Heritage Hypocrisy

[shelly]

I find it so amazing that a company that just had two balls taken out of auction for the reason that the markings on the balls where not from that era. are now makeing a statment that you can read below. Before you read what they said here are few more balls . Heritage’s Fake “Final Out Ball” From The 1917 World Series Wasn’t Made ‘Til 1926; Heritage Withdraws Ball From Auction
Sean Flynn from Wilson told Deadspin that the company’s baseball manufacturing engineer confirmed that the ball allegedly signed by Cobb in 1959 was actually “made in the 1970s.” There are more of these but I guess they have very short memories.


It was only in the past ten years or so that an exhaustive study of the minor variations in stamping styles on Official American and National League baseballs determined that the A.L. balls used in 1927 were a one-year style. In other words, American League baseballs made in 1926 and before, and 1928 and after, are physically different in their stamping styles from the 1927 model. The Combs team ball is the correct 1927 one-year style. So the suggestion that a supposed forger would have known this fact prior to the ball’s first public appearance in 1999, then could have tracked down a pristine example of that exceedingly rare style to use for his forgery, and lastly had the skill to perfectly execute these autographs to pass the finest authenticators in the industry is truly preposterous.

I agree with what Scott said on the other thread. I find it difficult to understand because the ball is real so are the autographs but when the ball was not real the autographs where still authentic in the eyes of the "finest authenticators in the industry." You can't have it both ways. That is what is preposterous.

You are the third largest auction house in the world. You are going to make a ton of money on the sale of the ball. I sure as hell would trust the FBI lab over your "finest authenticators in the industry" Which I would dispute. Spend the money find out who is correct. It is a win win for you.

[Runscott]

Also, '27 was Ban Johnson's last year as commissioner, so any forger would be working with a ball from 1927 or earlier, reducing the odds of using an incorrect ball. I don't know what differentiates balls from Johnson's years, but it might have been easy enough to get one that was 'close' (by pre-1999 standards) and just get lucky. I don't know what the odds would be - anyone?

Also, is it possible that the characteristics used to identify 1927 balls, were based on a forgery? Wouldn't it be ironic if.....nah, not going there.

I think all the auction houses take anything that PSA/DNA or JSA say as gospel, and that's really a shame. Like David pointed out - everyone makes mistakes. It would behoove the auction houses to have someone around (like one of us) to take a look at these things after they've been approved by PSA/DNA and/or JSA, and appropriately nix a few of them in advance.

[jgmp123]

What would the value of a 27' Ban Johnson ball be worth clean, without signatures? and exactly how hard would it be to come across one...

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by shelly

I agree with what Scott said on the other thread. I find it difficult to understand because the ball is real so are the autographs but when the ball was not real the autographs where still authentic in the eyes of the "finest authenticators in the industry." You can't have it both ways. That is what is preposterous.

I think that this was done in response to the other balls being taken down. They are not arguing "the ball is real so the autographs must be" as much as they are saying "we actually did some due diligence (albeit clearly after the fact of posting) with this ball."

We could hope Heritage has learned something from all of this. We could also hope for world peace.

[HRBAKER]

This is a by product of "it's got a cert from the finest authenticators in the industry so it must be good" mentality. These certs and card grading have made it very easy for the AHs to distance themselves IMO from actual in house expertise on items.

They did the right thing when they pulled the other balls.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

This is a by product of "it's got a cert from the finest authenticators in the industry so it must be good" mentality. These certs and card grading have made it very easy for the AHs to distance themselves IMO from actual in house expertise on items.

They did the right thing when they pulled the other balls.

Agreed on both counts.

Further, what is truly hypocritical here is NOT that Heritage is now pointing to the ball itself as an argument for the signature's authenticity. That is a valid argument (though a weak and incomplete one), made most likely in response to the reasons that other baseballs were pulled down. Good for them. What IS htpocritical in this case is that they are continuing to point at the expertise of JSA and PSA/DNA, even as the other ball that was taken down because of markings on it had letters from those same people.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Agreed on both counts.

Further, what is truly hypocritical here is NOT that Heritage is now pointing to the ball itself as an argument for the signature's authenticity. That is a valid argument (though a weak and incomplete one), made most likely in response to the reasons that other baseballs were pulled down. Good for them. What IS htpocritical in this case is that they are continuing to point at the expertise of JSA and PSA/DNA, even as the other ball that was taken down because of markings on it had letters from those same people.

it's not a valid argument, ball dating can only rule out an autograph, never rule one in. fake autographs may or may not be on period balls, but real ones have to be on period balls, they cannot be on out of period balls. so pointing to a period ball only says it is not a definite fake based only on the ball it is signed on, that is all it can say.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

it's not a valid argument, ball dating can only rule out an autograph, never rule one in. fake autographs may or may not be on period balls, but real ones have to be on period balls, they cannot be on out of period balls. so pointing to a period ball only says it is not a definite fake based only on the ball it is signed on, that is all it can say.

As I said, it is a weak and incomplete argument, but it is still an argument and relevant. Jim Stinson is here saying that it's the first thing he does. Heritage is saying that they've done it.

Further, there is more than simple ball dating going on here, which creates a stronger argument (still weak and incomplete, but a step in true autograph verification) and is quite interesting to me. I'm learning quite a bit from this "Platinum Night" auction, most of which Heritage probably didn't want me (or anyone else) to learn.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

it's not a valid argument, ball dating can only rule out an autograph, never rule one in. fake autographs may or may not be on period balls, but real ones have to be on period balls, they cannot be on out of period balls. so pointing to a period ball only says it is not a definite fake based only on the ball it is signed on, that is all it can say.

By the way, most of the arguments against the ball that I've read on here have been "likelihoods" (i.e. spacing, no auto on the sweet spot, roster positioning, etc.). These are compelling and great reasons to not want to risk spending money, but none rule the ball out, obviously.

[shelly]

I think someone is missing the point. The balls where taken down not because of there expert authenticators. It was taken down because people like Nash forced them to by pointing out that the balls where dated for wrong time to have been signed by those people. Those where forgery's on the ball and yet they are trying to tell us how great there people are. I will say this again. They did not take the balls down because they wanted to. They took them down because they had to no other choice.