|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>> -----Original Message----- <br />> From: Dan [<a href="mailto:bandache@comcast.net">bandache@comcas t.net</a>]<br />> Sent: Mon 2/19/2007 6:30 PM<br />> To: Peter Calderon<br />> Cc:<br />> Subject: Re: Lot #960<br />><br />><br />><br />> ok thanks Pete<br />> Why isn't paperloss and writing on back mentioned in the auction lots?<br />> That is a very significant condition distraction to any card.<br />> Do you agree?<br />><br />> dan<br />> ----- Original Message -----<br />> From: "Peter Calderon" <pcalderon@mastroauctions.com><br />> To: "Dan" <bandache@comcast.net><br />> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 6:22 PM<br />> Subject: RE: Lot #960<br />><br />><br />> > The loss on Adams is in the lower left corner. It's right at the corner<br />> > and triangle shaped... make a 3/16" square box and cut it in half<br />> > diagonally to get an idea on the size.<br />> ><br />> > Peter<br />> ><br />> ><br />> > -----Original Message-----<br />> > From: Dan [<a href="mailto:bandache@comcast.net">bandache@comcas t.net</a>]<br />> > Sent: Mon 2/19/2007 4:42 PM<br />> > To: Peter Calderon<br />> > Cc:<br />> > Subject: Re: Lot #960<br />> ><br />> ><br />> ><br />> > Thanks Pete<br />> > How bad is Adams?<br />> > Just a pin head or significant?<br />> > He is 1 of my upgrades<br />> ><br />> > thanks<br />> > dan<br />> ><br />> > ----- Original Message -----<br />> > From: "Peter Calderon" <pcalderon@mastroauctions.com><br />> > To: <bandache@comcast.net><br />> > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 11:55 AM<br />> > Subject: Lot #960<br />> ><br />> ><br />> > > Hi Dan,<br />> > ><br />> > > A few cards have little spots of paper loss: Adams, Cicotte, Engle,<br />> > > Walker<br />> > > and Wingo.<br />> > ><br />> > > Peter<br /><br />EDITED TO SURPRESS MY IRISH TEMPER. YES MY BUTTONS GOT PUSHED BY THE RESPONSE BUT MY ANGER IS AT THE AUCTION HOUSE RULES, NOT PETE OR DOUG OR ANY ONE PERSON. Dan.<br /><br />EDITED ONCE AGAIN ON THE REQUEST OF A GOOD FRIEND THAT CHEWED MY ASS.<br /><br />I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO BE HARD TO BELIEVE BUT SOMEONE MAY ACTUALLY MISS ME 1 DAY!
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Good Lord, that is weak. "Everyone collects differently?" And everyone sells differently, too. Mastronet sells in a way that will maximize its profit at the expense of full disclosure, honesty and fairness. This one is laughable.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I also want to note that some of us still collect cards and don't care about the damn grading! We have a right to know if a PR FR 1 has paperloss or writing on it! It matters to us!
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Collectors usually preach that you should "buy the card, not the grade." Apparently Mastro preaches that we should "buy the grade, not the card." Pretty funny.<br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>I am a "newer" collector of prewar cards and I have been contemplating auction venues like mastronet as I come into more and more disposible income...After reading that I have just crossed mastronet off my list...another sad commentary on the hobby in my opinion.<br /><br />Mike
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>They are no longer Mastronet, they are Mastro Auctions. No matter how you feel about them, they have a new name!
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>I don't fault Doug Allen for not answering Dan's e-mail. However, I do fault him for allowing Pete Calderon to answer so condescendingly. The disparaged collectors from this board, implied in his response, probably contribute 7 figures towards Mastro's annual gross sales. To so casually insult a group of people, and Dan directly, is inane at best.<br /><br />My ex-boss was a former deputy director for Consumer Affairs, and OMB in New York City. When I worked as a consultant for him, he taught me to never put anything in writing unless you were comfortable with the fact that 1000's of people could see it. It seems that Pete should have his work reviewed; both communication and grading.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>whitehse</b><p>As bad as the content of the response is(and its another reason why they will never get the small change I have to buy cards) I am even more surprised at the unprofessional nature of the response from Mastronet. <br /><br />I just cant believe what has happened to this hobby!
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>If you're charging a 20 percent buyer's premium and a similar percent commission, I think you can take the time -- or at least make an attempt -- to accurately grade and describe items and condition. Trying to explain away the lack of an accurate description or omitted information by saying "everyone collects differently" is not only laughable, it's flat-out deceitful.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I should mention that Doug wasn't written to about this current lot. I wrote to Dougie about the lot I won a year ago and after I won it. Only Pete and I have conversed on this current T207 lot. I still have the description from the lot I won a year ago and with absolutely no mention of paperloss or writing in it. Though the correct amount of cards were graded poor to fair, I still feel that a collector has a strong right to know if there is paperloss or writing on a card as some of us still collect to collect and not just to play the grading numbers game.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The issue is disclosure. You can sell anything as long as you describe it accurately.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Rob, now we're screwed; I can see it now: an email from Doug telling us that due to the high cost of responding to all customer emails, in order to maintain a first-class operation the BP will be raised to 109%.....
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Jeff,<br /><br />I'm convinced that before I leave this world, I'll see an auction in which the buyer's premium/penalty is higher than the bid price.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>The best thing to do with these auctions are pick and choose the lots you like as soon as possible. If you feel strongly about a lot then it's probably a good idea to ask as many questions as possible while the auction is young. We can all request scans. Asking questions and requesting scans early in the auction helps the auction house because when there's one day to go they are probably being bombarded with questions. Requesting detailed scans early in the auction benefits the buyer because you can eliminate the lot early on if it's not what you were hoping for. <br /><br />I've learned through the school of hard knocks about getting the information early. The impulse bids on lower grade material are the ones that have hurt me in the past. <br /><br />Dan, I agree that the response Pete provided wasn't exactly polished and it could have been better thought out before the SEND button was hit but he's probably right about people asking more questions about lower grade cards. From that you would think that they would deduce that more detailed descriptions for those cards may benefit them by having fewer disappointed buyers after the auction is closed. <br /><br /><br />I wonder which message board was being referred to from this part of the email:<br /><br /><b>And gee, ya think they might whine about that on some message board somewhere????</b><br /><br />I chuckled a bit when I read that - <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Sean C</b><p>After having been hosed a few times by non-disclosed back damage on cards in auction lots I've won (tape stain and paper loss on a 1941 Play Ball Pee Wee Reese rookie was the biggest, but there have been others) , I'll now email the auction house before bidding on raw lots. I just wish that it didn't have to be that way, and that they would be up front about it.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I feel the need to say a couple of things about this thread. First of all, for the most part, I don't want to see personal emails on this board. That has always been the rule and it still is. This is in unusual situation though. I was at a softball board meeting last night when this started so didn't see it till there were several posts. If I stopped it it would have been seen as protecting an advertiser which I will not do. So since it was going I needed to let it go. In Pete's defense on the quoted statement about this board....I sort of agree. <br /><br />I know Dan, Pete, and most of the folks at Mastro Auctions pretty well. Not a bad apple in the bunch. Great folks. Every one of them. As for this situation with the back damage. If you read what Fred said, I echo his thoughts. If there is back damage on cards I do feel it should be disclosed if there are no scans. With that being said it is probably impossible to go over every minute detail of every, lower valued, pr-fr graded (slabbed or unslabbed) card. At the end of the day us buyers do need to ask the questions as Dan did. Maybe that is the lesson that can be learned from this.....best regards
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>dan mckee</b><p>I am sorry Leon, I wasn't familiar with that rule and you can feel free to hack this thread off. Yes all of the Mastro people are good people.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Leon,<br /><br />I completely disagree with you about Pete's condescending comment about this board. It was rude, insulting and unprofessional. I would usually classify the "whining" on this board as legitimate criticism - only the target, be it psa, mastro or some other hobby entity, is likely to deem it "whining".<br /><br /> ****<br /><br />With respect to mastro getting more questions about low grade lots - well that only makes sense as there is far more inconsistency in the grading at that level. Pete's complaint about the number of questions received on low grade lots sounds to me to be more a statement about the importance mastro places on such lots and their purchasers as compared to high grade expensive lots. Sure sucks being an armpit collector.<br /><br /><br />My personal recommendation - you need to ask for front and back scans for any lower to mid grade lot offered by mastro since their pictures are usually pretty small and descriptions vague. I won a group of e93s along with some partners not too long ago. All were graded by psa between about 2 and 5. mastro did note in their description that some cards had small amounts of paperloss but otherwise presented nicely - nothing specific about individual cards since they were all graded. The scans were too small to see smaller spots of paperloss on the reverses. Of course, you would have thought the cards with paperloss would be confined to the lower grades. As it turns out, the paperloss wasnt confined to the lower grade cards - 3s, 4s and 5s had spots of paperloss as well.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>You guys can't seriously be disputing the accuracy (and therefore humor) of Pete's comment about the board, can you? <br /><br />Wow, time to step back and get some perspective. Are you guys offended, and this is just a theory here, because maybe it hits a little too close home? Maybe a little TOO true? Just a thought. <br /><br />-Ryan<br /><br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Mmmmh Ryan...<br /><br />Being made aware and then discussing that Mastro 'prepares' cards for grading, when this fact was previously unknown - whining? Really?<br /><br />Becoming aware and discussing that a large Auction House owner was previously sentenced to jail for defrauding people out of donations - whining? You are kidding me, right?<br /><br />Mastro telling us they won't take the time to describe accurately damage to cards because it is too time consuming, and wouldn't make collectors of low grade material happy anyway, and board members finding that insulting and condescending - whining? Well...<br /><br />So be it if such discussions are merely whining in your opinion, or simply opportunistic pot shots from a few board members.<br /><br />I instead would call it information that is reasonable, and expected, and serves the average hobbyist well when they are spending their money on pieces of card.<br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>about the Board that everyone is referring to?<br />I just looked at this, and the thread doesn't make a whole lot of sense.<br />Dan, you're mad, but everyone at Mastro are fine folk? what were you upset about, simply a lack of disclosure? or was there more?<br /><br />whatever the case, looks like things are smoothed out...lesson learned is to just ask alot of Q's early-on?<br />sounds good to me.<br /><br />and yes, JK, if you are a buyer, buy the card, if you are a seller, sell the holder! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>I have to say I feel a little bad for Pete regarding his comment about this board. I don't know him at all, but from everything I've heard he's a decent guy. <br /><br />It's no secret that this forum will dissect the heck out of just about anything the major auction houses disclose or do. For him to point that out is completely understandable, and I don't think his choice of language is all that different from what any of us might say in an informal moment.<br /><br />These things always remind me of something my mom used to say ever since we were very, very small - and it comes true much of the time. "Don't ever write anything down that you wouldn't want printed in the newspaper." Good words to live by - I'm pretty careful with anything written because of that. And what's happening here with Pete's comment is a perfect example of why it's good practice.<br /><br />Joann
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>search as I might I can't find the comment. Might be helpful if it hadn't been edited out. Since that appears to have been this thread should be locked up as it is meaningless.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Jason,<br /><br />The reason this thread no longer makes sense is because the comment, contained in one of Pete's emails, has been edited out of the first post. <br /><br />That should not have been done even if the initial post was done in haste as it changes the context of the thread and makes it difficult to follow.<br /><br />Pete essentially implied that many people who posted on this board are a bunch of whining cry babies.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>The actual comment was:<br /><br />"And gee, ya think they might whine about that on some message board somewhere????"<br /><br />However, it loses its context without the remainder of the email.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dan edited the above emails between he and Pete to remove the offending portions.<br /><br />Look, we all understand that cards described as VG or F get to that grade for a reason. But it wouldn't have hurt Mastro (except perhaps financially) to describe cards with paper loss as such. What attribute of a card is more important to a collector? Mastro's writers seem to know every single adjective in the English language. Perhaps "paper loss" can be part of their vocabluary going forward.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>"Pete essentially implied that many people who posted on this board are a bunch of whining cry babies."<br /><br />He left out sniveling!!!
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Hmmm. I wonder what Mastro's response would be if an auction winner refused to pay for an invoice: might whining be involved?
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Guys,<br /><br />Face it, Mastro is running a big business, once that happens the little guy and the hobby courtesies that we are use to get thrown out the window.<br /><br />Peter
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>Per JK: "Pete essentially implied that many people who posted on this board are a bunch of whining cry babies"<br />--Thats not fair for him to say, he hasn't even met me yet! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br />although Cat, I rarely snivel, as it were...it's been likened to more of an annoying wheeze, I've been told.<br /><br />Not being party to any of this, I would like to comment on something that is coming to me at least 5th-hand...I find it disappointing that dealers, sellers, etc think it's good business practice to not fully or accurately describe the merchandise they are selling, and then disparage the potentital clients who would have questions...if that is what happened here, it's too bad.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p>I'm curious with all the bad publicity that many (not all) of the auction houses have received lately how many of you guys here with high dollar cards would just as soon put them up on ebay as to deal with these auction houses?
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Dave, I recently sold a very expensive card on ebay instead of giving it to one of the auction houses due to the high fees involved. As it were, the amount I netted on ebay from the card is more than I would have received had I sold it through the auction houses.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>but this thread is an unwarranted slam at the auction house and the description of this lot. The lot consists of 153 cards of varying condition. Is it really expected that the description of a GD card needs much more than that. Does every little teensy weeny mark, wrinkle, crease, stain, remnant, paper loss, etc, ad nauseum have to be detailed for what is described as a card in GD condition? I trust that when Pete grades out a raw card as GD he has taken all faults into consideration in making that assessment. I personally don't need more than that.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>Daniel, <br /><br />Yes, whining. <br /><br />There was a legitimate issue that was brought up regarding the disclosure (or lack thereof) of a particular auction. That is not whining. The discussion that ensued about how much or how little disclosure is appropriate is also not whining. The posts by those who found Pete's answers to have less disclosure than they would have liked are also not whining. No, all of those directly deal with the issue at hand and just because someone voices their discontent it does not automatically mean they are whining. <br /><br />But people whine on this board all the time only they would never consider it whining because they feel justified about what they're whining about. The more righteously indignant one is the less likely they are to consider what they're doing as whining. <br /><br />I'm not talking about anyone in particular and I do not exclude myself from this group, by the way.<br /><br />It's all so deliciously ironic that I've gotten several laughs out this thread, unexpectedly. It's usually only the political threads that make me laugh. But you, Daniel, whining about my post where I agree with Pete's comment about whining on the board, well that's just classic. And now to top it off, here I am whining about you whining! Too much fun!!!<br /><br />The only thing that's funner is when one of a few select board members posts and I picture them saying "How dare you, sir!" when they whine about something and then take their glove off their hand and slap their computer screen with it, bringing them great satisfaction. <br /><br />Sadly, Daniel, I don't know what you look like so I was deprived of this simple pleasure during your post. <br /><br />-Ryan<br /><br />P.S. In my opinion the issue of disclosure is easily resolved by having huge scans of each lot. Huge scans of EVERY card. Sure, it's more work, but so what? Why isn't it reasonable to have large scans that make even small flaws visible and let the bidders decide for themselves what the condition is?
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I've seen Mastro put up to 10 pictures or more on a lot....how hard would it be for them to take a lot of 150 pr/fr cards and put up a picture of 30 at a time front and back scans? Not difficult at all...I see lots posted like that on ebay all the time.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Ryan - couldnt agree more about having large scans, front and back. IMO, that's where mastro has gotten itself in trouble - there pictures are small and rarely in such high quality as to allow bidders to really see the cards' warts. I havent checked it out myself, but I understand that they may now have added the capability of clicking on a picture and getting a blown up scan.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>A lot labeled as crappy doesn't need more details. It is when you start labeling cards vg that saying oh, by the way, there is paper loss, is important. I think a lot of folks here in the past have lambasted Steve Verkman and Larry Fritsch for grading along those lines. <br /><br />Personally, I'd love to see more and bigger scans. Why is it that Huggins & Scott and Heritage, to name two off the top of my head, can offer front and back scans that can be enlarged for detail, and Mastro at 35% comm/vig can't?
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>William</b><p>Just an example from lots that closed last night. (Please forgive these lots, as they are not pre-WWII cards).<br /><br />Contrast this lot:<br /><br /><a href="http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=67406&CurrentRow=101" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=67406&CurrentRow=101</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=67406&CurrentRow=101</a</a>><br /><br />A 1952 Topps Andy Pafko in Vg. This card had front and backs scans. The card sold for $261 w/juice.<br /><br />With this lot:<br /><br /><a href="http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=67403&CurrentRow=101" target="_new" rel="nofollow"><a href="http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=67403&CurrentRow=101</a" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20 Information&LotIndex=67403&CurrentRow=101</a</a>><br /><br />This lot of 18 different rare #131-180 gray back 1952 Topps has the verbage<br /><br />"Some cards possess eye appeal that's more favorable than the stated grades imply; these items bear condition discrepancies that affect only the cards' reverse sides." <br /><br /><br />Since 33% or 6 cards were graded by Mastro as less than Vg, one can only assume those 6 cards has back damage. But how much? There is no scan to let bidders know. <br /><br />If this lot had scans of the back damaged cards, this lot would have most likely gone for more than $1,220 w/juice, because I would have bid on the lot if the back damage wasn't too severe. It is possible the lot went cheap.<br /><br />Granted I could have emailed or called or whatever and gotten scans , but I just passed on the lot, as it wasn't that critical I got the cards and said the hell with it.<br /><br />This is just a good example of why backs need to be scanned, as the consignor most likely lost money because there were no scans of the back of the cards.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The catalog descriptions are often convoluted and difficult to understand, with flowery language and puffery that sometimes is more confusing than it is helpful. They could say the same thing better with half the number of words.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Your right, there is way too much hype in auctions today, what happened to the good old baseball card auctions. I'm sure Mastro has consulted with the marketing people and the marketing people guarantee that the hype works.<br /><br />Peter
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Rob Dewolf</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Having been a newspaper copy editor for 10 years or so now, I've suggested to countless writers about how much more powerful the written word can be when it's succinct. And I've thought the same thing countless times when reading many auction catalogs.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>How often on this board to we go "wow" and "geez" and "unbelievable!" at the high prices we see on Mastro? There is zero evidence from the prices they get that their superfluous descriptions hurt consignors.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I'm sure they write in the style they do for a reason, and I suppose all the superlatives do make lots sound better than they are. However, most people I speak with would prefer their descriptions were succinct and to the point. But I highly doubt that will change. And who knows, maybe in some way it does bring higher prices.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Dave</b><p> I guess we are all whining crybabies because we want our money's worth when we bid and try to win auction lots. I guess we're all whimers because we expect to be given fair and accurate descriptions from auction houses who make insane amounts of money from our whining bids....whatever Mastronet<br /><br /> Reading the "Whining crybaby" comment has really turned me off to the big auction houses....I always thought they considered a lot of us peon's , and his comment kind of solidified that for me.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Dave, what's a peon?<br />Though in all likelihood I am in fact one without knowing <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Daniel
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I don't think anyone believes that Mastro's laughable prose hurts the prices it garners on its lots; I think the cards sell themselves for the most part. The prose is obnoxious, is all.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Agreed -<br /><br />I'd just rather see a description that says: G condition, heavy crease with pencil writing on the back than ....
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Their catalogs would be smaller and lighter, and I wouldn't have to spend so much time in the can to read them <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Adam,<br /><br />The Collectors Classic Auctions for Mastros use the smaller catalog format. It's those BIG auctions that they have a couple/few times a year where they kill a couple trees in an effort to provide us with reading material while we're sitting on the can. <br /><br />You'll notice that the Collectors Classic Auction catalogs are for us people at the first grade level of reading - we like to look at the pictues only. The BIG auction catalogs are for grown ups because that's where you can sit on the can for hours and read all the flowery and poofy descriptions that we have all learned to have BMs to.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Doug Allen</b><p>Wow that Pete is a trouble maker! Seriously I wanted to take a couple minutes to respond to comments made on this forum.<br /><br />First and foremost I consider Dan McKee and his father great collectors and good friends. I do believe it is unfortunate he chose to include a private e-mail on this public forum and I told him such. I have no problem with his communicating the general message but I believe the tone of Pete's e-mail was related to his comfort level with Dan personally. He won't make that mistake again! Pete that is...I can't control Dan.<br /><br />I guess the most disturbing comment was the following "Mastro is running a big business, once that happens the little guy and the hobby courtesies that we are use to get thrown out the window." Although we make mistakes I really hope this is not the case. <br /><br />Let me make a couple comments and listen for your response as I do value your feedback:<br />#1 There were comments about small images...we have done two proactive things first we went from what used to be a 16 items per page format in the book to 9 items per page and more importantly we began image serving out of the new location which allows you to blow up every image to allow for clearer viewing. This should be less of an issue as we continue to improve this.<br />#2 We allow for open viewing for each and every auction. If there are lots you want to personally view we would be happy to host you and even provide some great Chicago Style Pizza!<br />#3 We are pretty good at providing feedback on lots when questions arise. As long as the request is reasonable we ty to be responsive.<br /><br />Regarding the issue at hand. Our goal is to accurately describe a lot and depict images that support a majority of the value. In many cases 10% of the volume represents 80 to 90% of the value. Those are the cards we try to depict. I do agree that if a card is described as GD-GD/VG or lesser and are not considered to be cards of significant value (as 28% of this lot was) no futher detail as to specifics leading to grade are necessary. On the other hand I agree that if cards are VG or better more detailed descriptions of imperfections such as writing, back damage, etc should be clearly disclosed. If we have failed in this regard we need to make corrections. I discussed Adams card specifically with Pete. He indicated the minor paper loss on the corner did not impact the lettering and it has a solid VG/EX front. In his estimation it is still a VG card. <br /><br />Overall I believe Pete does a fantastic job and is very good at what he does...he is also living his dream!<br /><br />I guess that is it for now....very interested in your thoughts.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Doug Allen
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>FYI, Bob Luce, SGC Senior Grader, in his interview with SGC Magazine stated that the best a card with a pinhole or back writing will ever grade with them is a 30 (g). He was less clear on paper loss, which he said would vary in its effect depending on severity.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Doug- I've always felt that the prose style in your catalog is clumsy and much too busy. In most cases, many of the sentences are convoluted and difficult to understand. I taught college English for three years. If you handed in a paper written that way, you would be staying after school cleaning blackboard erasers. Ever thought about streamlining that writing style a little? Most lots don't need dozens of adjectives, especially when half the time they are not even used properly.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>gary nuchereno</b><p> Doug, The fact of the matter is that many collectors differentiate between cards that have been graded poor to fair because of multiple creases and rounded corners versus cards that have been graded poor to fair because of paper loss or writing on them. The fact that many collectors feel that way should be enough for auction houses to be more specific regarding poor to fair lots.<br />I was told recently by a different auction house that a card with writing on the back can still be graded very good. I guess it could but it should be listed as very good with writing on the back! All auction houses should try to be more accurate in there<br />descriptions. I also think that auction houses should refuse to<br />auction cards that have been badly misgraded by the grading companies. It is a cop out to say "we didn't grade it"
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Doug Allen</b><p>I would agree if the entire lot is fair to poor. In that case go to the Cobb, Mathewson, Johnson, HOF, rarities so you can picture and describe them. My example was a lot for which 72% of the lot and 95% of the value was VG or better. In that case I don't believe it is necessary to provide detailed images or descriptions of each card.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>that Doug comes on to respond. That's a stand up act.....<br /><br />I think that MANY of the auction houses tend to get away from picturing any more of the LOWER quality stuff in their auctions because of the whole aesthetics issue of it. You don't want to picture low quality stuff because in a sense it drags down the rest. They also, I think incorrectly, assume that since it's lower condition that the buyer will be okay with whatever is wrong with the lot.<br /><br />I would like to see what causes a G card to be G if possible but realize it's not really feasible to picture every card in a 200 card G/VG T206 lot. They are going to picture the higher $$ cards as Doug illustrated in his earlier post but it would also be nice to see the backs. Especially when the backs could call into question the reason for the downgrade in condition. Hopefully with the technical upgrades Doug has outlined, probably paid for by the increase in VIG (had to get that dig in....), we'll continue to see vast improvements in the images of items on their site, realizing it's not possible in the print format to picture as much as online.<br /><br />In Doug's defense, if you CAN get to Chicago to view auction items, they provide A#1 hosting.....Selling a large lot of cards in 2002, I dropped by their offices and he spent over an hour just showing me around, talking about the lot and other items and was very generous with his time and would have spent more but I had to leave. I realize it's not always feasible to fly in to Chicago but for someone who's planning on ponying up a ton of cash in an auction, a couple hundred bucks for a roundtrip plane ride might be money well spent.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>I think all auction companies should be as detailed as possible. In the old days when they had to use catalogs, you could not always show photos of the entire lot both fronts and backs. Now with the internet around, they can show 100 photos per lot if they want to online. Maybe in a large group of lower grade items they could just take one photo of ALL the cards with their backs facing up. I know a buddy of mine did not bid on a postcard lot that recently closed in auction because it did not show a photo of the back (which has markings on it). Any blank back cards might not be as important to show unless there is damage. Plus auction companies should know how picky us collectors are... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> <br /><br />JC<br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have been told I probably shouldn't post in these kinds of threads with advertisers mentioned. I do a lot of things I am told I shouldn't do, none unethical (imo, <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>), and that's just my personality. I honestly try to call it the way I see it and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes I am wrong but most times I don't think I am. First of all it takes some real gumption (is that a word?) for an auction house President to come on the board and post. Doug (hi Doug) is a stand up guy for that. Most wouldn't do it. No matter what you say he has come on the board when most others won't. I think he gets a lot of credit for that. When I said there was a board rule about posting emails on the board it was unwritten. Now it's written and a part of the Forum Rules. I can now take care of these things when I see them and point to the rules. I already mentioned I am hyper sensitive to the "thought of protecting" advertisers and I will try to work on that in the future. I still won't (can't) protect them but I will try to stick to the forum rules as they are a good baseline to go from. Here's a suggestion that could, potentially, appease a lot of folks. Maybe the auction houses, Mastro included, could have the dissertation about a card be in the first paragraph(s) of the description and the actual description of the card itself be in a 2-4 sentence paragraph right below, with a few spaces between it and the above flowery stuff? That way when I want to read the stuff that is sometimes superfluous I can, and when I don't want to, I can skip to the bottom and only read the pertinent details of the actual characterisitcs of the item(s). Barry asked me this morning if I ever read all that stuff in the descriptions and I told him that, if it's an item that interests me, I usually do. I believe this format would help everyone.....Thanks again to Doug for coming on the board when most others won't step up. best regards<br /><br />edited grammar
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>and it is terribly relevant as I was perusing the Huggins & Scott catalog that I just got last night....alot of fun if you have time, but also alot of effort required to read the long paragraphs and find the single-card detailed info that I am looking for...<br /><br />I really like Leon's idea of segregating the data from the commentary.<br /><br />For example, a catalog/lot listing should look more like this:<br /><br />Lot#: 2411<br />Title/Name: (24) 1950-1957 Baseball Cards - HOFers<br />List of Included Items:<br />1<br />2<br />3<br />(each line lists the Year, Mfr, Player, Grade for each card, or something similar if these were sets or subsets...something like this that makes it easier to read)<br /><br />Description:<br />This is the finest grouping of 1950's baseball cards we've ever seen! You would be stupid not bid on this, because you'd be passing up a chance to own <br />the best players of the decade, etc. etc....<br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Right on, Dan.<br /><br />Amen, Barry, Jim C, and Leon.<br /><br />A more accurate description, even one that points out a lot's flaws, is preferable to fluffy, flowery language that is unhelpful and wastes space.<br /><br />What if every lot was scanned, front and back, every time. When someone had a question, a scan package could be emailed. <br /><br />Who wants to brave sub zero temps and double digit winds for thick nasty Yankee pizza and a peek at some cards?<br /><br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Chad</b><p>More and bigger scans.<br /><br />That's my vote.<br /><br />--Chad
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>You know, that box with the three catalogs in it is getting heavier and heavier to carry up the stairs. Less words means less pages.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />From "labors" perspective less words means less jobs:<br /><br />Less trees to cuts (lumberjack union)<br />Less paper to pulp (millers union)<br />Less ink to make (some manufacturing union somewhere)<br />Less words to write (writers union)<br />Less postage/FedEx payments for shippng (lower stock prices for FedEx or less revenue for USPS)<br />Less chance of getting a hernia when lifting the box (physicians and physical therapist unions)<br />Less garbage to collect (trash collectors union)<br /><br /><br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Yankee pizza would be thin crust. That goop in a pan in Chicago is White Sox pizza.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Good call Leon. After reading your post I realized that on ebay I go right past the bs about how many hits a player had and look for the card description. I wonder if the auction houses would devote the page space to that kind of thing. <br /><br />Joann
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jack Richards</b><p>Apparently I'm in the minority, but I think the flowery language is great! I love it!!!
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>well written flowery language can be a pleasure to read. Badly written flowery language is painful to read. Unfortunately, much of the fluff in auction catalogs is of the latter variety.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Dylan</b><p>When i get an auction catalog id prefer to have just the relevent info. Card name, year, perhaps a mention of pop report. I think most who are flipping through these catalogs are familier with the material, atleast the cards. Put a pic of the back of the card on the page instead of that paragraph of fluff talk.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Doug Allen</b><p>I have been reading and do appreciate your feedback. Let me comment.<br /><br />Some of you may roll your eyes but to many our sale catalogs have become somewhat of a collectors item as well as a great reference tool. I would love to see a show of hands how many of you throw them away after a sale? I would dare say very few. <br /><br />Although we have tried to reduce the fluffy language in our catalogs on run of the mill material like 1956 Topps Mickey Mantle cards, providing a historical context for many of the items we feature is one element of our "secret sauce" that has led to our success.<br /><br />Remember on this forum the majority of the contributors are advanced hobbyists. If not in the financial level of your collecting, most definitely in your experience. These detailed historical descriptions actually spur on a lot of the fresh blood in the hobby to take notice and pay more. The catalog and internet presentation is an inducement to buy. This being said our goal is to the present the material in the best light possible which includes high quality images, detailed descriptions and proper grades.<br /><br />Thanks again for the feedback.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Doug- the historical background is extremely useful and I agree by saving the catalog you are, in that sense, preserving a great reference tool.<br /><br />But the poorly constructed sentences, and the misuse of words, have nothing to do with it. Stick to the facts, and take out 75% of the fluff. A little puffery is good marketing, but we are talking simply about awkward writing.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>What Doug just said makes sense.<br /><br />Maybe what is needed is 4 things.<br /><br />1. A good photo.<br /><br />2. A descriptive section with a complete card description, including significance of the card type or set.<br /><br />3. A section about who the player was, historical accomplishments, and the like.<br /><br />4. A scan package of the item, detailed scans so that a bidder desiring them could email and get them. The package would be set up in advance, so there's no delay about getting that information into the hands of a bidder.<br /><br />Wouldn't that be nice...
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Doug Allen</b><p>Barry,<br /><br />Now I will get a bit defensive. You can say what you want about fluff but when it comes to sentence construction and grammar I will stack my guys up against anyone.<br /><br />My writing staff is led by Brian Bigelow who has built what I believe to be a world class team. These aren't ex hobby guys that are trying to learn how to construct complete sentences. These are skilled writers that have also learned to appreciate and describe incredible material. Our customers have come to expect our writers to perform adequate due diligence and provide due attention to each and every item they catalog.<br /><br />I would submit that errors do slip by but I also feel that the overall level of the writing is exceptional. I would appreciate if you would personally reveal specific lot descriptions that you find objectionable. I am not looking for an anomaly. Please e-mail me with a half a dozen lots from recent catalogs where you believe the writing of lots with as you call "fluff" include improper use of the English language. By the way sometimes in the writing crunch at the end of the cycle guys like Kevin Struss and Myself jump in and write vintage cards...please don't pick those out as I do admit if our proofers didn't see them in time some of those write-ups may be brutal (sorry Kev)!<br /><br />Looking forward to your examples as at the end of this we are simply looking to put out a better product.<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Doug
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Okay- let me rephrase and give credit where it is due.<br /><br />The research that goes into each catalog is second to none. I have been in the hobby 25 years and when I read some of the really meaty parts I learn something new every time. And I always love learning new things.<br /><br />But my point has more to do with style and usage. I guess from my own training as a graduate student in English Lit, and subsequently as a teacher, I learned to write succinctly and to the point. I know a catalog is not a novel, and it is also not a term paper, but it still can implement an efficient writing style. Give me any long winded lot description from one of your catalogs, and let me rewrite it in about half the number of words. And I bet I can do it more clearly, maintain the historical context, and even throw in a little hype to let prospective bidders know what a great piece it is.<br /><br />Edited to add I see you asked me to provide you with some examples. If I have time today, can I put one or two on the board and let others see if they agree with me? I'll go back to your last major auction catalog. Just let me know if the board is an acceptable venue.<br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Doug Allen</b><p>Hey Barry,<br /><br />Given your restated comments I don't believe it is necessary and I would prefer not to do it on a public forum.<br /><br />I don't doubt you could find examples where write-ups could be shortened and it would be up to personal opinion as to whether or not the resulting product is better, clearer, etc. I took offense to the fact that you made what I believed to be a widespread comment that the sentance useage was improper.<br /><br />By the way thanks for your kind comments regarding research etc. as we do take a tremendous amount of pride in that. Although learning is not what it is all about it is definitely part of the experience.<br /><br />All the best,<br />Doug
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Fair enough. I just wrote something, saw your comment, and per your request deleted it.<br />
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Doug, I think the final point is that Mastro has the best cards at auction. No question in my mind. And I can't criticize some of the marketing you do as I'm sure you have an idea what works and what doesn't to bring in dollars. But for the buyers of the high end cards in your auctions, the cards pretty much sell themselves. I'd appreciate a catalogue with less flowery praise (maybe a limit of 9 adjectives and adverbs per entry) and a website with scans of the cards that can be blown up and reviewed carefully. Huggins & Scott's current auction has the best scans I have ever seen on an auction site. Mastro's are vastly improved as well.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Let's start with lot 1 of the most recent auction. The description reads in part:<br /><br />"In this intriguing portrayal, the subject is depicted in the uniform of the St. Louis Browns, with the highly desirable caption, "Browns - Champions 1886," placed below the card's well-resolved sepia likeness. Here's an extremely presentable Old Judge specimen that displays quite favorably. It has a strong, clearly focused image and exhibits relatively moderate evidence of wear at the corners."<br /><br />The first sentence awkwardly uses passive voice and makes the mistake of using "this" in reference to something that should be named in the sentence but really isn't. The second sentence, although using two phrases to say the same thing, actually is a topic sentence and would be better at the start of the listing. The third sentence is wordy; less is better if the meaning is the same. "Relatively moderate" is awkward; you do not need to qualify words like "moderate" or "presentable" as they are themselves qualifying terms. A better piece of writing would be: <br /><br />"This attractive card depicts Nat Hudson, a memnber of the St. Louis Browns champions team, with the desirable caption "Browns - Champions 1886" below his well resolved picture. With a strong, clearly focused sepia image and moderate corner wear, the card displays quite favorably for its grade." <br /><br />Moving on to lot 2: <br /><br />"Goodwin & Co.'s very scarce "Gypsy Queen" advertising arches over the sepia-toned portrayal of Hall of Famer Pud Galvin on the face of this sought-after collectible. The visually compelling 19th Century insert retains full integrity in its obverse presentation and carries a minimum of standard peripheral wear; a vintage collector stamping appears on the back."<br /><br />My eye tended to skip over the "crud" at the start of the sentence searching for its subject. And "obverse presentation"? Yechh! If you mean "front of the card", then say it. The best selling points of the card are that it is an uncatalogued pose of a HOFer, it is a rare N175, and it has a nice front image for the grade. The description doesn't mention the uncatalogued status of the pose, doesn't say whether it is a small or large N175, and loses the idea of rarity of N175 (I know it is rare but if you are trying for the less experienced collector and/or creating a reference tool, the listing should highlight the key concepts). Here is a better description: <br /><br />"Hall of Fame pitcher Pud Galvin appears in an uncatalogued pose under the rare Gypsy Queen advertising banner on this [large or small] format N175 insert card. Although the card has been assigned a technical grade of fair by SGC due to a vintage collector's stamp on the back, the all-important image is clear and visually compelling."<br /><br />I could go on all day but I will spare everyone the boredom. My point is that the catalog could use some copy editing while still retaining its selling language and content.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Adam- I emailed Doug a similar example as he asked me to take this off the board. Hopefully, he will look at them and at least address the issue with the writing staff.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p> Is it really expected that the description of a GD card needs much more than that. <br /><br /><br />yes, especially if it has paper loss and or creases. IMO<br /><br />cards in 'Good' condition can be found w/o those problems. How would you (or anyone) like to buy a Cobb graded 'Good' and when it arrived it had paper loss, was marked and had a crease?<br />All you saw from the scan was 4 rounded corners. And from the scan the card looked like a naturally worn and honest wear example? For the premiums they charge to both buyer and seller that info is vital.<br /><br /><br />Steve
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Re Adam's Rewrites:<br /><br />I would want to buy the cards as described by Adam. The original descriptions may say the same thing, but it requires peeling away a layer of crud first.
|
Mastronet, I may be wrong here but let's here opinions??
Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>It's true.<br />Adam's re-write is succint. Perhaps better. Likely more informative.<br />Its just not Masto's style, and they do indeed have one.<br />Picture a puffy shirt. Add brocade chairs, the smell of fine tobacco burning in a meerchaum pipe, and lilting music. She is classy, non? <br />Just as much of Mastro's material is absolutely first rate, rare, and the stories associated often whimsical, so similarly they cultivate an image and style that matches it.<br />It's not plain and simple and impersonal. It attempts to be very personal, and colorful - and overtly sophisticated.<br />I think what's being asked is to change their very image not simply their word usage.<br />Not happening I wouldn't think.<br /><br /><br />Daniel
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:21 AM. |