Is it just me? Lot 1776 in Mastro (big caramel card lot)

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

Does anyone else wonder about the relative size and sharp edges on some of the cards? That E98 Matty, for instance, looks small. I own 2 including an orange one and both look quite a bit bigger. Maybe it's just me...

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

No, it's not just you.

It does fit the "Verkman" definition of VG.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I LOL when I read your post. Uh....dealer definition of vg......nice card with an ex-mt appearance......1" short so vg.........

[Archive]

Posted By: TBob

I recently read a post where many Mastro cards which were trimmed ended up being graded by PSA. That post was by the purchaser of the cards (although once removed) and he was the one who submitted the cards for grading. To be fair, Mastro clearly indicated in its catalogue that the cards were trimmed and I believe they came from a couple of different lots, all clearly identified. I have no problem with Mastro on that front and obviously have a huge problem with PSA for grading them.
Now, however, the cards in Lot 1776 bother me. Look at the wildly varying sizes. We aren't talking M116s here, gang, which vary widely in size, a lot of these cards match size requirements indentically. Additionally, E98s have huge borders, as anyone who has collected the cards can attest to. It is, therefore, incredible that this lot is going to fetch so much $$$$ with cards that appear "small" or altered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Cornell

Bob has a valid question about the quality of this Mastro lot, but I have not seen a post that claims that trimmed E cards were knowingly sent to PSA and then put up for sale.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

adios amigos

[Archive]

Posted By: Bill Cornell

http://www.mastronet.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=37168

The lot description has been modified to indicate that some of the cards (~5%) are trimmed.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Now it's almost worse than before. I still see more trimmed cards in that lot. Are we to assume that Bill Mastro or whomever is in charge of that lot is just really, really poor at spotting trimmed pre-war issues?

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Second card from the left. 1915 CJ McGraw. Clearly trimmed and stained. Listed as "EX" in the catalog description. Needs to be changed.




Also, can someone please explain what the following means?

"Please be aware the balance of few trimmed cards are commons."

[Archive]

Posted By: Harry Haller

I think it means that only a few cards in the lot are trimmed, and most of those are commons. Not quite as syrupy as the '52 wax pack description...or that infamous t206 Plank description in the last Mastro auction.

Over the last two years it has been increasingly common for the big auction houses to sell large lots containing a significant number of trimmed vintage cards. Acceptance of this by the vintage collecting community has resulted in more of the same, with fewer and fewer of such lots being described accurately - basically, the hobby has evolved to a point of "buyer beware", regardless of who's doing the selling. It would be nice to see an auction house refuse to sell ANY trimmed cards, but those days are gone.

BTW, I know Lew Lipset accepts returns on cards that turn out to be other than as described. How about Mastro? Robert Edwards? This is a serious question - I have never had to return anything to Mastro (and never wanted to!)

(edited to add the following)

In all fairness to Mastro, if you are really serious about a lot - just call them and ask for detailed descriptions of individual cards or other items. I have never had such a request turned down, and most times the lots ended up better than described.

[Archive]

Posted By: bcornell

That "better condition" McGraw sitting directly next to the CJ Huggins is hard to miss.

The note about commons is disingenuous, in my opinion. The implication is that they're not HOFers, so it's less of a big deal if they're trimmed. Given the astronomical price of this lot, that's not a justifiable sentiment - the condition of every card counts.

I would've expected more scrutiny from Mastro on this lot.

Bill

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Bill,

Not only is the comment about the commons disingenuous, but based on the 5% figure given by Mastro, it's just not true. Do the math and add in the other visible Hall of Famers that are trimmed. I'm coming up with about 50% of the trimmed cards as HOF'ers. Seems to me that Mastro is covering up a deceptive auction description with a big fat lie.

At this point the best thing to do would be to pull the lot, apologize to the consignor, and then relist the group of cards properly in the next auction.

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

"Please be aware the balance of few trimmed cards are commons."

Should read:

"Please be aware that the remaining balance of few trimmed cards are commons."

Of course then it would mean that there are other unlisted HOF'ers that are trimmed and that wouldn't really make much sense. Why list some HOF'ers and not others? Maybe Harry Haller has a good suggestion. Mastro should just delete the auction description and write "please call"

[Archive]

Posted By: dan

Was it Mastronet that doctored a picture of a rare 19th century single card that really had a scratch across the face? I think they may have made good on the problem but am not sure.


Bill, I recall seeing a post about the trimmed E cards beind slabbed though I wasn't sure of the grading service. Dan.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

FYI: http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=153652&messageid=1080370016&lp=1080520948

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

The expensive graded card Dan mentions had a scratch-like mark in the image-- not a physical scratch but part of the printed image. The defect was not visible in the auction pictures and not mentioned in the description. As I recall, MastroNet allowed the winner to return the card for refund.