Heritage Hypocrisy

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

Right! My point is that now giving the date of this particular ball is in no way hypocritical. In fact, it is in direct reponse to being forced to pull the other balls down and is what Heritage should have done in the first damn place.

Wayne, Ban Johnson was the commissioner through 1927, so a forger would have to have gotten a 1927 or earlier ball. Notice that the ball has stamped on it 'PAT'D.MAR.17-25'. A forger would almost certainly have grabbed one with that stamp, meaning any ball he used would have a one out of three chance of being the correct one, even if he was just guessing. That doesn't seem like quite the miracle that Heritage is claiming.

I posted pics of both balls because I found it odd that the stitching is going in different directions. I thought Reach was anal about that sort of thing, but I guess not.

[travrosty]

where were their expert authenticators on the balls they took down, like the 1940 gehrig and the ty cobb signed wilson ball. why arent the awesome authenticators on those balls as well. why just awesome on the ones that heritage wants them to be awesome on?

its VERY hypocritical.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by travrosty

where were their expert authenticators on the balls they took down, like the 1940 gehrig and the ty cobb signed wilson ball. why arent the awesome authenticators on those balls as well. why just awesome on the ones that heritage wants them to be awesome on?

its VERY hypocritical.

We have different definitions of hypocritical. It seems to me that this was done in response to those others being pulled down. THAT IS A GOOD THING, regardless of your inability to admit it.

Whether they continue remains to be seen.

[Runscott]

Getting back to the Heritage 'working backwards from the fact that it is authentic' logic. We've already mentioned the fallacy of the argument that because the ball is correct, the signatures must be legitimate. We also know that because Johnson was gone after 1927, and a new patent mark was introduced in 1925, even if there was a different ball for each year (1925,1926,1927), a forger would only have to choose from three types of balls. Here, Heritage uses backwards logic again:

"It was only in the past ten years or so that an exhaustive study of the minor variations in stamping styles on Official American and National League baseballs determined that the A.L. balls used in 1927 were a one-year style..."

Why does Heritage assume that the good guys figured it out first? If I were a skilled forger, I would be doing my damnedest to figure out the differences between balls created in those three years. This ball surfaced prior to 1999. Here's more backward logic: the assumption is that it would be easier to find a signed 1927 Yankees team ball in pristine condition, than to find a 1927 ball in pristine condition. Why? Because they have one that is signed and not the other way around.

As I said, everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not picking on anyone. I think it's completely human to work backward from supposed fact. But it's sure not very scientific.

PLEASE: what little I know about baseball stamps from this period, I just learned through googling. Please feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes, which I am willing to bet I did.

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Why does Heritage assume that the good guys figured it out first? If I were a skilled forger, I would be doing my damnedest to figure out the differences between balls created in those three years.

Agreed. I think we have all been impressed, not sure if this is the correct word, by the creations of forgers of memorabilia, particularly ultra valuable early memorabilia, and particularly in the 1990s. From 19th century uniforms and balls, to engraved items, to autographs, etc. I do not doubt for an instant that individuals knew of the distinction.

All someone had to do was reference another 1927 signed Yankees ball to see the exact stampings the ball had on it. Literally, that's all you would need to have done. And I think a forger likely would have done Exactly that.

And I agree very much that individuals, who have become students of a field, know dates and other information about certain memorabilia that the general market does not. It is 2013, and I have my own stash of early bat anomaly dating and other early baseball knowledge, as we all do. Cannot make money dealing in physical objects of value unless you have information others do not.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

It is 2013, and I have my own stash of early bat anomaly dating and other early baseball knowledge, as we all do. Cannot make money dealing in physical objects of value unless you have information others do not.

Funny you should mention this. I have a 1910's bat that I needed to date more precisely, in order to verify its provenance. I learned nuances about early bat labels that were so esoteric that no one here would even respond to my posts. I learned these things because I was motivated. Forgers are also motivated.

[keithsky]

Not sure if this goes along with what everyone is saying but I find that auction house especially the bigger ones just go by what PSA and JSA say as gospel without ever doing research of there own to see if things are fake or not. The experts they have working for them should have knowledge of what is real or not as I would think that is why they were hired in the first place. There argument is they probably don't have the time or money to look at everything to see if it's real so we'll pass it off to the TPA and let them decide so we don't have to be responsible if it is fake or not. And also when someone questions them on something that looks questionable the auction houses don't ever seem to want to listen to reason because it's not from PSA or JSA so we all must not know what were talking about in there mind. Were not the big authenticators they use and they know everything. I have seen more knowledgeable guys on this website that really know there stuff way more than the guys at the big 2 TPA. Just my opinions and views

[BigJJ]

I think the real culprit is that there is over-reliance and over-trust in authenticators. Authenticators should/may be used. But the houses should be double checking each and every item to a reasonable degree. Especially since some authenticators work solo, and have no one in-office doing a double check, like an accountant, legal, or medical office. As individual Net 54 members, we occasionally can't quite put together the pieces, but you put enough of us together reviewing each other and we get it right.

[BigJJ]

Keithsky, was writing as you posted. Agreed.
The houses ought to be hiring people who know a Ruth signature, a Gehrig signature, Ruths bat specs for 1923, the value of a Plank in PSA 5, authentication of pre 1970 jerseys, like the back of their hand. I knew more at age 10 than some of the turkeys gobbling around the houses. They ought to have people on staff at all the houses who, without having to reference, can double check on game used, autos, cards, etc. And especially the pre-war.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Wayne, Ban Johnson was the commissioner through 1927, so a forger would have to have gotten a 1927 or earlier ball. Notice that the ball has stamped on it 'PAT'D.MAR.17-25'. A forger would almost certainly have grabbed one with that stamp, meaning any ball he used would have a one out of three chance of being the correct one, even if he was just guessing. That doesn't seem like quite the miracle that Heritage is claiming.

I posted pics of both balls because I found it odd that the stitching is going in different directions. I thought Reach was anal about that sort of thing, but I guess not.

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?

[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).

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Runscott

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).

Cool. I also think that the '1 in 3' thing isn't really relevent, because I see no reason to believe, even given a 1927 rosters of signers, that a 1927 ball would have a greater chance of being authentic than a 1926 ball.

I read this latest posting from them not as THE argument that the ball is authentic, but as them attempting to cover their butts. Whoops, we didn't do this with those other balls, but look at this! We have (now, after the fact) done it with this one!

They are still coupling the appropriacy of the ball with the TPAs to make an argument of authenticity, which is the more problematic issue given that the Gehrig ball had those letters as well.

[shelly]

I also think we should look at the total list of Nash vs Heritage. What do you think the chances are that one or more might be pulled.
I have to tell you that I have told Peter that I would not help them in any way until the auction was over. It is not his job or anyone else to help the third largest auction house in the world. No one is getting paid except there experts. They have never thanked anyone for helping them. Instead they make us out to be the fools. /ˌkæviːɑːt ˈɛmptɔr/) That should be Heritage's motto.

[Runscott]

I can't imagine helping Nash with anything, but it's obvious that by discussing these items here, we ARE helping him:

Historically, about a week after we have discussed something to death, Nash writes a blog about it, using all of our arguments, but each one now comes from a mysterious expert, or from himself. When he does actually give the expert's name, he's still published the idea after we already came up with it, so I'm sure he just finds someone who agrees with us and then publishes it as if it's the result of his own research.

Pretty deplorable, not just as a human, but also as regards writing integrity.

[shelly]

Scott, I did not help him. I said the way you make the biggest impact is to let the item sell. By telling Heritage before it happens only makes them look good. I said it on the last thread if you can not say who the person is do not quote them. This is how the country does business by saying some one said something but I cant tell you who.
I do have to say that not matter what you think of him he has helped save people a great deal of money.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by shelly

I also think we should look at the total list of Nash vs Heritage. What do you think the chances are that one or more might be pulled.
I have to tell you that I have told Peter that I would not help them in any way until the auction was over. It is not his job or anyone else to help the third largest auction house in the world. No one is getting paid except there experts. They have never thanked anyone for helping them. Instead they make us out to be the fools. /ˌkæviːɑːt ˈɛmptɔr/) That should be Heritage's motto.

Why would Heritage pull any of them? Because Peter Nash says that some unnamed experts have made fun of these items? I love what Nash and people on this board are doing, but this is opinion versus opinion.