At least you weren't responding to 'Archive'.

Bill, it's good to see you posting, and that was an EXCELLENT one...with no editing!!!

Yeah Scott! "Archive" I hate that mofo! I wont even talk to him!

Watch what you say in print - 'Archive' might decide to sue YOU.

Thank goodness the Bruces straightened out Archive's A$$!

Was archive the guy handing out the drink tickets at the net54 dinner at the national?

I suppose everybody is just a little giddy today due to the end of the debt crisis. oops sorry no politics, dave

Back on topic....now we all know that psa knew the card was trimmed, yet awarded it a high numerical grade. very sad:(. I think they should "man up" and address the situation.
Sometimes, at least to me, "honor" trumps "stuff". Health trumps stuff. Hell, a lot of things trump stuff to me. Stuff is way down on the list. To some though, stuff trumps all....pathetic.

I am older than Archive but have been mistaken for him before.

Arch Ives was Burl's brother.

True story....I painted Burl Ives house in Santa Barb. Ca. in 1973, (there was no Vassar girl involved).

Thanks
 

I'd like to thank all of you for the kind words. Bill

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...ard-companies/

Having trouble reconciling this. How can someone excoriate one hobby fraud while defending another hobby fraud?

Logically speaking (In response to "But I won a lot below my maximum bid"):

I never understand why people think an auction house that is shilling and believe that their shilling could be illegal would shill to the max bid all lots. That would be the easiest way to arouse suspicious and get caught. Shilling is an covert operation, and they would never (except on eBay, home to many idiots) be so obvious and blatant to bid to the max bid everything.

I mean, if someone wins 20 lots over two auctions and all 20 lots are won at his exact maximum bid, he'll come straight to Net54 or PSA boards and complain loudly. If instead 6 of the lots are won below his maximum bids, he'll post in a thread "I don't believe that auction house shills, because I've won some lots below my maximum." And he may have been shilled in both scenarios. It's just that the first scenario involved an auction house that was really stupid.

Also, and as often been said, shilling is likely often from consignors and their helpers who probably have no knowledge about the maximum bids.

In fact, I would guess some shilling comes from neither the auction houses or consignors, but collectors who want to keep the 'market value' for cards they own at a good price.

The best way to counter shilling on a personal level is to regularly sell items so you know what the items are really worth when you go to bid (i.e. what you can sell them for) and not rely on auction prices and all that. All that matters resale-wise is what you can sell an item for. If you sold a card twice for $15 on eBay, you won't be so ignorant to bid $120 for one in auction. And regular sellers are the ones who know when something in auction is a good value, or sometimes even a steal.

Bryan, who are you referring to?

Edited to add: oh, now I see the link on the bottom. Bryan, did you actually read the article you linked? First, do you think that as an attorney I condone the actions of my clients? Do you think I stand in front of a judge and defend criminal actions? And did you miss the part of the article in which it makes clear that my client cooperated with the government to stop fraud in the hobby? I guess that part escaped you.

frank b
 

excellent point.
obviously, arch was the older brother.
all the best,
barry

Bill Mastro denies widespread fraud in his auctions -- yesterday.
 

+1

I can't even type one line without editing it.

Hi Bill

I would like to talk with you when you have some time. Thanks for posting

stemmers37@yahoo.com

Jim Rivera

Jeff,
I have a question for you. If Bill proffered as well as Doug, do we know they fully cooperated and did not make statements that can be proven false? If so, is this something that can be brought to the attention of the presiding AUSA to go back after him? In most of the comments I have read relating to Mastro, it really doesn't appear that he is very remorseful or cooperative with the process.

Jim Rivera
 

Tried to email you, but it would not go through. Email me at wheitman@aol.com

Bill Heitman

Bill, welcome to the forum nice to see you posting. Just wondering if you still have copies of The Monster for sale? I see them on EBay from time to time, but it would be really neat to pick one up from you directly.

brob28
 

Yes, I do, but not many. Email at address in earlier post.

Bill

Even after Mastro's admission, I am still confused about the story behind how the card was cut from its original sheet.

Mastro admitted to trimming the card, which presumably refers to having altered the card after it was cut from its original sheet.

So then, who cut the card from the sheet to begin with?

This MOK Daily News article (excerpts from his book "The Card") states that Alan Ray sold the card to Mastro, and that when he sold it to Mastro, it had already (presumably) been cut from a sheet. The article also shows the photo of the card as originally sold to Mastro before Mastro trimmed it:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...ticle-1.220710

But Peter Nash wrote in the following article that he was told that Mastro trimmed the card and was also told that Mastro cut it from a sheet:
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=14545

These two articles conflict with one another.

So, who cut the card from the original sheet? Mastro? Ray? Someone else?