Mastro & MEARS

[Centerfield]

I’m sure all of you received an email from Mastro today. If you haven’t, here it is:

MEARS Authentication took what in the auction industry is an unprecedented stand. In order to do business directly with auction companies they are requiring access to private consignor and confidential bidding records. We are uncomfortable providing this type of access to any organization let alone one that as part of their business model conducts private purchases and sales. It is on this basis we made the decision not to renew our contract with MEARS. What has transpired since this decision is a process that we believe will make us a better firm and enable us to offer game used jerseys that have gone through an unprecedented third party review process.

Effective in 2008 Mastro Auctions will stand behind all of our game used jerseys by issuing our own LOAs. Behind these LOAs will be the most targeted and comprehensive authentication process in the business. For each auction we will assemble a team of experts that will work together to examine all of our game used jerseys. No individual names will be associated with this work based on the fact that we will only offer items where the team unanimously deems the item to be authentic. We have engaged John Taube of PSA/DNA to oversee this process to ensure the necessary steps are being taken to ensure this authentication is being conducted in the most professional and comprehensive manner possible.

With the proliferation of fraud and alterations in our industry it is critical to have access to exemplar files to aid in the authentication process. We will arm our authentication team with the best exemplar database in the industry. First, we have gone through our historical database over the last 10 years of items sold and populated our new exemplar archive with images of tagging, styles, lettering, patches, etc. In order to augment this we have embarked upon an extensive retrieval process to collect detailed images from our customers who have the best private collections in the world. Although this process will be time consuming and expensive what will result will be the best authentication tool to ever be made available to the industry

I want to assure you that consistent with all the moves we make, a tremendous amount of thought and planning has gone into this change. We are confident that what will result is a better product for the industry and our valued customers.

Doug Allen
President & COO
Mastro Auctions Inc.
7900 S. Madison Street
Burr Ridge, IL 60527
p: 630-472-1200
m: 630-336-6650


This is an interesting development and I was wondering what the forum members’ thoughts are on this topic. Personally, I can make a case on both sides of the issue. Mastro will be producing their own authenticity letters, which could be construed as a conflict as it is in the auction house’s best interest to authenticate as much as possible in order to spur sales. An independent, third party authenticator is warranted in all auction/sales situations in order to maintain the integrity of the piece offered. On the other hand, because MEARS buys and sells as well, they cannot truly be categorized as independent in the truest sense of the term. Furthermore, MEARS letters have historically been riddled with mistakes, so why shouldn’t Mastro make a go of it on their own. Granted, this will affect jersey and bat collectors much more than those who are enamored with gloves, especially store model gloves, but this decision by Mastro may one day be viewed as a turning point in the memorabilia hobby. I’m sure all forum members have their own particular take on this issue, so why don’t we share these points of view and debate this topic.

On a side note, but still pertaining to the topic at hand, I thought it would be fun for us to play a little game. Let’s all go to the MEARS website and try to find mistakes in their gloves for sale section. Someone who’s supposedly the top equipment authenticator in the nation surely wouldn’t make mistakes, especially pertaining to gloves, when he’s literally written the book on the topic. In addition to being a fun exercise, it simply proves the point that authenticators, whoever they may be, are not infallible. Simply stated, authenticators should not be buying and selling… and auction houses and sellers should not be authenticating unless they offer a complete money back guarantee for even the slightest hint of inaccuracy.

Here are just two examples I’ve noticed while briefly perusing the MEARS site. They are both Mantle examples since that’s what I’m currently interested in.

http://www.mearsonline.com/forsale/item/?id=2893

This is a sales listing for a 1958 Rawlings Mantle MM5. Nice glove, but besides a name written on the strap which is not mentioned in the item’s description, what else is wrong here? Well, the glove’s not from 1958. The 1957 model MM5 had a Rawlings patch without the stripes. The 1958 anniversary patch was black, and the model was not produced in 1959 or in 1960. So, the earliest this glove could be dated is 1961. The MM5, with this patch, was produced from 1961 to 1970, though the older style Mantle signature stamping suggests earlier in the decade. Would you trust a letter of authenticity from a company who’s primary employee is supposedly a glove expert and then makes a mistake like this?

http://www.mearsonline.com/forsale/item/?id=2892

A second example, again with a Mantle because that’s my current glove fetish, is the MM9 Triple Crown from 1968. This mistake isn’t as egregious as the last example, but the description is erroneous. It’s stated that the MM9 Triple Crown was only listed in the 1968 catalog. Well, that’s incorrect. The glove was made from 1958 through 1969. There were varying degrees of slight differences during those production years, but it was produced for more than a decade and is not as rare as the seller tries to suggest. Credit must be given, however, because at least it’s dated more accurately towards the latter portion of the model’s production run.

These are simply two examples cited after quickly looking at the MEARS website. I’m sure that there are an abundant amount of mistakes there, and thought it would be fun for us to try and find them. Errors like this are expected on eBay where 95% of the sellers don’t know what they have. Inaccuracies such as this, however, from the leading authenticators in the hobby are appalling and discreditable. Perhaps Mastro is on to something!

[vintagebrett]

Not glove related but Mastro has had it's issues in the past couple months that have been well documented in other forums and the NY Daily News. I don't really care because Mastro doesn't auction items in my price range or within my interests but if you are going to take issue with one entity, you need to make sure you look at the other's past record as well.

I'm sure MEARs makes their share of mistakes just like any other company does. However, I'm pretty sure they offer a money back guarantee if their findings are disproved. Not sure that Mastro does the same or will be doing the same.

I don't think it's possible to find an individual or a group who can authenticate everything and I agree that if you are authenticating, you shouldn't be selling. The full disclosure that MEARS offers is great but I still agree that authenticators shouldn't be dealers. That's why I like collecting gloves - you don't really have to worry about it.

As far as the mistakes go on the MEARs site, I start with the prices on some of those gloves!

[vintagebrett]

Also, I think if you find mistakes (like Centerfield did) you should report them to MEARS so they can make changes in their descriptions.

[Centerfield]

Said like a true, politically correct moderator!

[vintagebrett]

That's my job!

Actually, I really have no feelings either way. Both entities have had their issues in the past but I have no desire to pick a side as I don't really do business with either one.

[Centerfield]

Was just trying to be facetious with you, Brett.

In all honesty, the two really don’t concern me either when it comes to my own personal collecting habits. That being said, we all have some vested interest in the progression of the hobby in general, so the longer-term ramifications of something like this does affect all of us as collectors.
I like what MEARS has done as far as forcing auction houses into trying to be more upfront and honest in their dealings. However, I agree with Mastro in not opening up their customer list to another dealer (MEARS is a dealer as well as an authenticator). The dilemma would be solved if MEARS were to become strictly authenticators. I guess that does not fit into their business model, though.

[vintagebrett]

I agree that it will be interesting to watch. My hope that is the companies are doing these things in the best interest of the collectors and not their wallets. I know it gets tricky in some of the areas. What MEARS has done the past couple of months is great in terms of getting auction houses to be more up front about everything and I also agree that opening up customer lists is dangerous.

Hopefully, the ideals and goals of both companies are such that they want to be honest, upfront and give the collector all the information necessary to decide if the item is right for them or not. I'm sure that this is what they intend. This is especially important for the people who spend tons of money on a single item which is definitely not me!

[david bushing]

My friend Joe Phillips directed me to your forum and in partiuclar, this thread. As it pertains to dating the store model gloves, we use the glove index for model, slogans, etc. If that index is incomplete or incorrect and there is solid proof to that effect, we will gladly change the write ups and if we sell any item , no matter how minute the mistake, even one that has little or no effect on value, we will gladly refund the client if they choose. I was made aware by Joe that Mark Walters put out a Rawlings glove tag base which I will acquire as soon as possible and will then cross reference that with our catalogs and the glove index but catalogs often use older pictures , then reuse year after year. We arm ourselves with as much reference material as is out there and fully realize that we do not own every piece of information ever produced but we are heading in the right direction. If anyone has any solid evidence that anything in our for sale sight is even remotely incorrect, please email me at dbushing1@aol.com and we will update and credit the source. As for a comment on public forums, I think they are the best thing that ever happened in this business as they allow more information to be shared than ever thought possible as we are now lightyears ahead as for info then we were even a year or two ago. David Bushing

[Centerfield]

I appreciate Dave for commenting on the board as well as his candor in stating he has yet to acquire all the pertinent reference material needed to do his job properly. I also must commend him for his offer to refund the purchase price of items that were sold with erroneous information. I wish this policy were in effect years ago when I gave my dog an over graded glove I bought from him on eBay to use as a chew toy. At the time, he chalked it up to a mistake his daughter made when writing the auction description. At least that excuse is no longer being used, so indeed we are progressing.

Dave, given your statement about sharing information via public forums such as this, I’d like to ask a question many of us are curious about. Do you understand the conflict of interest that arises by being both an authenticator and dealer simultaneously? I’m sure you see it, but perhaps to a much lesser degree than most us in the hobby. Given that, why not just concentrate on one or the other?

[david bushing]

Fair question and it really boils down to economics. There just isn't enough volume of game used authentication revenue to make a living at the current rates given the staff and cost behind such a service. To do it right, it takes a huge amount of capitol and workers and as such, I would make more money at the end of the day flipping burgers. We authenticate because it is a needed service and needs to be done well without exception and mistakes are simply no longer tolerated nor should they be. I make my money dealing, simply put. If I had to give one up, it would be a no brainer. With that said, would the hobby be better or worse off if we quit authenticating? With over a million dollars worth of bogus jerseys culled from the hobby in just the last couple of years by MEARS, I think not. Is there anybody else out there who is qualified to do this type of work covering all sports? Maybe, but few have stepped up and to my knowledge, all the guys that do this sort of work also buy and sell. In a perfect world, if the volume was that of cards and autographs, it may be a possiblity but not in the current environment unless the prices charged for game used items were to triple and then it would become cost prohibitive all but the most highly priced items which would leave a huge void in the common areas and without some sort of policing, the bad guys would have a hey day and in the end, that hurts dealers and collectors as confidence erodes. We thought about just doing MEARS for sale items and nothing else which would probably help our bottom line but I don't see the overall good in that position for the hobby at large. We state any item graded by us that we have a financial interest in and if anybody feels uncomfortable with that, they are at least informed and as such, can choose to not purchase that item and , at least for now, I think is a good comprimise. David Bushing

[vintagebrett]

Dave, thanks for joining in. You definitely have a tough job and I enjoy reading the articles you guys post about the research process that goes into every item. As you stated, public forums are great for sharing information and I've learned a ton just about gloves from all the helpful people here. I can only imagine the amount of time that goes into a jersey.

[david bushing]

Thanks for the kind words. As you know, I started in the glove collecting fraternity back in the mid-late 1980's, long before we know rare from common and prehistoric times as they related to the internet and the sharing of information. I refer to these early dates as BP and AP which translates into before Phillips and after for without Joe, the early gathering of information was word of mouth and he has done more for this hobby than anybody I know. It is a great faction of the equipment collecting hobby and the changes in the past 20 years have been astounding. No longer is the focus on gloves to get autographed like it was in the early days when players would sign anything for a few bucks but it has transformed into niches where the early, rare and mint/boxed stuff are bringing prices never even thought of and a lot of this is due in part to Joe's work and in a large part due to the internet sales having finally defined what is truly rare and what is truly common. Oh what I wouldn't give to get back some of the stuff that went through this hobby back then. Brett, Keep up the good work. David Bushing

[softball66]

I'm glad we could clear the air a little on this in-depth subject. Centerfield brought out some solid points in his posts and I could tell there was some grievance in his writing and expressions. So sorry to hear about the glove you purchased from Dave on ebay was not as described.
I've painstakingly gone through the 1957 through 1970 Rawlings catalogs looking at the Mantle Models in question. There are even further breakdowns on the MM5 and MM9 than we suspected as I'd discovered doing research a month ago on the Mantle MM personal model. First rule, don't assume that them model stays the same each year. It's very easy to make stamping changes from year to year like the switch from Deep Well Model to Deep Well Pocket for example, signature changes, etc.
Constructive changes are more expensive and likely occur much less seldom.
For instance on the MM9 the first year 1958 carried the old signature and "Deep Well model." In 1961 the "Deep Well" stamp went to "Pocket."
Deep Well pocket. The glove appeared to stay the same until 1966 when a remodeling of the glove took place to an open web (diecut) rolled lace top web and the new "loopy" Mickey Mantle signature was used. The glove was discontinued after 1968.
The MM5 "May" have started in 1957 and I've listed it that way in source book, but for the life of me, can't find it intween the MM5 and MM8. The MM5 listed in 1958 says "revised from the previous year. 1958 was the 60th anniversary year for Rawlings and its gloves bore the black field gold lettering stamps that year, as centerfield stated.
It looks like the MM5 was replaced by the MM3 in 1959 and 1960 according to those years' catalogs. The MM5 was brought back in 1961 with description " as "Professional" and with "another new for '61" in the description and this model with a hinge lace pocket. It stayed as the Professional and the unchanged until 1967 when the new "loopy Ms" Mickey Mantle signature began use. One note was that a new leather RT58 was used on the glove in the last several years.
Again, maybe we should publish Scott Calev's Mantle glove book.

[david bushing]

Centerfield, I didn't realize that the dog chew glove was apparently bought by you from myself. Our policy has ALWAYS been a 100% money back guarantee if not fully satisfied. Grading is always subjective therefore the guarantee is in place to make sure that the grading is not an excuss for an unhappy client. If you have any idea as to what and when the glove was sold to you and the amount, our guarantee knows no time limits. Even without a reciept if this has been a long period of time, if you remember the glove and what you paid, you will be refunded or can use as credit on future purchase, your choice. David Bushing

[Centerfield]

Your candidness in answering the dealer/authenticator question is refreshing. I understand your dilemma, but continue to respectfully disagree that both can be done simultaneously without conflict.

Similarly, I cannot get beyond the point that any person with vast experience in our hobby who has access to even the most basic published glove manufacturing data can make mistakes in identifying the piece of leather they have on their hand. Inexperienced collectors aside, it boils down to carelessness or over-salesmanship. With more and more collectors becoming their own dealers online, we see over-salesmanship on a recurrent basis. Pumping up a product is nothing new, but misstating facts in an era where the consumer/collector is more advanced than ever discredits the seller. I am speaking in generalities here, not directly toward Mr. Bushing, though in my opinion, the above cited MEARS examples must fall into either the carelessness or over-salesmanship category. Whichever it may be, I trust it will be taken as a learning experience. If it is carelessness, it is not a quality the hobby wishes for its authenticators. If it is overzealous fluff to help in selling an item, so be it, but customers have long memories. Inaccuracies promote distrust.

Back to generalities in carelessness and over-salesmanship. I believe one or the other of these two evils lies at the root of a topic on another thread; workman’s gloves. Joe’s right on the money in his definition of what a workman’s glove is, or at least what is generally accepted in the hobby. Again, discounting glove neophytes, sellers who say they have a workman’s glove for sale (which it’s clearly not) are either careless in their research or overselling the glove in hopes of fooling a prospective buyer. Given the amount of information currently available, in my opinion, both are inexcusable.