I read this first in Nash's site.

The first and easy thing to do is attack Nash who did a great job uncovering this. Why attack him? He's acting like a journalist. Sounds like all the political ads on my television.

Second, so let me get this straight. The item was "in preview" and therefore you assumed it would pass JSA or PSA/DNA, but doesn't Heritage employee authenticators themselves like Mike?

Lastly, I guess Nash should wait until the auction runs before pointing out errors, huh?

Regards,

Larry

...because he's an asshole?

If Nash thought this item would get by the authenticators (and forums) and actually get sold, he would definitely have waited. That's not his game.

Forgive me if I've missed something here, but how did this ball ever make it past anyone at HA, nevermind that it was published on their actual website, preview or not?

Is there anything unethical about previewing items that "might" be in your auction? It seems like if an unknown auction house wanted to make its name known, it could feature lots that might be authentic just to get people to view and bid on its "real" auction.

No there isn't.. It's unethical to publicly display a description that states it passed JSA and PSA authentication before it actually did.

+1
Most especially when it was for a baseball that was manufactured years after the purported signer died.

here, here!!!!!!

they knew it, they blew it, now its damage control time. If you complain, they suspend your bidder acount. It's YOUR fault, never theirs.