Lelands issue - what do you think is right?

[sports-rings]

In the current Leland's auction (you can see the items online as the catalogs have not all been delivered yet) there were three fake rings.

I would like your opinions on this matter.

I am a championship ring collector and have accumulated a large database of rings. This database is a valuable tool in helping to determine if a ring is legit. It's amazing how many fake rings there are out there and now there is a disturbing trend where fake rings have bogus markings inside of the rings with manufacturer's markings to make them look real.

I emailed Leland's about the three rings but I get the feeling they think I am more of a pain in the neck than someone trying to help them and trying to help fellow collectors.

I sent them pictures of three Braves rings and detailed how the three were different than their offering. All they could say was that they would check it out with their "ring expert". Well they did remove the fake ring today.

I alerted them to two Yankee rings that were made by someone who ring collectors know all too well. These two fake rings, with "Balfour" stampings are not real.

I emailed Leland's with pictures showing the differences and Lelands changed the descriptions of both lots from claiming the rings were "exactly what the players received" to an update that says "This is not an exact duplicate. It varies slightly from those that the players received. This ring was made at a later date. "

Please look at my picture and let me know if you feel I am being too picky, or if you feel Lelands is not acting in the best interest of collectors. I would really appreciate the thoughts of others in our hobby. By the way,although Turner's ring is a '55 and Leland's is a '57, the ring molds on the top of the ring are supposed to be 100% identical.

The differrences between Jim Turner's ring and the Leland's ring:

Jim Turner's real ring has three stars below the stones in the hat. All the fakes made lack these stars. Some of the sellers who sell this junk claim Balfour lost the mold and had to recreate the molds. Balfour would never leave something as significant as stars out. Also, notice how big the faux stones are in the Lelands ring. they do not fit in the ring as nicely as the real ring and the stones in the hat are also poorly placed in the Lelands ring.

Look at the shape of both hats. Turner's is much nicer. Notice the "Y" and the stone in the Leland's ring, they are way too close.

Maybe the Lelands ring is kind of close, but should'nt this be classified as a ring copy and not a real Balfour Ring?

[hcv123]

Unfortunately, many people will do anything to make a buck. If what you are saying is lot 431 was made in the last 10-20 years, then how Lelands has edited it is far from sufficient. The real question is do they really know what it is or not - based on their edit, I suspect they might. Knowing it and not clearly saying it imho is al least wrong if not closer to fraud.

-Howard

[Leon]

This statement sounds like they are saying what it is, no?


"This is not an exact duplicate. It varies slightly from those that the players received. This ring was made at a later date."

Has anyone contacted Balfour to ask them if they made this "duplicate". If it is not even made by Balfour, and it is proven, then no, they haven't done enough. I know Josh fairly well can make a call or two......He is even a member on the board but rarely posts. I have only had good dealings with him...

[sports-rings]

would Robert Edwards auctions take a ring that was different and state that it "It varies slightly from those that the players received".

Contacting Balfour would be difficult. A real salesman sample ring is not supposed to make it to the market place. The people that make the vintage Yankee rings can get around this issue more easily than a modern ring since these old rings do not have names on the side of the ring. They can just produce them and throw them into the market place and say "maybe a salesman sample, maybe a front office ring". In my opinion, there are way too many of them out there to be salesman samples. Furthermore, a well known ring and baseball card collector, Irv learner boasts in his Newsletter that he can "make" any Yankee ring you want. He sells the exact same Yankee ring that you see in the current Leland's auction on ebay all the time (it's up there now).

I feel Leland's is not doing the right thing. Furthermore, the only time they seem to address my issues is when I let them know I will be posting these issues on the internet.

[benjulmag]

I know very little about rings so I am making this post not to take issue with what anyone has said but in the hope of educating myself.

The first thing that came to mind as I read the initial post was that the Turner ring is from 1955, and the Leland's ring from 1957. So isn't this then trying to compare an apple to a banana? Being from different years, wouldn't one expect them to look different? The post responded to this question with the following statement:

"By the way,although Turner's ring is a '55 and Leland's is a '57, the ring molds on the top of the ring are supposed to be 100% identical."

So could someone please explain what that means, and why rings produced in different years could not legitimately vary in appearance?

[drc]

I know little to nothing about rings, but my experience is Lelands is a reputable auction house. They may be looking into the issue at this point, and I assuem the auction doesn't end for a few weeks.