Problems with two championship rings in upcoming Heritage Auction

[sports-rings]

I wanted to alert the collecting community to two items in the upcoming Heritage Platinum Night live and internet Auction to take place during the National.

I believe there is evidence that I am going to show below that these two rings have been tampered with and the story that goes along with the rings has a few holes in them.

Heritage was told the stories by the consigner, so in a sense, Heritage is not embellishing anything, just repeating the claims of the consigner.

Before I go further, I'd like to make some disclosures.

I consider my relationship at the current moment with Heritage to be in good standing. I won a high-ticket item in their last live sports auction and I have consigned football rings with them in the past (the last item I consigned with them was NY Jets super bowl ring that sold for over 53,000 during a live NY City auction).

I truly hope that Heritage will not ban me from participating as a bidder in future auctions for this post. If I am banned then it would have to be from this post.

I hope that Heritage will modify the two listings to more accurately describe the rings, or pull them since they have been heavily modified from their original state.

I further want to disclose that I was contacted by the consigner of these two rings and invited to buy them from him before he placed them in this auction. I was very excited about the opportunity to purchase these rings as we have done business together over the years.

As soon as he sent me pictures of the rings and I verified the story about these rings, it became obvious that they were modified and that the story does not make sense. I declined to purchase the rings at any price and the seller decided his best course of action was to send them to Heritage for auction.

I contacted Chris Ivy at Heritage and emailed him pictures and my concerns. Chris has been great, returning my emails and letting me know that they are investigating the two rings. I don't understand why the investigation is taking as long as it is and Chris's response on this is that they want to get the changes correctly and that they have time to modify it before the auction.

Chris did indicate in one of the first emails to me that he agreed with me, that the rings looked to have been modified.

It seems like this is taking much too long and I worry someone will buy the ring, not realizing the issues.

I believe these were real rings (probably salesman sample rings) but Mr. Edwards had his name engraved on them.

Mr. Edwards claimed he tried to make the teams but didn't make the roster. He told the consigner of these rings that Ownership really liked him and kept him around on the practice squad. This claim is stated in both Heritage lots.

Please examine the photos below. The "Edwards" rings in the auction are shown on the left. To the right of each ring are examples of real rings.

The "44" on the XIII ring is wrong, and the dots on his helmet are square, not round. The "44" is too big, and there are some issues with the lettering in both rings.

The "DB" looks wrong too on the xiii ring.

Yet, the markings on the super bowl XIII ring are good, but the lettering/engraving is awful. And why is the black paint so much more shiny than it should be?

On the super bowl X ring, His "A" and "W" are not the same as two real rings I have in my database. And don't get me started on the "S"

And, there is absolutely no person named "Don or Donald Edwards who played for the Steelers, and no "Don or Donald Edwards" in college football other than a qb who played years before.

I also researched practice squads from this era and it looks like practice squads were not used during the time Mr. Edwards claimed to be on the squad. You either made the team or you were cut. I believe the practice squad concept started in the 1980's or 1990's when teams reduced players on the team to save salary. It was a way to deal with injuries to active players while keeping team payroll lower.

What do you net54 folks think?

[sports-rings]

wow, no opinions or thoughts from the collecting community?

[Runscott]

Michael, I know nothing about rings, but if I had been interested in them I would have bid without hesitation. Now that you've shown the obvious problems, I wouldn't touch them. Thanks for teaching us something.

[Lordstan]

I will echo Scott's comments. I don't know anything about rings, but the differences are pretty obvious once you know what you're looking for.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

I will echo Scott's comments. I don't know anything about rings, but the differences are pretty obvious once you know what you're looking for.

I agree, the differences are pretty obvious. Yet as the days continue to pass the two item descriptions remain unchanged and there have been numerous bids on both items.

I am not sure if Heritage's investigation has now concluded or is still going on. Chris said he would update the listings and make an announcement at the live auction should they conclude that they need to change the description of either item.

There are a couple of "ring experts" in the hobby, including one under the PSA umbrella of authentication services.

I hope Heritage will seek other opinions on the rings if they still feel at the conclusion of their investigation that the last name, the uniform number and player-position on the rings look original and not modified.

[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.

[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.

[Jewish-collector]

Michael - If you have a shouting match at the Heritage booth about this ring, let us all know so we can watch the action take place.

See you in Cleveland !!!

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

Michael - If you have a shouting match at the Heritage booth about this ring, let us all know so we can watch the action take place.

See you in Cleveland !!!

And please make sure a popcorn maker is close by...I'm ready for a show! Seriously though, I know nothing about rings, but I do know that if I was looking to purchase, Michael is one of the first people I would go to. Just like with autographs, this forum exists for collectors to help each other out and better the hobby. People like Michael that invest emotion in the hobby are the people that make the difference.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by Jewish-collector

Michael - If you have a shouting match at the Heritage booth about this ring, let us all know so we can watch the action take place.

See you in Cleveland !!!

Wish I was going, but not this year.

Hauls of shame has reported today that Heritage has pulled the 1882 Reds pocket watch from the Platinum Auction.

Not sure if it had anything to do with Peter Nash's article on the Heritage auction today.

Maybe the crew at Heritage will have more time now to look into those two Steeler rings again. It seems that the consensus by other net54 readers is that the two Steeler rings look like they were tampered with.

Ring expert Scott Welkowsky concluded the same thing.

[zachtruitt]

Thanks for saving some people a lot of money!!
I know zero about rings but do you think the original owner had the ring totally fabricated from scratch or did he modify an existing ring? Thanks!

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by zachtruitt

Thanks for saving some people a lot of money!!
I know zero about rings but do you think the original owner had the ring totally fabricated from scratch or did he modify an existing ring? Thanks!

Heritage did a nice job showing the manufacturer's engraving on the inside band of the Superbowl XIII ring. I have pictures of a player's ring to compare, and I have found that the markings are identical. This means the Superbowl XIII ring was really made by Jostens and the ring is real. I believe is was modified with the name Edwards, a jersey number and position. The ring was probably originally a salesman sample.

Chris Ivy, in an email to me around a week ago, agreed with my opinion.

I believe the super bowl X ring was a real ring too, and my opinion is it was modified with the name "Edwards" added to it.

[sports-rings]

I visited the Heritage site today and they still have not changed their listings. The rings are climbing in price and looks like a winning bidder will need to shell out close to or perhaps more than 5 figures per ring.

I noticed that Heritage has a feature that lets you blow up the items. These rings look much worse when blown up.

You will notice on the real superbowl X rings, (the rings with the yellow-gold background) how straight the letters are at the top of the last names. Now look at the Edwards name below:

If anyone feels the way I do, perhaps you can contact Chris Ivy or better yet visit their booth at the National and try to speak to them. Hopefully you won't get yelled at.

[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!

[baseball tourist]

Very informative! Appreciate learning more.

[zachtruitt]

Your examples and pictures speak for themselves. Thank you Michael. I hope the information makes its way to the right people.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by zachtruitt

Your examples and pictures speak for themselves. Thank you Michael. I hope the information makes its way to the right people.

4 days left to go in the internet portion of the auction and still no changes in the descriptions of both rings.

If anyone speaks to Chris Ivy or any of the other sports memorabilia experts at Heritage before the live auction can you please show them or alert them to the blown up pictures in this thread?

I'm disappointed that such a huge auction house with such a large and knowledgeable staff allows these two listings to go unchanged for so long and let this situation fester.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

4 days left to go in the internet portion of the auction and still no changes in the descriptions of both rings.

If anyone speaks to Chris Ivy or any of the other sports memorabilia experts at Heritage before the live auction can you please show them or alert them to the blown up pictures in this thread?

I'm disappointed that such a huge auction house with such a large and knowledgeable staff allows these two listings to go unchanged for so long and let this situation fester.

These guys like to ban people who openly express doubt about their items.
I got banned for allowing my autograph opinions to be used in the Hauls of Shame web site. They claimed I was working for Peter Nash and did not want someone who does that to be registered with them. But they will allow Hall of Fame thieves to be in their employ. Makes sense right?

[William Farrell]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

4 days left to go in the internet portion of the auction and still no changes in the descriptions of both rings.

If anyone speaks to Chris Ivy or any of the other sports memorabilia experts at Heritage before the live auction can you please show them or alert them to the blown up pictures in this thread?

I'm disappointed that such a huge auction house with such a large and knowledgeable staff allows these two listings to go unchanged for so long and let this situation fester.

Michael, thank you for your vigilance on this matter.

On a related note, I'm very curious as to any opinion or observations you may have concerning the Babe Ruth/Gruen 1923 World Championship pocket watch (awarded that year instead of a ring) auctioned for $750K by Heritage recently.

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by William Farrell

Michael, thank you for your vigilance on this matter.

On a related note, I'm very curious as to any opinion or observations you may have concerning the Babe Ruth/Gruen 1923 World Championship pocket watch (awarded that year instead of a ring) auctioned for $750K by Heritage recently.

I don't have any experience or knowledge about pocket watches.

I am not affiliated with, or work with, or endorse Peter Nash who runs the website hauls of shame. Peter did an in depth story on the watch and claimed the watch had issues.

I would suggest you google about the watch and throw in Hauls of Shame into your search.

[William Farrell]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I don't have any experience or knowledge about pocket watches.

I am not affiliated with, or work with, or endorse Peter Nash who runs the website hauls of shame. Peter did an in depth story on the watch and claimed the watch had issues.

I would suggest you google about the watch and throw in Hauls of Shame into your search.

I had noticed the issue with the non-sequentially unrelated serial numbering prior to reading the HOS website page on it. Knowing what I do about watches, it struck me as odd, especially that the engraving was different than his team-mates' watches and 1920s Gruen Veri-thin pocket watches are not much of a rarity, readily available in the vintage pocket watch marketplace.

I know your knowledge of championship rings is second to none in the field, so I was hoping you'd be equally knowledgeable on a related championship award, and eager for your input.

[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

[sports-rings]

Originally Posted by Chris Ivy

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

Chris,

Thank you for replying in this forum and thank you for your time on this matter and for your civility.

Chris the main issue I have with these two rings is that it has become abundantly clear that the two rings were not manufactured originally with Mr. Edwards name, uniform number and position engraved.

Not a single person I have spoken to or shown the photos to, has concluded that the markings are original and proper.

I can't imagine what Mr. Edwards can possibly tell you or show you that would change someone's mind that the manufacturer produced the "Edwards" engravings when you compare them to other examples of engravings of real rings.

Chris, you have more knowledge about the hobby than I do but I have an interesting story: I received a phone call last year from a pawn shop that I purchase items from. They had a National Champions collegiate football ring.

I wrote down the player's name and then proceeded to goggle him and found thru wiikipedia that he was a player on the team and had some important contributions.

Chris, after I received the ring, I learned that he was a con-man and had never played for the team. He created a false history of himself on the internet, (most of it on wikipedia) and went around for years and told everyone he played on that college team. He went to official events and signed tons of autographs, and even got a major ring manufacturer to make him a national champions ring.

I share this story with you because it taught me that there are people out there who want so badly to let others think they were part of a team that they would go to great lengths to associate themselves with the organization.

Chris, I have no idea if Mr. Edwards is doing the same thing, but if there is no record of Mr. Edwards playing college football and there were no practice squads during this time period, I would be very concerned if I were you about the rings being authentic relative to their present descriptions. After all, according to the superbowl XIII ring, Mr. Edwards was assigned a uniform number that season (and checking the roster, no one else had that number) and Mr. Edwards was a defensive back (just not in college or the pros). And none of this may be relevant since when I enlarged pictures of your rings and other rings, it became crystal clear to everyone on this board and those I spoke to in the championship-ring collecting community that those engravings are not original.

Thank you again for coming on and for working with me on this matter, I do appreciate your time on this matter.

[William Farrell]

"I wrote down the player's name and then proceeded to goggle him and found thru wiikipedia that he was a player on the team and had some important contributions.

Chris, after I received the ring, I learned that he was a con-man and had never played for the team. He created a false history of himself on the internet, (most of it on wikipedia) and went around for years and told everyone he played on that college team. He went to official events and signed tons of autographs, and even got a major ring manufacturer to make him a national champions ring."

Mike, you're willing to go the distance and put in the time on the investigative "leg-work" to thoroughly research the background of a questionable piece. Many take the road less traveled, to the unfortunate compromising of the integrity in the sports collectable arena.

[zachtruitt]

It seems pretty straight forward to me. No record of this person, no ring.

[hcv123]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Thanks Howard, no worries.

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

Because I'm not that emotionally invested

[Duluth Eskimo]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

These guys like to ban people who openly express doubt about their items.
I got banned for allowing my autograph opinions to be used in the Hauls of Shame web site. They claimed I was working for Peter Nash and did not want someone who does that to be registered with them. But they will allow Hall of Fame thieves to be in their employ. Makes sense right?

As I have said, Mike Gutierrez is a clown. No offense to clowns intended

[sports-rings]

Heritage has removed the two auction items.

I appreciate Chris investigating this matter and then removing the items upon their findings.

In his response that he posted on net54, I interpreted one of his comments to be a hint that there could be a lawsuit against me because of their policy to protect their consigners' best interests.

I hope Chris remembers that I am a winning bidder and participator in many of their auctions and that I have consigned some high-end football rings in the past to his auction house.

After dealing with this matter and a hint of possible legal action I can see why others are not always so fast to jump in and alert the collecting community to problems.

As Chris stated in his response, I tried to alert him privately about this matter. My intension was to help them - not to hurt them.

I only took this matter publicly when I felt that we were nearing the auction. Chris and I see the timing differently, and I feel that my opinion should count too - I feel I was justified to no longer wait but to alert the collecting community. Chris feels differently and has stated why in his response on this board.

So I hope, when Chris sits down and decides who to protect, I hope he remembers that I have helped contribute to their bottom line and I hope they don't ruin our relationship with banning me or worse a lawsuit. That would hurt their bottom line too.

[Duluth Eskimo]

I think of the old saying, "don't bite the hand that feeds you". Wait, you have been feeding them for quite some time with your bidding and consigning. I guess the other old saying comes in to play, "what have you done for me lately".

I took the same thing from his comments. It's really too bad. I know very little about rings, but know quite a bit of vintage memorabilia in general. I think your detail and description of the items in question was quite overwhelming to your point. In the end, I think you did the right thing. Jason

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Heritage has removed the two auction items.

I appreciate Chris investigating this matter and then removing the items upon their findings.

In his response that he posted on net54, I interpreted one of his comments to be a hint that there could be a lawsuit against me because of their policy to protect their consigners' best interests.

I hope Chris remembers that I am a winning bidder and participator in many of their auctions and that I have consigned some high-end football rings in the past to his auction house.

After dealing with this matter and a hint of possible legal action I can see why others are not always so fast to jump in and alert the collecting community to problems.

As Chris stated in his response, I tried to alert him privately about this matter. My intension was to help them - not to hurt them.

I only took this matter publicly when I felt that we were nearing the auction. Chris and I see the timing differently, and I feel that my opinion should count too - I feel I was justified to no longer wait but to alert the collecting community. Chris feels differently and has stated why in his response on this board.

So I hope, when Chris sits down and decides who to protect, I hope he remembers that I have helped contribute to their bottom line and I hope they don't ruin our relationship with banning me or worse a lawsuit. That would hurt their bottom line too.

Michael,
You did the right thing. Net54 is a community and you were simply warning people of some inconsistencies in an item that could possibly be had at a large amount of money. I don't understand bringing a lawsuit against someone based on "protecting the consignors best interest" - I mean, what does that even mean? It's always drove me crazy when Heritage sends item to "print" for their catalog that haven't been fully checked out. I'm sorry, but if I am going to spend that kind of money on an item, then it better be fully sealed with no cracks at all in the story. This had too many cracks and who knows if the posts here forced their hand at removing the items.

[Lordstan]

Micheal,
I must agree with Jason and James. I think posting here was the right thing to do. Rings are not my collecting field, but I find your posts very educational and interesting. I find that seeing how people go through the thought process of identifying items helps me when I go through the same process of items that I do collect.
Perhaps Chris has a point about you being impatient waiting for them to go through their investigation, but I can't help but think that this whole series of events might have been avoided had the same research been done prior to accepting the ring into the auction. One would think that something as simple as confirming that a player named Edwards could have been on the teams in question should be part of the initial investigation of a player attributed item, like a ring or game used item. I mean would they list a game used NY Yankees uniform supposedly worn by Babe Ruth with the Baseball Centennial patch from 1939? I think that would never make it in to the catalog in the first place. I think the due diligence they owe consignors, to which Chris refers, would be done prior to listing it for sale.
All that being said, in the end, Heritage did get it right, and we should give them credit for doing so. Whether this thread had anything to do with it will never be known and is conjecture. We all need a Mulligan every once in a while.

I hope they don't ban you for expressing your concerns. Please keep posting as I always learn something new when I read them.
Mark

[thecatspajamas]

Where does he threaten a lawsuit? I don't see it.

If you're talking about the "protecting the consignors best interest" line, it seems more reasonable that he was referring to their aforementioned desire to only amend the listing once and only once, after their investigation was completed.

[perezfan]

I didn't see the lawsuit threat either... unless it was contained in a separate correspondence between you and Chris.

I can't imagine Heritage would want that, either. They'd have to prove you are wrong, when the overwhelming evidence is on your side. Then they would have to prove actual damages. The legal fees and time spent would easily overshadow any gains they would potentially realize from their commission on those 2 rings. Not to mention the bad publicity, should they lose the case... all over 2 rings? No way would that lawsuit ever come to fruition.

If there was really a lawsuit threat, it was most likely an empty scare tactic.

[sports-rings]

[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 wrote that it could be interpreted that he is hinting at a lawsuit. Perhaps I read too much into it.

[William Farrell]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

I ruin our relationship with banning me or worse a lawsuit.

A lawsuit based on what? For posting facts in a discussion on a discussion forum concerning auction items that you had good reason to believe were of a questionable nature?

[ooo-ribay]

Awesome work, Michael.

I learned a lot from this thread. The hobby needs good policemen like you. I don't have an opinion, one way or another, on Heritage but we all know that some auction houses have been less than forthcoming in the past.

As a bonus, the thread read like a good "whodunit."

[shelly]

I did not read law suite. I did read what I felt was a lot of hot air. You only need five minutes with Mr. Edwards tell him you think the rings are bogus and unless he can prove without a doubt they are not remove them from the auction. No other statements needed.

[bobfreedman]

While I understand that Michael did a great job on the rings, I do not understand why you feel that Heritage needs to jump and do things in a manner and pace that you feel is proper? Chris Ivy sent you a reply and told you that they were investigating the manner and for me, that is good enough. Why do they need to do things by your schedule? They have an obligation to the consigner to figure things out and, that does not happen in a day or a week sometimes. They do, believe it or not have other things to do other than this one task. As Chris said, the consigner was not immediately available. What would have happened if they pulled the rings, talked to the consigner and figured out one of the two rings were good? Were they then supposed to put it back up for auction? It's up for auction, it's down, it's back up etc....

You did your job and told Chris but, that was not good enough for you, you were not happy that they were doing things at their pace and not your perceived time frame therefore, you felt the need to "call" them out. Heritage IMO did nothing wrong and did a great job in the end. Michael , I don't know you and I do not want to start something here with you but, I just think that people need to be patient and not so quick to jump to the worst conclusion. You were in communications with Chris and he told you that he was on it. Why was that not good enough for you?

[ooo-ribay]

Originally Posted by bobfreedman

While I understand that Michael did a great job on the rings, I do not understand why you feel that Heritage needs to jump and do things in a manner and pace that you feel is proper? Chris Ivy sent you a reply and told you that they were investigating the manner and for me, that is good enough. Why do they need to do things by your schedule? They have an obligation to the consigner to figure things out and, that does not happen in a day or a week sometimes. They do, believe it or not have other things to do other than this one task. As Chris said, the consigner was not immediately available. What would have happened if they pulled the rings, talked to the consigner and figured out one of the two rings were good? Were they then supposed to put it back up for auction? It's up for auction, it's down, it's back up etc....

You did your job and told Chris but, that was not good enough for you, you were not happy that they were doing things at their pace and not your perceived time frame therefore, you felt the need to "call" them out. Heritage IMO did nothing wrong and did a great job in the end. Michael , I don't know you and I do not want to start something here with you but, I just think that people need to be patient and not so quick to jump to the worst conclusion. You were in communications with Chris and he told you that he was on it. Why was that not good enough for you?

Agree with this, too, even tho I stand by my opinion of Michael as a good watchdog. I think Michael may have been frustrated because it seemed like a no brainer to pull the auction. That said, I understand Heritage's position as well. God, I'm wishy washy!

[Duluth Eskimo]

If it wasn't so blatantly ridiculous I would agree with you guys. The problem is anyone with any sports knowledge can look at the evidence and say, we got a problem here. Why sit on it and let people continue to bid. I understand what you are saying that in the end there was no foul, but come on. Really?

[bobfreedman]

Originally Posted by Duluth Eskimo

If it wasn't so blatantly ridiculous I would agree with you guys. The problem is anyone with any sports knowledge can look at the evidence and say, we got a problem here. Why sit on it and let people continue to bid. I understand what you are saying that in the end there was no foul, but come on. Really?

For the same reasons that I listed above;
1. There are two sides to every story
2. They wanted to get in contact with the consigner
3. Why rush to take it down if no harm is done to leave it up?
4. Just because their pace of investigating is not what you would consider fast enough doesn't make them guilty of anything.

If you were the consigner here and they took the items down without so much as an email, how pissed would you be?