Mastro and Psa

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jay, how can you say that Scott is unable to defend himself? He's done a great job digging holes for himself each time he posts out here -- and always ends with a Nazi allusion. The fact is, he's bashed Leon repeatedly, discusses the wonders of cock fighting and, otherwise, makes people nauseous out here. So what if there may be felons that post out here? I know plenty of felons I'd rather hang out with than those with no criminal record. Does being a non-felon give one the right to act like an ass? Of course not. And don't you think that we're all hypocrites on certain issues to some extent? Who cares? Regardless, now that Scott has been banned he's in a better place -- his own board, right?

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Dan,

I agree with you. However, Rand makes an interesting point...Jay does not speak to people the way he would in person. Jay, might be a great guy in person but I think he is quick to be vituperative over the internet. I think people should only type in a way that they would speak in a person to person conversation. Jay will claim, as he as many times in the past...that he speaks this way because he is being brutally honest. But, I think you can be brutally honest and show respect at the same time.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: Randy Trierweiler

Jay, I don't agree with much of what you say, but I respect your card knowledge. I wish your input on this board would lean more to sharing what you know about vintage cards. One thing we do agree on is that if you are not civil on the boards, you deserve to get banned.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Charlie, I agree and I have never been the target of one of Jay's attacks so I can't know what it feels like to be in your shoes...I can only relay what I know and that Jay in person is a very nice fellow. Internet chatboards can be dehumanizing and it only takes a few statements by someone to paint a picture that is not pretty.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Jeff, I don't like or agree with a lot of things regarding Scott and he has done a good job of digging holes for himself, but it really is bad form for people to be piling on him after he gets banned.

Charlie, I can be this way in person too. I've never lived my life to win popularity contests or spare people their tender feelings. If you get to know me, there is no pretense. I am who I am with no hidden agenda. If you get to know me well enough and become a true friend, I'll defend you to the death, but piss me off and you'll wish that you never crossed me. For good or bad, very few people can claim to be a really close friend and ever fewer fall into the other spectrum.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

When you get banned you don't get to have the last word. I doubt any piling on will occur after this thread dies out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Jay,

I hear ya but I think you are throwing around alot of unoriginal cliche's. "piss me off and you'll wish that you never crossed me." "I've never lived my life to win popularity contests" etc

Are you suggesting that there are board members that you can cross and they won't get pissed? Or are the rest of us just about winning a popularity contest without any regard for substance or truth? Or do we all have hidden agenda's?

I just don't by the argument that... you are the only person on this board with an impregnable set of core values that are so much deeper in principle to us.. the shallow sheep.

Lose the attitude and keep the good info coming from your 25 years of experience.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

What good are values and ethics if you won't stand up for them?

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

Now that the San Diego Human is gone, who will be the board's new mascot?

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

What good are values and ethics if you won't stand up for them?

Jay,

Values and ethics are very important and extremely worth standing up for. But, it is self-righteous to suggest that you are the arbitor of the correct way to profess them.

For example, some would say values and ethics are...the way you treat human beings and animals (not taking a shot at anyone in particular).

Some would also say that the correct message or value can get lost in the delivery if the message is delivered in a bitter and self-aggrandizing way.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: rand

see Jay, others agree with me, you write your posts without any reguard for how they "read" to other members. you are quick for an opinion on other members, but rarely offer insight on the actual thread or cards. You think your words are doing us a favor, when in fact make you look like a Jerk. if you talk to people in person like you write then people are being polite and not truly appreciating your company. You have made personal remarks about members that have no relevance to the thread. it just makes you feel better or gives you a rush. You may be a nice guy, who cares, act like an adult and write with manners. people can get their points across without insults or personal attacks. Add something to this baseball card forum, that actually is about cards, not what smart ass remark you have with other people. you add posts to "hear" yourself, and to ignite attacks. sounds to me you have some personal issues to work out, you are definetly insecure, or you wouldnt continually irritate people and not care.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Thanks for the insight. Do you have a degree in psychology? This just continues to prove that you know nothing about me.

I have no delusions that everyone likes what I have to say. I also know that contrary to what you believe, everyone does not dislike me and the way I post.

It would be a pretty boring world if all acted and talked the same way. If you really dislike what I post, then treat it like a thread you don't like, skip it and ignore it.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jay, anything said about Scott after his ban was said before the ban.

And who is to say that your values and ethics are even remotely close to the average values and ethics of board members here? As an example, if Scott came out here and claimed that he was a member of NAMBLA -- not a crime in itself -- would that make him better in your eyes than a felon who was convicted of selling a pound of hash 20 years ago?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I know my values and ethics aren't close to the average person on here. I think the American Dream is a fraud and have a general disdain for the whole consumerism thing. That pretty much makes me unAmerican in Republican eyes.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Pelaez

When anyone gets banned on this board, the wimps crawl out of their holes, and pile on.

OmiGod ... did I say that?
Not to worry, I'll say 105 Hail Mary's, and beg for forgiveness........

Father Joe

[Archive]

Posted By: Parpasi

Does Mastro alter cards today? Can Mastro influence PSA to downgrade an item it doesn't consign? These are the questions. I'm bummed that a card can be altered by an auction company and passed by a grading company. As an outsider I could care less if the owner approved or not. I feel worse for the Bender family than any individual on this board. Every time I read these inflammatory threads I laugh at the self proclaimed leadership represented here. Lately I have seen more inflammation than useful discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only lurker who thinks so.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

Sure, Scott may hang himself time after time on this board and many of you, no doubt, believe him an asshat.
But the example he provided in this thread (unless HE doctored the before picture, which he no doubt did not) is irrefutable evidence of card doctoring/cleaning/restoring or whatever you want to call it.

Why is it that almost every time a thread unravels against the Mastro machine, Net54 filibustering essentially kills the thread? I'm glad I'm not a conspiracy theorist...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

There is no consensus on what constitutes "alteration"...some may call what Mastro did as simply cleaning the card and lots of people have no problem with that...Mastro has done much more nefarious things (see the GU Helmet issue). What are people expecting? For everyone to boycott Mastro? It isn't going to happen because if Mastro has that one item that you "need" you aren't going to care if Mastro cleaned up a card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

There is NOTHING WRONG with altering/cleaning/restoring works of art (or baseball cards).

BUT it is ESSENTIAL that an auctioneer disclose ANY ALTERATIONS of which he is aware.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Joe,

When and if you have sold car's in your life, would you disclose that at one time a bird **** on your car and that you removed it with some water and a rag?

CB

edited for spelling/grammar

[Archive]

Posted By: rand

i pose this question or comparison...if a person can restore and old car and sells it fully refurbished does he need to disclose how many dents were in it, and if a person sells a renovated home, does he have to show pictures of the old kitchen? meaning, if a card can be made better and it does not involve adding paper stock is this a bad thing? if the grading companies cannot detect a light alteration, in this case glue removal, is this really underhanded? or offering a better product without actually disturbing the cardboard?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am not going to bash someone that can't defend themselves. Scott got what he deserved much later than he should have. Nuff said. If anyone else wants to continue to attack anyone on this board personally, including me, then they will be banned too. As for cleaning the little bit of dirt off of the Red Cross card we have done polls on this board and the overwhelming majority of true card collectors (not plastic collectors) have no issue with it. If it wasn't there to begin with then there is no harm taking it off. If it leaves any kind of mark/indention behind then it should be disclosed, imo.......regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Guys, there will never be a consensus about Mastro's practices. Period. Like many auctioneers, in my mind, Mastro alters cards to some degree. Period. I'm not sure we as the buying public will ever be able to change that when you consider Mastro's position in the industry.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

bad examples. When you sell a restored/refurbished car, it is noted as such. I don't think houses have become collectibles, so what's the point there? Ignoring that, when you buy an older house, it's pretty much a given that there has been some sort of work done on the house. This contrary to the way cards are viewed. Cards are viewed as being unaltered, no matter how old.

The point Joe is trying to make is that most people wouldn't have a problem (myself included) with restoration, cleaning, etc if sellers were up front about it. There obviously something ethically and morally wrong with it if sellers aren't willing to disclose this basic information.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

There is more than just cleaning that happened to that card. Look closely at the stain. There is back damage there that disappeared after the cleaning. That's a little more than just removing a stain.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I agree that any alteration or restoration of a card should be noted by the seller. And I also believe that restoration would become more acceptable if the auction houses would disclose what is being done on a consistent basis.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Dan,

When and if you have sold car's in your life, would you disclose that at one time a bird **** on your car and that you removed it with some water and a rag?

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: scott brockelman

2 people got banned, several more are arguing amongst themselves and the rest are either questioning or defending the parties involved.

The alteration consisted of removing the unsightly brown glue(bugger) at the top of the card. The auction description reads that there is slight paper loss at the top. I really don't think this is an earth shattering event. They cleaned some crap off the card and made it look presentable. It's not like they trimmed it, painted it, rebuilt it, etc. For those that don't know or believe there are about 10 more levels they COULD have gone but did not, if in fact they were trying to repair of alter the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Charlie, it's a bad example the same someone else asking about whether you disclose you clean your house, or whatever it was. No one expects to buy a car that has never been cleaned. The vast majority of people in the hobby expect their cards to have never been cleaned or tampered with.

I'll say it again, if it really wasn't a big deal, then there is no reason not to disclose that glue or whatever had been removed. It doesn't get disclosed because sellers know that it will adversely affect the selling price.

Charlie, a question for you. You seem to think that cleaning a card is OK. If so, in your next auction, if you have any cards that you know have been cleaned, will you be disclosing this fact? According to you, it's no big deal, so if you aren't going to disclose it, why not?

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I think it is assumed by most people that a car has been cleaned at one point or another. It is not assumed that a card was glued into a scrapbook. With cards it is: Where is the line drawn? The fact that a large percentage of collectors are not okay with card alterations or cleaning of any kind in my opinion dictates that sellers should always disclose alterations and cleaning. With automobiles I would guess the percentage of people who have a problem with cleaning the car is close to zero percent. So the comparison is invalid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Jay,

Nice dodge. Unlike you I will not dodge your question. Once again you are trying to lump "cleaning" in to all forms therein. My opinion, is the same as many others on the topic and unlike you I will not put words in anybody's mouth. But, I think it is not unethical to clean my car before I sell it without disclosing the cleaing. I also don't it is required to disclose that a piece of dirt was removed from a baseball card.

Having said that, there are many ways to clean and alter a baseball card that I do think are unethical. Kevin Saucier has done a good job explaining those. In my opinion, soaking a card in a chemical is unacceptable and unethical.

Soaking a card out of an album with distilled water was being done well before any of us were born. Which I believe is not unethcial. That is the main reason many of these cards are around in such high-grade.

Once again, it is a case by case basis. The case you cited regarding removing dirt with water is not unethical and unacceptable, in my opinion. I have spoken with many people in the hobby regarding this and I think there is a viable consensus to support it.

Lastly, to complete not dodging you as you did me, I would not disclose removing dirt with water, if I was selling a card, car, rug, pair of old underwear etc etc

Dan,

Fair point. However, I think it is naive to think that baseball cards survived this long without being cleaned, perserved etc at some point. I think a reasonable person would assume a 100 year card that looks like it came out of the pack yesterday, might have some sort of restoration done to it.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Charlie, you sell old underwear?

Is that a new business unit for you?

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Al,

It was great to finally meet you at the National. I forgot that you hammered me for removing pencil from that Herpolshiemer? We will have to cross that bridge next time. I don't know why I am taking on Jay, probably because his side-kick got banned. As Joe Said, the wimps are out in full force today. Smiley face.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: John J. Grillo

IMO the analogy below is weak. Washing a car is an "accepted" practice. Just because someone washes a car (before they sell to me) I wouldn't expect to pay more for it. Vintage cards that have been altered/cleaned are done so for one purpose in mind...to "significantly" increase the value, to trick or deceive a buyer that a card has been kept in meticulous condition all these years when it has not.

A better analogy is buying a car that has been in an accident but has a new paint job/body work to cover up the damage. This is information I would want to know about before I buy.

"Nice dodge. Unlike you I will not dodge your question. Once again you are trying to lump "cleaning" in to all forms therein. My opinion, is the same as many others on the topic and unlike you I will not put words in anybody's mouth. But, I think it is not unethical to clean my car before I sell it without disclosing the cleaing. I also don't it is required to disclose that a piece of dirt was removed from a baseball card."

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

John,

I respectfully disagree. I think your analysis of my opinion is weak.

Edited to add:

The analogy of a car accident not being disclosed doesn't fit (I know, so you must acquit) because structural work will be done to fix the car. Using water to wipe dirt off a card involves nothing structural. Trimming, now that would be considered structually changing the card.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

How did I dodge the question? Dan used the same example I did as to why washing your car is a completely invalid comparison to cleaning a card, so obviously I'm not the only person that find your argument flawed.

Yes, soaking cards out of albums has been done for a long time. I don't have a problem with that. By the same token, you cannot remove what was on that Red Cross t207 simply by soaking it in distilled water, so I do have a problem with that. So, I'll ask again, if you had this t207 to auction, would you disclose the fact that the card had a stain removed?

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

Hey Charlie:

It was nice to meet you, too. It's always good to put a face with a name, and I enjoyed our conversation.

I wouldn't use the word "hammered", though - I brought it to your attention, you rectified it immediately, life goes on. I've bid in your auctions since, and I'll bid in them again.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The car accident analogy is bad too.

As someone else pointed out, paintings are cleaned all the time, but when they are sold, the cleaning is noted in the auction. Cards should be no different.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Jay,

In the case of Scott's card, I would describe it just as Mastro did. The one caveat would be and I never saw the card in person but if there was any evidence that the card had a stain removed. I would describe that it appears that a stain was attempted to be removed but some remant was still visible. If dirt is on a card and after you wipe it off with distilled water and shows no evidence of the stain or distilled water, there is nothing to disclose.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: JimCrandell

Mastronet--card alterations--no disclosure--why is anyone surprised. And whoever said that people will still buy from Mastromet if they need a card is wrong--I won't--I won't buy from a number of other auction houses either that I suspect of altering cards--and I know a lot of other collectors who feel that way.

As far as Jay is concerned, I had my run-ins with him early on but he is one of a very few people on this board who actually adds value.

And Leon, thanks once again for saying that "anyone who attacks anyone on the board personally" will be kicked off--please make sure that applies to those that attack others and not just those that attack you. I would expect that guys like Bretta or the BoxingCard guy or Asphaltguy who continually attack me on these board and the guys that personally attack Bruce Dorskind or Jay will be kicked off as you say should they continue to do this. We will be watching.

Jim

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Jay,

You are an idealogue as opposed to a free thinker. You will never see things any other way. My post are not for your benefit. I think the rest of those who lurk are interested in hearing an alternative view.

This is about the time that you remark about all the personal emails you are receiving telling you to forge ahead. Smiley face.



Al,

"hammered" was a term of endearment. I have lot of respect for you and I think you are doing an amazing job for SGC.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: Al C.risafulli

IMO any analogy that compares a work of fine art to a baseball card doesn't apply.

A work of fine art is, in the examples in which they're usually used, one of a kind. A baseball card is one of many of the same card, out of many of the same set. Usually.

Paintings undergo professional restoration that is disclosed and fully acceptable in the art world. It is done with the goal of preserving the only example of that painting that exists.

Baseball cards undergo all sorts of restoration, legitimate and otherwise, that is usually done with intent to deceive. It is done with the goal of duping someone into thinking that the card is in better condition than it really is.

Two different animals.

In this case, I think that Charlie's analogy of washing bird crap off a car is the most accurate. All sorts of things can happen to a car during its life - minor things that can be repaired with no harm, no foul, serious things that should be disclosed out of fairness to the buyer, and all points inbetween. Just as a vintage car with all its original parts and paint in pristine condition is valuable, so is a vintage card in pristine condition. Just as a vintage car can be manipulated and buyers deceived into thinking they're getting something they're not, so can a vintage card.

I agree with just about everything Charlie is saying in his analogy. However, you can take it a step further and say that it's possible to use a chemical to get that particularly stubborn clump of crap off your rag top, but I don't think that's acceptable to do with a card.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Charlie, you are right, I am an idealogue. But I am not rigid in my stance. If you can provide a persuasive argument, you can change my mind. But it better be a damn good argument.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Jay,

I am biased but I think my opinion is correct. I think you have a wealth of knowledge and I respect it. Just change the delivery alittle and you will be one of the more popular guys on the board. See there I said it, Jay "popular". Smiley Face Also, I will let you have the last word because I got to start putting the kids to bed.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

but I'm with Jay on this one. Comparing the wiping of bird crap off a car windshield before selling it to cleaning a collectible baseball card is one of the lamest things I've ever heard. In fact the bird crap on the windshield smells better than your analogy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Todd,

I appreciate your disagreement but did you have any reason to back it up. Or was it just the rewording with the smelling of **** comment. For the record you are disagreeing with at least Al and Leon as well.

Edited to add to the list: Mastro, all of the grading services

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Just because Leon and Al agree with you doesn't mean you are right. It's still a bad analogy. As has been pointed out repeatedly, no one is under the illusion that a car has never been cleaned. Exactly the opposite is true in card collecting world. People in this hobby still have the belief that what they are buying is unaltered. This includes cleaning up cards.

I can repeat this again if necessary if you still don't under the reasoning of those of us that find your analogy flawed.

Jay

The richest person is not the one who has the most, but the one who needs the least.

[Archive]

Posted By: Todd Schultz

For the record, Al and I have been known to disagree from time to time, and still manage to swill beer together at the National. And for the record, Leon and I have not always agreed either, yet I doubt there's much wrong with that.

And so again for the record, it seems of little consequence that you and I should disagree. Since you like to refer to the record, I will invite anyone here to look at your stance on "handling" cards that you acquire, resubmit and then sell, and draw their own conclusions, not mine. I stand by my comment however, that equating the wiping of a windshield before selling a car to cleaning a collectible card before sale is lame at best.

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Jay,

The post was directed at me and I want to make it clear it is not my unilateral opinion. Just like their are others who agree with you. I said earlier and I will say it again, I am not trying to persuade you of anything, that would be impossible. I am simply representing the other side of the argument so that people lurking can make up their own minds. Clearly there will be people that have a contrary opinion inspite of the facts or truth, read: OJ Jury.

I promise you we won't go around in circles anymore we shall agree to disgree.

CB

[Archive]

Posted By: Charlie Barokas

Todd,

Once agian, no reasoning, just repition. Sounds like playground reasoning to me. As far as the "handling" cards remark you made, you obviously felt behind in the arugment and were forced to try and throw mud in attempt to deflect attetion away from your vacous analysis.

One week after the "handling" remark a major grading service came on this board and described "handling" as tier 1. Tier 1 in their opinion, being acceptable forms of restoration. I have never "handled" a card beyond tier 1, nor will I. I certainly don't have to lie about it.

CB