Problems with two championship rings in upcoming Heritage Auction

[sports-rings]

I wanted to alert the collecting community to two items in the upcoming Heritage Platinum Night live and internet Auction to take place during the National.

I believe there is evidence that I am going to show below that these two rings have been tampered with and the story that goes along with the rings has a few holes in them.

Heritage was told the stories by the consigner, so in a sense, Heritage is not embellishing anything, just repeating the claims of the consigner.

Before I go further, I'd like to make some disclosures.

I consider my relationship at the current moment with Heritage to be in good standing. I won a high-ticket item in their last live sports auction and I have consigned football rings with them in the past (the last item I consigned with them was NY Jets super bowl ring that sold for over 53,000 during a live NY City auction).

I truly hope that Heritage will not ban me from participating as a bidder in future auctions for this post. If I am banned then it would have to be from this post.

I hope that Heritage will modify the two listings to more accurately describe the rings, or pull them since they have been heavily modified from their original state.

I further want to disclose that I was contacted by the consigner of these two rings and invited to buy them from him before he placed them in this auction. I was very excited about the opportunity to purchase these rings as we have done business together over the years.

As soon as he sent me pictures of the rings and I verified the story about these rings, it became obvious that they were modified and that the story does not make sense. I declined to purchase the rings at any price and the seller decided his best course of action was to send them to Heritage for auction.

I contacted Chris Ivy at Heritage and emailed him pictures and my concerns. Chris has been great, returning my emails and letting me know that they are investigating the two rings. I don't understand why the investigation is taking as long as it is and Chris's response on this is that they want to get the changes correctly and that they have time to modify it before the auction.

Chris did indicate in one of the first emails to me that he agreed with me, that the rings looked to have been modified.

It seems like this is taking much too long and I worry someone will buy the ring, not realizing the issues.

I believe these were real rings (probably salesman sample rings) but Mr. Edwards had his name engraved on them.

Mr. Edwards claimed he tried to make the teams but didn't make the roster. He told the consigner of these rings that Ownership really liked him and kept him around on the practice squad. This claim is stated in both Heritage lots.

Please examine the photos below. The "Edwards" rings in the auction are shown on the left. To the right of each ring are examples of real rings.

The "44" on the XIII ring is wrong, and the dots on his helmet are square, not round. The "44" is too big, and there are some issues with the lettering in both rings.

The "DB" looks wrong too on the xiii ring.

Yet, the markings on the super bowl XIII ring are good, but the lettering/engraving is awful. And why is the black paint so much more shiny than it should be?

On the super bowl X ring, His "A" and "W" are not the same as two real rings I have in my database. And don't get me started on the "S"

And, there is absolutely no person named "Don or Donald Edwards who played for the Steelers, and no "Don or Donald Edwards" in college football other than a qb who played years before.

I also researched practice squads from this era and it looks like practice squads were not used during the time Mr. Edwards claimed to be on the squad. You either made the team or you were cut. I believe the practice squad concept started in the 1980's or 1990's when teams reduced players on the team to save salary. It was a way to deal with injuries to active players while keeping team payroll lower.

What do you net54 folks think?

[sports-rings]

wow, no opinions or thoughts from the collecting community?

[Runscott]

Michael, I know nothing about rings, but if I had been interested in them I would have bid without hesitation. Now that you've shown the obvious problems, I wouldn't touch them. Thanks for teaching us something.

[Lordstan]

I will echo Scott's comments. I don't know anything about rings, but the differences are pretty obvious once you know what you're looking for.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I will echo Scott's comments. I don't know anything about rings, but the differences are pretty obvious once you know what you're looking for.

I agree, the differences are pretty obvious. Yet as the days continue to pass the two item descriptions remain unchanged and there have been numerous bids on both items.

I am not sure if Heritage's investigation has now concluded or is still going on. Chris said he would update the listings and make an announcement at the live auction should they conclude that they need to change the description of either item.

There are a couple of "ring experts" in the hobby, including one under the PSA umbrella of authentication services.

I hope Heritage will seek other opinions on the rings if they still feel at the conclusion of their investigation that the last name, the uniform number and player-position on the rings look original and not modified.

[mcgwirecom]

Nice work, it does look more than questionable. Surprised that a big auction house like that wouldn't listen to a knowledgable collector.

In the past I would peruse the auctions for McGwire signed items. This was before there were any big TPAs. For the most part they would remove items based on my opinion. Thats why I am surprised they wouldn't listen to you!

[Lordstan]

Micheal,
I must agree with Jason and James. I think posting here was the right thing to do. Rings are not my collecting field, but I find your posts very educational and interesting. I find that seeing how people go through the thought process of identifying items helps me when I go through the same process of items that I do collect.
Perhaps Chris has a point about you being impatient waiting for them to go through their investigation, but I can't help but think that this whole series of events might have been avoided had the same research been done prior to accepting the ring into the auction. One would think that something as simple as confirming that a player named Edwards could have been on the teams in question should be part of the initial investigation of a player attributed item, like a ring or game used item. I mean would they list a game used NY Yankees uniform supposedly worn by Babe Ruth with the Baseball Centennial patch from 1939? I think that would never make it in to the catalog in the first place. I think the due diligence they owe consignors, to which Chris refers, would be done prior to listing it for sale.
All that being said, in the end, Heritage did get it right, and we should give them credit for doing so. Whether this thread had anything to do with it will never be known and is conjecture. We all need a Mulligan every once in a while.

I hope they don't ban you for expressing your concerns. Please keep posting as I always learn something new when I read them.
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Where does he threaten a lawsuit? I don't see it.

If you're talking about the "protecting the consignors best interest" line, it seems more reasonable that he was referring to their aforementioned desire to only amend the listing once and only once, after their investigation was completed.

[perezfan]

I didn't see the lawsuit threat either... unless it was contained in a separate correspondence between you and Chris.

I can't imagine Heritage would want that, either. They'd have to prove you are wrong, when the overwhelming evidence is on your side. Then they would have to prove actual damages. The legal fees and time spent would easily overshadow any gains they would potentially realize from their commission on those 2 rings. Not to mention the bad publicity, should they lose the case... all over 2 rings? No way would that lawsuit ever come to fruition.

If there was really a lawsuit threat, it was most likely an empty scare tactic.

[sports-rings]

[Given all of this information, it appears to me that you are giving me an arbitrary ultimatum because you are simply impatient. If that is the case, then posting speculation on a message board could materially affect the pieces and the outcome for our consignor, which I take seriously.

Again, I wrote that it could be interpreted that he is hinting at a lawsuit. Perhaps I read too much into it.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I wanted to alert the collecting community to two items in the upcoming Heritage Platinum Night live and internet Auction to take place during the National.

I believe there is evidence that I am going to show below that these two rings have been tampered with and the story that goes along with the rings has a few holes in them.
Heritage was told the stories by the consigner, so in a sense, Heritage is not embellishing anything, just repeating the claims of the consigner.

Before I go further, I'd like to make some disclosures.

I consider my relationship at the current moment with Heritage to be in good standing. I won a high-ticket item in their last live sports auction and I have consigned football rings with them in the past (the last item I consigned with them was NY Jets super bowl ring that sold for over 53,000 during a live NY City auction).

I truly hope that Heritage will not ban me from participating as a bidder in future auctions for this post. If I am banned then it would have to be from this post.

I hope that Heritage will modify the two listings to more accurately describe the rings, or pull them since they have been heavily modified from their original state.

I further want to disclose that I was contacted by the consigner of these two rings and invited to buy them from him before he placed them in this auction. I was very excited about the opportunity to purchase these rings as we have done business together over the years.

As soon as he sent me pictures of the rings and I verified the story about these rings, it became obvious that they were modified and that the story does not make sense. I declined to purchase the rings at any price and the seller decided his best course of action was to send them to Heritage for auction.

I contacted Chris Ivy at Heritage and emailed him pictures and my concerns. Chris has been great, returning my emails and letting me know that they are investigating the two rings. I don't understand why the investigation is taking as long as it is and Chris's response on this is that they want to get the changes correctly and that they have time to modify it before the auction.

Chris did indicate in one of the first emails to me that he agreed with me, that the rings looked to have been modified.

It seems like this is taking much too long and I worry someone will buy the ring, not realizing the issues.

I believe these were real rings (probably salesman sample rings) but Mr. Edwards had his name engraved on them.

Mr. Edwards claimed he tried to make the teams but didn't make the roster. He told the consigner of these rings that Ownership really liked him and kept him around on the practice squad. This claim is stated in both Heritage lots.

Please examine the photos below. The "Edwards" rings in the auction are shown on the left. To the right of each ring are examples of real rings.

The "44" on the XIII ring is wrong, and the dots on his helmet are square, not round. The "44" is too big, and there are some issues with the lettering in both rings.

The "DB" looks wrong too on the xiii ring.

Yet, the markings on the super bowl XIII ring are good, but the lettering/engraving is awful. And why is the black paint so much more shiny than it should be?

On the super bowl X ring, His "A" and "W" are not the same as two real rings I have in my database. And don't get me started on the "S"

And, there is absolutely no person named "Don or Donald Edwards who played for the Steelers, and no "Don or Donald Edwards" in college football other than a qb who played years before.

I also researched practice squads from this era and it looks like practice squads were not used during the time Mr. Edwards claimed to be on the squad. You either made the team or you were cut. I believe the practice squad concept started in the 1980's or 1990's when teams reduced players on the team to save salary. It was a way to deal with injuries to active players while keeping team payroll lower.

What do you net54 folks think?

The above would have been sufficient, and your timeframe was fine if this was the extent of it. Adding your research would be fine (and helpful) also. All eyes would have been on HA to see what they would do. The subsequent stomping of your feet when they didn't act in your timeframe, when they clearly indicated that they heard your concerns, is what I feel you should acknowledge to yourself (not necessarily to anyone else). Again, I get it and I've been there. Trust me, I have learned from my impatience and it has helped me in my efforts. JMO

[William Farrell]

Originally Posted by Deertick

The above would have been sufficient..

The subsequent stomping of your feet when they didn't act in your timeframe, when they clearly indicated that they heard your concerns, is what I feel you should acknowledge to yourself (not necessarily to anyone else).

And IMO, since there was a distinct chain of causality that effected the withdrawal, there's no way to know for certain what the effect would have been had any of the cause leading up to the withdrawal effect been different, is there?

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by William Farrell

And IMO, since there was a distinct chain of causality that effected the withdrawal, there's no way to know for certain what the effect would have been had any of the cause leading up to the withdrawal effect been different, is there?

You are correct.

On an entirely unrelated matter, my wife "reminded" me several times to mow the lawn during my week off as we had a commitment for the weekend. Prior to her first "reminder", I had already planned to do it on Thurs. I told her I would mow on Thurs. I mowed on Thurs. In her mind, she was responsible for getting the lawn mowed.

[William Farrell]

Originally Posted by Deertick

You are correct.

On an entirely unrelated matter, my wife "reminded" me several times to mow the lawn during my week off as we had a commitment for the weekend. Prior to her first "reminder", I had already planned to do it on Thurs. I told her I would mow on Thurs. I mowed on Thurs. In her mind, she was responsible for getting the lawn mowed.

But there wasn't an auction clock running on the fate of your lawn and nothing really was at stake, unless you consider your lawn's perspective on the issue.

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by William Farrell

But there wasn't an auction clock running on the fate of your lawn and nothing really was at stake, unless you consider your lawn's perspective on the issue.

This new guy is a hoot!

I'm new, too....but not as new, or funny, as William.

[Runscott]

After a 12 day absence I was looking at the lawn today and wondering what my girlfriend's expectations would be when she got home. I decided to sleep on it.

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk