Issues with a Heritage National Auction Item.

[sports-rings]

I sent a link of this post to "an auction expert" (after all, they got their "ring experts" involved). The owner of a major auction house told me he was stunned by their reasoning and response.

Again, I ask, who are the ring experts that vouched for the ring being original? If a possible bidder is deciding on bidding on the item, wouldn't it make sense to name who your experts are? This is done all the time when auction houses use PSA or JSA.

Something does not seem right or add up.

[danc]

I don't understand why a multi-multi million dollar company (that goes well beyond sports) would risk their reputation on something like this?

On a side note that has nothing to do with this. I heard a long time ago about a valuable consignor who kept feeding an auction house. One day, one of the items he consigned got a lot of flack and the auction house wanted to pull the item. The consignor was outraged and noted that if this was done, he would never consign with them again. They let the item fly to appease the consignor.

DanC

[Matt]

Originally Posted by danc

I don't understand why a multi-multi million dollar company (that goes well beyond sports) would risk their reputation on something like this?

Perhaps they recognize they encounter this situation pretty frequently and if they respond to this one, then they may feel compelled to all the other similar situations as well.

[thecatspajamas]

Just caught the live webcast of the auction, and the auctioneer did make a statement about the ring to the effect of: "This was Fuzzy Thurston's ring. He lost the original ring given to him in 1967 and this was made for him in the 70's. But this was Fuzzy's ring, and he did wear it."

The situation was handled fairly in my opinion, and bidding advanced beyond the opening internet pre-bid, so assumedly the winner knew exactly what he was getting.

[sports-rings]

glad to hear that they explained the ring was given to him in the 70's. i have no doubt that it is a real ring, made by jostens and belonged to the player. I stopped by their booth at the National on Thursday and wound up having a loud and heated debate. They believe I have an "agenda" against them, and they told me who there two ring experts were. They picked two people who, in my opinion are not qualified to assist them. The contact at Jostons they spoke to is my contact also. They asked her "Do you have records of what was presented to Fuzzy in 1968" and Heritage was told the records were lost years ago.

In my heated debate they stuck to their guns and they insisted they were fine with their research. I asked them to visit Scott Welkowsky who had a booth a row or two from theirs and they would learn more about the superbowl II ring than they ever knew. They said they would do this.

Glad they did the right thing and finally acknowledged the ring is not original. This is best for them and the US Governnment (the consigner) as the ring will not be returned.

For the record, I don;t have an agenda other than I would like auction houses to keep an open mind when presented with evidence that an item description needs to be changed sometimes.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by danc

On a side note that has nothing to do with this. I heard a long time ago about a valuable consignor who kept feeding an auction house. One day, one of the items he consigned got a lot of flack and the auction house wanted to pull the item. The consignor was outraged and noted that if this was done, he would never consign with them again. They let the item fly to appease the consignor.

DanC

I am shocked, shocked to find out that an auction house would not do the right thing but would rather appease the consignor and keep the revenue stream alive.
Round up the usual suspects.