Sometimes I am speechless,,, you got to read this one

[perezfan]

Richard:

I know you can't disclose her name, but do you know the Auction House? Did she ever mention who it was? They carry a large portion of the responsibility here, and I would love to see them exposed.

While she was obviously naive, she was out of her element, and was simply a trusting soul, and a "non-collector". The auction house should definitely have known better and (for a ball of that value) obtained an LOA before it ever made the Catalogue.

The fact that the ball was not authentic would never have been an issue, had they done their due diligence up front. I am not even aware of an Auction House who would offer such a Ball without some sort of authentication.... do you?

[perezfan]

Just wanted to add...

The other slimy party is the person who donated the ball to the charity auction. Based on the story, the ball obviously contained some authentictor's marking (viewable under fluorescent light) identifying it as being "bad" and not having passed authentication.

When the original owner found out it didn't pass and got the ball back, he probably donated it to charity for the tax write-off (rather than taking a full hit). At least this way, he received some compensation.

I just hate to see the woman taking the hit here, when the person who donated it (likely knowing it was bogus) and the auction house were much more at fault. She is only guily of being naive (not a crime). They knowingly did something wrong, and are minimally guilty of negligence and deception.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Richard:

I know you can't disclose her name, but do you know the Auction House? Did she ever mention who it was? They carry a large portion of the responsibility here, and I would love to see them exposed.

While she was obviously naive, she was out of her element, and was simply a trusting soul, and a "non-collector". The auction house should definitely have known better and (for a ball of that value) obtained an LOA before it ever made the Catalogue.

The fact that the ball was not authentic would never have been an issue, had they done their due diligence up front. I am not even aware of an Auction House who would offer such a Ball without some sort of authentication.... do you?

I don't know the auction house.
To Greg and the others who think I should not have called her stupid :
Perhaps stupid was being too harsh,though someone who needs money to buy a house should have no business bidding on a baseball when they know nothing about sports memorabilia,,,,, but why would she even write to me? The woman is allegedly a PhD,, she should know that an attorney is the only one who can give her answers. What help could I possibly give her?
And to Barry : you are not the only one who got a headache after reading the e mail.

[danc]

I would love to know the name of the auction house.

They made a decision about the authenticity of the ball, what, based on a scan or when they received it?

They didn't realize right away that what they had was a ball full of suspect signatures and therefore they are going back to this women for a refund?

Wouldn't you refuse the refund?

This can't be one of the big auction houses (they don't operate like this) and of course it can't be...you know who (they refuse nothing)...so????

DanC

[canjond]

Originally Posted by danc

I would love to know the name of the auction house.

They made a decision about the authenticity of the ball, what, based on a scan or when they received it?

They didn't realize right away that what they had was a ball full of suspect signatures and therefore they are going back to this women for a refund?

Wouldn't you refuse the refund?

This can't be one of the big auction houses (they don't operate like this) and of course it can't be...you know who (they refuse nothing)...so????

DanC

No offense but i don't agree with this comment at all. To me, this is no different than the Anson lock situation, or a reprint purchased from eBay. Let's take the Anson lock situation... seller was selling the lock as original. People thought it was original (me included, I owned one I refunded, too). Purchaser purchases it, posts his pick-up, and then discovers it might not be original. After confirming with certain experts (ie, the creator) that it is not original, asks the seller for a refund. Everyone agrees, buyer should get a refund because seller sold an item represented to be original but deemed to be created recently.

Anson lock broken down:

Purchaser made a decision about the lock based on scan and in-person examination.

Purchaser didn't realize right away what he got was not original.

Purchaser confirms with expert that lock is not original.

Everyone on this board thinks purchaser should get refund.

1932 Yankee ball broken down:

Auction house made decision about the ball based on scan or in-person examination.

Auction house didn't realize right away what it bought was not original.

Auction confirms with expert ball is not original.

People on this board think the auction house bears responsibility.

Why is the auction house held to a different standard?

[barrysloate]

Jon- I'm not sure about the law, but it would seem to me that the auction house takes greater responsibility because they are professionals. When I ran my auctions I specialized in vintage cards. It was my business to make sure I knew they were real, and that they weren't altered. If I made a mistake, and I did make several over the years, it was my responsibility to correct them. I was the presumed expert.

Now the example from this thread is pretty convoluted, and it seems like there could be many parties that bear some responsibility. I still think the guy who donated the ball knew there was something wrong with it. Just a gut feeling, of course.

[bobbvc]

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on chat boards. Actually, I did have a year of Business Law in college. The answer to Jon's question "Why is the auction house held to a higher standard?" is simple. Because they're an auction house!! They are professionals in their field. Their level of knowledge is assumed to be greater than a layperson's. If this case went to court it would be VERY unlikely a judge would side with the auction house, assuming she made NO False claims about the ball and it was sold "as is".They are supposed to know what they're doing- it's their business. That said- 1. How do we know the ball is NOT authentic? The authenticator is only giving "an opinion". 2. How do we know the auction house didn't pull "The Old switcheroo"?

As for a moral obligation to refund the auction house? Maybe. If, she can get a refund from the charity auction. As for a legal obligation to refund the auction house? I don't see it.

[base_ball]

If the email is on the level, I am sure the aggrieved party would be willing to share the name of the "charity auction" from which the ball was obtained. Frankly, I find it a bit odd that the good doctor was able to buy such a high ticket item, pitch it to a number of auction houses/buyers, and then find Richard Simon when help was needed. But if this is a real case, an epic thread should unfold. Finding out where the ball was sold will start the ball rolling. The world of 1932 Ruth/Gehrig balls is a small one.

[danc]

I was going to debate you on this matter Jon, but the gents above did it for me.

The auction house should know better and there is no way a top notch auction house would put themselves in that position. The bigger auction houses would file this under a loss and move on, while one of the smaller auction houses (who may not be making any money) might want to handle it differently.

Why was Rich contacted? Why not? It's Rich "freaking" Simon!

The moral of the story is that no matter how smart you are, sometimes you make mistakes by trusting someone you shouldn't. You don't think there are doctors and lawyers out there that have items that have been authenticated by these slimeball authenticators and auction houses that prey on the trusting?

They want a Ruth ball and see a "forensic handwriting" letter and believe this to a legitimate proposition. This women is not an isolated case.

DanC

[perezfan]

I agree that the auction house bears the brunt of the responsibility here(assuming the woman's letter to Richard was factual and legit).

The two "bad eggs" are the Auction House and the original owner of the Ball, who donated it to Charity. He's the one who really started this downward spiral.

The two naive, yet innocent parties are the woman who reached out to Richard and the Charity organization. I would LOVE to know which Auction House she used....

Richard.... Can't you pleeeeeease write her back just to ask her about the auction house? I cannot think of one auction (ok, maybe one) that would operate in this haphazard way. I also would not mind stepping in and trying to help this woman, as I hate it when innocent people are victimized like this. Thanks!

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I don't know the auction house.
To Greg and the others who think I should not have called her stupid :
Perhaps stupid was being too harsh,though someone who needs money to buy a house should have no business bidding on a baseball when they know nothing about sports memorabilia,,,,, but why would she even write to me? The woman is allegedly a PhD,, she should know that an attorney is the only one who can give her answers. What help could I possibly give her?
And to Barry : you are not the only one who got a headache after reading the e mail.

Why would she even write to you? Maybe because she doesn’t know exactly what type of advice you could provide and was seeking help in an area which she knows nothing about and doesn’t recognize the issues? She was "hoping you could offer some advice about this given your expertise”. PhD or GED I wouldn’t necessarily expect someone’s first reaction to be to call an attorney if they’ve never dealt in this situation before. I find your reaction surprising.

She probably has been reaching out to multiple people. Who knows how you were recommended to her. Perhaps she saw your website and saw you are “one of the leading authorities on sports collectibles in the nation” . Occasionally people will politely reach out to me for help in the hobby – often I can’t help because it’s not my area of knowledge. I simply reply that I can’t help much and offer any advice I can. I try not to be rude to them, and critical, and I don’t ridicule them. Sadly this women, who appears to have deep genuine concern, probably only feels worse now

[celoknob]

Wow, someone just asks for some advice and gets their private correspondence posted on this board and labeled as being stupid. Real classy.

[Rob D.]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

And to Barry : you are not the only one who got a headache after reading the e mail.

Hope you're feeling better.

[FUBAR]

Personally, i think this is buyer beware on all cases... the auction house is as guilty for buying it from her as she is from the charity auction. I am sure the charity didnt know it was a forgery and neither did she.

I think what is happening is the auction house is trying to strong arm her! and she is merely looking for help because she doesn't no what to do. She is in panic mode. The auction house is trying to convince her she is liable. I guess it would depend on what paperwork she signed and what it said.

The only advice i would give her is to take her paperwork to a laywer, tell them what happened and see what they say.... do not cave to the auction house unless you signed something saying it was authentic. She came to you because you are an expert in the field and might know better then she what to do, she is very very scared. Out yourself in her shoes, imagine losing the chance at owning your dream home because a charity had a bogus item.

About her needing the money to buy a house.... no one knows her situation. She may have bought the ball 2-3 years ago and now has decided she wants a house with prices being a little lower and more favorable. She has a ball and figures why not sell the ball to obtain a house.. makes sense to me. Peoples finances can change drastically from year to year.

my two cents, just sayin'

[J.McMurry]

I can't shake the feeling that the email is not legit. I think someone may be jerking Richard's chain, for whatever reason, but if it's legit I agree that it was a bit harsh to call her stupid.

As far as the Phd stuff goes, I have several of them,and I utilize them often,in my case they are known as Post Hole Diggers

[ctownboy]

My first thought is that since she is a PH.D, she is used to doing research IN HER FIELD. When something is out of her field of knowlege or discipline, is she going to take the time to research it? No, she is going to LOOK FOR an expert IN THAT OTHER FIELD.

She finds Richard and reaches out to him for his EXPERTISE.

Now Richard, having seen this type of situation before and knowing it is OUT OF HIS FIELD OF EXPERTISE, recommends she find an attorney.

Look, my Mom doesn't know much about baseball but she DOES know the names of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. So, I am sure if she had the chance to buy an autographed baseball at a charity auction or church function for an amount she could afford (and she couldn't get me there to make sure it wasn't a fake) she would do so.

I think the blame should be spread out as follows: 1) to the person who donated the ball for doing so (if they knew it was fake). 2) to the charity auction for saying it was authentic (if they had no proof to back up this claim). 3) Most importantly, to the "sports auction house" who bought and paid for the ball without it having been authenticated first.

If there was no claim of authenticity given by the PH.D lady and the "sports auction house" bought the ball thinking they were getting a good deal and could make a profit on it, then they should take the hit for NOT KNOWING what they were buying.

I mean, isn't THAT what happens in the real world all the time? Businesses that know what they are doing stay in business while those that don't, fail?

[jimthorpe]

Since this came in the form of an email who knows if it is not totally bogus. Could even be a chance Tyler Grady wrote it.

[D. Bergin]

I can't shake the concept she bought the ball at a charity auction just "a few months ago".............and now needs the money for a new house.

How much did she spend at the "charity" event?