Quote:
Originally Posted by ValKehl
Having looked at the fantastic pinbacks in this auction, I have the following two questions for Hake's:
(1) Why does Hake's NOT show pics of the backs of the pinbacks? I am shocked that the "consignor's best choice" would not do this. The only major sports auction house that I am aware of that often doesn't "bother" to do this is Hunt, and Hunt is often criticized for this.
(2) How was it determined that the WaJo pinback in Lot #723 is from 1924, inasmuch as WaJo's Senators also won the A.L. pennant in 1925? Adding an online pic of the back of this pinback will be appreciated.
Thanks in advance, Hake's, for your responses.
|
Great questions, Val. Here's my two cents:
1) For what these things are going to bring, it's absurd not to show the back. If I was a consignor of high-end pins, I wouldn't use a house that didn't do that. You could be leaving hundreds of dollars on the table on some of these, depending on whether the paper is there, etc.. And making potential bidders go to the trouble of requesting a photo or more info is ridiculous. With the competition for our dollars so fierce these days, that attitude borders on arrogance, for which Hunt has been accused for many years for their 20th century website, single photos unable to expand, etc. If Hake's is doing so well they can afford that same reputation, which Hunt's seems to find a decent bargain for not having to go to the insignificant trouble and expense of updating their site, good for both of them, but that doesn't mean we don't have legitimate complaints and can tell them with our bidding how we feel about it.
2) Unless Hake's has some information they have withheld from the listing, you can't tell me Muchinsky or Hake's didn't pull 1924 out of their butt simply because it was WaJo's big year and therefore more attractive to collectors. Muchinsky was THE guy for pins, I guess, but that doesn't make him omniscient. If that's the only example he ever saw, and he had nothing else to demonstrate or even hint at the year between '24 and '25, then that assertion is made up to take advantage of the fact that one is better than the other. To me, whoever tagged this as a 1924 issue, it goes a tad beyond puffery and into another category, in my opinion. I can't imagine much, if anything, would be lost by just calling it "1924 or 1925," and honesty is it's own reward, or should be.