Seahawks 2014 NFC Rings
 

The photo below appeared on Twitter yesterday and shows the newest NFC Championship ring.

The team that looses the Super Bowl is awarded an NFC or AFC championship ring, while the winning team of the big game, gets a larger and more blinged-out Super Bowl ring.

With no details to be found anywhere on the internet, we can surmise that the ring was made by Tiffany and Company. We know this because the picture of the wood championship ring box, is clearly Tiffany’s standard presentation box offering.

While the Tiffany presentation box is usually made in wood and then stained, the Seahawks 2013 Super Bowl ring box was painted in Seattle’s team color, and so is the new box.

We don’t know the size of the Seahawks championship ring, and we don’t know the gold content or how much it weighs.

What's interesting about the ring is that it is a close match (with less diamonds and probably smaller) to their Super Bowl winning ring from the prior year.

Perhaps, like no other losing Super Bowl ring, this ring will not hold a special place for the players on the team, who were one play away from winning back to back Super Bowls.

What do the net54 readers think of this ring?


http://sports-rings.com/newsletter_images/seah14.jpg

'14 Seahawks
 

Considering the way they lost the Super Bowl, I was willing to bet the 'Hawks would have gone the 2010 Steelers' route and awarded a watch.

I think a better pic of the ring top is needed to get an appreciation for the ring.

It's a beautiful ring in its own way but it looks like it was designed with a "do we have to" attitude.

Since most people, including the players, view the ring as being the equivalent of receiving the bubonic plague, I can't understand why they even have a conference championship ring.

My philosophy: be thankful for what you are able to accomplish. If the best you can do is win a conference ring, feel blessed that you have one.

I think it will be a big deal to the players who were not on the Super Bowl winning team. Beating Green Bay the way they did had to make the players proud enough to wear this ring.

To the guys who were part of the Super Bowl winning team the year before...probably won't be wearing this one ever. Maybe we'll see some of them show up in auctions?

I think you hit the nail on the head. Players who were there and won the Super Bowl the year before will not want to wear this ring, although the way it was designed, the two rings match up well together (they look very similar).

They will want no part of the new ring due to the way the team lost in the last few seconds.

Players who were rookies this past season, may see it differently. And yes, I hope you are right and we see this ring at auction this year.

I wonder how Seattle fans will view this ring from an auction stand-point?

As an attendee at the Green Bay NFC title game, I would probably bid more than it is worth. I have a game-used football from the 49'er NFC title game the year before, but could not get one for the Green Bay game (Hunt auctioned off two fakes that I desperately wanted to believe were real), so one of these rings would be my second favorite game-used item!

That's a strong accusation.

How do you know they were fake?

It's not a "strong accusation" - it's something I discovered by doing simple research prior to bidding.

Before bidding I first looked for photos showing balls in use in that game - once I found a ball with referee marks, I looked at those spots on every photo that showed those areas of the ball. I then re-watched the entire game several times, again checking the spots where the referee marks should be, and they were in the exact same spot on every ball where those areas could be seen - there was no variance (and there were plenty of ball shots).

The two Hunt balls had no marks at all. I asked Hunt about it, as I wanted any excuse to win one of the balls, but the gist of the conversation was that the balls were given to them as authentic game-issued. Even if a ball DOES have referee marks, that is no guarantee that it actually sees action on the field - you have to be able to photo-match it to be sure. But no marks at all?

Like most of the balls that show up in auctions, they were likely game-prepared, but not chosen as one of the balls that would be available for the game - thus, no referee marks. I'm sure Hunt is innocent of any wrong-doing, but the auction houses really need to start holding the NFL and the team equipment managers responsible for providing what they say they are providing. It would be simple for the NFL to assign a photographer to take photos of pre-marked items that the NFL wishes to sell to the public - just put an easily identifiable mark on the item, be it helmet, jersey, shoe, football, etc, then have the photographer concentrate on photos that show that mark on the item while in use. Then you remove the item from play and send it to the auction house you contracted with, along with the photo evidence. But without such a process, it would still be a simple task for anyone to do the same legwork that I did, the auction houses included.

Is there a remote chance that there were balls used in the game that had no referee marks and never showed up in any film?

The bottom line is that I'm sure no one really cares, so let's get back to talking about Mickey Mantle forgeries, because that's interesting stuff.

Is there anyone here who collects game-used items and does NOT do their research to confirm that the item is valid?

The NFL, MLB and many of the auction houses are playing game-used collectors for saps. Don't be a sap.

Wow, you know your stuff and did your homework!

Thanks for sharing, I'm really glad you explained this in further detail, and I know that I care, and I'm sure many other net54 members do too.

Thanks again!

Thanks. My thinking that no one cares has more to do with the fact that the NFL is sending balls to auction that could be a rubbed up ball fresh out of a box. Likely that they are actually game-prepared, but you would not be able to tell the difference. If any appreciable number of collectors gave a flip, such a situation could not possibly occur. Also, I brought up a similar problem with another game-used ball, with even more detail, and responses were negligible.