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.

[FUBAR]

you can tell just by looking the craftsmanship on the fake isn't anywhere near the real one!

[glchen]

I think the point is that the consignor is claiming that the ring in the Leland auction
was manufactured by Balfour in that era. However, the OP believes that this may be a replica ring that was not created by Balfour, and in addition, may not even have been created in the timeframe specified in the auction.

[sports-rings]

regarding your commnts that one is a '55 and one is a '57:

As I mentioned, I keep a database of rings and sadly I do not have a real '57 to compare to the Leland's ring. It is a well known fact among ring collectors that the balfour yankee rings from the 1950's changed very very little over the years, both on the winning rings and the losing rings. The coolest ring is the 1953 Yankee ring, when balfour put a big "5" on the rings to celebrate the Yankees 5th consecutive world series victory but that story is for another day. Other than '53 the Yankee rings rarely changed until the 70's.

The 1955 and 1957 tops should be identical. Not only that but why would Balfour as Fubar pointed out, go back to the drawing board and come up with a hat and stone design that was much more sloppy and poorly fitting than the ring they made 2 years earlier?

It's amazing how real championship rings always look much nicer in person than in photos. they tend to be magnificent. The ring on the right does not have that look - it is clearly a fake in my opinion. If you go back and look at Leland's auctions, this ring is usually auctioned off 1 or 2 times per auction. IN the current auction there are 2 of them. How in the world do these consigners get so many loser salesman samples, auction after auction?

Furthermore, if I had a babe ruth autograph and made a photo copy, would'nt the photocopy look "very similar to the real one?". So I don't think this is an issue that the Lelan's ring looks or does not look like the original, I beleive the bigger issue is that it is a fake and should be treated as a copy.

If anyone feels I am over-reaching, I would be happy to send you a pdf of Irv's Learner's newsletter. THis is the guy that restored that wagner that was just auctioned and he is the person who writes in his newsletter that he will make any Yankee ring. Furthermore, he constantly puts these rings on ebay.

[benjulmag]

To sports-rings.com,

Thanks for the response. As I said, I know little about rings. But I still don't understand why a team any particular year could not ask the ring manufacturer to revise its ring design. Doesn't Balfour make the rings to satisfy its customers (the teams)? So if a team decided it was tired of the design it had used in past years, why is it not plausible a subsequent year could have a completely revised ring design? However, that said, I would think that if the design was to be revised, it would be revised in a material way, not in the minor way the 57 ring appears compared to the 55 ring. So, such a minor revision does raise red flags. I agree with you that if the work appears sloppy, that in and of itself raises additional red flags.

I should also add that even if a ring looks exactly right, I wouldn't consider buying it unless it was accompanied by credible provenance.

[Rob D.]

Just wondering whether there are any updates to this issue.

[sports-rings]

Leland's continues to offer the two Yankee rings on their site. One ring has zero bids, the other ring (pictured in my original post) has only 1 bid for $750.00. After being ignored by Lelands, I posted at this web site, hoping some other collectors would pressure Lelands to do the right thing and take down the rings.

Because they now updated their site to show "This is not an exact duplicate. It varies slightly from those that the players received. This ring was made at a later date", I believe the bidding is way down on these 2 rings.

Although I think Leland's is wrong and should take the rings down or call them copies, and explain they are not real, at least Lelands did something.

Hopefully, the consigner, who I have watched over the years consign fakes to many of the other auction houses and has consigned this exact ring in past lelands auctions will stop trying to pass off these rings as real. I plan to continue to pressure the auction houses not to list these rings as authentic.

Any ideas of other web sites I can post on to alert the collecting community to what's going on?

[tinkereversandme]

Sports-Rings, why haven't you updated your own blog or made a story there about this? I used to enjoy the Coachs Corner updates.

I think its terrible that Lelands doesn't do a thing about this. I have come to assume that there is a certain bit of shady in every auction house to be honest with you. While I know nothing about rings, you appear to be able, with your education, make aware that this isn't correct and to be ignored is unforgiveable in circumstance where a reputation is in stake. Shame on Lelands for not addressing it one way or another.

Regards,

Larry

[sports-rings]

I have not posted on my blog for a while for a few reasons.

I have a lot less free time as I try to keep my marketing business going in these rough economic times.

Plus coaches corner seems to keep rolling no matter what others and I do to try to stop them.

Third, the owners of coaches corner were kind of giving me a hard time. if I had something concrete that I knew was from them I could go to their local police department but the emails were very low key and sent in an anonymous way.