Am I Wrong or Is Hunt Auctions Wrong?

[sports-rings]

As is the case every year, Hunt Auctions will be holding a football auction, the day before, and in the same city as the Superbowl. As a ring and football collector I look forward to the auction every year.

This year, Hunt has a few football rings in the auction and I have been conversing by email with David Hunt about one of the rings in the auction.

The first two pictures below show the ring in the Hunt Auction. The last two pictures show an actual player's ring in my collection. I have no doubt that the item in the auction is a real font-office ring, however it is smaller, different, and contains less diamonds than what player's received.

When it comes to championship rings, auction houses sometimes get facts wrong or their descriptions need clarifications. In the auction houses defense, I don't believe they mislead bidders on purpose. There aren't books available to refer to, and I spend countless hours a month researching rings and detailing my findings in my personal database.

I am happy to help collectors, and auction houses too, and go out of my way to let auction houses know when something needs to be changed, withdrawn or clarified. Most auction houses are happy to avoid upsetting bidders and quickly make the changes. Some go into denial, and do their own research and usually wind up making the changes. Sadly, a few try to do nothing or very little.

When I first noticed the problem with the description, I emailed Daivd Hunt, and suggested he update the description to include that the ring in the auction was smaller, different and contained less diamonds than a player's ring. I sent detailed photographs showing the differences.

His response to my email was that they were already aware that the Bears ring was not a player’s ring and that if it was a players ring the estimate would have been 2-3 times the listed amount.

I was shocked with the response. Was it possible David was claiming the bidder should know the ring was not the same size, based upon a lower estimate?

I wrote back and specifically reminded him how little information is available to collectors and questioned why take a chance on upsetting bidders and consigners with bad information that may lead to problems, or bad feelings or loss of a sale when the truth is found out?

His second response stated that my point was of very little relevance to the sale amount of the ring given its description and related estimate. He said he was happy to add into the description that the ring was a front office ring. He then stated that if they had published an estimate of $10,000-$15,000 and were not informing buyers that this type of ring typically sells between $5,000-$7,000 there might be a genuine concern that someone could be deceived.

I responded to David that I found his responses frighting and mentioned I would be warning the collecting community about this problem.

Well true to his word, David did add that this is a front office ring to the auction description. I repeatedly continued to request that he clarify the description even further with the fact that it is a smaller and lesser version than the player ring but he refuses to honor my request.

So therefore, I am trying to alert the community about this matter. If any of you have any contacts at Hunt and feel the way I do, perhaps you can request that they change the description. I will also be reaching out to the NFL on this matter as they coordinate this auction with Hunt.

If you would like to see the auction item, here is the link:

http://huntauctions.com/live/imagevi...=310&lot_qual=

[Leon]

Michael, it seems like he met you half way but the more transparency the better. I would be disappointed if I got a ring expecting a full sized one and received a much smaller one. That being said I would think, though I could be wrong, that anyone spending 5k+ on a ring would know it's going to be smaller if it is a front office example?

[sports-rings]

anyone spending 5k+ on a ring would know it's going to be smaller if it is a front office example

Front office rings are not always smaller. It is up to the discretion of ownership. And, depending upon the employee's rank, he could be elevated to a larger ring.

Yes, bidders should do their diligence in researching rings before bidding. However, as I said in my post, there are not too many resources for collectors.

A few collectors call the ring manufacturers and request specifics but the makers of the rings do not share much information. Teams too, do not share information.

Sometimes the ring specifications will wind up on the internet. In the case of a team that looses the superbowl, the ring specs rarely if ever wind up in the news or on the internet.

It can take a few years before a few rings are sold at auction to piece together what versions of rings were given out.

So, if someone like myself knows this is a "B" version ring, and the auction house is alerted to it, shouldn't they do the right thing (like other auction houses do) and update their listing?

Leon, I have the utmost respect for you as a person, and a collector, and the rarely thanked guy that runs this amazing site, so I do ask this with all due respect - do you honestly think I was met half way on this matter?

[Leon]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Front office rings are not always smaller. It is up to the discretion of ownership. And, depending upon the employee's rank, he could be elevated to a larger ring.

Yes, bidders should do their diligence in researching rings before bidding. However, as I said in my post, there are not too many resources for collectors.

A few collectors call the ring manufacturers and request specifics but the makers of the rings do not share much information. Teams too, do not share information.

Sometimes the ring specifications will wind up on the internet. In the case of a team that looses the superbowl, the ring specs rarely if ever wind up in the news or on the internet.

It can take a few years before a few rings are sold at auction to piece together what versions of rings were given out.

So, if someone like myself knows this is a "B" version ring, and the auction house is alerted to it, shouldn't they do the right thing (like other auction houses do) and update their listing?

Leon, I have the utmost respect for you as a person, and a collector, and the rarely thanked guy that runs this amazing site, so I do ask this with all due respect - do you honestly think I was met half way on this matter?

"Half Way" was just a term I used because I couldn't think of a phrase that meant 10% . Keep up the good work Michael. LL

[travrosty]

each time a ring is offered it should be clearly stated if the ring is salesman sample, front office, staff, coaches, players ring, A or B version.

i see so many auctions where the ring is offered and there is no indication if it is staff ring, player ring, a or b version. its crazy to see that because it takes so little effort to clearly list what type of ring it is.

[martindl]

I think all auction houses should go out of their way to inform and educate any potential bidder on items they have for sale. The front-office ring is substantially different than the ring given to the players and should be noted as such.

I don't collect rings and things, but I assume many that do often go for a non-player example to reduce their outlay. Someone buying this, thinking they're getting a representative example of the rings produced that year would be sorely miffed if they later found out they were different.

Michael, yours would be a lot nicer if it didn't have that green paint all over the side. You can't even see the name