Heritage Hypocrisy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

OK, thanks. I'm learning more. Is it not true that this ball is most certainly a 1927 model? Is that the 1 in 3 that you speak of?


Do you think it's a bad/hypocritical thing that this information was posted by Heritage, as others here seem to be arguing?

I'm only learning this stuff through googling I did today, and I could certainly have made errors. According to Heritage, it is a 1927 model. I have no reason to believe they are incorrect. Whoops - misread your post. The '1 in 3' I mentioned is the odds of a forger choosing the correct ball from the limited information he would have had pre-1999. I don't necessarily agree with Heritage that a forger wouldn't have been able to narrow his odds down to 1 in 1. We really don't know.

No, it's great that they posted the information. I don't see it as hypocritical - I just see it as unintentionally using fallacious logic. It's human and not intentionally misleading (in my opinion).