Did anyone see this item at the Huggins and Scott website?

[mighty bombjack]

In their upcoming auction (which is pretty stacked, as usual), Huggins and Scott has a multi-signed Reach scorebook, kind of a patchwork to be sure.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...=270&lotno=366

Now, did anyone besides me see the original listing? They have altered it to show that many of the autos have been deemed clubhouse, but what really strikes me is that the original listing stated that it included an Amos Rusie auto, which got my attention right away. They have removed any mention of that, as well as the photo of the auto. It does not seem that they have deemed it to be a clubhouse sig, but that they are hiding its original presence, perhaps even removing that page from the book completely. This rubs me the wrong way.

Did anybody see it?

[tazdmb]

To be honest, I have been following their updates near daily and did see this item around when first listed and don't recall Amos Rusie being attached to the item. Additionally, I don't see how Rusie (who, I believe, was out of the game by 1902) fits in with these players, time-wise.

[mighty bombjack]

I just did a google search for "huggins and scott rusie" and the first link that came up had the original title and the reference to rusie on the google search page, as I hope you can see here "1930s Reach Baseball Scorebook Signed by (71) With Alexander, Ott and Rusie". The link takes you to the present, altered listing.

https://www.google.com/#safe=off&scl...w=1280&bih=897

[thecatspajamas]

You can click on the green arrow to the right of the link in the google search to view the original cached version of the page, fwiw. If they changed the lot description though, there had to have been a reason for doing so, which could also include a request by the consignor. In circumstances like these, it's best to communicate with the AH directly to find out what is going on before blowing it up with public speculation.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...pl/contact.htm

[Leon]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

You can click on the green arrow to the right of the link in the google search to view the original cached version of the page, fwiw. If they changed the lot description though, there had to have been a reason for doing so, which could also include a request by the consignor. In circumstances like these, it's best to communicate with the AH directly to find out what is going on before blowing it up with public speculation.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...pl/contact.htm

agreed

[drcy]

As a writer, I always say judge me only by the finished product. If you want to get me mad, pick up some in-progress papers from my desk and read them. I'll ban you from getting near my desk ever again.

Granted, I don't upload in-progress paper to the internet.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by drcy

As a writer, I always say judge me only by the finished product. If you want to get me mad, pick up some in-progress papers from my desk and read them. I'll ban you from getting near my desk ever again.

Granted, I don't upload in-progress paper to the internet.

Would you post those in-progress papers on your website, and then hope not to be judged by them?

Oops, I only read the last line of your post after I responded to it!

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

You can click on the green arrow to the right of the link in the google search to view the original cached version of the page, fwiw. If they changed the lot description though, there had to have been a reason for doing so, which could also include a request by the consignor. In circumstances like these, it's best to communicate with the AH directly to find out what is going on before blowing it up with public speculation.

http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...pl/contact.htm

Thanks for the green arrow tip, that shows the original title and description, though it does not include the original photo that was there.

I will contact the AH, but they open themselves up to public speculation when they show these things as work in progress. This is actually what my distaste is about. I do not know the reason for taking the photo and description of Rusie down, but through the auction house's own actions we can see that they are withholding something about the item as they originally presented it.

We were discussing a Mantle ball in a thread about Heritage, with conjecture about whether the ball had or had not been pre-certed by a TPA yet. The auction house came on here and expalined the situation. Do you think that was inappropriate action by the OP?

http://net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=171942