Two hour interview with.... Bill Mastro

[Fred]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I believe he was referring to the discussion in the video about pressing cards to make them oversized so they can be trimmed without measuring small.

Got it! It was about literal card smashing and not a metaphorical reference to incident bashing.

Yes, card smashing/pressing has been around for a long time. So many ways to "improve" the appearance of a card without actually cutting it for sharp corners.

[MK]

I just got through the entire interview. It was very interesting to hear about the condition of the Wagner when he bought it, the other cards involved and of course the cutting with the paper cutter. Since I am about the same age as Mastro, his talking about his early years buying packs brought back great memories. I feel very fortunate to have lived during that time period.

[lumberjack]

Three years ago, in September of 2021, Rick Probstein did an long interview with Mastro that is still available on utube. I forget the details, but it might be interesting to see the extent to which Mastro has stuck to his stories.

[Peter_Spaeth]

You wonder what might have happened if Mastro had decided to take other major players in the hobby down with him, rather than keeping mum.

[robertsmithnocure]

Contrary to my expectations, I actually really enjoyed listening to Mastro. I would love to grab a beer with him some day and listen to his stories.

I do not know who Brian Gray is, but he was hard for me to listen to. He consitently talked over Mastro. It seemed as though he was interviewing himself half of the time. His name dropping and bragging really spoiled what could have been an epic interview.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by robertsmithnocure

Contrary to my expectations, I actually really enjoyed listening to Mastro. I would love to grab a beer with him some day and listen to his stories.

I do not know who Brian Gray is, but he was hard for me to listen to. He consitently talked over Mastro. It seemed as though he was interviewing himself half of the time. His name dropping and bragging really spoiled what could have been an epic interview.

+1

Every time Mastro started to elaborate or say something interesting, he was abruptly cut off and/or redirected. A good interviewer lets the interviewee do 80% of the talking. This was the exact opposite. Difficult to sit through it and I would have loved to hear more from Bill about how he grew Mastro Auctions into the "empire" it once was.

[brunswickreeves]

I watched from beginning to end and really enjoyed the back and forth dialogue. It was less an interview and more a lively conversation between two old hobby friends-felt like I was a fly on the wall for a really epic conversation between two industry titans, unique in their own way and experiences.

[GaryPassamonte]

Originally Posted by perezfan

+1

Every time Mastro started to elaborate or say something interesting, he was abruptly cut off and/or redirected. A good interviewer lets the interviewee do 80% of the talking. This was the exact opposite. Difficult to sit through it and I would have loved to hear more from Bill about how he grew Mastro Auctions into the "empire" it once was.

+1

[pbspelly]

Originally Posted by perezfan

+1

Every time Mastro started to elaborate or say something interesting, he was abruptly cut off and/or redirected. A good interviewer lets the interviewee do 80% of the talking. This was the exact opposite. Difficult to sit through it and I would have loved to hear more from Bill about how he grew Mastro Auctions into the "empire" it once was.

I used to be a reporter. It's closer to 95%, unless the interviewee won't say anything or gives you one word answers, which is not a problem you have with Bill Mastro. I understand that Brian is not a reporter, but he was way too much of an "agree-er" and explainer (and almost an outright apologist), for Mastro, rather then just letting him talk. That whole fawning part about wanting Mastro in the Hall of Fame was painful to listen to. Mastro didn't need that. He did fine on his own, and I came away with more respect for him. I do think the landscape was very different back then before grading companies came into play, and there emerged such a focus on pristine unaltered cards. I think back then there was more of a focus on present appearance than on provenance and original condition. And he's right that most of the legendary paintings in museums have been restored and touched-up in some way. I actually believe that Mastro may not have had devious intent from the beginning. But he should probably have spoken up at some earlier point. I am also very curious whether the guy who bought it from Mastro for $100,000 asked him if it had been altered in any way, and if so, how did Mastro respond. That is a question Brian should have asked. Because that goes to the heart of his culpability, perhaps more than the actual act of cutting the card. But I did find myself liking Mastro. We are all imperfect.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

I actually believe that Mastro may not have had devious intent from the beginning. But he should probably have spoken up at some earlier point. I am also very curious whether the guy who bought it from Mastro for $100,000 asked him if it had been altered in any way, and if so, how did Mastro respond. That is a question Brian should have asked. Because that goes to the heart of his culpability, perhaps more than the actual act of cutting the card. But I did find myself liking Mastro. We are all imperfect.

Paul, respectfully, read his indictment. He committed every type of fraud known to the hobby and robbed his friends. He then got caught, cooperated against his co-conspirator/friends and paid none of his victims back (including his victim/friends) unless he got sued and was forced to cough some up. He's just another criminal in the hobby, just on a much higher level. The two years he received in prison was a gift, it should have been much more.

[Brent G.]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

I used to be a reporter. It's closer to 95%, unless the interviewee won't say anything or gives you one word answers, which is not a problem you have with Bill Mastro. I understand that Brian is not a reporter, but he was way too much of an "agree-er" and explainer (and almost an outright apologist), for Mastro, rather then just letting him talk. That whole fawning part about wanting Mastro in the Hall of Fame was painful to listen to. Mastro didn't need that. He did fine on his own, and I came away with more respect for him. I do think the landscape was very different back then before grading companies came into play, and there emerged such a focus on pristine unaltered cards. I think back then there was more of a focus on present appearance than on provenance and original condition. And he's right that most of the legendary paintings in museums have been restored and touched-up in some way. I actually believe that Mastro may not have had devious intent from the beginning. But he should probably have spoken up at some earlier point. I am also very curious whether the guy who bought it from Mastro for $100,000 asked him if it had been altered in any way, and if so, how did Mastro respond. That is a question Brian should have asked. Because that goes to the heart of his culpability, perhaps more than the actual act of cutting the card. But I did find myself liking Mastro. We are all imperfect.

As a former journalist — I agree in full. With something like this, you ask a question and get out of the way. Wayyy too much talking over the person everyone is here to see.

[Yoda]

Wasn't part of Bill's sentencing is that he is forever prohibited from engaging in the sport's card industry either as a dealer and auctioneer?

[bleeckerstreetcards]

Originally Posted by pbspelly

I used to be a reporter. It's closer to 95%, unless the interviewee won't say anything or gives you one word answers, which is not a problem you have with Bill Mastro. I understand that Brian is not a reporter, but he was way too much of an "agree-er" and explainer (and almost an outright apologist), for Mastro, rather then just letting him talk. That whole fawning part about wanting Mastro in the Hall of Fame was painful to listen to. Mastro didn't need that. He did fine on his own, and I came away with more respect for him. I do think the landscape was very different back then before grading companies came into play, and there emerged such a focus on pristine unaltered cards. I think back then there was more of a focus on present appearance than on provenance and original condition. And he's right that most of the legendary paintings in museums have been restored and touched-up in some way. I actually believe that Mastro may not have had devious intent from the beginning. But he should probably have spoken up at some earlier point. I am also very curious whether the guy who bought it from Mastro for $100,000 asked him if it had been altered in any way, and if so, how did Mastro respond. That is a question Brian should have asked. Because that goes to the heart of his culpability, perhaps more than the actual act of cutting the card. But I did find myself liking Mastro. We are all imperfect.

"The T206-series Wagner card is considered one of the world’s most expensive trading cards. Mastro admitted in the plea agreement that he cut the card’s side borders, and then concealed this information when he sold the card in 1987. Mastro again failed to disclose his alteration even after participating in subsequent auctions of the card in 1991 and 2000. The sale in 2000 produced a purchase price of more than $1 million, according to the plea agreement. Mastro also failed to disclose that he cut the Wagner card again in 1992, even though he was aware that the card had been submitted to become the first baseball card assigned a grade based on the condition of the card."

cut from here the below link seems to answer your question:
https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr...l-bidding-scam