Sometimes I am speechless,,, you got to read this one

[RichardSimon]

I receive many e mails daily.
Here is one that is a beauty. I have not revealed the name of the sender in order to protect the stupid.

Hello,

I have a concern about a baseball I owned. I was hoping you could
offer some advice about this given your expertise. I bought a signed
1932 Yankees World Series Champions Team Ball (signatures including
Ruth and Gehrig) at a charity auction a few months ago. I bought this
in good faith (it was a charity auction after all).

When I decided to sell this ball I contacted several groups and sent
them photos of the ball with the signatures. I had many responses
about this. Some wanted to buy it outright, some wanted to sell it at
auction at a later date on commission, and some were concerned how
authentic it was. I sold it to an auction house that gave me the best
offer.

I didn't get this ball authenticated because, first of all, I don't
know anything about sports memorabilia so I wasn't even aware of the
authentication process until I wanted to sell it. Secondly, I
understood that the person who donated it to the charity auction was a
sports collector so I had no reason to even question it. Finally, it
turns out it is expensive to get baseballs authenticated. I presumed
the sports auction house that bought it knew more about baseballs than
I do. I sold this ball without any conditions concerning
authentication and the buyer knew it wasn't authenticated.

Three weeks have passed since I sold this ball. This sports auction
house just called me today and want a refund for the ball because it
isn't authentic. I don't know what to do.

According to them, this ball was submitted to an authenticator when we
owned it and it failed. This doesn't make any sense because I thought
authentication had to be done in person. I know some potential buyers
decided to not buy the ball because they thought it wasn't authentic
but at no point did anyone take this ball out of our possession. The
only person who saw this ball in person was not an authenticator but a
sports buyer who offered to buy it. This sports auction said they
recently had it authenticated and it failed.

What are my rights? Isn't it strange that 3 weeks have passed since I
sold this to the sports auction house? How can they claim it was
authenticated during the time we owned it? I believe a potential
buyer submitted my photos to an authenticator and they determined it
was not authentic. In the process of selling it, some individuals
didn't think it was authentic but they were not authenticators. Also,
of course, some people will tell you what you're selling isn't worth
much so they can get a good price!

It's possible that this sports auction house may be trying to scam me.
I never claimed the ball was authenticated. They knowingly bought an
unauthenticated ball. How can they hold me accountable when their
expertise apparently failed them in a purchase that was not
conditional on the ball passing authentication? Also, who's to say
they're not going to try to return a fake ball to me and sell the real
one at auction?

Please help! I am so concerned. The money we sold the baseball for
is for buying our first home. I am so worried about this as I feel
like we're getting duped here. Your advice would be greatly
appreciated.

Best regards,

XX,,,PhD. (yes she said she is a PhD)

[GrayGhost]

Umm. yeah Richard. That guy has some issues to put it mildly.

[RichardSimon]

Umm. yeah Richard. That guy has some issues to put it mildly.

That e mail came from a woman,,,,

[thekingofclout]

:) :( :confused: :mad: :p ;) :D :o :rolleyes: :eek:

[Jay Wolt]

Richard what was your response?

[RichardSimon]

My response:



Caroline - if you don't know anything about sports memorabilia why did you buy this ball?
I am not a lawyer and I am afraid I cannot help you, but my guess is , purely a guess, that the ball is not authentic and you were scammed.
You might get sued, but I cannot say anything with any certainty.
Consult a lawyer.

Richard Simon

[vintagesportscollector]

I read this quickly, but don’t quite see the ‘stupidity’. Maybe I a missing it. Yes, she is unknowledgeable, but acted in good faith and full disclosure and is sincerely seeking your advice as an expert in the field (smart move, albeit maybe the only smart move by her).

I am not sure she should be so quick to give a refund to this sports auction house if what she says is true and she disclosed everything and sold w/o any conditions. The stupid people here appear to be the sports auction house.

[Rob D.]

Yeah, how stupid. Imagine someone who doesn't collect sports memorabilia going to a charity auction and buying an item about which she's not an expert. Yeah, imagine her being naive to think that a charity would not sell a bogus item.

And the gall of her to seek an expert's opinion with the expectation that her letter wouldn't be posted on a public message board to be ridiculed.

Some people. Geesh.

Edited to add: I realize this person made obvious mistakes during the course of her story. She doesn't realize that if the auction house sent the ball to be authenticated, being contacted three weeks later isn't all that unusual. And we all know she shouldn't have taken such a leap of faith by buying such an item at a charity auction.

But not a week goes by on this board (both on the card and memorabilia sides) during which a collector -- who obviously has more expertise in our hobby than does this person -- either posts about getting scammed on eBay or Craig's List or bemoans being sold a fake card. Or posts an item he bought with the question, "Is this real?"

So if it's OK for people who supposedly have knowledge about the hobby seek help, then why does this woman deserve such criticism?

[Jim VB]

I think that sometimes, we, the cynical collectors that we are, assume that the rest of the world is either as cynical as we are OR they are on the other side trying to scam people.

In fact, there is a huge percentage of people who fall in the middle. They are, for the most part, innocent and unaware. They neither know that the scammers are out there, nor that we see scammers under every rock.

Several years ago my wife surprised me for Christmas, with a framed photo collage including signed pictures of Mickey Mantle, Joe D, and Ted Williams. Where did she buy it? Why Neiman Marcus, of course. I have no idea if they're authentic and that discussion will never be had, as long as she's around! She just assumed that a trusted company like NM couldn't be selling anything bad. (I mean, it came with a Certificate of Authenticity!)

We are a fringe group, for sure. Maybe 1% of the population. An even smaller group is trying to scam people on these things. That leaves 98+% of the people blissfully unaware.

I'm sorry that this lady got dragged out of that group this time.

[RichardSimon]

I read this quickly, but don’t quite see the ‘stupidity’. Maybe I a missing it. Yes, she is unknowledgeable, but acted in good faith and full disclosure and is sincerely seeking your advice as an expert in the field (smart move, albeit maybe the only smart move by her).

I am not sure she should be so quick to give a refund to this sports auction house if what she says is true and she disclosed everything and sold w/o any conditions. The stupid people here appear to be the sports auction house.

I am knowledgable in the field of autographs, but this woman needs legal advice. Why would she even ask me for help? What could I possibly tell her?
If she was concerned about authenticity, she should have at the very least included pictures of the ball in her e mail to me.

[barrysloate]

There are so many things wrong with this she will need some lawyers to unravel it. First, I doubt too many people would donate a real 1932 Yankee ball because that is a multi-thousand dollar item, but of course it is possible. Second, her comment that she thought it was real because the owner was a sports collector is terribly naive. Third, why did the auction house buy it when it is assumed they take consignments? Fourth, why didn't the auction house know whether or not it was real themselves? They're buying a ball worth thousands of dollars and have no expertise? Fifth, how does an auction house go to a consignor three weeks after the fact and ask for the money back? What if she already spent the money? The whole thing is a pain in the butt and it will likely get uglier than it is now.

Edited to add I read the email again and there is way more wrong with it than what I posted, but I have a headache from it, so I'll leave it at that.

[abroome]

"XX,,,PhD. (yes she said she is a PhD) "

For some reason this reminded me of a New Yorker cartoon years ago of a maitre d' taking reservations over the phone.
He says:
''Certainly. A party of four at seven-thirty in the name of Dr. Jennings. May I ask whether that is an actual medical degree or a Ph.D.?''

[sayhey24]

If the letter is legit, then I agree with the many posters who don't see the "stupidity", and think it's not right to hold this woman up to public ridicule.

I'm wondering though if this is a person who didn't get the ball at a charity auction, but knows it's bad and was hoping to pass it along without any problems. Now that a problem has come up, they're trying to figure out what outs they have. I'm not saying that's the case, but it's one possible explanation, and one of the first thoughts that came to mind.

Greg

[perezfan]

Richard:

I know you can't disclose her name, but do you know the Auction House? Did she ever mention who it was? They carry a large portion of the responsibility here, and I would love to see them exposed.

While she was obviously naive, she was out of her element, and was simply a trusting soul, and a "non-collector". The auction house should definitely have known better and (for a ball of that value) obtained an LOA before it ever made the Catalogue.

The fact that the ball was not authentic would never have been an issue, had they done their due diligence up front. I am not even aware of an Auction House who would offer such a Ball without some sort of authentication.... do you?

[perezfan]

Just wanted to add...

The other slimy party is the person who donated the ball to the charity auction. Based on the story, the ball obviously contained some authentictor's marking (viewable under fluorescent light) identifying it as being "bad" and not having passed authentication.

When the original owner found out it didn't pass and got the ball back, he probably donated it to charity for the tax write-off (rather than taking a full hit). At least this way, he received some compensation.

I just hate to see the woman taking the hit here, when the person who donated it (likely knowing it was bogus) and the auction house were much more at fault. She is only guily of being naive (not a crime). They knowingly did something wrong, and are minimally guilty of negligence and deception.

[RichardSimon]

Richard:

I know you can't disclose her name, but do you know the Auction House? Did she ever mention who it was? They carry a large portion of the responsibility here, and I would love to see them exposed.

While she was obviously naive, she was out of her element, and was simply a trusting soul, and a "non-collector". The auction house should definitely have known better and (for a ball of that value) obtained an LOA before it ever made the Catalogue.

The fact that the ball was not authentic would never have been an issue, had they done their due diligence up front. I am not even aware of an Auction House who would offer such a Ball without some sort of authentication.... do you?


I don't know the auction house.
To Greg and the others who think I should not have called her stupid :
Perhaps stupid was being too harsh,though someone who needs money to buy a house should have no business bidding on a baseball when they know nothing about sports memorabilia,,,,, but why would she even write to me? The woman is allegedly a PhD,, she should know that an attorney is the only one who can give her answers. What help could I possibly give her?
And to Barry : you are not the only one who got a headache after reading the e mail.

[danc]

I would love to know the name of the auction house.

They made a decision about the authenticity of the ball, what, based on a scan or when they received it?

They didn't realize right away that what they had was a ball full of suspect signatures and therefore they are going back to this women for a refund?

Wouldn't you refuse the refund?

This can't be one of the big auction houses (they don't operate like this) and of course it can't be...you know who (they refuse nothing)...so????

DanC

[vintagesportscollector]

I don't know the auction house.
To Greg and the others who think I should not have called her stupid :
Perhaps stupid was being too harsh,though someone who needs money to buy a house should have no business bidding on a baseball when they know nothing about sports memorabilia,,,,, but why would she even write to me? The woman is allegedly a PhD,, she should know that an attorney is the only one who can give her answers. What help could I possibly give her?
And to Barry : you are not the only one who got a headache after reading the e mail.

Why would she even write to you? Maybe because she doesn’t know exactly what type of advice you could provide and was seeking help in an area which she knows nothing about and doesn’t recognize the issues? She was "hoping you could offer some advice about this given your expertise”. PhD or GED I wouldn’t necessarily expect someone’s first reaction to be to call an attorney if they’ve never dealt in this situation before. I find your reaction surprising.

She probably has been reaching out to multiple people. Who knows how you were recommended to her. Perhaps she saw your website and saw you are “one of the leading authorities on sports collectibles in the nation” . Occasionally people will politely reach out to me for help in the hobby – often I can’t help because it’s not my area of knowledge. I simply reply that I can’t help much and offer any advice I can. I try not to be rude to them, and critical, and I don’t ridicule them. Sadly this women, who appears to have deep genuine concern, probably only feels worse now

[celoknob]

Wow, someone just asks for some advice and gets their private correspondence posted on this board and labeled as being stupid. Real classy.

[Rob D.]

And to Barry : you are not the only one who got a headache after reading the e mail.

Hope you're feeling better.

[FUBAR]

Personally, i think this is buyer beware on all cases... the auction house is as guilty for buying it from her as she is from the charity auction. I am sure the charity didnt know it was a forgery and neither did she.

I think what is happening is the auction house is trying to strong arm her! and she is merely looking for help because she doesn't no what to do. She is in panic mode. The auction house is trying to convince her she is liable. I guess it would depend on what paperwork she signed and what it said.

The only advice i would give her is to take her paperwork to a laywer, tell them what happened and see what they say.... do not cave to the auction house unless you signed something saying it was authentic. She came to you because you are an expert in the field and might know better then she what to do, she is very very scared. Out yourself in her shoes, imagine losing the chance at owning your dream home because a charity had a bogus item.

About her needing the money to buy a house.... no one knows her situation. She may have bought the ball 2-3 years ago and now has decided she wants a house with prices being a little lower and more favorable. She has a ball and figures why not sell the ball to obtain a house.. makes sense to me. Peoples finances can change drastically from year to year.

my two cents, just sayin'

[J.McMurry]

I can't shake the feeling that the email is not legit. I think someone may be jerking Richard's chain, for whatever reason, but if it's legit I agree that it was a bit harsh to call her stupid.

As far as the Phd stuff goes, I have several of them,and I utilize them often,in my case they are known as Post Hole Diggers;)

[ctownboy]

My first thought is that since she is a PH.D, she is used to doing research IN HER FIELD. When something is out of her field of knowlege or discipline, is she going to take the time to research it? No, she is going to LOOK FOR an expert IN THAT OTHER FIELD.

She finds Richard and reaches out to him for his EXPERTISE.

Now Richard, having seen this type of situation before and knowing it is OUT OF HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE, recommends she find an attorney.

Look, my Mom doesn't know much about baseball but she DOES know the names of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. So, I am sure if she had the chance to buy an autographed baseball at a charity auction or church function for an amount she could afford (and she couldn't get me there to make sure it wasn't a fake) she would do so.

I think the blame should be spread out as follows: 1) to the person who donated the ball for doing so (if they knew it was fake). 2) to the charity auction for saying it was authentic (if they had no proof to back up this claim). 3) Most importantly, to the "sports auction house" who bought and paid for the ball without it having been authenticated first.

If there was no claim of authenticity given by the PH.D lady and the "sports auction house" bought the ball thinking they were getting a good deal and could make a profit on it, then they should take the hit for NOT KNOWING what they were buying.

I mean, isn't THAT what happens in the real world all the time? Businesses that know what they are doing stay in business while those that don't, fail?

[jimthorpe]

Since this came in the form of an email who knows if it is not totally bogus. Could even be a chance Tyler Grady wrote it.

[D. Bergin]

I can't shake the concept she bought the ball at a charity auction just "a few months ago".............and now needs the money for a new house.

How much did she spend at the "charity" event? :confused:

[canjond]

I would love to know the name of the auction house.

They made a decision about the authenticity of the ball, what, based on a scan or when they received it?

They didn't realize right away that what they had was a ball full of suspect signatures and therefore they are going back to this women for a refund?

Wouldn't you refuse the refund?

This can't be one of the big auction houses (they don't operate like this) and of course it can't be...you know who (they refuse nothing)...so????

DanC


No offense but i don't agree with this comment at all. To me, this is no different than the Anson lock situation, or a reprint purchased from eBay. Let's take the Anson lock situation... seller was selling the lock as original. People thought it was original (me included, I owned one I refunded, too). Purchaser purchases it, posts his pick-up, and then discovers it might not be original. After confirming with certain experts (ie, the creator) that it is not original, asks the seller for a refund. Everyone agrees, buyer should get a refund because seller sold an item represented to be original but deemed to be created recently.

Anson lock broken down:

Purchaser made a decision about the lock based on scan and in-person examination.

Purchaser didn't realize right away what he got was not original.

Purchaser confirms with expert that lock is not original.

Everyone on this board thinks purchaser should get refund.

1932 Yankee ball broken down:

Auction house made decision about the ball based on scan or in-person examination.

Auction house didn't realize right away what it bought was not original.

Auction confirms with expert ball is not original.

People on this board think the auction house bears responsibility.

Why is the auction house held to a different standard?

[barrysloate]

Jon- I'm not sure about the law, but it would seem to me that the auction house takes greater responsibility because they are professionals. When I ran my auctions I specialized in vintage cards. It was my business to make sure I knew they were real, and that they weren't altered. If I made a mistake, and I did make several over the years, it was my responsibility to correct them. I was the presumed expert.

Now the example from this thread is pretty convoluted, and it seems like there could be many parties that bear some responsibility. I still think the guy who donated the ball knew there was something wrong with it. Just a gut feeling, of course.

[bobbvc]

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on chat boards. Actually, I did have a year of Business Law in college. The answer to Jon's question "Why is the auction house held to a higher standard?" is simple. Because they're an auction house!! They are professionals in their field. Their level of knowledge is assumed to be greater than a layperson's. If this case went to court it would be VERY unlikely a judge would side with the auction house, assuming she made NO False claims about the ball and it was sold "as is".They are supposed to know what they're doing- it's their business. That said- 1. How do we know the ball is NOT authentic? The authenticator is only giving "an opinion". 2. How do we know the auction house didn't pull "The Old switcheroo"?

As for a moral obligation to refund the auction house? Maybe. If, she can get a refund from the charity auction. As for a legal obligation to refund the auction house? I don't see it.

[base_ball]

If the email is on the level, I am sure the aggrieved party would be willing to share the name of the "charity auction" from which the ball was obtained. Frankly, I find it a bit odd that the good doctor was able to buy such a high ticket item, pitch it to a number of auction houses/buyers, and then find Richard Simon when help was needed. But if this is a real case, an epic thread should unfold. Finding out where the ball was sold will start the ball rolling. The world of 1932 Ruth/Gehrig balls is a small one.

[perezfan]

I agree that the auction house bears the brunt of the responsibility here(assuming the woman's letter to Richard was factual and legit).

The two "bad eggs" are the Auction House and the original owner of the Ball, who donated it to Charity. He's the one who really started this downward spiral.

The two naive, yet innocent parties are the woman who reached out to Richard and the Charity organization. I would LOVE to know which Auction House she used....

Richard.... Can't you pleeeeeease write her back just to ask her about the auction house? I cannot think of one auction (ok, maybe one) that would operate in this haphazard way. I also would not mind stepping in and trying to help this woman, as I hate it when innocent people are victimized like this. Thanks!

[danc]

I was going to debate you on this matter Jon, but the gents above did it for me.

The auction house should know better and there is no way a top notch auction house would put themselves in that position. The bigger auction houses would file this under a loss and move on, while one of the smaller auction houses (who may not be making any money) might want to handle it differently.

Why was Rich contacted? Why not? It's Rich "freaking" Simon!

The moral of the story is that no matter how smart you are, sometimes you make mistakes by trusting someone you shouldn't. You don't think there are doctors and lawyers out there that have items that have been authenticated by these slimeball authenticators and auction houses that prey on the trusting?

They want a Ruth ball and see a "forensic handwriting" letter and believe this to a legitimate proposition. This women is not an isolated case.

DanC

[RichardSimon]

Joe, vintage collector,you said "Sadly this women, who appears to have deep genuine concern, probably only feels worse now"
Why would she feel worse? She is certainly not aware of this board and has no idea that I made this matter public. And I certainly did not name her and I never would do anything to delibrately hurt her,,, so Joe,,, why would she feel worse? She asked for help and I gave her the only suggestion I could, I sent her a reply and suggested she seek an attorney.
And I have written to her and asked her the name of the auction house.

--

[vintagesportscollector]

Richard, I was referring to your response to her, where you told her "you might get sued..". Aside from the tone and curtness of your reply, if I was her, and someone I viewed as being a possible expert dropped that little bomb shell on me, I sure as heck wouldn't be feeling any better. I know you said "cannot say anything with any certainty, consult a lawyer", but the mere mention of legal action is probably resonating with her. Just my reaction from this...I know you meant no ill will.

[David Atkatz]

"XX,,,PhD. (yes she said she is a PhD) "

For some reason this reminded me of a New Yorker cartoon years ago of a maitre d' taking reservations over the phone.
He says:
''Certainly. A party of four at seven-thirty in the name of Dr. Jennings. May I ask whether that is an actual medical degree or a Ph.D.?''

Being a somewhat recent PhD when that cartoon came out, I was quite taken by it.

The caption actually said, "May I ask, are you a real Doctor, or merely a PhD?"

[Jewish-collector]

Richard,

I don't believe any of this nonsense of what she wrote. I think whoever emailed you figured you would post the story on this message board to give them good entertainment. Since Purim is coming up, take the grogger & stick it up their.....

Alan