NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used > Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:21 AM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default Heritage Hypocrisy

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.

Last edited by shelly; 02-21-2013 at 01:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-21-2013, 01:50 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

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.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-21-2013, 02:30 PM
jgmp123 jgmp123 is offline
James Graham
James Gra.ham
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Greenwood, Indiana
Posts: 1,855
Default

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...
__________________
"What I have done after my baseball career -- being able to help people with their lives and getting their lives back on track so they become productive human beings again -- that means more to me than all the things I did in baseball" - Don Newcombe

https://www.collectorfocus.com/collection/jgmp123

Last edited by jgmp123; 02-21-2013 at 02:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2013, 03:28 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
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.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-21-2013, 03:35 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

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.
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."

Last edited by HRBAKER; 02-21-2013 at 03:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-21-2013, 03:44 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HRBAKER View Post
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.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-21-2013, 03:50 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-21-2013, 03:55 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
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.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:01 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
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.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:07 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:10 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
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.
Right! My point is that now giving the date of this particular ball is in no way hypocritical. In fact, it is in direct reponse to being forced to pull the other balls down and is what Heritage should have done in the first damn place.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:31 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack View Post
Right! My point is that now giving the date of this particular ball is in no way hypocritical. In fact, it is in direct reponse to being forced to pull the other balls down and is what Heritage should have done in the first damn place.
Wayne, Ban Johnson was the commissioner through 1927, so a forger would have to have gotten a 1927 or earlier ball. Notice that the ball has stamped on it 'PAT'D.MAR.17-25'. A forger would almost certainly have grabbed one with that stamp, meaning any ball he used would have a one out of three chance of being the correct one, even if he was just guessing. That doesn't seem like quite the miracle that Heritage is claiming.

I posted pics of both balls because I found it odd that the stitching is going in different directions. I thought Reach was anal about that sort of thing, but I guess not.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 11-30-2014 at 12:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:37 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

where were their expert authenticators on the balls they took down, like the 1940 gehrig and the ty cobb signed wilson ball. why arent the awesome authenticators on those balls as well. why just awesome on the ones that heritage wants them to be awesome on?

its VERY hypocritical.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:46 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
where were their expert authenticators on the balls they took down, like the 1940 gehrig and the ty cobb signed wilson ball. why arent the awesome authenticators on those balls as well. why just awesome on the ones that heritage wants them to be awesome on?

its VERY hypocritical.
We have different definitions of hypocritical. It seems to me that this was done in response to those others being pulled down. THAT IS A GOOD THING, regardless of your inability to admit it.

Whether they continue remains to be seen.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:50 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
Wayne, Ban Johnson was the commissioner through 1927, so a forger would have to have gotten a 1927 or earlier ball. Notice that the ball has stamped on it 'PAT'D.MAR.17-25'. A forger would almost certainly have grabbed one with that stamp, meaning any ball he used would have a one out of three chance of being the correct one, even if he was just guessing. That doesn't seem like quite the miracle that Heritage is claiming.

I posted pics of both balls because I found it odd that the stitching is going in different directions. I thought Reach was anal about that sort of thing, but I guess not.
OK, thanks. I'm learning more. Is it not true that this ball is most certainly a 1927 model? Is that the 1 in 3 that you speak of?


Do you think it's a bad/hypocritical thing that this information was posted by Heritage, as others here seem to be arguing?
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all

Last edited by mighty bombjack; 02-21-2013 at 04:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:53 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Getting back to the Heritage 'working backwards from the fact that it is authentic' logic. We've already mentioned the fallacy of the argument that because the ball is correct, the signatures must be legitimate. We also know that because Johnson was gone after 1927, and a new patent mark was introduced in 1925, even if there was a different ball for each year (1925,1926,1927), a forger would only have to choose from three types of balls. Here, Heritage uses backwards logic again:

"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..."

Why does Heritage assume that the good guys figured it out first? If I were a skilled forger, I would be doing my damnedest to figure out the differences between balls created in those three years. This ball surfaced prior to 1999. Here's more backward logic: the assumption is that it would be easier to find a signed 1927 Yankees team ball in pristine condition, than to find a 1927 ball in pristine condition. Why? Because they have one that is signed and not the other way around.

As I said, everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not picking on anyone. I think it's completely human to work backward from supposed fact. But it's sure not very scientific.

PLEASE: what little I know about baseball stamps from this period, I just learned through googling. Please feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes, which I am willing to bet I did.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 02-21-2013 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 02-21-2013, 04:59 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty bombjack View Post
OK, thanks. I'm learning more. Is it not true that this ball is most certainly a 1927 model? Is that the 1 in 3 that you speak of?


Do you think it's a bad/hypocritical thing that this information was posted by Heritage, as others here seem to be arguing?
I'm only learning this stuff through googling I did today, and I could certainly have made errors. According to Heritage, it is a 1927 model. I have no reason to believe they are incorrect. Whoops - misread your post. The '1 in 3' I mentioned is the odds of a forger choosing the correct ball from the limited information he would have had pre-1999. I don't necessarily agree with Heritage that a forger wouldn't have been able to narrow his odds down to 1 in 1. We really don't know.

No, it's great that they posted the information. I don't see it as hypocritical - I just see it as unintentionally using fallacious logic. It's human and not intentionally misleading (in my opinion).
__________________
$co++ Forre$+

Last edited by Runscott; 02-21-2013 at 05:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:07 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

Wayne, agreed that they gave us the date of the ball to show that the ball is authentic. It does not make the autographs on the ball authentic. That is what I find hypocritical. They have never once said that there most respected people authenticated crap. Because the ball is real we should think that the autographs have to be as well.

Last edited by shelly; 02-21-2013 at 05:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:07 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
I'm only learning this stuff through googling I did today, and I could certainly have made errors. According to Heritage, it is a 1927 model. I have no reason to believe they are incorrect. Whoops - misread your post. The '1 in 3' I mentioned is the odds of a forger choosing the correct ball from the limited information he would have had pre-1999. I don't necessarily agree with Heritage that a forger wouldn't have been able to narrow his odds down to 1 in 1. We really don't know.

No, it's great that they posted the information. I don't see it as hypocritical - I just see it as unintentionally using fallacious logic. It's human and not intentionally misleading (in my opinion).
Cool. I also think that the '1 in 3' thing isn't really relevent, because I see no reason to believe, even given a 1927 rosters of signers, that a 1927 ball would have a greater chance of being authentic than a 1926 ball.

I read this latest posting from them not as THE argument that the ball is authentic, but as them attempting to cover their butts. Whoops, we didn't do this with those other balls, but look at this! We have (now, after the fact) done it with this one!

They are still coupling the appropriacy of the ball with the TPAs to make an argument of authenticity, which is the more problematic issue given that the Gehrig ball had those letters as well.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:09 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
Wayne, agreed that they gave us the date of the ball to show that the ball is authentic. It does not make the autographs on the ball authentic. That is what I find hypocritical. They have never once said that there most respected people authenticated crap. Know because the ball is real we should think that the autographs have to be as well.
It does not make it authentic, but it shows that they have (finally) done their due diligence on this ball at least.

They are still coupling the dating of the ball WITH the TPA LOAs. THAT is their argument for authenticity, for whatever it is worth. And they need to recognize that we know the Gehrig sweet spot ball had those same TPA LOAs
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all

Last edited by mighty bombjack; 02-21-2013 at 05:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:19 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

I also think we should look at the total list of Nash vs Heritage. What do you think the chances are that one or more might be pulled.
I have to tell you that I have told Peter that I would not help them in any way until the auction was over. It is not his job or anyone else to help the third largest auction house in the world. No one is getting paid except there experts. They have never thanked anyone for helping them. Instead they make us out to be the fools. /ˌkæviːɑːt ˈɛmptɔr/) That should be Heritage's motto.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:27 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

I can't imagine helping Nash with anything, but it's obvious that by discussing these items here, we ARE helping him:

Historically, about a week after we have discussed something to death, Nash writes a blog about it, using all of our arguments, but each one now comes from a mysterious expert, or from himself. When he does actually give the expert's name, he's still published the idea after we already came up with it, so I'm sure he just finds someone who agrees with us and then publishes it as if it's the result of his own research.

Pretty deplorable, not just as a human, but also as regards writing integrity.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:52 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

Scott, I did not help him. I said the way you make the biggest impact is to let the item sell. By telling Heritage before it happens only makes them look good. I said it on the last thread if you can not say who the person is do not quote them. This is how the country does business by saying some one said something but I cant tell you who.
I do have to say that not matter what you think of him he has helped save people a great deal of money.

Last edited by shelly; 02-21-2013 at 06:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-21-2013, 05:55 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Wayne, here's a site with info on dating baseballs: http://keymancollectibles.com/offici...uebaseball.htm

Also, I found other 1927 balls with the stitches reversed - no rhyme or reason to that.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:11 PM
David Atkatz's Avatar
David Atkatz David Atkatz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,099
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
I said it on the last thread if you can not say who the person is do not quote them. This is how the country does business by saying some one said something buy I cant tell you who.
Right you are, Shelly!

(Too bad your good buddy doesn't agree with you.)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:19 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

You just did it yourself. Who are you talking about. I have lots of good buddy's
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:34 PM
David Atkatz's Avatar
David Atkatz David Atkatz is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 3,099
Default

Pardon me. Your good buddy Richard.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:40 PM
RichardSimon's Avatar
RichardSimon RichardSimon is offline
Richard Simon
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,425
Default

Shelly has encouraged me to do this, so here is the story I have about the ball.
Three people I communicated with have already posted their opinions about the ball in the other thread. Two of those people were negative about the ball (one went as far as truly mocking the authenticators (Ray Charles is pretty funny stuff) and one was Shelly.
The positive opinion on the ball came from Chris.
That leaves two people who have negative opinions about the ball. One was Peter Nash. I am waiting for the other person to answer my e mail asking for permission to reveal his name.
__________________
Sign up & receive my autograph price list. E mail me,richsprt@aol.com, with your e mail. Sports,entertainment,history.
-
Here is a link to my online store. Many items for sale. 10% disc. for 54 members. E mail me first.
www.bonanza.com/booths/richsports
--
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."- Clarence Darrow

Last edited by RichardSimon; 02-21-2013 at 06:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-21-2013, 06:42 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

Scott, I think I forgot to say that the reason I felt no one should help Heritage. My thinking was the way you make an impact on this hobby is to show just how little you can trust anyone. If they had sold those baseballs the impact would have been so strong that Heritage would have to admit that mistakes where made.
Instead they just took them down and looked perfect in the eyes of the bidders. You have to remember just how many people read this site. If those pieces where sold and then found to be bad it would have been seen in many different places besides net 54
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:00 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
I also think we should look at the total list of Nash vs Heritage. What do you think the chances are that one or more might be pulled.
I have to tell you that I have told Peter that I would not help them in any way until the auction was over. It is not his job or anyone else to help the third largest auction house in the world. No one is getting paid except there experts. They have never thanked anyone for helping them. Instead they make us out to be the fools. /ˌkæviːɑːt ˈɛmptɔr/) That should be Heritage's motto.
Why would Heritage pull any of them? Because Peter Nash says that some unnamed experts have made fun of these items? I love what Nash and people on this board are doing, but this is opinion versus opinion.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:10 PM
BigJJ BigJJ is offline
J0n Fu.ld
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Runscott View Post
Why does Heritage assume that the good guys figured it out first? If I were a skilled forger, I would be doing my damnedest to figure out the differences between balls created in those three years.
Agreed. I think we have all been impressed, not sure if this is the correct word, by the creations of forgers of memorabilia, particularly ultra valuable early memorabilia, and particularly in the 1990s. From 19th century uniforms and balls, to engraved items, to autographs, etc. I do not doubt for an instant that individuals knew of the distinction.

All someone had to do was reference another 1927 signed Yankees ball to see the exact stampings the ball had on it. Literally, that's all you would need to have done. And I think a forger likely would have done Exactly that.

And I agree very much that individuals, who have become students of a field, know dates and other information about certain memorabilia that the general market does not. It is 2013, and I have my own stash of early bat anomaly dating and other early baseball knowledge, as we all do. Cannot make money dealing in physical objects of value unless you have information others do not.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:20 PM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJJ View Post
It is 2013, and I have my own stash of early bat anomaly dating and other early baseball knowledge, as we all do. Cannot make money dealing in physical objects of value unless you have information others do not.
Funny you should mention this. I have a 1910's bat that I needed to date more precisely, in order to verify its provenance. I learned nuances about early bat labels that were so esoteric that no one here would even respond to my posts. I learned these things because I was motivated. Forgers are also motivated.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:33 PM
keithsky keithsky is online now
keith janosky
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,451
Default

Not sure if this goes along with what everyone is saying but I find that auction house especially the bigger ones just go by what PSA and JSA say as gospel without ever doing research of there own to see if things are fake or not. The experts they have working for them should have knowledge of what is real or not as I would think that is why they were hired in the first place. There argument is they probably don't have the time or money to look at everything to see if it's real so we'll pass it off to the TPA and let them decide so we don't have to be responsible if it is fake or not. And also when someone questions them on something that looks questionable the auction houses don't ever seem to want to listen to reason because it's not from PSA or JSA so we all must not know what were talking about in there mind. Were not the big authenticators they use and they know everything. I have seen more knowledgeable guys on this website that really know there stuff way more than the guys at the big 2 TPA. Just my opinions and views
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:34 PM
BigJJ BigJJ is offline
J0n Fu.ld
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 613
Default

I think the real culprit is that there is over-reliance and over-trust in authenticators. Authenticators should/may be used. But the houses should be double checking each and every item to a reasonable degree. Especially since some authenticators work solo, and have no one in-office doing a double check, like an accountant, legal, or medical office. As individual Net 54 members, we occasionally can't quite put together the pieces, but you put enough of us together reviewing each other and we get it right.

Last edited by BigJJ; 02-21-2013 at 09:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:40 PM
BigJJ BigJJ is offline
J0n Fu.ld
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 613
Default

Keithsky, was writing as you posted. Agreed.
The houses ought to be hiring people who know a Ruth signature, a Gehrig signature, Ruths bat specs for 1923, the value of a Plank in PSA 5, authentication of pre 1970 jerseys, like the back of their hand. I knew more at age 10 than some of the turkeys gobbling around the houses. They ought to have people on staff at all the houses who, without having to reference, can double check on game used, autos, cards, etc. And especially the pre-war.

Last edited by BigJJ; 02-21-2013 at 07:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:50 PM
shelly shelly is offline
Shelly Jaf.fe
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,248
Default

Big JJ, the problem is that the items we are talking about are not five and ten dollars but twenty to five hundred thousand. I would think you would try just a little harder for that kind of money. They have never said a thank you to the people that saved there butts. I would also say for that kind of money I sure as hell would go outside the box.

Last edited by shelly; 02-21-2013 at 08:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-21-2013, 07:56 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
Scott, I did not help him. I said the way you make the biggest impact is to let the item sell. By telling Heritage before it happens only makes them look good. I said it on the last thread if you can not say who the person is do not quote them. This is how the country does business by saying some one said something but I cant tell you who.
I do have to say that not matter what you think of him he has helped save people a great deal of money.

we (me and mark) just let the boxing items sell now, we used to help, they didnt appreciate it,

they would just take credit for our experience and our bailing them out and they didnt want to listen. they were patronizing and said that we didnt understand how big auction houses work so basically buzz off. we did buzz off. now the items just sell and then they can handle the returns and refunds and the embarrassment. we were more than happy to help below the radar in private if they would just appreciate it. they didn't. they had an attitude about it and now we are banned and couldn't be happier. the bad boxing just sells with abc and xyz certs. that's what they get.

Last edited by travrosty; 02-21-2013 at 07:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-21-2013, 08:58 PM
BigJJ BigJJ is offline
J0n Fu.ld
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 613
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shelly View Post
Big JJ, the problem is that the items we are talking about are not five and ten dollars but twenty to five hundred thousand. I would think you would try just a little harder for that kind of money. They have never said a thank you to the people that saved there butts. I would also say for that kind of money I sure as hell would go outside the box.
Agree. Should have done more review/research, or, should have done better review/research. May have double checked everything and erroneously confirmed the authentications/other evidence.

All the houses ought to have intelligent and knowledgeable people double checking the evidence and authentications. Particularly the ultra high value items.

The real problem is there are few of these individuals at the houses who are intelligent and knowledgeable. I am cracking up just thinking about it. Even some of the guys at the houses who have acquired knowledge over the years, I think we all know, are idiots.

Lack of such skilled staff is, in part, why there is so much reliance on authentication letters.

There are many 'good guys' who go "wow" and talk about the game, and/or some prices, and are consignment directors, and get the pieces in, but very few highly knowledgeable research workers at the houses.

They have to hire brilliant people. I agree with Keithsky, there are a multitude on here who are much more capable. In general, more such people, in my opinion, on the collecting and hobby side, than the servicing side.

Last edited by BigJJ; 02-21-2013 at 09:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:10 PM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,597
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJJ View Post
Keithsky, was writing as you posted. Agreed.
The houses ought to be hiring people who know a Ruth signature, a Gehrig signature, Ruths bat specs for 1923, the value of a Plank in PSA 5, authentication of pre 1970 jerseys, like the back of their hand. I knew more at age 10 than some of the turkeys gobbling around the houses. They ought to have people on staff at all the houses who, without having to reference, can double check on game used, autos, cards, etc. And especially the pre-war.
+100 - I couldn't agree more
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-21-2013, 09:33 PM
HRBAKER's Avatar
HRBAKER HRBAKER is offline
Jeff
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 5,255
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Garner View Post
+100 - I couldn't agree more
The hobby's almost unfailing allegiance/acceptance of these LOAs and card grading has created a situation where the AHs get a "pass" from having to incur this additional expense. Why raise your overhead when your customers are telling you that you don't need to?
__________________
Check out my aging Sell/Trade Album on my Profile page

HOF Type Collector + Philly A's, E/M/W cards, M101-6, Exhibits, Postcards, 30's Premiums & HOF Photos

"Assembling an unfocused collection for nearly 50 years."
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-21-2013, 11:56 PM
chaddurbin's Avatar
chaddurbin chaddurbin is offline
qu@n nguy3n
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,688
Default

imo a big reason why ah don't use in-house people is because they'd be on the hook financially if the item is bad. they have more to gain by going blindly with a tpa and passing the blame off. i ran into both scenarios recently, lelands re-imbursed me because they admitted they screwed up...legendary banned me because they don't play the "opinion game" and "that's what jsa is for" on a questionable piece.

alot less overhead, experts, and time invested just going with psa/dna or jsa, because if there's a problem then you bring the item back to jsa or psa with that cert.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-22-2013, 06:45 AM
sports-rings's Avatar
sports-rings sports-rings is offline
Mi_ch.ael Bo,rk_in
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
They have never said a thank you to the people that saved there butts.
My experience with notifying auction houses about fake championship rings has been that about 2/3 of the auction houses appreciate my help, take my claims seriously, and remove the items from their auctions. If some want a second opinion that's fine, usually this results in the items being removed.

About a third of the auction houses go into denial, or refuse to do anything. I won't rat them out today, but I have in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:13 AM
Runscott's Avatar
Runscott Runscott is offline
Belltown Vintage
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,651
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sports-rings View Post
My experience with notifying auction houses about fake championship rings has been that about 2/3 of the auction houses appreciate my help, take my claims seriously, and remove the items from their auctions. If some want a second opinion that's fine, usually this results in the items being removed.

About a third of the auction houses go into denial, or refuse to do anything. I won't rat them out today, but I have in the past.
I have only had one bad personal experience, and I'm still hoping it was an anomaly, but I think I'm in denial. My experience gave strong evidence of the following:
  • they will placate the customer to a point
  • they rely solely on the opinion of the authenticators
  • the man behind the LOA does not care if the autograph is actually authentic - they are trying to write as many LOA's as possible, and if it will pass the consumer, they will authenticate it
  • so the obvious conclusion is that the auction house also does not care if an autograph is authentic or not
  • i.e-they are selling COA's, not collectibles
__________________
$co++ Forre$+
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-22-2013, 10:18 AM
RichardSimon's Avatar
RichardSimon RichardSimon is offline
Richard Simon
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New York City
Posts: 5,425
Default

--- delete ---
__________________
Sign up & receive my autograph price list. E mail me,richsprt@aol.com, with your e mail. Sports,entertainment,history.
-
Here is a link to my online store. Many items for sale. 10% disc. for 54 members. E mail me first.
www.bonanza.com/booths/richsports
--
"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure."- Clarence Darrow

Last edited by RichardSimon; 02-22-2013 at 10:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What do you think of this Heritage offering? travrosty Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports 125 02-23-2013 10:44 AM
So, how'd we do in Heritage Archive Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum 10 10-24-2008 06:18 PM
Heritage e99 Lot Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 11 05-06-2007 11:48 PM
heritage Archive Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions 15 05-29-2005 11:38 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:24 AM.


ebay GSB