Wrong auction listings (Brooklyn Dodgers hats)

[accidental]

Both auction listings have now been corrected and list the proper dates.

Fredy

[kengoldin]

Reply sent to mr Freddy buenter at 9am

Dear mr buenter
Thank you for your email
We will look into this immediately and take whatever action is appropriate based on our research and the information you have provided. We obviously need to independently verify this information.

While I appreciate the email, I wanted to caution you about public forum posts such as the one you made in the below link.
out of fairness, it is horrible for you to email us at 726 am and then make a damaging public forum post 15 minutes later stating we are " listing something under false pretense"
This not only does not give us time to investigate the claim, but incorrectly puts out a message to the public that we are trying to do something intentionally deceitful.

Ken goldin

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:26 AM, "fredy bünter" <

Hi

I discovered this Gil Hodges hat, which you are currently auctioning: http://www.goldinauctions.com/1957-g...p-lot8617.aspx

This is with 100% certainty not a 1957 hat, but a hat from the 1953 (possibly early 1954) season. The logo and the tagging both confirm this. Additionally, these hats were available to the public via mail order, thus the authenticity of all McAuliffe hats are always in question when there is no provenance record.

Thanks for your concern.

Best wishes

Fredy Buenter

[accidental]

Thanks, I appreciate your reaction, which clearly shows that you care about what you auction.

I just want collectors to be aware that they are bidding on something that is not what it seems.

[perezfan]

I just re-rerad the REA description for the Cap attributed to Jackie Robinson. I actually saw nothing wrong with their description (other than stating early '50's instead of perhaps mid '50s).

They seemed to take extra precaution in their description, by using words/phrases like "attributed" and "leap of faith". I think they were very responsible in portraying that the evidence is "circumstantial" in nature, and that bidders should be aware that assessing player attribution to McAuliffe Caps like this is not an exact science.

They also referenced Jackie Robinson's willingness to gift his Caps to the public, and are providing the signed Letter from the former Bat Boy. So other than the timing being off by perhaps a couple of years, I felt they did their due diligence.

Curious also as to why you did not call out the Tom Seaver Cap (Lot #1358). It is a KM, and was consigned by the same former Bat Boy. Is it because his hand-written Letter was worded stronger ("Cap was given to me directly by Seaver") and that a photo was provided, showing the two of them together? Still no iron-clad proof, but provides awfully strong evidence and provenance form a pretty good source, IMO.

[timzcardz]

I always "appreciate" the anonymous (until Leon stepped in) "authoritative" warnings to others, with no substantive proof provided, all in the name of protecting unsuspecting potential bidders.

The suspicious character that I am, I immediately think that it is someone attempting to influence others to not bid against them.




To Mr. Goldin,

In the no such thing as bad publicity category, seeing this thread I will take a look tonight to see if you have any offerings that interest me this go around.

So I guess "thanks" are in order to Mr. Buenter!

[accidental]

Thanks for your messages.

Yes, the Seaver hat certainly has more credible provenance than both the Dodgers hats, plus it becomes much more difficult to date KM hats in the 60s and 70s.
I also think that the Hodges hat in the Goldin auction is most likely the real deal. It's just not from 1957 and for me that makes a huge difference and it may also make a difference for a potential buyer.

I do have all the proper evidence to prove what I'm saying of course, but I'm simply unwilling to share it publically, as it took a lot of time, effort and money to acquire it.

I have no interest in these auctions whatsoever, I'm really just tired of seeing things listed as something they are not, when all it takes is a little effort and diligent research. There are in my opinion however, some telltale signs that any authenticator should recognize that help date these hats.

[itslarry]

Originally Posted by accidental

I do have all the proper evidence to prove what I'm saying of course, but I'm simply unwilling to share it publically, as it took a lot of time, effort and money to acquire it.

I have no interest in these auctions whatsoever, I'm really just tired of seeing things listed as something they are not, when all it takes is a little effort and diligent research. There are in my opinion however, some telltale signs that any authenticator should recognize that help date these hats.

Well what if I have super expensive but secret proof that can't be shared saying Elvis, Ty AND Mr.Santa Clause himself all wore that hat. See how it is?


....thetruthisoutthere, maybe

[accidental]

Goldin has adjusted the auction description, I thus removed it from my original post.

I have sent the proper evidence to Goldin proving beyond any doubt that the hat in question is from early 1953, including proper documentation. I also provided a 1951 Hodges image, which is now used in the auction (1951 was the first year the Dodgers wore McAuliffe hats on field, featuring for the first time the logo seen on the hat in the auction).

It is beyond my understanding though, how somebody can state that by studying the Dodgers B this can only be attributed to the 1957 season... a 2 minute Ebay search proves the opposite, the same goes for the supposedly 1952 Robinson cap.

[accidental]

REA has also adjusted the listing for the supposed Robinson cap, I thus removed the link from the OP.

[Duluth Eskimo]

No one has really commented on it, but I just wanted to say I think it's a little bush league to put those guys on blast without giving them the opportunity to evaluate the information you sent them.

You act as if everyone should have the level of game worn hat knowledge you have (assuming you are correct) and that both companies were being malicious in their descriptions.

I don't personally know either of these companies, but both are generally considered stand up in the hobby and obviously both were willing listeners and adjusted the descriptions accordingly.

I also find it ironic that you didn't have the stones to put your name in your post. This is just my opinion so take it as you wish. Jason

[Scott Garner]

Why hasn't he been required to use his real name since the nature of these posts has been somewhat controversial?

Everyone is required to use their actual name, I think this is especially true if you plan on taking pot shots at a businesses credibility, FWIW...

[accidental]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Why hasn't he been required to use his real name since the nature of these posts has been somewhat controversial?

Everyone is required to use their actual name, I think this is especially true if you plan on taking pot shots at a businesses credibility, FWIW...

Sorry guys, I simply didn't know about the name policy, I stand behind what I wrote and of course do so with my name.

On the topic, if the auction houses really want to run a fair business, why don't they get the stuff authenticated? If they are expecting to raise four figures for a hat, this would be the least they could do, wouldn't you agree?

Fredy

[Leon]

Originally Posted by accidental

Sorry guys, I simply didn't know about the name policy, I stand behind what I wrote and of course do so with my name.

On the topic, if the auction houses really want to run a fair business, why don't they get the stuff authenticated? If they are expecting to raise four figures for a hat, this would be the least they could do, wouldn't you agree?

Fredy

Had you read the rules you would have known about the name policy. But most people don't read them so we can't hold your feet to the fire too much on that. However, that being said your first and last name should be in your signature line if you want to give opinions on very much. You can put periods, hyphens or other symbols in it so it won't be Google searchable, but it should be there. Any questions about it can be posted here or in a PM to me. Same rules for everyone. We think it keeps the place a bit more real. thanks much..