Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>"I think it is possible that Mastro may have intended to fully authenticate the bat after their catalogue deadline (but before the auction) with the expectation based on limited provenance that their examination would confirm the authenticity"<BR><BR><b> WHAT??? </b><BR><BR>Imagine an auction house pulling half of their lots because they didn't have time to fully authenticate them before the auction started (only to find out later that a great many items were NOT authentic). If this is standard operating procedure for MastroNet (as you suggest is possible), then there is something <b> seriously </b> wrong.<BR><BR>And how about the Ichiro autograph and inscription??? How do you explain that??? Both it and the bat were judged to be authentic.<BR><BR>FYI: The Chamberlain 100-point basketball was not pulled but it <i> <b> WAS </b> </i> relabeled as the replacement ball used <i> <b> after </b> </i> the 100 point ball was removed from the game.<BR><BR>Finally, I disagree with your comment about having anti-Mastro sentiment. To the best of my knowledge, I have never previously written anything negative about MastroNet on this board.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>Give me a fricking break MW. You used to slam Mastro as much as possible on the Full Count board. Here I was, trying to agree with you while offering a potential explanation that at minimum merits discussion, and you get defensive and argue around the fringes of my point. Look, it is not inconceivable that based on limited information from an outside source whom someone at Mastro considered reliable (though obviously not) that the lot was placed in the catalogue with the expectation that the bat and autograph would be authenticated before the actual sale. It's possible that neither the bat nor the autograph were yet authenticated (but with the full expectation that they were authentic based on some faulty, limited information - thus the political anologies before). This might be isolated, it might not. It's still a major blunder, but at least there should be discussion as to whether this is a problem with their authentication process (very serious) or with their auction procedures (correctable). Quit getting so defensive when I'm trying to agree with you that this was a big mistake and that there were obvious questions concerning the bat/autograph that should have been apparent. But at least they pulled the lot - though I don't know whether this was identified internally or brought to their attention from outside.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>By the way, I don't believe that the first sale of the ball (which to my recollection was over $100K) ever mentioned it being a replacement. I don't doubt that they did in subsequent sale(s), which brought considerably less money.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Plastic Dog,<BR><BR>You are quite mistaken about Mastro. I once wrote that a major auction house was removing Cracker Jacks from a scrapbook and getting them in “8” and “9” holders. I was <b> NOT </b> referring to Mastro and I never mentioned their name. Someone else implicated Mastro and later turned out to be completely mistaken –- just like you are now.<BR><BR>And this theory about authentication ex post facto. If anything, I would say that <i> <b> your </b> </i> argument is a unique mathematical outlier within the group containing all logical conclusions. Even given a very limited window of opportunity to place the Ichiro bat in the auction, there were far too many clues to ignore…at least in my opinion. It just doesn’t add up.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Plastic Dog,<BR><BR>You make an excellent point! Just imagine if that videotape would have never been sent to MastroNet. In both cases, it took an outside "expert" to point out the mistakes that were made.<BR><BR>There <b> IS </b> an important difference, however. The Chamberlain ball <b> WAS </b> used in the actual game. The MastroNet Ichiro bat was not.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>You are truly brilliant (in your own mind). Anyway, two things. First, you did mention Mastro on the Full Count Board, and I don't mean in reference to the CJs. I can recall reading your posts, taking a big belt of whatever alocholic beverage was nearby, and then reading the rest of your stream-of-consciousness, mania generated ramblings. Occasionally you took slams at individuals complimenting Mastro (and in classic Chicago style machine-gun sprayed a wide swath in all directions, occasionally hitting Mastro with your rapid-fire keyboard). Second, I'm sure these catalogue lot descriptions are written months in advance of the auction, and this probably includes putting in information that may need to be corrected or verified in the final version. Somewhere along the line the process obviously broke down with regard to the Ischiro bat. But which process? Authentication, or auction administration?

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p><BR>Ex post facto – Latin for “done or made after the fact.”<BR><BR>The rest of what you have written is just plain untrue and is not worth responding to.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog&nbsp; </b><p>I have mixed emotions on the current controversy over authenticated bats and Mastro. No excuses for this mistake. But, without knowing all of the details on this one, I think it is possible that Mastro may have intended to fully authenticate the bat after their catalogue deadline (but before the auction) with the expectation based on limited provenance that their examination would confirm the authenticity. People do similar things all the time, publishing events as facts before final confirmation due to time constraints (but which they fully expect to occur). Chicago papers got a certain election wrong earlier this century, and how many networks screwed up the last presidential election? All of them? It's stupid and embarrassing, as Mastro should have been sure of the authentication before putting the item in the catalogue. But as long as they intended to authenticate it fully before they actually sold it, I can forgive them. MW is right that Ischiro's fluent English inscription should have tipped somebody off. But if, (and only if), there was the intention to authenticate the bat before the sale, I think that demonstrates some administrative/procedural auction flaws but not necessarily fundamental problems with its entire authentication process. If somebody else brought it to their intention, and then they discovered the problem, that is more troubling.<BR><BR>All of that said, Mastro did withdraw the lot, and apparently admits that it screwed up. Those are two qualities that I find reassuring. A certain Wilt 100 point basketball has certainly made the auction circuit rounds recently at different auction houses, and I don't believe it was ever pulled even though questions were raised prior to the sale. I also know that more than one lot at Sotheby's Halper sale had questionable provenance (especially some of the uniforms), but they were sold anyway. So Mastro's action is at least reassuring in that regard.<BR><BR>My past experience with Mastro has been all positive. Significant cumulative knowledge, excellent customer service, willingness to research questions with no direct monetary gain. MW raises some excellent points (in spite of their historically anti-Mastro sentiment), but the current issue may be only a procedural flaw and not an authentication flaw. I hope.<BR><BR>By the way, while I agree that SGC is a superior card authentication company, it took me a while to get past their involvement with authenticating the altered Doyle NY Natl. card. That was deceptive and intentional, while Mastro's current misstep appears to be an honest mistake. I just hope those were isolated incidents for both companies and that they've learned from their mistakes. Otherwise, who are we supposed to trust?

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>vorthian</b><p>&lt;&lt; By the way, while I agree that SGC is a superior card authentication company, it took me a while to get past their involvement with authenticating the altered Doyle NY Natl. card. &gt;&gt;<BR><BR>Just curious, have you gotten over PSA slabbing Andy Baran's M101-5 Babe Ruth reprint?

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>That was not isolated. I have several PSA-graded T-cards that I am convinced are trimmed. I don't expect them to get it right. I just hold SGC and Mastro to higher standards.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Lee Behrens</b><p>Thank you enough is enough.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>petecld</b><p>I have to agree with MW here. There is no excuse for that bat appearing in the catalog OR the auction. "Run with it now and verify later"? I don't think so. It should never have been considered for sale until AFTER it was authenticated 100%.<BR><BR>The reason this is such an issue is Mastronet has published a book on bat authentication, boasts of their authentication process, and should have been able to determine if the bat is authentic ON EVERY LEVEL - the bat, the autograph and inscription, and if the claim was true that it was used in a players first ML game. <BR><BR>If you can't count on Mastronet to authenticate their offerings BEFORE you buy them as well as they claim then what makes them any better/different then the goof on ebay who finds ONE baseball card in grandpa's attic, it just so happens to be a T206 Wagner and he SWEARS it's real?

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Mike Williams</b><p>I think Pete, Steve, Michael and everyone else who has responded has brought some good...valid points to the table. I really see this issue in the same light as I would an SGC/PSA etc. screw up. The bottom line here regardless of all the variables attached is this simple fact....a well respected outfit deemed something authentic when in fact....it wasn't. It could be a bat....a T206 Doyle or a M101-5 Ruth....it's all the same to me. <BR><BR>The way I see it, there's three things that should happen....the item should be pulled (or unslabbed), a proper, genuine response should be made explaining the screw up....and finally....procedures should be put in place so it doesn't happen again. Could it really be this black and white? Take care all!

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Pete -- you are right again. There is absolutely <b> NO </b> difference.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Brian Daniels</b><p>In this economy??<BR> You guys must have real big personal collections!<BR><BR>Hey Micheal,<BR><BR>I inquired about SGC 80 T-206 commons remember!

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>Pete,<BR><BR>Of course it was a screw-up. I'm not trying to justify what happened - no way this lot should have made it into the auction. But previous posts by MW were making it sound like Mastro doesn't know how to authenticate a bat. Maybe so, but I doubt it. I can't imaging that 3 experienced people looked at the thing and thought it was real (with the English "gamer" etc.) I think the thing just never really got authenticated. That poses a whole different set of concerns, like how many other lots have slipped through in the past without full scrutiny? But like I said, I would really like to know if they discovered the error internally and took corrective action, or whether this was brought to their attention from outside. (This has implications for whether or not this was an isolated error of not following the normal correct procedures, or whether the procedures themselves are flawed.) Anyway, if I'm right and the bat was never truly authenticated, then this is a serious procedural error which is very problematic for past auction lots, but which could be corrected in the future. If I'm wrong and 3 experts did authenticate the bat in error, then every autograph and the provenance of every "game-used" piece of memorabilia that they sell in the future would be in question (how could we ever be certain of their claims with their skill in doubt)? Bottom line is there is no excuse for what happened, but the "why" is important because of the different ramifications for future lots.<BR><BR>MW, thanks for the explanation of XXX-Post Fakkto - but I think I figured it out on my own. I was only questioning your typical use of $10 words/phrases when a simple 5 cent alternative would have sufficed.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>Plastic Dog,<BR><BR>OK. This time I actually agree with you -- except where you claim that I wrote MastroNet doesn't know how to authenticate bats. Instead, I was merely speculating about the exact things you just wrote about and with which I agree.

Nobody's perfect - including Mastro and SGC
 

Posted By: <b>Plastic Dog</b><p>MW and Plastic Dog argued and now agree with each other. Hell is now frozen and pigs are flying at will. The end must be near.