Bogus Samples in upcoming Legendary Auction
 

There are two suspicious NY Yankees sample rings in the upcoming Legendary auction. One is a 1958 World Series ring and the other is a 1964 AL Championship ring. There is also a fake 1994 Houston Rockets sample in the auction. It has the name "Cureton" on the side for Earl Cureton. Cureton played exactly 2 games for the Rockets that year. Ask yourself why would the ring manufacturer make a sample using his name??? These bogus Cureton samples have floating around for many years and have been sold by allegedly reputable dealers who aren't so reputable in reality.

Hard Times At Legendary
 

puruse the items offered in their present auction and you can see an auction house in big transition and who is running the ship ?

The original poster didn't think this thread, and what he said, needs to have a name by it. It does. He said since he didn't name a company or person it was ok. I told him that if someone said what he said, about things in his companies auctions, would he want to know who is saying it? He didn't think so. I did. He's gone.

Michael, can you please train your guys in this forum about our rules :).


The whole reason we have our rule about having a name in the post isn't because of some technicality or just to have another rule. It is merely making everyone stand behind what they say, or they can't say it on this board.

I always use my own litmus test for these issues as - "would I want to know who is saying that if they said it about me or my company?" If the answer for me is yes (and I am not conservative on this issue) then their name needs to be there. That goes for getting into debates or arguments or anything else on the board. thanks !!

Leon, I totally understand how imporant the rule is and I do let them know about using their name and some wild cards to limit google from finding them.

Your rule is totally reasonable and makes this site so good.

The two posters who got banned had some compelling comments - I wish they would follow the one basic rule.

Oh well, I'll keep trying!

Thanks for all your help Leon!

I can't wait to find some time and look into these rings,

thanks for alerting us!

Redwings58 was 100% correct (too bad he got banned)

here is the legendary ring on the left and a real one on the right.

look at the stars, and also the "ees" in Yankees.

I wrote them and told them if they don't pull this ring and the other bad ring I am contacting the FBI

As I just now told someone, just because someone points out fraud does not make them immune from our "name" rules on the board. This OP that got banned is a shame. I hate, it but if it's that or keeping some integrity of board rules, then there is an easy choice. But I do thank him for bringing this to light.

As I was preparing pictures of the other bad ring in Legendary, I received an email from Doug Allen.

Doug stated he spoke to the consignor of both rings and was assured the were purchased from a Balfour sales rep.

Doug wanted me to know that with that new information he had updated the two auction listings.

Well even though I sent Doug pictures of good and bad rings, apparently that's good enough evidence for Doug.

I am including a picture of the AL Championship ring from Doug's auction. You will notice in the photos (the first picture) that the consigned ring is missing any and all stars at the lower portion of the top-hat, and notice that the diamond prongs are way too big.

You can also see that the top hat is not attached to the ring as cleanly as the real ring.

Doug feels everything is fine.

I will reach out to Balfour.

If anyone knows how to reach the FBI I would appreciate some help.

I do think if someone is correct in pointing on fraud that really save the industry and help net54 members from avoiding losing thousands of dollars they should get some type of a reprieve....only if they proven correct on the fraud

On the face of it your statement makes some sense. And we have had this exact debate more than once. But after going about a half layer deep with it, it's easy to see there is no way in heck that would work.

I could type until tomorrow with the reasons why it wouldn't so I will spare everyone and just say, it won't work on this forum.

ps...I should mention, I am always open for yet another debate and so far haven't been close to being convinced what you say would work, in practicality.

Why can't someone just put their name? How hard is that?

Leon, I do have a question - if someone really wanted to expose a problem piece and really didn't want to use their name, couldn't they post the following anomalously:

"I visited the ABC auction and noticed lot no. 999. Does anyone have any opinions or thoughts on this lot pertaining to it being or not being authentic?"

I probably wouldn't have an issue with that. As a matter of fact I can remember some instances where folks have done that and it was ok. I can't make a blanket statement but as long as the person posting doesn't make an accusation or say something is bad, fake etc......it probably wouldn't an issue. And lastly, very recently a major auction house (and advertiser) came to me about this exact question. They said they felt the person starting the thread should have to have their full name in their post. I said, show me where they said, or made accusations. They didn't. End of discussion. The person that started that thread never heard from me and it stayed without his name, only his user id.

Michael, not sure on how to get through to the fbi, might be better off contacting the northern Illinois da's office where the court cases of many of these guys took place, current atty Zachary Fardon. Not sure again but might be worth a shot if the same characters are up to the same chicanery.

Basically, I am saying they they could be on a limited status, but to ban may prevent others from voicing out fraud out there.....if they feel its too problematic to post, then net54 member and the hobby generally can now pay for fraudulent stuff that could of been avoided...I for one did not have any inking that there would be problems with the rings.......again they would have to be correct on the fraud to excuse them..and again it would be a limited reprieve..not full access..

I would do anything in my power to encourage people to point out valid fraud to others...that's a good thing for the hobby...worried about a few words in which the poster would be banned if not telling the truth in exchange for many many victims doesn't seem like a fair trade...

I think I can get through to the FBI as I have them on speed dial :). (seriously)......So, if anyone needs something let me know and I can help with some possible parameters for them to be involved. I am not saying I have any more pull than anyone else, except I do have a good rapport with the FBI investigating the hobby.

The "name" rules we have are not negotiable as of today (still debatable though). That being said, I have always helped folks expose fraud if they come to me, while they can remain anonymous. There are ways to do things other than breaking our most important rule. Do we lose a few members because of the rule? Yes, but to me, it does way more good than bad. As I always tell folks, if standing behind what you say is a problem, this is not going to be a good forum for you. If you want to make accusations and be anonymous, go somewhere else.

And BTW, you saying they have to be correct is probably the biggest obstacle to your whole plan. Many times we might not ever find out if they are correct or not, then what? They just screw up a person or a companies reputation while remaining anonymous? What if the person exposing them, and remaining anonymous, just had an ax to grind, then what?

IMO, The "name rule" is what sets Net54 apart from all other similar forums. If you really have something important or meaningful to say....it shouldn't be a problem putting your identity out there for all to see.

Jeff

Thanks Leon,

With the FBI on speed dial I now know who not to extort from!

I think Doug Allen is showing an error in judgement more than an effort to screw bidders.

I have reached out to Balfour who said they were interested in learning more about this matter, since it is clearly being auctioned off as having come from a Balfour salesman and the items have balfour markings, which in my opinion as you can see by the photos at the begging of this post, not authentic.

I called his office and was told he only prosecutes cases. They suggested I call the FBI!

Not sure if I should just see if Legendary has a change of heart and pulls the two rings, or perhaps Balfour will try to pressure them.

I sent pictures of the Legendary rings and pictures of real rings, and a copy of Irv Lerner's newsletter, where he boasts he will make any Yankee ring, with any name from any year.

Here is the email I received from a Balfour Executive.

Michael, just wanted to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail and thank you for the information. I have discussed this with our pro sports sales and as always we are concerned. We will be prepared better to deal with this situation thanks to your help. It would be nice if we could shut down all the thievery and copying of goods that exist out there but it’s almost impossible. I concur the pictures you sent are not Balfour samples. Thanks again,

I forwarded the email to Doug. I hope he will see the light and do the right thing.

Leon, in case Doug assures me these rings are still good, I'd appreciate the name of the FBI person. Besides the bs indicator going off when Doug said "the items are fine, they were acquired from a Balfour sales rep", I now have an email from Balfour saying, "those rings are no good".

Great work michael!

Oh Don't worry Michael, everything is up to date in Kansas City!!