Am I Wrong or Is Hunt Auctions Wrong?

[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

[sports-rings]

Hunt's egregious mislabeling is worse than I thought.

I just learned that there is a "B" version of this ring, given to upper-level staff, who were not players.

This new insight happened as a ring was put on ebay this week that is truly a "B" version.

So the Hunt ring is now a "C" version ring. I feel sorry for the person who buys the ring and later on discovers that the ring is 2 steps down from a player's version.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by sports-rings

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?

Originally Posted by sports-rings

Hunt's egregious mislabeling is worse than I thought.

I just learned that there is a "B" version of this ring, given to upper-level staff, who were not players.

This new insight happened as a ring was put on ebay this week that is truly a "B" version.

So the Hunt ring is now a "C" version ring. I feel sorry for the person who buys the ring and later on discovers that the ring is 2 steps down from a player's version.

Can you also see though how applying labeling that you are not 100% sure is accurate can be problematic? Hunt went back and changed the description to read "front office" ring, but that wasn't enough for you. You "repeatedly continued to request" that, among other things, it be labeled as a "B" version of the ring. Only now you find out it's not actually a "B" version, so even if they had made the changes you asked for, would you be beating down the door again demanding that they further revise the description?

Sometimes there is such a thing as providing "too much information" if the added information in itself has the potential to be misleading. To me, it appears that David added only the information he could be 100% sure of ("front office" ring rather than player's ring), and leaves the rest of the research to the buyer. Sure, it would be nice if every auction house that lists a ring would lock down every bit of information about it and perfectly label and categorize it, but in a case like this where even the expert is continuing to find out new information about the item, can you really blame them for "playing it safe" with the item description?

Just my take on the overall situation, with me having near-zero knowledge of rings. I have though had plenty of experience with bidders irate over mistakes or minor discrepancies in descriptions (more minor than this), and can say with some confidence that being "right" is necessarily only part of how you approach situations like this. Both sides have to be willing to step back and evaluate the new or corrected information for what it is, and I find that "repeated requests," especially if they just repeat the same information, are more annoying than helpful and do nothing to promote an unbiased consideration of the facts at hand. If I remember correctly, didn't this same kind of badgering followed by public complaining get you banned from bidding with another major auction house? I'm not trying to take sides here, but you might take a step back and seriously consider your approach to these kinds of situations.