Heritage descriptions?
 

was flipping through the posting of the May HA auction, and boy, for such a high end auction house, the descriptions of the cards are really terrible. best example is the 1914 CJ Mathewson, in authentic from SGC. Not a single word on why its labeled Authentic? its very hard to tell from the picture (looks like a patched up area in the red color on the front, which doesn't go to the back?). Many others were similarly description challenged.

sure, I can call them and email them (already have) but for the price of these cards, they should do better.

Paul

Card looks trimmed on the left side to me.

The auction only just went live. I'd had items on my tracking list that I marked during the preview and they didn't actually show up as active until today.

Agreed that Heritage’s failure to discuss why the card is graded A, totally sucks.

It’s a good looking card. It looks like the card may have had writing on it (upper left and right side and on the back), that may have been erased and maybe someone tried to recolor or otherwise fix those areas. Regardless, we should not have to discuss and guess on a message board why a card of this prestige is graded A- the AH should tell us that.

I wouldn't expect much from them. In the January David Hall auction they
had this card listed that in the description said it was the highest graded for the Brand/Series

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...ription-071515

It was pointed out to them that they sold one in a higher grade
the prior January

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

In the same auction the description said this Moeller was the only confirmed PSA graded example and it was pointed out to them that there were at least
3 other examples graded by PSA

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...ription-071515

Attachment 451954
Attachment 451955
Attachment 451956

Both items were pointed out to them at the very beginning of the auction and they never changed the descriptions.

Compare and contrast to REA. I pointed something out to Brian in his December auction. It was fixed within ten minutes.

Heritage has had a job posting for a while now for a card specialist. Job duties include researching and writing catalog descriptions. I've been tempted to throw my hat in the ring.

Thanks guys, i placed my marker on the CJ Matty the other day(as high bidder)--not today. I guess i was not the only one looking at this. I too tried to figured out why the AUTH designation...as it did not say. But it presents nicely to add to my PC.

Well, they fixed the Matty CJ description. Colored in red and white in a couple of spots.

i got the description update this morning:
UPDATE: The Authentic assessment is the result of red color being added to a small area above the baseball and white added to the border above that. A crease in the upper right corner also has white added.

I'll take the job if they meet my hourly rate. I write good. :D

fyp

"Most experts believe that the population of authentically signed Topps '52 cards from Mantle number in the single digits."

Simple search of PSA/DNA pop report shows double digits. Albeit just 13

Re: Heritage descriptions?
 

lol!

They could definitely use someone in the research dept.

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

There are at least 3 yellow brown Mathewson's that have been known about
for several years.

Attachment 457420

Attachment 457421

Is SGC no longer authenticating/encapsulating those? I would understand the card not grading numerically; however, it would be helpful to get the holder and "A" grade.

As far as I know they're still grading the scraps, this hand cut missing color
Atz was just graded in March.

Attachment 457456

Heritage should probably stop using words like unique, none higher, pop one ETC... in their descriptions
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515

Attachment 508018



https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515



https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball/1...ription-071515



Attachment 508021

With the number of knowledgeable and presumably well-paid executives, e.g. Derek Grady, it is astonishing to me that there are no safeguards in place to ensure descriptions that are precise and accurate when it comes to pop counts and such. Heritage needs to put "fail safes" in place so this sort of thing stops. It must be excruciatingly embarrassing to the Sports Division to have their false narratives outed.

For our litigator/commercial lawyers on the board: Is an incorrect description valid legal grounds for a winning bidder to not honor their commitment?

We debated this on the Brady ball thread. Depending on the auction house’s terms and conditions and the state law that applies, definitely could be an argument.

Interesting…. The reality is the auction house would black ball you, which could be worse than legal/civil ramifications! Regarding the Brady thread, my feeling is that the description was accurate when the auction ran and when it closed, and so the bidder should be SOL (although I realize the legal answer may be different).

Agreed

For them they need to work on descriptions. Interesting they often re-use the same description from of the same card (different grades) from past auctions and just update the grade to match what is auctioning

And some times they do not even check if known quantities of changes since the description from the past auction listing which is often years old

Their bigger sin is photoshopping wrinkles out of cards, I can forgive dumbass descriptions cuz lazy but photoshopping is an overt action.

I have seen REA do that on quite a few items over the years. I think after awhile you run out of stuff to write, no? But not sure any auction house gives less info about specific card than HA.

I realize they are an advertiser but would like to add, they use a very large type scanner, and from personal experience, wrinkles can be hard if not impossible, to see on some items. I would have a hard time believing anyone there intentionally photo-shopped out wrinkles. Unless you have proof that is a pretty reckless statement.
.

Why write anything about a graded high value card? I mean does anyone who would bid on a 1952 Topps Mantle not know who Mantle was, not know what the card is, not know what the slab says, etc.? I'd rather see straightforward descriptions of the flaws on the card that make for the grade, without the extraneous blather. Instead of filling half a page with mindless drivel, use the extra space for larger pictures.

ETA: on the opposite end is the auctioneer who makes a real effort to explain the context of a rare card. For example, I read elsewhere in here that REA is going to get the R340 Tilden that was recently discovered. That card could use a detailed factual recitation on the history of the issue because it is so rare and so misunderstood.

There was a thread here talking about this very thing, I'll see if I can find it, but a long time member picked up a T206 at their auction and posted the Heritage photo and his scan when he received it. The difference was sobering and the consensus was that it had more work done than an aging Texas trophy wife. I understand scanners can be unreliable but the difference certainly looked like more than scanner error.

I think I remember the thread, but regardless of what was shown or said, I still have a very hard time believing they knowingly covered up wrinkles to make the card look better. I guess I know the main guys over there too well. They just wouldn't do it. It would be stupid and they aren't that.
Could someone have roguishly done it? Possibly but I doubt it.
.

Most auction houses do a pretty good job with the descriptions. The main issue is that someone should proof read them to ensure they are accurate and match the pieces. Especially as the values of many of these cards are spiking as well as a good history and description is needed for all the "new Money" and new collectors coming in.
They may know the players they are buying or not but may not know the difference in the rarity of 1 ie Mantle Card vs another Mantle Card

I vaguely recall a thread too. Speaking of their scans, not sure any house puts up larger ones.

Here's the thread.
https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=295176

+1

When looking at items from a Hall of Fame player, it's so annoying to have to slog through all the "clever" paragraphs detailing the guy's fantastic career.

I want details about the item. I know about the player.

Thank you for posting that thread. People need to see it.

And here is a graded T3 Dahlen that I won at Heritage last year. The images speak for themselves.

https://www.net54baseball.com/showpo...&postcount=148

To me if I’m going to bid a lot of money on an item in an auction house, I have done this several times, it’s best that you go set up an appointment to view yourself in person. That’s the best way to guarantee what you’re seeing is what you’re getting. Sometimes I just think scanners take lighter or darker scans.

This is classic Heritage in my experience. I've purchased numerous cards from them with hidden flaws and no mention of them. It's intentional. They want the cards to sell for more money. They build their business on the consignors behalf, not the buyers. It's probably also one of the reasons they get better consignments, unfortunately.