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

[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

[RichardSimon]

Joe, vintage collector,you said "Sadly this women, who appears to have deep genuine concern, probably only feels worse now"
Why would she feel worse? She is certainly not aware of this board and has no idea that I made this matter public. And I certainly did not name her and I never would do anything to delibrately hurt her,,, so Joe,,, why would she feel worse? She asked for help and I gave her the only suggestion I could, I sent her a reply and suggested she seek an attorney.
And I have written to her and asked her the name of the auction house.

--

[vintagesportscollector]

Richard, I was referring to your response to her, where you told her "you might get sued..". Aside from the tone and curtness of your reply, if I was her, and someone I viewed as being a possible expert dropped that little bomb shell on me, I sure as heck wouldn't be feeling any better. I know you said "cannot say anything with any certainty, consult a lawyer", but the mere mention of legal action is probably resonating with her. Just my reaction from this...I know you meant no ill will.

[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!