Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I've been watching the Four Base Hits of John Ward in the Mile High Auction rather closely, as I had some issues with it the moment the auction began. The card was described as having some restoration, but it was rather vague just what that restoration was.<br /><br />Since we are talking about a very significant item that could be worth six figures, it also seemed odd that it was being offered unslabbed. Jogging my memory a bit, I went back to a Mastro Auction from August, 2005, and discovered lot #1227, the identical card in an PSA "AUTH" holder; at that time, the entire ad bottom was missing.<br /><br />This was clearly the same card, and I suspected it would just be a matter of time before some disclosure about the true nature of the restoration would be forthcoming.<br /><br />Finally, yesterday an addendum was attached to the original description that is woefully inadequate. It sounds as if the offered card had the ad broken at the bottom and then reinforced. There is no mention of the obvious: that this is the product of two different cards, identical to the Just So of Burkett that was recently auctioned (with full and accurate disclosure).<br /><br />How do others feel about the way this matter was handled? <br /><br />Edited at 1:08 to say it was in a PSA holder, not SGC

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>If the card had significant restoration completed (which obviously includes a new mount or the reattachment of the bottom of the card) then the work should have been fully disclosed in the auction item description. <br /><br />I would like the grading companies to disclose exactly how much work/resoration can be done on an item before they say that they wont provide a numerical grade. Also, I'd like to know how much work/restoration can be done on an item before a grading company says it will give the label an AUTH indication. Where is this line drawn. Perhaps the grading companies need to create a new category called RESTORED. At that point the buyer can determine if the item is worth as much to them in the RESTORED condition. The RESTORED indication would also alleviate the seller from having to disclose a total restoration description although I would think that a reputable and trusted seller would provide full disclosure. <br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>I am amazed that people are willing to pay this much for another cartophilic mosiac. I assume that this card is part baseball card, part actress card, and all facts about the restoration should have been disclosed in the original write-up.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>Total BS, and yet another good reason to collect lower end slabbed material ... I'm not looking to spend that kind of money only to find out later that it's a collage.<br /><br />Thanks Barry, you're one of the good ones.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>without first-hand knowledge of it, I would say this has been handled poorly.<br />I would imagine most everyone would agree.<br />A sustainable business, with a strong brand, and loyal customers, tends to treat the customers properly, and not try to hose them. Full disclosure, engender trust, reap the rewards, rinse, and repeat. simple.<br /><br />If the small fry such as myself feel this way, I can only imagine how strongly this is echoed in the folks on this Board and elsewhere, who actually have the $ to go after these items...<br /><br />...and business owners should not be so shortsighted - what if I win a big lottery some day -like one of those Power Ball jackpots? I become everyone's "Customer #1" within a single day, I assure you....I can whip up a multi-million dollar wantlist within 5 minutes, easy! It's called the SCD!-just start on page 1 and go from there... <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />edited for spelling and additional levity

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>The restored "Just So" card of Burkett that was in the recent Mastro auction sold for $9,000.<br /><br />If it had been unrestored and just a "beater" that was slabbed as an SGC 10... my guess is that it would have sold for 10 times the amount.<br /><br />(NOTE: I am not criticizing the owner of the card for having it restored because he had no choice. The card was butchered and unslabbable BEFORE he ever got it.)<br /><br />Apparently the "market price" for these restored items is about 10% of the true value?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>Harkens back to our disclosure threads of a while back. Or lack thereof....<br />That's really poor business practices. I would hope Brian gets wind of this thread and maybe he doesn't fully know the extent of it or didn't do the full due diligence like the T5 Jackson that was stated as 'THE ONLY ONE'. Couple of GLARING errors.<br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>ramram</b><p>Sorry, but I'm still too busy laughing over the flowery description of the card.<br /><br />"The very mention of subjects from this issue will make even the most advanced hobbyist act fanciful and silly around collectors of the same ilk. Make mention of a Hall of Famer and the response of these collectors becomes outright laughable, as it is the only response acceptable to what surely can`t be possible. In this case, it surely is possible, as we our proud to be able to offer this 1887 Four Base Hits example of Hall of Famer John Ward. When viewing this treasure the one thing that becomes abundantly clear is that one word that keeps coming to mind: captivating! Enthusiasts will peer at this card as if they can`t believe the sight of the card, almost as if they need time to appreciate what is really before them. Exceptionally well-centered, the card exhibits a scintillating, deeply registered image that provides perfect contrast of subject. The four corners are each slightly rounded but project well when considering the offered card`s true rarity. 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. Whether or not the offered card has had any restoration really isn`t the point of this exceptional offering, as the unbelievable rarity outweighs any of this. The offered esteemed collectible is presented with immense pride on our part, and offers one collector the great distinction of adding one our hobby`s rarest pasteboards to their holdings."<br /><br />Rob M.<br /><br />P.S. Looks like you got their attention Barry...they have another addendum today.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloateb</b><p>Rob- you are correct, and it is important for me to say that the second addendum was not up when I made my post. I do agree that now the appropriate information has been offered. He might have spent an extra moment to spell all the words correctly and construct a clearer sentence, since so much money is at stake, but why quibble. At this point bidders can decide on their own how they want to pursue this.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>Full Disclosure is a wonderful thing!

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>My question is did the auction house: 1- know about the significant restoration and choose to spin it in a way to minimize the impact on the lot's realization, or 2-just fail to notice that the bottom and top of the card were different. Either way, in my opinion, it does not speak favorably about the job they have done.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>Very, very nice job Barry!

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>sam</b><p>below are scans of the two cards merged<br />to form the card being offered by mile high.<br />mile high has these scans and needs to post them<br />to clarify some of the uncertainty associated<br />with this card.<br /><br />[IMG]<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/rmacpa/newyorkscancollection/websize/mastroward1.JPG">[/IMG]<br /><br />[IMG]<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/rmacpa/newyorkscancollection/websize/actress.jpg">[/IMG]<br /><br />[IMG}<img src="http://photos.imageevent.com/rmacpa/newyorkscancollection/huge/fbhward1.jpg">[/IMG]<br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Wesley</b><p>Thanks for the pictures, Sam. The work done on the FBH Ward seems similar to the work done on the Just So Burkett that was recently sold.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Sam- just wondering if you are either the conservator or a principle in the auction house? Thank you.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Sam--How do you know that that was the actress card used? When did Mile High get these scans? Did they know the history of the card when they wrote their original description?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>mark</b><p>it still looks great. Who ever did that job is an artist. Must take a skilled person to do a job like that. How is that done by the way?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>If the consignor were smarter, he would have sold this on BST so there couldn't be third party interference.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Bill K</b><p>Any collector acting "fanciful and silly" at any point in time for any reason will have their collecting licenses revoked.<br /><br />Why does it take a near act of Congress for some of these auction houses to fall in line? Please don't tell me that they were unaware of such restorations or to the extent to which it was restored. Any item of that significance should be fully researched prior to listing. Totally unacceptible in my book, and Mile High is now Mile-Low.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br />My personal collection - <a href="http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://s47.photobucket.com/albums/f176/fkm_bky/</a>

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>1. Whomever posts in this thread needs to be well known by their Net54 ID or put their full name. Sam from NY....nothing personal but you need to put your full name in this thread. It's the rule. <br /><br />2. The auction house has done the right thing at this point. Might it have taken too long? Yes. Did the auctioneer know everything going into this? No. <br /><br />3. Mile High has said any current bidder on that card can withdraw their bid if they want to. Can't be more fair than that at this point. <br /><br />We can continue griping about this, or that, but the full disclosure is now made and everyone is well apprised of the situation....happy collecting .....

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>Leon:<br /><br />Did we have a change in thr rules? My interpretation has always been that if posts were confrontational then you need to post your name. Sam, in my view, did nothing but provide a huge service to all of us. He did not call Mile High out in any fashion (I don't think).<br /><br />The first sentence of the rules regarding identifying yourself states: "Anonymous posts that are controversial or confrontational will probably be deleted." This sentence seems to be the essense of why someone needs to post their name. Did Sam violate this?<br /><br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Cat- Fair point. I feel to protect the integrity of the board the folks posting need to be known. IN this case I am comfortable if Sam will email me privately and let me know his contact info. Again, this is to protect the the board. How do we know this isn't a competitor trying to hurt the reputation of someone else? <br /><br />Mark M.- You are almost correct. The interference that is not permitted on the BST has to do with folks talking about pricing and what someone paid etc....IT has NOTHING to do with protecting the board from fraud. IF there is any kind of monkey business going on it can be exposed, even on the BST. Maybe you need to think a little more before you post. This has been discussed before but my guess is you conveniently didn't remember. Pretty much status quo for you. <br /><br />best regards

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>"How do we know this isn't a competitor trying to hurt the reputation of someone else?"<br /><br />Fair point, but I do want to know what Sam knows. With the Just So Burkett the former owner had a description and pictures of the restoration process. It was quite interesting and it left nothing unknown. We're trying to drag out the facts on this one and Sam definately knows something.<br /><br />I'm not just solving curiousity. If the price is similar to Burkett, I'll definately bid (I expect it to go MUCH higher though).<br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Judging from the scans it does appear that Sam has shown us the original parts that were used to build the finished product. As such, it would be interesting to know who Sam is, how he has access to them, and finally what motivated him to show them to the board. Seems like there is a reason he shared this with us.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>One other thing on this issue of anonymity. The auction house says (to me in a phone call) they have never had scans of the card(s) so the fact Sam? is saying they have is quite contradictory. Who on this board wouldn't want to know who is talking about them, in public, and saying things that they disagree with? best regards

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Zach Rice</b><p>I have seen the scans posted above, but they were shown to me directly by the consigner of the card. In Mile High’s defense, the restoration on the Ward is of the utmost quality and difficult to detect. However, if Mile High did have knowledge of the restoration, there is no excuse for it not being disclosed. I view the current owner of the card in the highest regard and one of the most honest people in the hobby I know, I doubt that he failed to disclose to Mile High the card’s full restoration.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Sounds like this Sam character may have an ax to grind with Mile High. Just guessing, of course.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Preece1</b><p>I had intended to stay on the sideline on this one as I know the consignor and consider him to be highly ethical. In fact, since the consignor assumed I might be a potential bidder, he sent me before and after scans long before the auction started. There is no question in my mind that the intentions of the consignor should not be questioned here.<br /><br />But, to Zach's comment that the work done was quite good and maybe the auctioneer missed it (I am paraphrasing here), here is where I have the problem. I have seen the completed card in person, and anyone who has spent any time in this hobby could tell two things after looking at the card 1) it was a very nice job by the conservator, and 2) it is obvious that the bottom was new to the card.<br /><br />To me personally it comes down to one of two things, either the auctioneer didn't take a good look at the card when they put it in their auction(which is a problem for me), or they looked at the card, saw what was done, and intentionally(?) was vague in the write-up (which is obviously a much bigger issue). <br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>I'm wondering where restoration ends, and and making a fool begins......<br />Taking a look at the back, the area around the amalgam of the two cards has been 'aged' patina'd scuffed and otherwise to sections of the card both sides of the split, to create the impression of uniform aging. This card wasn't 'saved' in my opinion, but altered expressly for the purposes of cheating someone out of their money 5 - 10 fold the true value of the card.<br /><br />To put the card up for sale minus full disclosure, to me, is absolutely pathetic! It doesn't sound like the owner is that kind of person from Zach's comments, indeed I would imagine Zach would only be commenting on this board with the consent of the owner.......<br /><br />Zach, if you're willing to tell us, did you have knowledge and possession of the images pre the auction beginning, and would the consignor (being the upstanding human being you describe) let us know - through yourself if necessary, if he/she told the auction house about the restoration pre consignment?<br /><br />Daniel

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>everyone saying the consignor is someone of high morals BUT.....something is rotten in Denmark here for EITHER the consignor or the auctioneer. If the consignor did not disclose to the auctioneer that there had been work done on the card, GRANTED the auctioneer should have noticed it. The lower left corner goes in a hair and it's kinda wierd as well as the areas Daniel pointed out. If the consignor DID disclose the work, the auctioneer DIDN'T disclose it. Kinda like Nick Saban....someone's not telling the whole story.....<br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p><font color=blue>Ahhh . . . The old Nick Saban card has been pulled. Is there no depth to which posters will stoop?</font><br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>The problem I have with this whole mess (other than the obvious) is that another card was sacrificed (destroyed) to make this card better. I had the same feeling about the Just So card.<br /><br />I don't nearly have the income that a lot of people on this board have and acquiring a Just So actress card or a Four Base Hits actress card to add to the collection in place of a baseball card would be nice. Now, however, two more cards are gone forever just so someone MIGHT make a little more money.<br /><br />My point is, let's stop this practice now so that there will be cards left for future collectors to enjoy.<br /><br />If you are a TRUE card collector you will know what I am talking about. If you are just an investor, well, wou wont know and wont care.<br /><br /><br />David

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p><font color=blue>Maybe we could start an organization called "PETA" -- People for the Ethical treatment of Artifacts.</font><br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan Long</b><p>but, I'm going to agree with Tom here on this one. Something is rotten from one of the sides. Mile High's reputation is at stake here, at least with me anyway. If they knew about the card and didn't say anything - I'll never buy from them. If the consignor simply didn't let all the info out of the bag that is another story. <br /><br />Breaking the rules is one thing . . . getting caught is another. Someone broke the rules and got caught. Mile High needs to come forward and say what they know. <br><br>.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I agree with Preece--this is troublesome. The card is very high profile, and the auctioneer has made it one of the centerpieces of its auction. Presumably, then, it has studied the card, and has made at least some inquiry to its provenance. So......<br /><br />1. How do you not know this card was sold in one of your competitor's auctions from only a year ago, in trimmed, one-piece, unrestored form? <br /><br />2. Once informed that is restored (by the consignor and/or through your own research), how do you not look into whether it's the same card recently auctioned, at which point you can see there is another piece added? How do you not ask specific questions as to what exactly was done in restoration?<br /><br />3. How do you write that 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"? HEAVY CREASE OR SMALL TEAR? That baby had a whole new room addition, not wallpaper replacement.<br /><br />4. I further agree with Preece that anyone with that card in hand would spot the extent of the restoration right away. I disagree with Zach somewhat that it's a great restore job--I think the restoration is a little hard to tell from a scan, but you can readily see the surgery below the player name once you know that it's been pieced together. Let's see a back scan, I would bet that the additional piece is even more apparent from that side.<br /><br />In sum, I for one just do not believe that the auctioneer did not know. A five figure card of which a handful of examples or less exist, and you're in the business of selling high dollar material, and of following your competitors, if not on every lot, at least the showpiece items--how can you state that you didn't know the true facts and that the card was only restored to strengthen a crease or small tear? Sorry, the description was at best disingenuous, maybe worse. I hope those who have bid thus far have reason to re-examine the lot description, although in my view it is possible they will not, at least not unless they are apprised there has been a change.<br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Mike</b><p>Here's a scan of the back, which is clearer to see the restoration.<br /><br /><img src="http://images.milehighcardco.com/large/4.jpg">

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>Ok, it was missing an ad, but it looked decent and was obviously a recognized rarity. Why not leave it alone? (obviously, a philosophical question since the answer "money" is simple enough to fathom). I've owned 2 rebacked OJs and I would have prefered them unrebacked.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Peter Thomas</b><p>In case nobody has noticed is much better looking than John Ward and now apparently she is gone - alas.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The first addendum includes the phrase "upon new information." The poor writing aside, what new information could the seller receive other than the consignor telling him the true nature of the restoration? There is no new information other than that that would shed new light on the card. However, is the auction house saying whatever the public wants to hear since their backs are against the wall? I don't like any of it. While it is true that a bidder now has full disclosure, Mile High's explanation of how it got to that point is not plausible.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>problems abound.....

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>rob</b><p>I know nothing about these cards and have simply read this post because it is interesting and quite frankly I usually value what Barry has to say. But the facts seem perfectly clear to me. Why is everyone wondering whether the auction house knew of the problem or purposely misled people, they clearly stated in their addendum..."Upon new information we believe that the card is two distinct pieces". Thus they did not know until they received new information. Therefore, I surmise the consignor did not tell them the card was made from two different pieces, let alone a piece from another card. If the house did know, however, they would be openly lying in their description and that would be bad.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have spoken with the auctioneer for about 3-4 hours over the last few days. I hope more details come out. Everything isn't always as it seems. Also, the new information is plausible, imo, if it was new to them and it wasn't known until after the auction started. Yes, it was known about before today but not before the auction, is my understanding. There are still 2 weeks left so it's not like anyone was going to take a beating on not knowing the facts... I can promise that. ....best regards

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Leon- if the auction house truly didn't know the extant of the restoration, that means the consignor bought the original card, had a new bottom attached to it, and gave it to Mile High without revealing the work. Somebody is holding the bag here.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Trevor Hocking</b><p>Ok I have kept up with this post by post all day long. I to know the consigner and he is a good and honest guy from what I know of him. I do not know anyone personally at Mile High except from what I have heard in passing. I have never bid in or won anything from Mile High before either. This is not because I do not like them it is just because I have never dealt with them before. Now that all that is said. I too think all of this stinks as well. So Leon if they knew about this days before today then how come it took them until Barry and this thread that outed the item to add to the description? And why haven't they come on here to speak for themselves like Doug did. Even if they get a bashing it really means a lot to the vintage community to hear the auction companies speak for themselves. After all this site was the ones who outed the card.<br /><br />Also I don't think this kind of work should be done to cards. It is not "saving them" it is creating a Frankenstein card. IMO

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Good points Trevor, and all I can say with certainty is both the consignor and Mile High can't be blameless. One or both withheld significant information that was known long before the auction started. We may never know how this all really unfolded but it is an unhappy hobby chapter.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Before we canonize the consignor I would like to know if, when he saw the auction description(either through an early consignor's catalog or on line), he contacted Mile High to tell them that their description was misleading. Since we are told that Mile High claims that they just received the information as to the extent of the restoration I am forced to assume that the consignor did not contact them to tell them.<br />Having said that, it is hard for me to believe that before yesterday Mile High did not know the extent of the restoration. If you can see it in a scan I would think that it would stand out in person.<br />Also, if Mile High gives bidders the right to cancel existing bids will the current high bid be reduced to the level that would have existed if these cancelled bids never were made. For example, if Bidder A bid $4500 and other bidders subsequently topped that bid and other bids up to the current level then if Bidder A cancels his bid all other bids must be reduced down.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>And it appears that both withheld significant information before Barry started this thread, but after the auction had started.<br /><br />Joann

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>I think that "restoration" job is horrible looking. The card is short on the bottom by about a millimeter or two on both sides. How could an auction house not see that?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>I hate the be a pessimist but I don't think this is the last we're going to see of this kind of work? On the contrary, I believe that this may only be the beginning. Cmonnow, with the amount of money people are putting into their collections this is something that may become more common place. About the only way this is going to stop is if the bidding on this restored material is at minimal levels. Even then, minimal levels are relative to a persons deeper pockets. <br /><br />Personally, I'd like to just hear the truth about this situation: <br /><br />Did the consignor tell the auction house about the restoration (or not)? <br /><br />Did the auction house suspect anything wrong with the card and if so, why didn't they pursue the issue and resolve it before putting it up for grabs?<br /><br />In any case, it just looks bad for the auction house. It's time for them to belly up to the bar and have a come to Jesus talk with everyone... It only hurts for a little bit then the healing starts...

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Bobby Binder</b><p>Since the add on to the auction description this morning and the offer to cancel bids the price has actually gone up by almost $2K<br /><br />So I guess no one canceled bids and this thread brought more action to this card.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Barry (or anyone else that might know),<br /><br />Can you please tell us the final hammer on that card (including the juice - was it 17.5% back then?)<br /><br />Thanks!

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Eric B</b><p>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.<br /><br />Not that I would know.<br /><br />Edited to add "Not that I would know"

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Jay</b><p>Eric-Call me old fashioned but I am just a little disturbed by the analogy. What brought that to mind?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>ScottIngold</b><p>"they knew more about the card than they revealed."<br /><br />Very true imho. This looks very much to me like someone getting caught with there pants down.<br /><br />I have a very sick feeling about all of this. I mean with all of the recent posts regarding this stuff.<br /><br />Leon,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Trust in our hobby is to important.<br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Leon- I'm not at all concerned with timing, just with content.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>put this on your docket for dinner conversation......

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Mark</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Does anyone remember how much the card sold for in the Mastro auction (including buyers premium)?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I have heard it went for around 10k in that auction. It's public record somewhere, I am sure. <br /><br />...best regards<br /><br />edited to start new thread...

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>brian drent</b><p>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.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Brian Drent<br />President <br />Mile High Card Co.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>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:<br /><br />"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"<br /><br />"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??<br /><br />"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!<br /><br />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.<br />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..<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!<br /><br /><br />Daniel<br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>"This affects several different parties and there was no need to rush it."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Hal Lewis</b><p>CURIOUS QUESTION:<br /><br />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?<br /><br />In other words... are there "lesser degrees" of restoration in anyone's mind?<br /><br />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...<br /><br />and NOT to "morph" two completely different cards into one.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Still something that needed to be disclosed for sure.<br /><br />But didn't they disclose SOMETHING of this sort before Barry got onto them??<br /><br />Or was there ZERO disclosure at all?

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>steve f</b><p>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.<br /><br />These things are way outta my reach, but glad it's been yanked.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Max Weder</b><p>I just always appreciate an auction where the auctioneer can use the word "ilk" in the description.<br /><br />Max

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>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.<br /><br />Daniel

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>rmacpa</b><p>i am the consignor of the four base hits ward<br />to mile high. the fact that the card was restored<br />was disclosed to brian drent when the card was <br />consigned during september 2006.<br /><br />below is brian's 9/28/06 e-mail to me concerning<br />the card:<br /><br />"Roger,<br /><br />You have brought up some very good points and I think that you are <br />right<br />the card may very well do better being offered without a holder but<br />fully disclosing the restoration in a manner where we underscore the<br />restoration (while disclosing it) but focus on the extreme scarcity of<br />the item instead. We are not open on Saturday so it would be better to<br />send the card out Monday for a Tuesday delivery. When I have received<br />the card I will email you to alert you of such and greatly look forward<br />to working with you on this great card.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Brian Drent<br />President<br />Mile High Card Company<br />brian@milehighcardco.com<br />(303) 840-2784<br />www.milehighcardco.com"<br /><br /><br />on december 23, 2006, i received a call from a long-time collector<br />and friend who told me he was able to access the upcoming mile high<br />auction (which wasn't scheduled to be online/live for a few days)<br />by clicking on the category view link on their website. i followed<br />his instructions and was so dissatisfied by what i saw, i immediately<br />sent mile high an e-mail demanding the return of ALL of my <br />consignments and threatened litigation if this was not done. <br />mile high did not, and to this day has not, responded to any of the concerns <br />i had raised in that e-mail.<br /><br />on december 27, 2006, i retained a respected colorado law firm<br />to represent me in this matter and am currently in the process <br />of exploring options.<br /><br />for the record, in regard to brian drent's contention that he has sent <br />me several recent e-mails that i have not responded to, i have not received <br />even so much as one e-mail concerning the four base hits ward nor any <br />of my other consignments from brian drent or anyone else at mile high <br />since october 17, 2006. <br /><br />i have forwarded all relevant correspondence (including mr. drent's<br />false assertions) to my legal representatives who had asked me to refrain<br />from making any public statements relating to this matter. but i refuse<br />to sit idly by while my character is defamed by mile high.<br /><br />as much as i would like to comment further, i dont believe it would<br />be prudent to do so at this time.<br /> <br /><br /><br />

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Hal,<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />David

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>E, Daniel</b><p>Edited for speechlessness.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Good luck Roger. <br /><br />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.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Nice.<br /><br />-Al

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Now the real question...Will Leon continue to cover for one of his advertisers and make the situation seem less than it really is? <br /><br />Jay<br><br>I love pinatas. You get to beat the crap of something and get rewarded with candy.

Problem with John Ward Four Base Hits
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>Please show me where I covered for an advertiser? To the contrary this has been made as public as possible.