Hank Aaron HR Bat: Mastro and a tale of slippery provenance

[kingjammy24]

currently mastro is auctioning off what they say is the bat that hank aaron used to hit HR #534:

http://live.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=89005&LastLotListing=Lot%20List%20Categories&CurrentRow=1

the description reads: "Here offered is the Adirondack lumber with which Aaron launched career home run number 534 in 1969, a round-tripper that placed the Braves great just three short of longball-affluent contemporary Mickey Mantle, and the very one that tied "Hammerin' Hank" with Hall of Famer Jimmie Foxx for fourth on the all-time list...But for all those significant homers, the hobby has encountered only a limited number of documented Aaron home run bats. The Cooperstown legend himself memorialized his important achievement in tying Jimmie Foxx when he penned "Hank Aaron - HR 534 - 7/15/1969" on this very heirloom. Indeed, few weapons are of greater significance to his assault on Ruth's record than the bat he used to tie Foxx at the magic number of 534—this is the bat that caught "The Beast!"

this bat previously sold in an REA auction here:
http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2004/616.html

note the REA addendum which reads:
"Upon careful consideration of the supporting documentation accompanying this bat, Robert Edward Auctions does not share the opinion that the documentation supports with 100% certainty the conclusion that this bat is definitely the bat Hank Aaron used to hit homerun number 534."

it seems a little odd that aaron was somehow able to attribute this particular bat to home #534 30+ years after the fact and also that Mastro and REA share such dissimilar opinions about the bat. curious, i asked rob lifson, president of REA, if he could enlighten me as to the bat's history. rob's reply:

"My understanding is there was reason to think this bat was attributed via a story to HR 534. It was sold many years ago with a story that it was an Aaron home run bat that was given to a collector by the equipment guy (not by Aaron personally) after a game in which he hit a home run in a specific year (1969). Based on that and that alone, after research (looking up what dates Aaron hit home runs) it was determined that if the story was accurate, and the dates were accurate, it had to be home run #534. I accept that. But it all depended on the accuracy of the recollections. I reviewed the work at the time and understood the rationale, but also understood the leaps of faith involved, including that the bat may not have even been the Aaron home run bat but just a bat given at a game at which he hit #534. I even tracked down the original owner (the one who received the bat) to clarify that he did not get it right from Aaron (this was when REA auctioned it in 2004). I believed the sincerity of the story but a story is a story. It is my understanding that Aaron was paid to sign the bat. Presumably he was shown the research regarding the dating of the bat but I don't know. It would seem reasonable to assume that he was, and that he was happy to sign in this manner because of the research, which did have some merit, but Aaron did not sign that this was the bat he hit #534 with, he just referenced #534. My thought process was "how the heck would Aaron be able to identify this bat as the bat he hit #534 with 30+ years later (UNLESS he specifically remembered giving the bat as a gift via the equipment manager - I don't remember the recipient's name but he was well known and maybe that was the case - the recipient had his own museum in Ohio and Lelands bought his collection years ago - the collector got most of his items direct from players is my understanding). Anyway, I contacted Aaron for clarification - I wanted to know "was he saying this was his #534 home run bat?" and if so, "how is he identifying it?" I would think he would not be able to identify a specific bat years later. I know I couldn't. It just didn't make any sense to me. After harassing Aaron's office with letters and calls, Aaron's office finally got back to me with a definite answer: Aaron was NOT saying that this bat was or was not the bat with which he hit home run #534. Period. So REA provided all this correspondence and reasearch, tracing it all the way back to the original owner, to all bidders, and we put up an addendum. Since much of this happened during the first days of the auction, we actually had to take down a few bids per bidder's requests. Once interested bidders appreciated the background of the bat (we made all of the documents available to all interested bidders, and those that actually bid did get copies - somewhere around here we probably kept a set - I wish I could put my hands on it - it was very clear and informative), it was worth a modest premium to bidders but nowhere near what an iron-clad #534 Aaron bat would have been worth...It is fascinating to me that the current description does not reference any of the documents that accompanied the bat when it was sold, including documents that clearly stated that Aaron was not saying that he had any way to know if this was the home run #534 bat. I guess they got lost. I'll always remember this situation well as when I shared my thoughts with Troy Kinunen, he was sort of stunned, and thanked me bringing this to his attention, calling it a very valuable learning experience with reference to authentication that would be helpful in the future. I think the MEARS (then SCD Authentic) documentation had to be modified, and Troy was not only gracious, he was grateful. I could see that there would be times when we might be able to help as we reviewed items - I remember telling them that there is a big difference between authenticating an item and authenticating a story... The facts are the facts and they were shared with all bidders on the lot, and the original documents were sent to the winner."

in a way it's unbelievable that mastro is selling the bat without any of this previous information, which calls it direct question whether it is the bat used to hit #534 and greatly impacts its value and mastro's profits on it. yet, it's also not unbelievable given that it's mastro. remember this story the next time doug allen utters the tripe that brown's "game jersey" inscription means that jim brown himself is saying he wore the jersey. perhaps like aaron and this bat, brown was only referencing that this jersey resembles one of his "game jerseys". of course, that's not nearly as profitable an explanation.

rudy.

[encinorick]

I've had a similiar experience in the past regarding Mastro. A couple of years ago I bought a Babe Ruth "game used bat" from Mastro.

The description stated explicitly that it was "game used and or a coach's bat used by the Great Bambino during the latter part of his career." The description also suggested that the bat was might "light" for the Bambno and it's length was also much shorter than any other Ruth bat, but that those oddities could be explained for this reason or that. Anyway, according to Doug and Mastro, "this bat was used, in the hands of, the Great Bambino."

And, according to the the description, it came with 2 (not 1, but 2) LOA's from Mears and PSA/DNA.

So I bought it. For good money, I might add.

And the Mear's LOA gave it a 4.5 and the PSA/DNA (Taube) said it was a bat from the late 1940's, sometime after Ruth died, I think. Anyway, both LOA's were inherently inconsistent and there was nothing in either LOA that even hinted that the bat was a "Ruth game used or a coach's bat."

In other words, the description by Mastro was complete fiction.

I asked for and got my money back from Doug, which was a good thing, but he wrote some pretty nasty things to me in his email and cut me off from bidding on future Mastro auctions, which is also a good thing given my experience with them.

As a lawyer, I'd advise y'all to be careful about descriptions from Mastro. Chicago is a funny place, where right might be right, but isn't necessarily right, and wrong, well, wrong is also is in how you define the term.

[trsent]

I've had a similiar experience in the past regarding Mastro. A couple of years ago I bought a Babe Ruth "game used bat" from Mastro.

The description stated explicitly that it was "game used and or a coach's bat used by the Great Bambino during the latter part of his career." The description also suggested that the bat was might "light" for the Bambno and it's length was also much shorter than any other Ruth bat, but that those oddities could be explained for this reason or that. Anyway, according to Doug and Mastro, "this bat was used, in the hands of, the Great Bambino."

And, according to the the description, it came with 2 (not 1, but 2) LOA's from Mears and PSA/DNA.

So I bought it. For good money, I might add.

And the Mear's LOA gave it a 4.5 and the PSA/DNA (Taube) said it was a bat from the late 1940's, sometime after Ruth died, I think. Anyway, both LOA's were inherently inconsistent and there was nothing in either LOA that even hinted that the bat was a "Ruth game used or a coach's bat."

In other words, the description by Mastro was complete fiction.

I asked for and got my money back from Doug, which was a good thing, but he wrote some pretty nasty things to me in his email and cut me off from bidding on future Mastro auctions, which is also a good thing given my experience with them.

As a lawyer, I'd advise y'all to be careful about descriptions from Mastro. Chicago is a funny place, where right might be right, but isn't necessarily right, and wrong, well, wrong is also is in how you define the term.

Thanks for sharing your experience - That is quite a story you tell. I would think that auction houses would not blame the customer for not asking to see the LOAs in advance, which is what I am sure he told you, but stand behind their merchandise if the description is deceptive as it appears is was in your case.

[dallen]

These inquiries were pointed out to me indirectly so I thought I would post a response.

First and foremost if anyone on this forum ever has a question don't hesitate to contact me. As you can imagine with over 250 game used items in this auction we are quite busy but I would like to be responsive to each an every question. It is easiest to reach me via email at dallen@mastroauctions.com.

Here are my responses...

#1 If anyone one the GU forum wants to bid I will waive the $75 registration fee just drop "GU Forum See Doug" in the comment field and you will not be charged.

#2 The details surrounding the Hank Aaron bat were never pointed out to me until John Taube sent me an email today. This will be addressed tomorrow and an appropriate modification will be made to the lot.

#3 It is true that last year we sold a Babe Ruth Coaches bat for around $5,000 which by the way was a pretty fair price. The LOAs properly disclosed it as a Late era Ruth Coaches bat. When the buyer pointed out the description to me through his first contact which was a formal legal letter I reviewed the description and agreed it was overreaching and immediately offered a refund. The rest played out in a series of emails I attached below. You be the judge. Please note I exchanged the "***" in his most recent response as I did not think it was appropriate to post this in its entirety.

Sincerely,
Doug Allen

-----Original Message-----
From: rnealww@aol.com <rnealww@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 10:17 PM
To: dallen@mastroauctions.com <dallen@mastroauctions.com>
Subject: Re: Thanks, Doug

Yeah sure, I guess you guys in Chicago have different set of standards. Oh,
by the way, f*** you, too. My best, Rick

-----Original Message-----
From: dallen@mastroauctions.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:18 PM
To: rnealww@aol.com
Subject: Re: Thanks, Doug

Rich,

After your outrageous response last month I in fact turned your account off. After your apology I fully intended to turn it back on for bidding so you and your son can find some other great Brooklyn and Ruth pieces. I totally forgot and am sorry. I would have expected you to send an email but now you are going off and being aggressive again.

I guess it would be best for all involved for you to park your money somewhere else.

BTW tell your friends how you purchased a bat years ago, expressed concern and immediately got a refund. I personally believe we treated you with the utmost in professionalism.

Regards,
Doug
From: rnealww@aol.com [mailto:rnealww@aol.com]
Sent: Wed 10/22/2008 8:36 PM
To: Doug Allen
Subject: Re: Thanks, Doug


Doug: A friend mentioned he received his Mastro catalogue and was bidding on some items I might be interested in acquiring. Funny thing, I didn't receive one and when I went to the website, I was denied access. It seems my account has been canceled. I guess I'm on "double secret probation."

Class act, Doug. Real class. And to think all I wanted to do is spend some money at Mastronet.

No problem. I'll find other places to park my money. Good luck with the recession, and I'll be sure to tell all my collector friends about my pleasant experience with Mastronet.

Have a nice day, Richard Weissfeld

[trsent]

These inquiries were pointed out to me indirectly so I thought I would post a response.

First and foremost if anyone on this forum ever has a question don't hesitate to contact me. As you can imagine with over 250 game used items in this auction we are quite busy but I would like to be responsive to each an every question. It is easiest to reach me via email at dallen@mastroauctions.com.

Here are my responses...

#1 If anyone one the GU forum wants to bid I will waive the $75 registration fee just drop "GU Forum See Doug" in the comment field and you will not be charged.

#2 The details surrounding the Hank Aaron bat were never pointed out to me until John Taube sent me an email today. This will be addressed tomorrow and an appropriate modification will be made to the lot.

#3 It is true that last year we sold a Babe Ruth Coaches bat for around $5,000 which by the way was a pretty fair price. The LOAs properly disclosed it as a Late era Ruth Coaches bat. When the buyer pointed out the description to me through his first contact which was a formal legal letter I reviewed the description and agreed it was overreaching and immediately offered a refund. The rest played out in a series of emails I attached below. You be the judge. Please note I exchanged the "***" in his most recent response as I did not think it was appropriate to post this in its entirety.

Sincerely,
Doug Allen



Doug, thanks for posting your side of the story, your discount terms and that you will look into Rudy's concerns.

Welcome to Game Used Universe - Hopefully you will continue to contribute to this great forum!

[encinorick]

Doug: It is charming, as always, to talk with you. I find it interesting that you continue to play the victim here. Funny how a company can sell a purported Babe Ruth bat that isn't and feel victimized.

Justifying your actions by posting "selective" emails doesn't explain the whole story now does it, Doug?

Why not post my original letter to you and the Mastro description of the item (which I included with the letter) and the 2 LOA's (the Mears and PSA/DNA) which you have in your possession?

I dare ya.

Why not tell the whole story Doug?

I double dare ya.

Afterward, collectors should be given an opportunity to ask you how in the world you'd even consider selling this item as described.

How about it Doug?

I triple dare ya.

[dallen]

Following is the write-up from our October of 2006 auction....the buyer was provided both letters from MEARS (grade 4.5) and PSA (Auth Matches factory records) along with the bat. MEARS placed the bat at 1934-44 and PSA at 1944 to 47. Two years after the fact when it presented to me I agreed that the comment highlighted in red below was inappropriate as I would consider this as a Coaches Bat so I quickly offered a full refund of $4,692 plus the BP.

This will be my last post....I couldn't resist the "triple dare" :D but if anyone has any additional questions feel free to email me at dallen@mastroauctions.com By the way any time I respond to an email feel free to post it on this Board. My reason for not wanting to post is simply a time constraint issue as with three auctions closing in the next three weeks I could never do it justice. I tend to be able to keep up on the email.

Thanks,
Doug

Babe Ruth 1934-1944 H&B Game Used Player/Coaches Bat

With the diamond as his sizable stage, Babe Ruth lured admirers by the millions. Holding a virtual monopoly on the home run, Ruth had it all: adoring fans, endorsement power and perennial team and personal laurels. But as his physical skills waned, Ruth was unable to attain what he longed for perhaps most of all - a managerial position. Flat-out denied consideration by the New York Yankees, Ruth was subsequently dealt to the Boston Braves—and fed a series of misleading (and empty) promises by that team's brass. Presented here is a Hillerich & Bradsby signature model bat wielded (albeit with decidedly less flare) by The Bambino during the latter stages of his playing and coaching career. Measuring 34" and carrying a weight of 32-1/2-oz., this white ash model hails from the 1934-1944 labeling period and is small by Ruth standards. But factory records indicate that Ruth did, indeed, order bats as light as 35 ounces—in particular, for the 1935 U.S. Tour of Japan. While the offered lumber is 2-1/2 ounces shy of Ruth's lightest models, it is entirely possible (and probable) that the bat could have lost two to three ounces during the decades that have elapsed since its turning. Save for one of the worn characters below Ruth's facsimile signature, the barrel stampings and centerbrand remain prominent. The hitting treasure exhibits evidence of heavy use, with ball and surface marks throughout, as well as grain swelling on the hitting surface. Additionally, a 10" handle crack has been repaired by six vintage bat boy nails. Over time, the surface has taken on a rich brown hue—a feature that is evidenced by a 9-1/2" section (near the crack) that was covered by tape and, consequently, has remained decidedly lighter. Also, there are areas of a dark, thick dried substance about the barrel. There are no lengths listed in factory records from 1934 through 1941, only weights. Ruth's final season as a player was 1935. He coached for Brooklyn in 1938. Graded A-4.5 by MEARS. LOAs from Dave Bushing & Troy Kinunen/MEARS, John Taube/PSA DNA.

[encinorick]

Nice try, Doug. Half-truths become whole truths because, like before, you refuse to look at all the facts, just the few you like. You only published the Mastro description, why not the rest of the information?

You have my original letter dated September 1, 2008 and the original LOA's, why not show all the documents, not just a select few?

I have the letter here, but, I want you to post it (not me) so you can't accuse me of not posting the same letter I sent to you.
What are you afraid of, Doug?

As I said to you in my letter: "...you had no right whatsoever to make the representations you made in your catalogue regarding the bat.... The Mears and PSA/DNA letters are materially inconsistent and inaccurate... The assertions made in your catalogue regarding the bat were intentionally and deliberately misleading in order to induce a non-expert, like myself, to bid on and purchase this item."

Publish the letter and LOA's, Doug, and let the others see how you take this or that fact from this or that LOA and spin a tale of fiction.

Quadruple dare, Doug.

I know you're listening, let's see the letter and the LOA's.

Oh, by the way, Merry Christmas, to you and your family.

[kingjammy24]

"The details surrounding the Hank Aaron bat were never pointed out to me until John Taube sent me an email today"

this isn't simply a case of an item having an issue that's been revealed on this Forum for the first time. it points to something systemic about the way that mastro operates that's pretty concerning. doug, i've heard stories that make sense and i've heard stories that don't make sense and time and time again all i hear from you are the latter. whether it's your statements on the winslow helmet, jordan shirt, or this aaron bat, there are always massive logical loopholes in what you say.

taube knew of this bat and the issues at the time the bat went up for auction at REA. as rob lifson noted, there was a great amount of effort and documentation produced in sussing out the story behind this bat. doug, you're saying that taube never passed along any of the pertinent information to your staff? that taube knew the story behind it but failed to ever disclose any of it? that's frightening. perhaps, some would say that taube didn't know that mastro was going to market the bat as "the one that aaron used for HR #534". however, given the inscription on the bat, taube would have to be pretty dim-witted not to have an inkling as to how the bat would be advertised, especially given that he had previously seen it advertised as aaron's #534 bat. saying that taube never pointed out any of these issues seems to lead some pretty serious implications given that he examined the bat, he was well aware of the issues beforehand, and it was pretty obvious from the inscription how the bat was going to be advertised the second time around.

the second major issue here is why mastro's descriptions are inconsistent, sometimes at odds, with your own authenticators letters. in my very brief conversation with taube, he told me that he only graded that bat as a "hank aaron game used bat", not as a #534 bat. he graded the bat, not the story. the letter that would therefore accompany this bat from taube/PSA DNA would not be one attesting to this bat being the #534 bat but simply one saying that it's a hank aaron game used bat. boy i can only imagine how pissed off a buyer would be to pay a substantial premium for the #534 bat and receive a letter that only states it's a general hank aaron gamer. i don't understand how the process at mastro works in this respect. most auction houses simply transfer the authentication letter to the auction description, word for word. makes sense doesn't it? the letter a buyer recieves should match the auction description that they based their purchase on. as well, who at the auction house is able to write a better description that the person who authenticated the item? apparently this isn't how it works at mastro. taube authenticates a bat and simply says it's a hank aaron gamer and then that description gets the hollywood sci-fi treatment until it's much further beyond the original (in accuracy and profit). if taube never authenticated or stated this bat was the one to hit #534, then who did? is khyber oser taking wild liberties over there? or is it you? who's taking an inch of leeway on items and stretching them to a mile? doug, if the mastro video showing you talking about the jim brown jersey is any indication, i have to think it's you who's playing hollywood screenwriter with the descriptions. didn't you once call it "maximizing the grade"? it's a frightening proposition for your buyers that they can receive a letter with their item that is miles away from the auction description that they read.

the third major issue is the appalling lack of scrutiny at mastro. think about the insanity of what happened on this bat from mastro's perspective. you receive a bat, apparently you're never told about any of the issues and facts surrounding it, and you see a HR inscription and a date. well case closed, that's it then isn't it? no research needed. 74 yr old hank aaron's got a perfect memory about a bat used almost 40 yrs ago! just show old hank a 40 yr old bat and he knows exactly what HR he used it for. no additional investigation needed on mastro's end to determine the inscription's real intent and veracity, right doug? no sir, you've got an elderly athlete's inscription, added decades after the fact, and by golly, those old timers are never wrong or mistaken. doug, are you kidding me with this garbage? the fact that mastro did absolutely no research to verify any of this is appalling beyond belief. is this seriously how mastro operates? REA did the the research, why didn't you? if i took a mcgwire homerun ball and wrote "HR #63" on it, i guess you guys would just plunk that thing right into a $3 million auction right?

i'm not even going to bother with the whole "secret authentication team" nonsense. suffice it to say that it's a very odd thing that mastro trumpets the use of john taube and has online bios for everyone from bill mastro to jimmy spence to the guy who runs the shipping department and your resident "beatles expert", but when it comes to your jersey authenticators, for some reason that's a big secret. i'm not even going to ask if you guys are using tony cocchi and lou lampson. i'm not even going to wonder if the reason the jersey authenticators are a secret while john taube is not is because you're proud to be associated with taube whereas you're not proud of who you're using for your jerseys. if you want to keep folks a secret, then why not keep all of them a secret? why are only a select few of them kept a secret? nothing strange about any of that.

p.s. i'll send this post via email as well.

rudy.

[earlywynnfan]

Rick, not to jump into what seems to be a one-sided heated battle, but I appear to be missing the continued venom. Did he misprepresent the bat? YES, and he admitted it. Did they refund your money? YES. Do you trust them? NO. Should we trust them? MAYBE.

I think he was right: take your money elsewhere. I guess I don't know what more you want Doug to do. And I guess I don't see what the point is of continuing this on a public forum.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[trsent]

p.s. i'll send this post via email as well.

rudy.

Rudy, post scripts generally come after your name, not prior to signing your letter.

[earlywynnfan]

Rudy, post scripts generally come after your name, not prior to signing your letter.


Holy Cow, Joel, how does this help the situation????????

What is the intent of this post, and please don't tell me you're trying to inject humor, since you and Rudy just had some kind of battle last week.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[encinorick]

Early: I only mentioned my situation because this practice continues and people like myself who aren't professionals end up with junk because of sweet talking guys like Doug. Witness the Hank Aaron bat.

Instead of simply saying "my bad" here's your money back, Doug said I was "outrageous," then pointed his finger at me and said "begone" just because I told him the truth.

But, the emotion comes from another source. I had the bat in my home office, it was a great source of pride for me to tell friends and family that I owned a Ruth bat. My son, who is 8 years old, loves baseball and he loved telling his friends about the bat. Last spring, his Encino Little League won the division and I showed the bat to all the guys and they thought it was cool. Then, in the fall, I had to tell them all it wasn't a Ruth bat, but just a piece of wood.

I still have the custom-built holder in my office, but it's empty. I keep it that way to remind myself and my experience and how careful you have to be with these auction house guys.

The truth (the whole truth and nothing but the truth) will set you free, Doug. Release the documents.

[trsent]

Holy Cow, Joel, how does this help the situation????????

What is the intent of this post, and please don't tell me you're trying to inject humor, since you and Rudy just had some kind of battle last week.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Ken, it kept me from harassing Rudy for once again having someone come on here and addressing their questions and Rudy continues to harass and bring up old history instead of thanking them for addressing their concerns and possibly working with them to address the concerns. Instead, Rudy wants them to go to hell for making the error in the first place. It looks to me like Rudy is making comments that would lead us to believe they intentionally committed fraud.

Doug Allen posted on this site, discussed issues and instead of trying to work with him, Rudy continued to harass. Rudy never is pleased with anyone's efforts to work with his concerns, he always wants them to fry for their past errors and then make references to make it appear the auction house was intentionally committing fraud.

No wonder time and time again, an auction house works with us then leaves the discussion forum due to excessive harassment and abuse.

I didn't want to post my true feelings that Rudy should work with the auction house willing to post on this site instead of bombarding them with harassing posts not giving them a chance to work with us.

Since you brought it up.

Maybe you should email the owners of this forum and ask for a job as moderator. I do not know if they are hiring, but you must desire that job.

Finally, I have people battle me on this forum. I never feel I battle with Rudy as he does often understand the stance of debate even though he often has to go off topic to prove his point, which leads me to my usual concerns about why the topics cannot be discussed without personal attacks?

[kingjammy24]

..and joel drags yet another thread down the terlit with irrelevant nonsense.

"Rudy continues to harass and bring up old history"

my post focused solely on the hank aaron bat currently up for auction.

"..instead of trying to work with him, Rudy continued to harass"

my post asked 3 pertinent questions:

1) did john taube really not disclose what he knew about the bat?
2) why do mastro's descriptions differ from their authenticators' letters?
3) why was there no research done on a bat signed by a man 40 yrs after
he used it?

i wasn't aware these questions constituted harassment.

"No wonder time and time again, an auction house works with us then leaves the discussion forum due to excessive harassment and abuse."

doug allen: "My reason for not wanting to post is simply a time constraint issue as with three auctions closing in the next three weeks I could never do it justice." Read it Joel. Then read it again. Then put your glasses on and read it a third time. If you still can't comprehend it, I can't help you anymore. i'm sure doug would appreciate you not putting words in his mouth.

rudy.

[trsent]

whether it's your statements on the winslow helmet, jordan shirt, or this aaron bat, there are always massive logical loopholes in what you say.


Rudy, I didn't put words in anyone's mouth.

The quote above is what I meant by you bringing up the past. You do not address issues at hand, you address items from the past that have no relevance on the topic of the Hank Aaron bat. You only posted about the Aaron bat? Then why bring up the Winslow helmet and Jordan shirt?

You can accuse me of ruining the forum. I just know that Doug Allen posted on this forum and you decided to attack him and I will post that if Ken doesn't appreciate my "post script" reply, which was me trying to avoid what irritated me about your reply to Doug Allen.

You only read what you believe is in your best interest to attack and abuse instead of working with those we so eagerly wish to add to the discussions here.

I know, you and your fans wish I wouldn't post so y'all can attack and attack and not have anyone to balance comments and concerns.

[kingjammy24]

an addendum has been posted to the auction:

"Please Note:
Additional research has suggested that we emphasize pertinent documentation relating to Aaron's later-added inscription on the bat:
This bat was originally sold as part of the famous Thomas C. Eakin collection in January 2002. A letter signed by Mr. Eakin accompanying the bat at that sale indicated that this very item was given to Mr. Eakin following the completion of a game at Crosley Field in 1969, a contest in which Mr. Eakin recalled that Hank Aaron hit a home run. Acting on this information, Bob Allen, Aaron's press agent at the time, sought verification from the Home Run King himself that this lumber was in fact wielded by Aaron at Crosley Field when he struck home run number 534. Upon establishing that Aaron hit three home runs at Crosley Field in 1969 (no. 534 in 7/15/1969, no. 548 in 9/5/1969, and no. 549 in 9/7/1969), Mr. Allen met with Aaron at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in November 2003. In a signed and notarized letter dated November 4, 2003, Mr. Allen attests, "This letter is to serve as authentication for Hank Aaron's career #534 Homerun bat. Hank Aaron verified and signed this bat on November 1st, 2003 at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee, WI. Mr. Hank Aaron personally signed and inscribed the bat, 'Hank Aaron, HR 534, 7/15/99.' I personally witnessed the signing. - Sincerely, (signed) Bob Allen." Consequently, while Aaron's inscription was added at a much later date, he himself confirmed that of the three possible dates on which this bat might have been employed, it was in fact used on July 15, 1969 when he struck home run number 534. Mastro Auctions acknowledges that questions can present themselves with respect to a bat that has not been in the possession of Hank Aaron since 1969; accordingly, we note the foregoing circumstances as pertinent information that relates to the bat's provenance."

so aaron gives away a bat in 1969. 34 yrs later, he's met a hotel by his press agent and asked in which of 3 possible games, in 1969, did he use this bat to hit #534. aaron then confirms that "it was in fact used on July 15, 1969". wow.

anyway, all of it seems to fly in the face of what occurred when REA did their research. as rob lifson told me: "..I even tracked down the original owner (the one who received the bat) to clarify that he did not get it right from Aaron..When I asked Aaron's office, I was told that he did not know...they said very clearly that Hank Aaron was not saying that this was the bat he hit home run #534 with, he was not saying it was not, he was saying that he did not and does not know."

rudy.

[ndevlin]

Rick, not to jump into what seems to be a one-sided heated battle, but I appear to be missing the continued venom. Did he misprepresent the bat? YES, and he admitted it. Did they refund your money? YES. Do you trust them? NO. Should we trust them? MAYBE.

I think he was right: take your money elsewhere. I guess I don't know what more you want Doug to do. And I guess I don't see what the point is of continuing this on a public forum.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com


Yep!

And you just said....

"The description stated explicitly that it was "game used and or a coach's bat used by the Great Bambino during the latter part of his career." The description also suggested that the bat was might "light" for the Bambno and it's length was also much shorter than any other Ruth bat, but that those oddities could be explained for this reason or that."

You knew what you were buying. Why would you even bother spending that amount of money on a bat that not only is light, but is much shorter than any other Ruth bat, then turn around and get mad about it?

Not only was it all that relevant to the Aaron bat, I dont know why you felt the need to bash someone publicly for an incident that happened a year ago, on something it seems you knew what you were buying.

Not trying to start an argument, it just doesnt make much sense.

[encinorick]

Rudy: Doug would simply say he was "overreaching" with the facts and leave it at that. Be advised Rudy, you too may be put on "double secret probation" if you don't stop, so be careful.

And stop reading those Mastro descriptions! They're there to entertain and bemuse and tell a good story, nothing more, nothing less.

[encinorick]

Nate: The purpose of the thread was to expose the problems with Mastro's descriptions. Rudy's presented evidence regarding the Aaron bat and I also had an experience with Mastro's description of the Ruth bat.

Read the description that Doug included in his post: "Babe Ruth 1934-1944 H&B Game Used Player/Coaches Bat."

The LOA from PSA/DNA was entitled "George 'Babe' Ruth Professional Model Bat (Post Career Bat), Labeling Period 1944-47."

Now is this something you'd say was "overreaching" or something else.

As I stated in my letter to Doug (please print it, Doug) I was a loyal customer of Mastro for 10 years. I bought and consigned items with them worth thousands of dollars. I'm not a pro, I do this strictly as a hobby to enjoy with my son. I depend on experts to tell me what is, or is not, real.

I trusted Doug...foolishly.

Again, if Doug had simply said, "my bad" here's your money back, I'd have no problem. But, he said I was "outrageous" when I questioned him, and then he closed my account to be spiteful.

A couple of years ago I won a Gretzky gu hockey stick from Lelands, I showed it to an expert who said it wasn't gu. I sent Lelands the letter and they returned my money. They even said they were sorry about it. I still buy stuff from them to this day.

[ndevlin]

I just read the description. It even says its "small by Ruth's standards." Wouldnt that give you a red flag, especially on something this pricey? Its even graded a 4.5.

What exactly were you upset about with this bat?

[b.heagy]

Rick,
Any chance you have copies of the LOO's from MEARS and PSA? Would love to see the paper work for the bat. Which company got it right?

[encinorick]

Just my point Nate. Why would Doug claim the bat to be "Babe Ruth Game Used/Coaches Bat."

Let's make this clear, Nate, Doug's making the representations here, not me. Despite what I flippantly said to Rudy, these descriptions are, in fact, representations which are relied on by non-experts as myself to our detriment. They are legally binding, just like a contract.

I am a consumer and the Mastro descriptions target people like me to induce us to buy their goods and they hold themselves out as experts whom we can rely on. It's not my bad, but Doug's.

[b.heagy]

As a 10+ year customer it is a shame that you had a falling out with Mastro like this one. Was this the first Ruth bat that caught your attention? A situation like this is proof that customers need to do their own research regardless of what an auction house or LOO says. When someone is interested in buying an item from me that they are on the fence about, I ask them how knowledgable they are in that particular field, if they are a beginner or still in the process of learning more I always tell them not to buy the item until they learn more and are more comfortable with the purchase. We all make mistakes, it's how we deal with them that separates the good from the bad.

[dallen]

Rick,

I will post the two LOAs from PSA/DNA and MEARS tomorrow. I am sorry but I can only find your most recent emails and discarded the legal letter after I bought the bat back. If you have them feel free to post them.

Maybe I am missing something here but the only reason I got aggressive is I did not appreciate your language and stated such. I have never been able to stand people I have never met or treated with disrespect throwing "F" bombs into conversations. Can't imagine what you would have called me if I was not willing to buy back the bat.

There was no hesitation in refunding you the money. I believe you got great value buying a Ruth Coaches bat for around $5,000. This is a bat that contrary to your statement was manufactured while he was alive and I believe matched records of bats ordered when he was a coach.

The bottom line is we sell 1,000+ game used items annually and really try to do a good job of authentication and cataloging. A forum like this is a great way for collectors to point out mistakes and I am sure I speak for a lot of auctioneers that we like this type of feedback because we don't ever want to sell something that is not good. A person on this forum sent me a helmet he spent a lot of money on a couple of years ago. I took that very seriously and providing him 20+ pages of data that I believe proved his helmet was in fact authentic. We do not take this lightly. I have no problem with a forum pointing out the handful of mistakes we have made for the past few years but give us some credit for the literally 10s of thousands of good items we have sold.

Yes Rick...you were the victim. You relied on what I agreed was an overreaching statement and bought an A MEARS 4.5 Ruth Coaches bat for $5,000. Then two years later you reviewed the documentation, sent me an aggressive legal letter and within 24 hours I offered to take back the bat for a full refund. No questions asked.

There is nothing more I can think of to do but try harder not to make the same mistake again.

Sincerely,
Doug Allen

[encinorick]

Bill: Thanks for your comments. Once Doug posts the two LOA's read them carefully, then look at the Mastro description which Doug included in his previous post.

How Doug came up with his description based on those LOA's is beyond my comprehension, but I'll let you judge that independently from my opinion.

Afterward, I'll post my September 1, 2008 letter to Doug, which simply states the obvious.

Again, the descriptions in these Auction House catalogues are legally binding contracts. They make representations based on information given to them and consumers, non-professionals, like myself (and perhaps you, too) rely on them to their detriment.

Doug, may not think spending over $5,000 is not alot of money, but I do.

[dallen]

Here are the letters from MEARS and PSA

I confirmed with John Taube that he places the labeling period at 1937 to 1940 vs. MEARS broader dating of 1934 to 1944. We inaccurately latched onto the broader date in our write-up. The light weight most definitely places this bat later in the range....most likely in the 1937 to 1940 pegged by John Taube. This is the reason I had no problem issuing a refund regardless of this being two years after the fact. In discussing the bat we both agree the value to be in the neighborhood of $6 to $8k. By the way I did not say the $5k was not a lot of money. It absolutely is. I just indicated I thought at $5k he got good value.


16273

16274

[Vintagedeputy]

I offer no comment on the dispute, but I give great props to a company that will issue a 5K refund after 2 years.

[encinorick]

Doug, you are such a disappointment. The Malta/Taube PSA/DNA that you sent to me with the bat explicitly stated: "Labeling Period: 1944-47."

In your post below you've deleted the dates and now allege that Taube pegged the bat between "1937-40."

Look at your own post #7, in which you said "Mears placed the bat at 1934-44 and PSA at 1944-47."

I still have a copy of the original PSA/DNA which I post, but, my question to you is why would a professional like yourself purposefully alter a third-party LOA in order to prove a point. Isn't that being dishonest?

[kingjammy24]

doug allen: "MEARS placed the bat at 1934-44 and PSA at 1944 to 47".
"I confirmed with John Taube that he places the labeling period at 1937 to 1940"

doug, why is the LOA you posted missing the labeling year range?

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/4342/sillywk8.jpg

please tell me the president of mastro auctions isn't photoshopping LOAs.

rick, can you post the original LOA?

rudy.

[dallen]

Since the letters were issued over two years ago I sought John's approval to display the letter and sent him the bat. He reaffirmed this as a post career bat but indicated the labeling period would be correctly placed at 1937 to 1940. That is why I excluded the year range and noted it in my post. John did not ask me to exclude it I just didn't want an inaccurate letter flying around.

My reason for offering the scans is so you can see why it was pretty obvious that we should have never purported this bat to have any chance at being a game used bat during his career. Even though MEARS offers a broader range other facts clearly point to this being Post Career.

Bottom line we blew it. Two years later we owned up to it and gave you your money back. Beyond that there is nothing more I can say unless someone points out some other flaw in the way I handled this situation. Obviously the goal it to get it right the first time which I believe we do. Beyond that I think it is how you handle yourself when you screw up. The way I handle it is to own up to it and get you your money back which I did.

[dallen]

This is my last post on this forum. I sent an email responding to Rudy's questions on the Aaron bat and we have posted a modification. I have responded to questions on the handling of the Ruth bat so judge us as you will.

From this point on I am happy to correspond via email and if you want to post it on this forum that is great. I can be reached at dallen@mastroauctions.com

All the best,
Doug Allen
Mastro Auctions

[kingjammy24]

if possible, i'd like to keep this thread on some sort of coherant track. i think the main gist of what's being said revolves around overly aggressive descriptions, or as doug put it "overreaching". the thing is, it's not simply a case here or a case there of overreaching. in my opinion, it's a pattern. doug, this isn't a circus. it doesn't behoove anyone for you to make like PT Barnum, up on the mastro platform with a bullhorn shouting that you've got the most stupendous, tremendous, fantastical thing ever seen by man! so step right up kids! pay your nickel and come see the bearded lady! look:

- the JB jersey: in the accompanying video, you stated you had a "photomatch showing JB wearing this particular jersey". those were your exact words. when you uttered them you knew you had no photomatch. you knew all you had a stylematch which is no different than what MEARS offered when the jersey previously sold at REA. you know the difference between a stylematch and a photomatch. yet you wanted to create a frenzy. wet all those buyers whistles. oh boy, doug allen's got a photomatch to the JB jersey! holy smokes! if it went for $70k before, a photomatch will surely drive it to at least $100k! what a big letdown to find out it was nothing more than a stylematch and a promo photo at that. more "overreaching" right? an accidental slip of the tongue?

- still on the JB jersey: you said it had a "game used" inscription. doug, you need to get yourself to optometrist ASAP because your JB jersey says nothing of the sort. a "game used" inscription would be pretty impressive if your jersey actually had one. what it has is a "game jersey" inscription and there is a world of difference. more overreaching right? another slip of the tongue? "game jersey" does not mean "game used". it might but it might also mean a myriad of other things. again, just like you seriously believe aaron identified a bat 34 yrs after it was given away by an equipment manager (did the fact that aaron was paid a substantial sum to sign it "help jog his memory"?), you seem to purport to know exactly what jim brown meant when he signed "game jersey" and fortunately for mastro's coffers, it meant, as you explicitly stated, that he was saying he "wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform". that's what JB meant when he wrote "game jersey" right doug? he meant "game used". you're like kreskin over there. yet more "overreaching".

- this ruth bat: taube put the date range at a close 1944-47. MEARS put it more broadly at 1934-44. what range did you end up going with? the broader range. big surprise huh? you chose the range that would give you the greatest leeway and pin it closer to ruth using it. another accident.

- you truly believe that 70 yr old aaron positively identified that bat 34 yrs after an equipment manager gave it away as being the same one he used on july 15, 1969 in 1 specific at-bat. do you believe that because it's so overwhelmingly likely or because it makes the bat more valuable? in your addendum you failed to mention any of the conclusions reached by REA in their investigation. of course, those conclusions make the bat less valuable.

doug, some auction houses err on the side of caution; on the side of being conservative lest they overhype an item and fail to deliver. mastro seems to err on the side of exaggeration; on the side of trying to oversell the hell out of an item as if your buyers are little kids paying a nickel at the circus and they won't be too disappointed if they find out the "pregnant man" is really just a guy with a pillow stuffed under his shirt.

rudy.

[encinorick]

So I guess the answer to my question is yes, you deleted the dates.

Interesting.

Now there are 3 LOA's attached to the bat, I guess. And the theory behind this is to pick a fact from this LOA and some from that one and spin a story about a bat that was purported to be owned by the Babe, so some guy, some non-professional, like me would be stupid enough to buy it.

Got it. Nice.

All I asked was that you post the items which you sent me when I purchased the item, which included the Mastro description and the two original LOA's and let everyone here make up their own mind as to whether Mastro engages in deceptive practices when it writes its description.

But, you couldn't do that Doug, could you.? You had to alter this document and that, and make this absurd assertion and that, and then blame the whole problem on me for being an idiot for buying the damn thing from you in the first place.

Nice.

[encinorick]

Here is the original, unaltered PSA/DNA letter:

16275

[bigtruck260]

This is why I always look at auction houses' offerings...but rarely buy.

Almost everything in the Game Used 'industry' has some sort of loose description when being sold - or facts are left out, or things are altered...the usual case is that a story is exaggerated - or fabriacated altogether to justify the value of an item.

It happens all the time on eBay, and by the looks of things, it happens in the major auction houses...where an average joe who has some cash laying around can be lured into buying a potentially 'rare' piece with some over-reaching statements. The Ruth bat might be one instance, but when you are contantly hearing about this stuff ALL THE TIME, there is merit to it.

What if some of the watchdog people in this forum stopped posting? What if GUU did not exist? Folks would be relying on the auction houses (and their professional and honest approach) to buy future heirlooms.

I commend Mr. Allen for refunding Rick - that is amazing, considering there is at least one auction house that is just now paying consigners after a MARCH auction...2 years is awesome. But the point is, if it had been 5 years down the road, and the bat would have been listed wrong - the seller is still responsible for the item description.

I doubt that every person who bids on an item knows that MEARS 4.5 is not the most terrific grade...I think there is a great population of naive people who will buy anything as long as it has a COA attached...even if it is signed by Santa Claus. If you don't believe me, search completed autograph auctions on eBay.

I think it would be more appropriate to list exactly what the 4.5 means in the description. The more detail, the better....

[trsent]

I understand both sides and I see where people want descriptions for items to the letter T, but they don't own auction houses, so they are giving recommendations to auction houses how they should list and describe their merchandise.

I understand the concern, but telling someone how to run their business is not going to change things. They give a description that they find honest and think will bring the highest value to their items.

Were facts left out? Maybe, and that is not acceptable, but telling an auction house, or for that matter The Sears Catalog how they have to describe their inventory is not our responsibility. I know when I don't like how a business does something I complain to their web site's feedback department and hope they listen, even though I know they will not.

Too many people want to be God-like figures to companies we just shouldn't shop with in the first place if we do not like their business practices. If you do not like how a company lists their descriptions, don't buy from the company, duh.

[CollectGU]

I understand the concern, but telling someone how to run their business is not going to change things. They give a description that they find honest and think will bring the highest value to their items.

Were facts left out? Maybe, and that is not acceptable, but telling an auction house, or for that matter The Sears Catalog how they have to describe their inventory is not our responsibility. I know when I don't like how a business does something I complain to their web site's feedback department and hope they listen, even though I know they will not.

Too many people want to be God-like figures to companies we just shouldn't shop with in the first place if we do not like their business practices. If you do not like how a company lists their descriptions, don't buy from the company, duh.


Actually Joel there are statutes in every state against what is known as deceptive trade practices and the onus is on corporations to follow the guidelines or face potential puntive damage judgements against them for many times more than the simple cost to refund the buyer's money.

Some more info on it:

Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT (http://www.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/fraudulent) practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.

Regards,
Dave

[bigtruck260]

I understand the concern, but telling someone how to run their business is not going to change things. They give a description that they find honest and think will bring the highest value to their items.

Isn't this why the original post was made Joel? The descriptions might be 'honest' to some, but totally dishonest to others. There has to be a benchmark...

[both-teams-played-hard]

There are many collectors who do not read this forum or The New York Daily News.

[trsent]

Actually Joel there are statutes in every state against what is known as deceptive trade practices and the onus is on corporations to follow the guidelines or face potential puntive damage judgements against them for many times more than the simple cost to refund the buyer's money.

Some more info on it:

Most state deceptive trade practices statutes include broad restrictions on "deceptive" or "unfair" trade practices. These states often include prohibitions against FRAUDULENT (http://www.enotes.com/wests-law-encyclopedia/fraudulent) practices and unconscionable practices. The Federal Trade Commission, when interpreting the FTCA, does not require that the person committing an act of deception have the intent to deceive. Moreover, the FTC does not require that actual deception occur. The FTC merely requires that a party have the capacity to deceive or commit an unfair trade practice. If a business or individual has this capacity or tendency to deceive, the FTC under the FTCA may order the company to cease and desist the deceptive or unfair practice. State statutes similarly do not require that a company specifically intends to deceive, nor must a company always have knowledge that a statement is false to be liable for misrepresentations made to a consumer.

Regards,
Dave

Dave, you should call the proper legal agencies and take action then if you believe they are intentionally defrauding the public. I do not understand, they write a description, and we bring it to their attention that we do not like the description and they change it, but they still have to be harassed over it because now the GUU Fourm has decided they were attempting to commit fraud - Not that maybe they made a judgement call that we found was not the best judgement?

Call the police if you are really so concerned.

Warren, I cannot use the theory day in and day out that the public has to see this forum or the NY Daily News articles. So, we are now the police for the industry (I have no problems with this) but we also are now going to judge and sentence those who we feel are in violation?

Time and time again an auction house makes an effort to work with us, and time and time again instead of us cooporating, we have to tell them what scumbags they are over and over again.

Doug Allen has offered to reply personally to any concerns via his personal email address as he claims he will not longer contribute to this forum. That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!

If Dave O'Brien is really concerned, or anyone else, they should contact the proper legal avenues on behalf of the public.

[b.heagy]

Doug Allen has offered to reply personally to any concerns via his personal email address as he claims he will not longer contribute to this forum. That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!


Joel,
Doug prefers to communicate via email, he already made that clear. He was hardly bullied away. I appreciate him taking the time to communicate with the members about the concerns that were raised.

[both-teams-played-hard]

That is too bad, he was scared away in two days. Good job bullies!


Right up there with the "go to your basement with your bricks" quote.
The hookers and drug dealers don't do much business in front of a cop-shop, either.

[encinorick]

Joel: So we're at fault here, the consumers, and auction houses like AMI, Bricol, Mastro, etc are the victims?

And Doug, who before your very eyes altered a third-party LOA simply to prove a point is also a victim? And we scared the "little bunny" because we were "bullies" and he ran away never to be heard of again. Poor bunny, Doug.

What Dave said was the truth. There's no "nod and wink" with facts, there is no "overreaching" with facts. Facts are.

If you have opinion, that's another thing. But if you have 2 LOA's that date a bat differently and neither says anything about game use, how the hell can you describe it as game-used?

How do you not explicitly state to the consumer that there are two LOA's from reputable experts that say different things about the bat and they are inherently contradictory to one another?

And if there's no agreement as to what the heck the bat is, why would you put it up for sale?

[earlywynnfan]

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[trsent]

Guys, all I was hoping for is cooperation with an auction house who posted on this forum for a change - Look in the mirrors and stop blaming me for speaking the truth - Every time one comes to us they are bullied and scared away in a matter of minutes.

I just think someone needs to contact legal authorities if you really believe they are intentionally attempting to defraud the public - This is a serious deal.

Every time we get close all that happens is people attack the person non-stop and do not make an effort to maybe help the system.

Live with blinders on and think I am the bad guy...Keep it up and you'll see.

[trsent]

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken


That was one part of the discussion that intrigues me, but when you are asking about a bat and then pile on everything at once, it becomes silly.

Rudy is right. Why is the bat authenticator named but the jersey authenticators not? Someone should email Doug Allen this question and post his reply.

[CollectGU]

Dave, you should call the proper legal agencies and take action then if you believe they are intentionally defrauding the public. I do not understand, they write a description, and we bring it to their attention that we do not like the description and they change it, but they still have to be harassed over it because now the GUU Fourm has decided they were attempting to commit fraud - Not that maybe they made a judgement call that we found was not the best judgement?

Call the police if you are really so concerned.

Joel,

I never said that anyone was intentionally defrauding the public and I am not interested in calling any authorities. I was simply providing information on what the statute says what all companies are to be held to when selling to consumers and thought it was relevant to the discussion.

Regards,
Dave

[kingjammy24]

Rudy, in Doug's reply to you, did he address the issue of the "nameless authenticators?"

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

ken

no. doug answered my abbreviated questions. here are his replies (his replies are in all caps):

1) did john taube really not disclose what he knew about the bat?

RESPONSE: FIRST OF ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO ASK JOHN WHAT HE KNEW ABOUT THE BAT. FOR US ALL HE DID WAS AUTHENTICATE THE BAT AND GRADED IT A 10. I BELIEVE HE WOULD BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT HE DID NOT COMMUNICATE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THIS INFORMATION UNITL HIS CONTACT WITH ME VIA EMAIL YESTERDAY.

[re: what taube knew about the bat before it even went at mastro:
from rob lifson: "When REA auctioned the bat in 2004 it was accompanied by an LOA from Taube/PSA but at that time not graded by him - and the LOA was only for the bat itself. I shared my concern with him at the time before we got the Taube LOA...So, while he has obviously written a new letter on the bat since it is now (according to the description) graded GU10 by Taube and was not graded by him in 2004". i asked john taube if he passed along this information to mastro's staff. rather than answering the question, he simply told me he'd contact doug and that was the last i ever heard from john. the fact of the matter is you can't grade this bat simply as a "hank aaron game-used bat" which is what john said he did because it's not simply a hank aaron gamer. it's being sold, with a premium, as THE #534 bat therefore it also needs to be authenticated as the #534 bat. if john had a bat that was billed as a derek jeter 1996 world series gamer would he simply authenticate it as a derek jeter bat or as a world series gamer?]

2) why do mastro's descriptions differ from their authenticators' letters?

RESPONSE: DESCRIPTIONS SHOULD NOT DIFFER FROM THE AUTHENTICATORS LETTER. OUR AUTHENTICATOR WAS JOHN TAUBE AS LISTED IN THE WRITE UP OF THE ITEM. I BELIEVE OUR WRITE UP IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LOA HE PROVIDED. AFTER BEING MADE AWARE OF THE BATS HISTORY WE WERE ABLE TO GATHER THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION WHICH WILL NOW BE ADDED TO THE WRITE-UP (THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WILL BE POSTED THIS EVENING).

[the loa is not consistent in its entirety because it doesn't address the #534 aspect of it at all. the letter is just for an aaron gamer and if i simply wanted just any old aaron gamer then i wouldn't go out and pay the premium for this #534 bat.]

3) why was there no research done on a bat signed by a man 40 yrs after he used it?

RESPONSE: OUR JUDGEMENT WAS THAT HIS INSCRIPTION REFERRING TO THIS AS THE BAT HE USED TO HIT IS 534TH HOME RUN WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE BAT HAD GREAT GAME USE CONSISTENT WITH AARON AND WAS TURNED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME. THAT BEING SAID I AGREE THAT THE FACT THAT THE INSCRIPTION WAS PENNED SOME 25 YEARS LATER SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUSE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.

HIS INSCRIPTION..WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE FACT THAT THE BAT HAD GREAT GAME USE CONSISTENT WITH AARON AND WAS TURNED DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME." holy smokes. i don't even know where to begin with that logic. when was it turned..july 15, 1969? great game use is consistent with it being the one to hit #534? good lord. there's no logic in there anywhere.]

anyway, here's the original 2002 listing for the bat sans inscription:

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=205&lot=1448 (http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=205&lot=1448)

personally i think it was nicest at the time lelands had it, before an old ballplayer was cajoled into going along with a 34 yr old story for the sake of increasing the bat's value.

rudy.

[trsent]

Here is the email I just received from Doug Allen:

Hey Joel,

I am happy to answer the questions regarding unnamed authenticators.
When it comes to Game Used Bats and Autographs we utilize the services of third party authenticators who supply us letters and therefore we disclose this in the catalog.

When it comes to game used jerseys and equipment....after concluding we could no longer use the services of MEARS we did not feel there were any other viable third party services we could turn to to provide this service. Instead we decided he best course of action was to issue our own letters of authenticity backed by a team of experts that we would adjust based on the particular item. For instance we would have a different team of individuals examine a football helmet than a vintage baseball flannel. Why are they unnamed? Some of the guys have no problem with us using their names but some love authenticating but do not want the notoriety. I will tell you one guy that helps is a person I consider to be the best in the world when it comes to vintage jerseys. He is very willing to do the work for us but will not allow his name to be associated with this work. So the bottom line. We issue a letter of authenticity, we communicate the fact that there are multiple independent authenticators that examine each and every piece and we stand behind each and every piece with a money back guarantee if a mistake is made.

Let me know if you have additional questions about this process.

Thanks,

Doug

Doug Allen
President & COO
Mastro Auctions Inc.