Am I Wrong or Is Hunt Auctions Wrong?

[sports-rings]

As is the case every year, Hunt Auctions will be holding a football auction, the day before, and in the same city as the Superbowl. As a ring and football collector I look forward to the auction every year.

This year, Hunt has a few football rings in the auction and I have been conversing by email with David Hunt about one of the rings in the auction.

The first two pictures below show the ring in the Hunt Auction. The last two pictures show an actual player's ring in my collection. I have no doubt that the item in the auction is a real font-office ring, however it is smaller, different, and contains less diamonds than what player's received.

When it comes to championship rings, auction houses sometimes get facts wrong or their descriptions need clarifications. In the auction houses defense, I don't believe they mislead bidders on purpose. There aren't books available to refer to, and I spend countless hours a month researching rings and detailing my findings in my personal database.

I am happy to help collectors, and auction houses too, and go out of my way to let auction houses know when something needs to be changed, withdrawn or clarified. Most auction houses are happy to avoid upsetting bidders and quickly make the changes. Some go into denial, and do their own research and usually wind up making the changes. Sadly, a few try to do nothing or very little.

When I first noticed the problem with the description, I emailed Daivd Hunt, and suggested he update the description to include that the ring in the auction was smaller, different and contained less diamonds than a player's ring. I sent detailed photographs showing the differences.

His response to my email was that they were already aware that the Bears ring was not a player’s ring and that if it was a players ring the estimate would have been 2-3 times the listed amount.

I was shocked with the response. Was it possible David was claiming the bidder should know the ring was not the same size, based upon a lower estimate?

I wrote back and specifically reminded him how little information is available to collectors and questioned why take a chance on upsetting bidders and consigners with bad information that may lead to problems, or bad feelings or loss of a sale when the truth is found out?

His second response stated that my point was of very little relevance to the sale amount of the ring given its description and related estimate. He said he was happy to add into the description that the ring was a front office ring. He then stated that if they had published an estimate of $10,000-$15,000 and were not informing buyers that this type of ring typically sells between $5,000-$7,000 there might be a genuine concern that someone could be deceived.

I responded to David that I found his responses frighting and mentioned I would be warning the collecting community about this problem.

Well true to his word, David did add that this is a front office ring to the auction description. I repeatedly continued to request that he clarify the description even further with the fact that it is a smaller and lesser version than the player ring but he refuses to honor my request.

So therefore, I am trying to alert the community about this matter. If any of you have any contacts at Hunt and feel the way I do, perhaps you can request that they change the description. I will also be reaching out to the NFL on this matter as they coordinate this auction with Hunt.

If you would like to see the auction item, here is the link:

http://huntauctions.com/live/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=40&lot_num=310&lot_qual=

<br>

[Leon]

Michael, it seems like he met you half way but the more transparency the better. I would be disappointed if I got a ring expecting a full sized one and received a much smaller one. That being said I would think, though I could be wrong, that anyone spending 5k+ on a ring would know it's going to be smaller if it is a front office example?

[sports-rings]

anyone spending 5k+ on a ring would know it's going to be smaller if it is a front office example

Front office rings are not always smaller. It is up to the discretion of ownership. And, depending upon the employee's rank, he could be elevated to a larger ring.

Yes, bidders should do their diligence in researching rings before bidding. However, as I said in my post, there are not too many resources for collectors.

A few collectors call the ring manufacturers and request specifics but the makers of the rings do not share much information. Teams too, do not share information.

Sometimes the ring specifications will wind up on the internet. In the case of a team that looses the superbowl, the ring specs rarely if ever wind up in the news or on the internet.

It can take a few years before a few rings are sold at auction to piece together what versions of rings were given out.

So, if someone like myself knows this is a "B" version ring, and the auction house is alerted to it, shouldn't they do the right thing (like other auction houses do) and update their listing?

Leon, I have the utmost respect for you as a person, and a collector, and the rarely thanked guy that runs this amazing site, so I do ask this with all due respect - do you honestly think I was met half way on this matter?
<br><br>

[Leon]

Front office rings are not always smaller. It is up to the discretion of ownership. And, depending upon the employee's rank, he could be elevated to a larger ring.

Yes, bidders should do their diligence in researching rings before bidding. However, as I said in my post, there are not too many resources for collectors.

A few collectors call the ring manufacturers and request specifics but the makers of the rings do not share much information. Teams too, do not share information.

Sometimes the ring specifications will wind up on the internet. In the case of a team that looses the superbowl, the ring specs rarely if ever wind up in the news or on the internet.

It can take a few years before a few rings are sold at auction to piece together what versions of rings were given out.

So, if someone like myself knows this is a "B" version ring, and the auction house is alerted to it, shouldn't they do the right thing (like other auction houses do) and update their listing?

Leon, I have the utmost respect for you as a person, and a collector, and the rarely thanked guy that runs this amazing site, so I do ask this with all due respect - do you honestly think I was met half way on this matter?
<br><br>

"Half Way" was just a term I used because I couldn't think of a phrase that meant 10% :). Keep up the good work Michael. LL

[travrosty]

each time a ring is offered it should be clearly stated if the ring is salesman sample, front office, staff, coaches, players ring, A or B version.

i see so many auctions where the ring is offered and there is no indication if it is staff ring, player ring, a or b version. its crazy to see that because it takes so little effort to clearly list what type of ring it is.

[martindl]

I think all auction houses should go out of their way to inform and educate any potential bidder on items they have for sale. The front-office ring is substantially different than the ring given to the players and should be noted as such.

I don't collect rings and things, but I assume many that do often go for a non-player example to reduce their outlay. Someone buying this, thinking they're getting a representative example of the rings produced that year would be sorely miffed if they later found out they were different.

Michael, yours would be a lot nicer if it didn't have that green paint all over the side. You can't even see the name :D

[sports-rings]

Hunt's egregious mislabeling is worse than I thought.

I just learned that there is a "B" version of this ring, given to upper-level staff, who were not players.

This new insight happened as a ring was put on ebay this week that is truly a "B" version.

So the Hunt ring is now a "C" version ring. I feel sorry for the person who buys the ring and later on discovers that the ring is 2 steps down from a player's version.

[thecatspajamas]

So, if someone like myself knows this is a "B" version ring, and the auction house is alerted to it, shouldn't they do the right thing (like other auction houses do) and update their listing?

Hunt's egregious mislabeling is worse than I thought.

I just learned that there is a "B" version of this ring, given to upper-level staff, who were not players.

This new insight happened as a ring was put on ebay this week that is truly a "B" version.

So the Hunt ring is now a "C" version ring. I feel sorry for the person who buys the ring and later on discovers that the ring is 2 steps down from a player's version.

Can you also see though how applying labeling that you are not 100% sure is accurate can be problematic? Hunt went back and changed the description to read "front office" ring, but that wasn't enough for you. You "repeatedly continued to request" that, among other things, it be labeled as a "B" version of the ring. Only now you find out it's not actually a "B" version, so even if they had made the changes you asked for, would you be beating down the door again demanding that they further revise the description?

Sometimes there is such a thing as providing "too much information" if the added information in itself has the potential to be misleading. To me, it appears that David added only the information he could be 100% sure of ("front office" ring rather than player's ring), and leaves the rest of the research to the buyer. Sure, it would be nice if every auction house that lists a ring would lock down every bit of information about it and perfectly label and categorize it, but in a case like this where even the expert is continuing to find out new information about the item, can you really blame them for "playing it safe" with the item description?

Just my take on the overall situation, with me having near-zero knowledge of rings. I have though had plenty of experience with bidders irate over mistakes or minor discrepancies in descriptions (more minor than this), and can say with some confidence that being "right" is necessarily only part of how you approach situations like this. Both sides have to be willing to step back and evaluate the new or corrected information for what it is, and I find that "repeated requests," especially if they just repeat the same information, are more annoying than helpful and do nothing to promote an unbiased consideration of the facts at hand. If I remember correctly, didn't this same kind of badgering followed by public complaining get you banned from bidding with another major auction house? I'm not trying to take sides here, but you might take a step back and seriously consider your approach to these kinds of situations.

[Runscott]

Sometimes there is such a thing as providing "too much information" if the added information in itself has the potential to be misleading.

For instance, I received a glove in the mail last week, from Hunts, that had been described as 14". The one I received was 12.5". If they had not given the size at all, I wouldn't have been surprised to receive a 12.5" glove, as I had googled the model and knew they should be 12.5".

Nakona Glove from Hunts (http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=106&lot_num=272)

Hunts is great for deals, but I have to agree with the OP - their descriptions are sometimes lacking (or the opposite).

[sports-rings]

didn't this same kind of badgering followed by public complaining get you banned from bidding with another major auction house?

Some at net54baseball.com feel that being banned from an auction house is a badge of honor. Given the choice of exposing a problem, or hiding from an issue because of fear of being banned - I'll choose exposing the problem everytime. I was banned from tiny, renegade auctioneer Nate Sanders. I have not been banned or had issues with any other auction houses and continue to help most of them identify problems and issues. And compared to you, I have had zero conflicts with anyone on these boards.

You are correct, I had said this was a "B" ring and now it turns out to be a "C" ring. However, in my defense, all I had asked Hunt to do was state in their description that their ring was not the same size and weight and contained less diamonds than a player's ring. I stand by those facts and shame on Hunt for not budging on this matter.

[drc]

I worked for a non-sport auction house and the President said they wish to get the descriptions correct, in particular the conditions, as they don't like returns.

[thecatspajamas]

Some at net54baseball.com feel that being banned from an auction house is a badge of honor. Given the choice of exposing a problem, or hiding from an issue because of fear of being banned - I'll choose exposing the problem everytime. I was banned from tiny, renegade auctioneer Nate Sanders. I have not been banned or had issues with any other auction houses and continue to help most of them identify problems and issues. And compared to you, I have had zero conflicts with anyone on these boards.

I didn't mean to imply that you should not expose problems or hide for fear of being banned. You obviously know your stuff when it comes to rings, and I applaud your efforts to share that knowledge with collectors and auction houses alike. It just seems to me that a bit more tact would help the auction corrections to be implemented more willingly. You know, the whole "a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down" approach.

And you're right, I had forgotten that the banning was by Nate Sanders. As you say, not as big a deal as I was (incorrectly) remembering.

You are correct, I had said this was a "B" ring and now it turns out to be a "C" ring. However, in my defense, all I had asked Hunt to do was state in their description that their ring was not the same size and weight and contained less diamonds than a player's ring. I stand by those facts and shame on Hunt for not budging on this matter.

I wasn't trying to call you out on a mistake in identifying the ring type. You obviously know more about the subject than I ever will. My comments were meant more to give another's perspective on your approach, which I thought would be more helpful in the long run rather than a simple "you're right, he's wrong" or attaboy slap on the back. Sorry if they weren't taken as the constructive criticism they were intended to be.

[BigJJ]

Great of you to try to get all info to potential buyers. Not being clear with regard to rings is endemic to the hobby, at the auction houses, and even more so on the private market.

I watched last night as someone on Pawn Stars -acted- shocked when he "found out" his 'Ted Turner' Braves ring was not actually Ted Turner's ring. Wanted over 10k for a salesman sample. and he knew it was a sample. wanted to complete the transaction quick. He would have us believe that it never occured to him that Ted Turner would not need to hock his ring.

With regard to the auction houses (not private sellers who all have time to do their homework, and know what they are selling, and misrepresenting) I think the culprit is mostly a lack of information, and manpower. There are rings for players, players' family and friends, coaches, staff, salesman samples, more recent salesman samples, replacements, and intermixed are different sizes, configurations, metals, and stones. And this is for each single championship. And then there are charms, etc. Hard to sort through quickly. and with limited exception, the houses are being run largely on skeleton crews.

Right all the way with regard to more clarity needed here.

Theyre good guys at Hunt, just making an error here in not more fully listening to your wise counsel. The fact that theyre good guys means that you can publically disagree with them and not be a prohibited bidder.

As a side, I love your Bears ring, awesome - come in handy in a brawl! ouch!

[sports-rings]

Sorry I got a little heated.

You bring up some great points. I am trying to be more constructive and less combative. I did converse with Hunt at least three times privately and tried to resolve this matter behind the scenes. I kept the conversations positive and tried to remind them that an item returned would not do the consigner or auction house any good.

My next step was to seek advise from others before posting here to see if I had blown this issue out of proportion.

[BigJJ]

I think stating in the description that there is a "different configuration for a player version" of the ring may have been good and proper wording, and provide the notice needed.

[travrosty]

there is only about four or five different categories, not too hard for auction houses to figure out if they take a few moments, ask a few questions, and consult a few experts that know rings. how hard is that.

salesman sample,

players ring,

coaches ring

staff and associates ring

A type The real deal with diamonds

B type the cheaper CZ version

maybe a couple of other types that i didnt list as i am not an expert, but to just list a championship ring and try to let the consumer figure it out, not kosher for an auction house to do.

[brownscollector78]

somewhat off topic but still regarding Hunts auctions website....

There is one item I have interest in with the current live auction.

When I went to register, when asking for CC information, I noticed that the site didn't appear have to HTTPS (although there is a verisign secure logo)

This bothered me somewhat and I have yet to register.

Should I be worried?

[Sean1125]

somewhat off topic but still regarding Hunts auctions website....

There is one item I have interest in with the current live auction.

When I went to register, when asking for CC information, I noticed that the site didn't appear have to HTTPS (although there is a verisign secure logo)

This bothered me somewhat and I have yet to register.

Should I be worried?

I would just call them up and see if they would verify - Heritage has that available (in addition to online verification) I'm not sure about hunts though.

[sports-rings]

Should I be worried?

They have been around a long time and are considered one of the big auction houses. I would not worry about them having your credit card information. I believe this is standard procedure at auction houses.

[sports-rings]

I couldn't get Hunt Auctions to budge on this matter, so I contacted a friend at the NFL who works with Hunt in putting together the Superbowl auction.

Despite Hunt's intent not to change the description on this ring, I see the description has finally been properly updated to reflect the fact that this is not the same ring the players were awarded.

This has left a bad taste in my mouth and question if I will ever participate in another Hunt auction or consign a piece to them. What other items in their auctions are misrepresented and/or inaccurate?

I still can't understand why they would not make their descriptions completely clear and accurate. Other major sports-memorabilia auction houses do!

Thanks to the readers at net54basell.com for listening, and helping, and being a barometer when I question if I am doing the right thing.