Heritage Hypocrisy

[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.

[shelly]

Big JJ, the problem is that the items we are talking about are not five and ten dollars but twenty to five hundred thousand. I would think you would try just a little harder for that kind of money. They have never said a thank you to the people that saved there butts. I would also say for that kind of money I sure as hell would go outside the box.

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by shelly

Big JJ, the problem is that the items we are talking about are not five and ten dollars but twenty to five hundred thousand. I would think you would try just a little harder for that kind of money. They have never said a thank you to the people that saved there butts. I would also say for that kind of money I sure as hell would go outside the box.

Agree. Should have done more review/research, or, should have done better review/research. May have double checked everything and erroneously confirmed the authentications/other evidence.

All the houses ought to have intelligent and knowledgeable people double checking the evidence and authentications. Particularly the ultra high value items.

The real problem is there are few of these individuals at the houses who are intelligent and knowledgeable. I am cracking up just thinking about it. Even some of the guys at the houses who have acquired knowledge over the years, I think we all know, are idiots.

Lack of such skilled staff is, in part, why there is so much reliance on authentication letters.

There are many 'good guys' who go "wow" and talk about the game, and/or some prices, and are consignment directors, and get the pieces in, but very few highly knowledgeable research workers at the houses.

They have to hire brilliant people. I agree with Keithsky, there are a multitude on here who are much more capable. In general, more such people, in my opinion, on the collecting and hobby side, than the servicing side.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by 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.

+100 - I couldn't agree more

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

+100 - I couldn't agree more

The hobby's almost unfailing allegiance/acceptance of these LOAs and card grading has created a situation where the AHs get a "pass" from having to incur this additional expense. Why raise your overhead when your customers are telling you that you don't need to?