together...

and NOT to "morph" two completely different cards into one.


I think maybe the auction house was under the impression that the card had "work" done to it because its bottom portion had been ripped (not COMPLETELY OFF) and needed to be re-attached.

Still something that needed to be disclosed for sure.

But didn't they disclose SOMETHING of this sort before Barry got onto them??

Or was there ZERO disclosure at all?

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

These things are way outta my reach, but glad it's been yanked.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

I just always appreciate an auction where the auctioneer can use the word "ilk" in the description.

Max

[Archive]

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.

Daniel

[Archive]

Posted By: rmacpa

i am the consignor of the four base hits ward
to mile high. the fact that the card was restored
was disclosed to brian drent when the card was
consigned during september 2006.

below is brian's 9/28/06 e-mail to me concerning
the card:

"Roger,

You have brought up some very good points and I think that you are
right
the card may very well do better being offered without a holder but
fully disclosing the restoration in a manner where we underscore the
restoration (while disclosing it) but focus on the extreme scarcity of
the item instead. We are not open on Saturday so it would be better to
send the card out Monday for a Tuesday delivery. When I have received
the card I will email you to alert you of such and greatly look forward
to working with you on this great card.

Regards,

Brian Drent
President
Mile High Card Company
brian@milehighcardco.com
(303) 840-2784
www.milehighcardco.com"


on december 23, 2006, i received a call from a long-time collector
and friend who told me he was able to access the upcoming mile high
auction (which wasn't scheduled to be online/live for a few days)
by clicking on the category view link on their website. i followed
his instructions and was so dissatisfied by what i saw, i immediately
sent mile high an e-mail demanding the return of ALL of my
consignments and threatened litigation if this was not done.
mile high did not, and to this day has not, responded to any of the concerns
i had raised in that e-mail.

on december 27, 2006, i retained a respected colorado law firm
to represent me in this matter and am currently in the process
of exploring options.

for the record, in regard to brian drent's contention that he has sent
me several recent e-mails that i have not responded to, i have not received
even so much as one e-mail concerning the four base hits ward nor any
of my other consignments from brian drent or anyone else at mile high
since october 17, 2006.

i have forwarded all relevant correspondence (including mr. drent's
false assertions) to my legal representatives who had asked me to refrain
from making any public statements relating to this matter. but i refuse
to sit idly by while my character is defamed by mile high.

as much as i would like to comment further, i dont believe it would
be prudent to do so at this time.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Hal,

If it were me (and I had the money to spend) I would much rather buy a restored card where the bottom has been reattached to the top instead of a Franken Card like this one. As a matter of fact, I would much rather own the Four Base Hits Ward with the bottom gone (like it was sold in the Mastro auction) than this Franken Card.


David

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Edited for speechlessness.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Good luck Roger.

I don't even know what to say about the actions of Mile High in this matter....well yes I do, but I won't.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Nice.

-Al

[Archive]

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?

Jay

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

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Please show me where I covered for an advertiser? To the contrary this has been made as public as possible.

[Archive]

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.

This is the problem you will have with allowing ads. If you respond the way you have, you appear to be cowtowing to your revenue source. If you say nothing, it looks just as bad. If you come out strongly against your an advertiser, you stand to lose them, and potential others that don't like that sort of treatment.

No matter what you do, as long you are accepting advertisers, you are in a no win situation as far as public opinion goes.

Edited to add: I shouldn't have said covered for, but appeased...sucked up to...whatever, so that you won't lose them as an advertiser.

Jay

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay

Not to be repetitive but--WOW! Steve Verkman's assertions before and now this.

[Archive]

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.

edited to put a "B" in the title...I was not responding to Jay M....

[Archive]

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.

Jay

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

Hmmm...not to cover my own b-tt, but I guess Sam really didn't have some unfounded axe to grind.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

These are the nights that the Chat room was meant for.

[Archive]

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

To the "anonymous" consignor:

All you have shown is that Mile High new the card was restored. The fact is that Mile High stated that the card was restored in the original description. Furthermore, nowhere in Brian Drent's post do I see anything to defame your character. On the other hand, there is plenty in your post where you attempt to defame someone else's character.

By the way, why are you not posting your name?

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

Jay B,

I guess in your world everyone is guilty until proven innocent, and therefore you expect Leon to run this board in the same manner?

I've never met you, but the fact that you would even raise a question about Leon's character speaks volumes to your own.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

Posted By: Colt McClelland

A first name "Roger" and some initials is an anonymous post in my opinion.

And I still don't see where he shows what he has to be mad about. He told Brian the card was restored, and it was described as restored in the ORIGINAL description. There is no evidence of anything beyond that. Everything else in this thread as to who knew what and what was disclosed to whom is pure speculation.

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

Greg

[Archive]

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.

[Archive]

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.

First of all, the consignor only disclosed that the item was restored with no further details. Second, Mile High suggested having the card slabbed in an SGC or PSA authentic holder, but the consignor said no (that should make sense when you re-read the email Roger posted above). Third, the consignor wanted the image of the card to be a photograph rather than a high resolution scan, but Mile High said it had to be a scan. Fourth, the consignor wanted the card to be listed as lot #1 in the auction.

So, you guys are right that Roger is mad, but I think you are off the mark as to why he is mad. He is mad because he wanted to maximize the value of the card through being listed as lot #1, a lower quality image, etc. Thus, it follows that he would not have disclosed the full extent of the restoration because that would have a negative impact on the value at auction.

Mile High did everything correct here, and the consignor was simply trying to maximize the value of the item at auction. Think about it - who has more motivation to get top dollar on a consignment - the auction house (probably getting just the 17.5% buyer's premium on a significant consignment like this) or the consignor (probably getting 100% of the hammer price)?

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

I only want to comment on this section of Colt's post. He wrote:

"Mile High did everything correct here, and the consignor was simply trying to maximize the value of the item at auction. Think about it - who has more motivation to get top dollar on a consignment - the auction house (probably getting just the 17.5% buyer's premium on a significant consignment like this) or the consignor (probably getting 100% of the hammer price)?"

It could be the consignor or it could be the auction house. While you listed the argument that the consignor could be more motivated, the motivation for the auction house is a high sale, a visible card, and thus more consignments in the future. I do not see the answer to your question as clear cut either way. It could be either.

[Archive]

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.

According to the email from the consignor Brian wanted to have the card graded but the owner did not. He also was adament about disclosing the fact that the card had been restored but trying to make the focus point the cards rariety. I see no problems with this marketing and he gave full disclosure. As far as the card being in his possesion since October and not realizing the extent of restoration he can not be faulted. With over 1000 lots in this current auction and a business to run I am sure he did not study the card like a potential buyer would.

To conclude I see no fault of Brian and it seems like the consignor withheld the true facts until this thread blew up. To have the scans of all the parts and before and afters. Sounds very shady to me and I would most likely not trust him over Brian.

[Archive]

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.

On another smaller issue. Why didn't anyone come forward with this info to the board until Barry? Why was it a secret for people???? Humm... I see a banner ad running and hope that did not BUY silence. Just think what Mr. Mint would have to do to be kicked out of SCD? Hope it does not happen here on this public INFORMATIONAL forum.

JC