Problems with two championship rings in upcoming Heritage Auction

[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!

[sports-rings]

Surprised that a big auction house like that wouldn't listen to a knowledgable collector.

I have alerted many auction houses when I have discovered that a ring in their auction had issues.

Many are proactive and pull the ring immediately. Others are defiant but look into the matter and eventually pull the items.

I don't have an ego and am not a self-proclaimed ring expert. I ask the auction houses to get a 2nd opinion if they feel that my analysis may be incorrect.

I feel Heritage can and should sell these rings, they just need to modify the descriptions.

I hope that the Heritage investigation into these two rings continue. I see as of this morning that the listings have not been modified and I have not heard from Chris Ivy.

Two stories about auction houses and their willingness to modify listings.

Hunt auctions had a Chicago Bears championship ring two years ago in their super bowl auction. It was not mentioned in their auction that it was a smaller version that the players received. I notified them that they should change the listing but they refused. They claimed the bidder should know it was not a player-size ring by their inclusion of a lower than market value estimated final selling price.

We went round and round on net54 and they didn't budge. I am friends with an NFL official who oversees the auction. When I alerted him of this issue, he made sure they changed it.

The 2nd story involves Heritage. Three years ago they had player, Frederick Thurston's Green Bay Packer superbowl II ring for sale. It clearly was not his original ring since the original rings were marked "Josten" and made in 14K. The ring they were auctioning off was 10K and marked "Jostens". The mark means it was made much later on and not original. Thurston saved some money when he had the ring remade by purchasing a 10K version and not a 14K version.

Heritage refused to budge on the description and I remember having a shouting match with them at their booth during the National. I asked them to speak to other ring experts and finally, at the start of the bidding during the Platinum auction event at the National, they announced it was not the original ring.

The winning bidder with the juice paid $50,787. Although Thurston is in the packers Hall of fame, that seems like a lot of money for a non-Pro Footall Hall of Famer's non original ring. I hope the winning bidder knew what he was purchasing was not the original ring and of lesser gold content than what the team was intended to receive.

I hope the winning bidders of these two super bowl rings in their current auction know what they are buying, otherwise, down the road they will probably be quite upset.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I have alerted many auction houses when I have discovered that a ring in their auction had issues.

Many are proactive and pull the ring immediately. Others are defiant but look into the matter and eventually pull the items.

I don't have an ego and am not a self-proclaimed ring expert. I ask the auction houses to get a 2nd opinion if they feel that my analysis may be incorrect.

I feel Heritage can and should sell these rings, they just need to modify the descriptions.

I hope that the Heritage investigation into these two rings continue. I see as of this morning that the listings have not been modified and I have not heard from Chris Ivy.

Two stories about auction houses and their willingness to modify listings.

Hunt auctions had a Chicago Bears championship ring two years ago in their super bowl auction. It was not mentioned in their auction that it was a smaller version that the players received. I notified them that they should change the listing but they refused. They claimed the bidder should know it was not a player-size ring by their inclusion of a lower than market value estimated final selling price.

We went round and round on net54 and they didn't budge. I am friends with an NFL official who oversees the auction. When I alerted him of this issue, he made sure they changed it.

The 2nd story involves Heritage. Three years ago they had player, Frederick Thurston's Green Bay Packer superbowl II ring for sale. It clearly was not his original ring since the original rings were marked "Josten" and made in 14K. The ring they were auctioning off was 10K and marked "Jostens". The mark means it was made much later on and not original. Thurston saved some money when he had the ring remade by purchasing a 10K version and not a 14K version.

Heritage refused to budge on the description and I remember having a shouting match with them at their booth during the National. I asked them to speak to other ring experts and finally, at the start of the bidding during the Platinum auction event at the National, they announced it was not the original ring.

The winning bidder with the juice paid $50,787. Although Thurston is in the packers Hall of fame, that seems like a lot of money for a non-Pro Footall Hall of Famer's non original ring. I hope the winning bidder knew what he was purchasing was not the original ring and of lesser gold content than what the team was intended to receive.

I hope the winning bidders of these two super bowl rings in their current auction know what they are buying, otherwise, down the road they will probably be quite upset.

First I want to say I have no vested interest anywhere - I do not favor or believe any auction house to be beyond reproach nor do I collect rings. When purchasing items I do collect I follow the best advice I ever learned - Caveat Emptor (Buyer beware).

Second, I want to thank you for caring enough about the collecting community to go to the lengths you have to raise clearly relevant questions regarding rings that come up for auction.

My confusion is what appears to be your level of emotional investment in the outcome of the questions you raise. You have gone beyond a reasonable amount of effort in "getting the message out" to collectors. You have used your knowledge to act in a way that protects you (by not pursuing the rings). While I understand some frustration at not "feeling heard' or possibly not believed as a result of a particular party's (auction house's) lack of action to your information - a "shouting match" seems a bit out of proportion.

[sports-rings]

My confusion is what appears to be your level of emotional investment in the outcome of the questions you raise. You have gone beyond a reasonable amount of effort in "getting the message out" to collectors. You have used your knowledge to act in a way that protects you (by not pursuing the rings). While I understand some frustration at not "feeling heard' or possibly not believed as a result of a particular party's (auction house's) lack of action to your information - a "shouting match" seems a bit out of proportion.
Reply With Quote

I am not sure why you are confused or why you are concerned with my emotional investment and time spent on this matter.

What the heck is in this for me? I don't want to be the self appointed ring expert. Heck, ring collectors know and acknowledge that Scott Welkowsky knows more about rings than anyone I have ever met. TJ Kaye is employed by PSA as their ring expert. I encourage people to speak with them and I encourage the auction houses to do the same.

I'm not sure if you can determine my level of emotional investment in the outcome. Like many ring buyers and some or most collectors at this site, I have been burned in the past by purchasing items that have turned out to be not what they were supposed to be.

So my desire to alert the community stems from helping others avoid the same problems. I have a feeling I am much less "emotionally invested" than you think, meaning I don't let this stuff get to me personally or on an emotional level. I could care less whether I am believed or not believed and I am the first one to admit that auction houses should get 2nd or 3rd opinions on these matters.

Wouldn't deciding what "reasonable amount of effort" is differ from person to person? I keep a database of as many rings as I can, so in situations like this, I can cut and paste some examples of what the rings are supposed to look like.

I won't judge you by the time you spend researching your hobby pursuits and I would appreciate it if you would not judge me by the time I spend. And besides, with the many of thousands of dollars I can spend on one transaction, frankly I should be doing this much research and I'm happy to share it with others.

I can't tell you how many times others have helped me on this board with areas of sports memorabilia I know very little about. So I'm happy to return the favor.

As far as the shouting match goes, the person I dealt with at Heritage was quite annoyed that I was questioning the Superbowl II ring and started the shouting. Being a typical New Yorker, I shouted back. Is that out of proportion, who knows?

[packs]

No offense to the poster before you but how else can you alert the hobby of misinformation other than make a post and lay out your facts?

[sports-rings]

I see that one of the most controversial people in our hobby, Peter Nash published did a story at his website today on this Heritage Auction.

He points out some issues with a few of the high-end lots and he must have seen this post because he mentions the two rings in his story.

If any of the folks at Heritage see this post, or reads Peter's new blog article, would you please rethink your strategy on keeping questionable items in your auctions when evidence suggests that the item should be pulled or when the description needs to be modified?

That's all I'm asking.

[Chris Ivy]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I see that one of the most controversial people in our hobby, Peter Nash published did a story at his website today on this Heritage Auction.

He points out some issues with a few of the high-end lots and he must have seen this post because he mentions the two rings in his story.

If any of the folks at Heritage see this post, or reads Peter's new blog article, would you please rethink your strategy on keeping questionable items in your auctions when evidence suggests that the item should be pulled or when the description needs to be modified?

That's all I'm asking.

Michael,
As you are aware, we have had open communication about these lots and I thanked you for bringing this information to my attention. Per our email exchange of July 18 (below), I feel that I addressed the concerns that you relayed to me:


Michael,
The catalog was at print prior to you contacting me about the Steelers rings.

As I have told you from the beginning, I will let you know when, or if, we decide to make an edit to the listings. However, it is important that we cover all bases prior to making an edit because we have to do right by both our consignor and our bidders, so there is no need to make a hasty decision prior to all the facts being in. As I told you, I have reached out to the consignor and the consignor is contacting Edwards to get to the bottom of the matter. I hope to have this done early next week.

Your assertion that you need to warn the collecting community before “someone buys a ring that they may later regret” is unfounded for several reasons. When an edit is made to the items, each bidder will be automatically notified of the update and if they wish to alter their bids, then they will have that opportunity. As I have told you, we have no interest in selling ANY item that is not as advertised because we stand behind every item that we sell. If the rings are sold and are not as advertised, we would provide a full refund and be out of the money. 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 appreciate you coming to me with your thoughts and the additional images on the rings. The listings will be updated, removed, or left as is, once we get to the bottom of our additional research with the consignor. The auction does not conclude for 13 more days and as you know, most of the bidding occurs in the final 48 hours.

Regards,
Chris


Given the above email exchange, I feel that your post which I have quoted above is intellectually dishonest. If I do not do what I said that I was going to do, then you have every right to publically call me out, but I made it clear that we were gathering all of the facts and that we did not wish to make multiple updates to the lot as that would only serve to further confuse bidders. We were working to gather all of the facts that we could before making the decision to update or remove the lots, as I would trust that any consignor would want.

It has taken much longer than I would have preferred, but the consignor tells me that Don Edwards will be available to discuss details on Monday. At that time, we will make a final decision on the update or the removal of the Steelers rings.

This will serve as my only post on the matter so if anyone has any questions, then please feel free to contact me directly.

Regards,
Chris

[djson1]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

... and started the shouting. Being a typical New Yorker, I shouted back.

Haha...that was pretty funny.
BTW, if you didn't point these things out, I never would have thought it was an altered ring. It's interesting to see that the Steelers logo on the Edwards ring doesn't have that faint tiny "Steelers" wording as well (like the one on the Bradshaw ring does).

Please keep us posted on what happens. Thanks.

[perezfan]

The best thing about this forum is the sharing of knowledge. I try to do it in the specific areas where I am experienced. And greatly appreciate others who do the same! That's how we keep the hobby healthy and fresh (and also bring in new collectors).

Please keep doing exactly what you're doing, as it's a tremendous service to the collecting community. In addition, it's interesting subject matter. These beautiful Rings are works of art, but are still a mystery to many of us. So it's always great to learn more about this unique segment.

Thank you, Michael

[keithsky]

I always get the impression that when a collector calls out an item as being fake or not authentic to an auction house they almost never look into it because it makes them look bad in there mind and they want to look like they know more than everyone else so they treat you like you don't know what your talking about. Just like the TPA's, have you ever seen them change there mind on anything. I haven't. Bad for business to not look smarter than the everyday collector. In my opinion the guys on this forum know way more than some of these auction houses and TPA's. I value the guys on Net54 alot and there knowledge.

[hcv123]

[QUOTE=sports-rings;1301419]

I'm not sure if you can determine my level of emotional investment in the outcome. Like many ring buyers and some or most collectors at this site, I have been burned in the past by purchasing items that have turned out to be not what they were supposed to be.

So my desire to alert the community stems from helping others avoid the same problems. I have a feeling I am much less "emotionally invested" than you think, meaning I don't let this stuff get to me personally or on an emotional level. I could care less whether I am believed or not believed and I am the first one to admit that auction houses should get 2nd or 3rd opinions on these matters.

Wouldn't deciding what "reasonable amount of effort" is differ from person to person? I keep a database of as many rings as I can, so in situations like this, I can cut and paste some examples of what the rings are supposed to look like.

I won't judge you by the time you spend researching your hobby pursuits and I would appreciate it if you would not judge me by the time I spend. And besides, with the many of thousands of dollars I can spend on one transaction, frankly I should be doing this much research and I'm happy to share it with others.

[QUOTE]

All relevant points. I apologize for judging you.

[autograf]

I don't collect rings but always find Michael's threads to be informative and well-reasoned. And who wouldn't understand a shouting New Yorker......thanks for the detailed photos and interesting conversation.........hopefully someone doesn't get fleeced.......

[sports-rings]

All relevant points. I apologize for judging you.

Thanks Howard, no worries.

But how come as a fellow New Yorker - You're not shouting or posting in all CAPS!