Mastro & MEARS

[vintagebrett]

Time to slip back into my politcally correct moderator outfit.

I think everyone makes mistakes, from people with much experience to people with little. What they do when they are called on those mistakes is what matters. The technology age gives the consumer more resources than ever before to do homework on an item before they purchase it. Forums like this one allow for niche collectors to gain greater insight into a product they may wish to purchase. If a mistake has been made and the buyer calls the seller on it, the seller should refund the purchase to make things right. Since we are talking about MEARS in this thread, I'll use them as an example - they have said they will refund your purchase. If you look at most auction houses, all sales are final and you are pretty much SOL if you later find the purchase you made was not authentic. Sellers should back their products and when mistakes are made, should make changes.

Like you have also stated, overselling a product is nothing new. I know one dealer my dad has purchased some gloves from and had to send them back because they had a difference of opinion on condition. Condition is subjective but I do agree that facts about an item are not. However, sharing information in this technology age is easy and letting a seller know something you know that they may not, regardless of knowledge base, is much more productive to the collecting community as a whole.

[softball66]

Centerfield is correct. Descriptions, especially on sales products, should be done carefully and detailed period. Dating is important and shouldn't be relied upon only the Glove Catalog Source book, if other means like patch dating, stamping changes are availabe to you, i.e. the manufacturers catalog.
I just ran across this and wrote about it in the latest newsletter how an auction house received a "purported" gamer Mickey Mantle MM personal model Rawlings. It was dated to 1954, but after examining the Rawlings catalog for the 1954 to 1959 era, found the glove could not have been made before 1956 because of changes in the glove from its introduction year in 1954. That sort of squelched the provenance on the original glove owner's claim and cast the glove into doubt.
Which brings me to the point that Scott Calev has agreed to join hands with us in putting out a "strictly" Mickey Mantle glove book. I think our forum members will be happy about that. Scott had already written a preliminary draft and we're honing that right now.
"Overselling" lures many in its clutches a bit and it gets a big rampant on eBay. I've seen the same thing though with gamer equipment provenance (documentation). As the sage Col. Dave Grob says..."the item IS WHAT IT IS!"
As many of the forum members know, Dave Bushing and I go a long way back in the business and I've never found him to be dishonest in my many dealings with him. When either he or I have made a mistake on a transaction, we have immediately corrected it and remedied it.

[Centerfield]

Thanks Joe, will definitely purchase the Mantle book when it’s published!

Has anyone else noticed how well (or not so well) auctions end when glove descriptions are verbose and/or potentially misleading versus succinct and completely factual? In my recollection, which is completely unscientific, stating simple facts about a glove and letting photos sell it, works best. Obviously, if the glove is desirable, it will sell no matter what is written, factual or not. I have sold gloves both with very brief factual descriptions as well as with long drawn out stories. Curiously, potential buyers, more often than not, skipped completely over what was written and asked questions where the answers were there in front of them! As a seller, this was frustrating. Perhaps the average reading comprehension rate is declining in the country! Furthermore, it makes sense that the more one writes, the greater the chance that misinformation or mistakes can occur. Just some observations.

[david bushing]

Joe, it is obvious that a book on Mantle gloves and design changes is needed esp. when these changes are well documented and dated. As for gloves that were offered to the retail/store trade and now come with supposed history as for potential major league use. Players and family memories are often far off the mark as you well know. When buying a retail glove with a "story", if the glove is top of the line and from the era in which he played and you cannot find an photo documentation but the person with the story has a legitimate reason to have said story, you are still buying the story more than the item, good enough for some, not others. The Mantle store model gloves on Mears are changed to circa 50's and 1968 therefore no more confusion and we will let the dedicated Mantle experts determine if it is 1957 or 1958 , neither of which was an oversell since neither should bring a premium and we do not have documented proof at present besides the glove index.
As for the dog chew glove, we have yet to be told when it was bought, what it was, what was paid, or even a picture of said glove along with the supposed write up to see if it was misgraded nor do we have any proof that this situation ever even existed but have publically stated we will refund for any reason, and in this case, without any proof it even happened. Send it back to us with what you said was paid, after that, offering a full refund on a piece I don't even have proof we sold (at present) or even a reason as to why it wouldn't have been returned at time of sale if unhappy so this whole issue about an overgraded glove at present is nothing but here say and we will still buy it back.

[Centerfield]

The chew toy is long gone. Saying I gave it to my dog was for effect, but I did throw it away soon after receiving it. It occurred many years ago, late 90's or early 00's, not sure when exactly. It was a Spalding 133 DiMaggio that was petrified beyond belief. We actually spoke on the phone at the time and, though I don't recall exactly what was said, a refund wasn't offered or I would have sent it back. Your refund policy has obviously changed for the better since then! I don't recall the price, but it was close to $500 (back then, DiMaggio's weren't known to be as plentiful, hence the higher price). I appreciate your concern, all these years later, but I am not looking for restitution. I chalked it up to a learning experience long ago. It's simply a cost associated with collecting.

That said, I must admit that I avoided dealing with you for years. Last year, however, I bit the bullet and bought a Reach Ruth from you on the MEARS website. Again we spoke on the phone because there was a mistake in your description. You stated that it was the only large signature Ruth you’d ever seen. That may very well be true, but I had once owned a large signature Spalding Ruth that had every indication of being produced during the late 1920’s, perhaps a prototype to the Home Run Special, but at least pre-dating that model run. The description for your Reach alluded to it being a 1920’s model and had no mention of being a Home Run Special. When I received it, the HRS stampings where as clear as day. I called, we spoke, and this time you did offer a refund. I liked the glove, however, so I kept it. It would have been nice, though, to have had a more complete description of the glove before I bought it. Would knowing it was a HRS have changed my mind? Probably not, I would have likely bought it anyway. But again, it rubbed me the wrong way because it was a glaring omission. I felt that information was purposely left out in hopes of trying to sell the glove more quickly as a more rare 1920’s model rather than a glove from the 1930’s, which is what it is. Perhaps it was not intentional at all, but it was perceived that way and perception is a powerful thing. Again, I have learned a lesson. I need to be more vigilant as a buyer. Will I avoid MEARS in the future? Perhaps for a while, but when they offer a Ken Wel Gehrig for sale, I’ll be the first one on the phone to inquire!

[david bushing]

Good points. I think that sometimes, in a rush to get write ups done, I may overlook details that I deem unimportant that are equally important to others. Rushing thru a write up is no excuse and it is never our/my intention to do so to try and make something better than it is and oft-times , I am called and try and describe an item from memory which at my age, should never be done. That said, I am glad that regardless of my ommissions on the Ruth glove that it fit your colleting criteria and as for the DiMaggio glove and to regain your business, you have a $400 credit with us anytime on any item. Unfortunately, no gehrig glove in stock. In our Mantle write ups, they were taken per what was listed in glove index. Since there did not seem to me to be more/less value on a 57 or 58 nor a 68-69, I did not feel the need to go into the actual catalogs instead using the source book as a dating tool and the verbage listed ie autograph vs professional model . This was not done to oversell or rarify said items as I feel there is no premium regardless of which year they were made and the mistake of trying to pinpoint the exact year per glove index was simply trying to nail down a factory documented mfg year, not for fluff purpose as they are simply nice condition vintage Mantle gloves of no real historical importance yet are extremely nice conditiion given the forty or more years they have been around.

[david bushing]

The title on the MEARS for sale/sold sight states 1930's Ruth glove and following is the write up. Home run special can be seen in photograph but I did not mention in write up. It along with every item ever sold by us is permanantly archived in the sold section of our for sale sight. The description when sold is as follows "This might very well be the deepest stamped Ruth glove I have ever seen. It is the large signature model with a stamp you can see across the room. While the glove is used, the exterior leather is near perfect with a great patina, a perfect cloth patch on back, and no writing or stains/tears of any kind. A solid ex-mt example with the best signature you will ever see. Fits LH "
Item Photographs: still on sold sight.
It is listed as a 1930's model, not 1920's and I am sorry that the ommission of model number or HRS markings led you to believe that I was wrong in my 1930's title and that you purchased said glove hoping it was a 1920's model. In addition, while it may have been the only large signature model Ruth glove I have had, it is not listed as such in the for sale sight write up. In the future, we will endeavor to list all important markings and make sure they are clearly photographed so that any questions can be answered before they are even asked. David Bushing

[Centerfield]

I appreciate the credit, Dave, though it’s not necessary. Perhaps I’ll use it, though, if you were to snag a zipperback Gehrig before I can get one! Wish I could have used it toward the MM8 box before you sent it off to REA!

You are correct, the Ruth was sold as a 30’s model. My apologies. The lack of the HRS stampings in the description is what threw me and led to thinking it may be older. Here is a link to the Spalding large Ruth signature glove I used to own. Though very similar to the Reach, it is not a HRS.

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... 0Jerry.JPG

I’m sure everyone on the board appreciates your candor, as I have, and hopes you stick around to add to discussions. There are a lot of newer collectors who are eager to learn and this board has proven invaluable for them. Similarly, there are some long-time collectors here as well and perhaps your presence can help lure them from lurking to participating. There’s a lot to discuss and learn, hopefully it’ll be fun for all involved (including heated debates!).

[david bushing]

I like this forum and my first forray into this business was vintage gloves as it was a mel ott goldsmith that got me to sell my card collection and start collecting and dealing in equipment. It seems like a lifetime ago but I still like minty and rare gloves, always have and always will . The first vintage glove I ever sold was a Van Lingle Mungo and I have never seen nor had one since. Would love to find a minty example for myself. Thanks for the opportunity to join in . David Bushing