Mastro consignment agreement

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

I have been told that in their standard consignment agreement (I have not seen one myself), just prior to the signature line for the Mastro representative, there is a section that reads to the effect that "We agree to waive expenses for :_________grading ________ restoration_________ authentication." Presumably whichever of these applies are then checked off. I would be interested if anyone knows whether this is in fact the case, and if it is, I would be interested in knowing more about the "restoration" option and exactly what services Mastro offers and on what items. IF (and I do not know this to be the case, of course) such services are offered, this also raises the question in my mind, particularly after the Keeler cabinet discussed previously, whether and to what extent any such "restoration" typically is disclosed in the auction catalog and online.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

in a Mastro auction to which mnore had been done than disclosed in the auction? There were "before" and "after" pics.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Cornell

That thread on the Keeler cabinet had some mighty legs, but I don't believe the consignment agreement with Mastro was ever mentioned.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Mr. Allen promptly responded to my post by email and expressly gave me his permission to share his response, which was as follows:

"The boxes related to charging for Restoration/Grading/Authentication do in fact appear on the schedule A of our contracts. They are administrative boxes that notify accounting if outside costs are incurred for any of these charges whether they are charged back to the customer or incurred by MastroNet.

Regarding restoration charges....we use companies that provide restoration for a number of things. The two typical areas where these charges are incurred are in the areas of photo restoration and display piece restoration. In the case of photos it can include anything from simple cleaning grease pencil editing to repairing tears. In the case of photo repairs it can include anything from linen backing a poster to impainting areas of damage. I would safely say that 95% of the cost we incur on an annual basis relates to these two areas. To directly respond to what I think you are getting at, this work can also include work like we had done on the Keeler card where I believe surface stains and glue were removed from the surface of the card.

Regarding disclosure we disclose any restoration work that alters the surface or original appearance of the item. We do not disclose grease pencil cleaning, surface cleaning, flattening and other work that simply brings back the original appearance of the piece without adding to it. On the other hand work such as tear repair, impainting and other work that alters or adds to an item is always disclosed."

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

"To directly respond to what I think you are getting at, this work can also include work like we had done on the Keeler card where I believe surface stains and glue were removed from the surface of the card.

Regarding disclosure we disclose any restoration work that alters the surface or original appearance of the item. We do not disclose grease pencil cleaning, surface cleaning, flattening and other work that simply brings back the original appearance of the piece without adding to it."

So basically any card that's been professionally restored as far as cleaning up stains and discoloration, along with flattening out wrinkles and creases, they don't disclose?

I would imagine this is the standard process that many have hinted at, where Mastro arranges for a card to be professionally restored and then sends the card to be professionally graded with the bidder/buyer never knowing anything had been done to the card.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction Allen is trying to make and why any restoration at all should not be disclosed in the item's description. Oh, wait...

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Aaron, I asked Mr. Allen a similar question along the lines of why not simply disclose everything, and pointing out that in my opinion anyhow his distinction left gray areas, and here is his response (again, he gave me permission to share his views with the broader group):

"Obviously the area you are concerned with is cards, which is clearly an area where invasive restoration detracts from the value of the subject (as opposed to photos or display pieces where it can add to the value). This really is not a semantic issue for me. My position is if non-invasive work that doesn't alter the surface of a card and can't be detected is performed there is no need to disclose this. There is no "blur" as adding or altering the surface is easly to detect with a black light.

I used this example earlier today. If you were admiring your T206 Cobb in ExMt condition while eating an ice cream sundae and inadvertantly dropped some whipped cream on the card you would naturally grab a napkin and wipe it off. Whew, you can't detect any cream on it. Would you feel compelled to disclose the fact that a small amount of whipped cream fell on your prized card? I think not."

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Not that it means too much but I agree with Doug on the "taking stuff off that wasn't suppposed to be there" philosophy. I am still not certain about the "creases" issue though. I posed the same question long ago about my infamous Four Base Hits Kelly and the crease it has. Almost unanimously the board said "leave it the way it is". So I did. Now it's protected in a nice SGC 40 holder.