Heritage Hypocrisy

[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.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

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.

[shelly]

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.