We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.
Authenticity is Everything
Babe Ruth?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bernie on
-
I see that you have serious issues about the most prominent signatures on the book
I am not all that knowledgeable across the board, I key in on a couple of signatures and try to see what looks right ad what does not.
On the bigger picture, I offer a couple of thoughts: I would have tried to see if there is a cluster of signatures from a team which would imply access to a team during a game or training. I can almost see that with Gehrig, Broaca, etc, but by and large, meaningful signatures are randomly spaced. Not sure what to make on it. Glad I am not a bidder perhaps?
The price at this point, if genuine, is very low, which could be an indication that some folks are staying off this item. All it takes is 2 bidders to go to war and I can easily see over $10,000 for the item, but, right now it can essentially be had for a Ruth and a Gehrig (again, if legitimate, and I will not dare pass judgment on that)
As for the auction house, the story is what it has been for a while, TPAs who are the "experts" sign up to the authenticity and the responsibility of the AH is that it is a reputable TPA (I would consider PSA one of those, and the SGC folks, though not as experienced perhaps, are no slouches, in particular, as a backup opinion). It is tough when there are many signatures. One clearly has to spend time on the key ones, but, do they (graders) rationalize that if Ruth is good and Gehrig is good (I am not making the assertion, simply stating a thought experiment) then all other must be good because it makes no sense to dilute an AP with a "false common signature" if the key one is legitimate?..
Auction House stands to collect ~2500 for listing, hosting the bid and collecting, and will wash their hands with queries about authenticity or subsequent liabilities
Which brings me to an interesting dilemma: I have heard very good things about Steve Grad (Have also heard bad, but in this business, everyone is a target, and the preponderance of good feedback prevails) and I would suspect that Ruths, Gehrigs and most important, combinations, would require him (as PSA former lead authenticator) to as a minimum, approve/buy off on a cert, but in all likelihood, have him be the one accountable (PSA was charging $300+ for Ruth or Gehrig, so one would think they bring in the "best of best" in staff (I am told the Spences do the same on JSA side) Assuming this is a 2016 or earlier PSA LoA, what would happen if this item is re submitted to Beckett for authenticity???? A possible "conflict of interest"? If this is a "Post Grad PSA" (which I would worry about if it is) could it then be a "sour grapes" type rationalization (Beckett calls out a PSA mistake) It seems like a "no win situation" here. HA does not show the PSA LoA either. Too many trains in one track, different direction......
BTW, awaiting some feedback on my Foxx and Berg post
-
Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on
-
Realistically, who owned a piece (provenance aside), which auction house is offering it, or whom authenticated a piece really doesn't mean much to me. All of that doesn't enter into my opinion. Anyone, no matter how good, can have something slipped by. What's the old saying, even a .400 hitter is unsuccessful at the plate up to 60% of the time? Politics play no part in my opinion. What I'm looking at here are deer tracks, made by one, maybe two deer, but supposedly made by stampeding horses. There's some real nice pieces in this auction. There will be a lot of horses sold, and one guy will wind up with venison. Hope he's up on marinating. ;)
-
-
-
Well, I am a bit confused on events
It went for $7800 net to buyer, which, if we are doing "cuts", is a steal if all the signatures are genuine
If they are not, clearly someone overpaid for a LoA/Cert
I was suspicious on the Ruth, but not sure on the others, W2Shoes is convinced it is a fake all around, and I would have to say that the price may reflect some skepticism. Any other in the forum with thoughts to share?
-
-
I think a lot of potential buyers who are keenly cognizant of Ruth signatures never made it past that signature, and upon seeing the Ruth, went on to look at the next lot. Remember one thing with Heritage. Where they are located, it is perfectly legal for them to bid in their auctions, they make this fact plainly known in their auction rules and guidelines, it's no secret, so when you see a winning bid, it doesn't necessarily mean that two or more rams butted heads in the bidding. The second highest bid, aside from the house, might have been $2000, and the house kept driving up the one bidder from $2100 all the way to $7800. When the house bids in its own auctions (technically called shill bidding), the house has the doubly unfair advantage of being able to see the bids and how much headroom exists over the actual bid, and keep driving up the results. Then again, Heritage might have "won" the piece, this has been known to happen. It's all legal where they are. In 49 states it is not legal, and they'd run into the same type of problems that beset Mastro and co., but they can do this legally. Not saying they do on each and every piece, but it is done, and you must be aware that a $7800 result in a Heritage auction does not necessarily mean that another non-Heritage or non-consignor bidder offered $7700, or whatever the previous increment is.
Also, I may be mistaken, I haven't read their rules in quite awhile, but I think the consignor is also allowed to bid.
I have a feeling that the owner was looking for $10K minimum, the house won, $7700 was all they could push it with maybe one active bidder past about the $2G level and we're going to see this piece again in the near future, up for auction once again. Just a hunch based on my still having some modicum of faith in Ruth collectors.
-
-
A couple of points:
I did not/have not heard from others on the authenticity of the lot. I have seen other Ruths which are "out of family" but yet are certified, and this would clearly be one of them. It would make for a stronger discussion if other folks chimed in on the authenticity of the high valued signatures (I do believe the book itself is authentic, and some of the signatures are likely as well). Not sure how systemic the issue may be, a single questionable Ruth, .. maybe, questionable Ruth and Gehrig, smoke, keep adding a third or 4th key signature, FIRE.
So it does appear to me that the lot was "shunned" by some more serious collectors.
As far as the AH goes, and please do not get me wrong, I am not about to defend AHs in principle, it was my understanding that the auctioneer can protect ("shill bid") values below the "estimated minimum" when there is no reserve (when there is, the reserve does that right?) In this case the estimated minimum was $5000+ so I am not sure how the rules apply, but I would not be surprised if the "house" bought it. Time will tell if this hits the market again.
I am not sure I want to shun AHs based on "shill bidding" or letting seller "buy item back" at a discount, but I am not sure I see a pattern where one bids against the seller or the house on an escalating basis. Seems to me they do have a lot to lose as this is a "discoverable" fact in case of litigation (and we all know that we are a litigious society) and if this were to make the news as a systemic (used early and often) process, it could severely affect the reputation and the volume of the AH. In this case, this auction house is a "Walmart" in terms of volume, but they are used to the volume, and even a 10% decrease in that volume would be pretty bad for them, so while we are in a "never say never" environment, I would question the business sense of "shilling" for $3000 which only brings $600 to the AH....
Having said that, and to address the final point in the thread, "why would an AH list a suspect item"? (Note: I am not qualified to call it suspect, I am qualified to not bid on it if I have concerns though, I am not saying it was or was not suspect, but we are discussing red flags...)
Back on the soap box, seems to me that AH have a "rule" that AH employees, no matter how knowledgeable they may be (some even former dealers or authenticators) are not to challenge the opinion of a TPA. I believe I have seen this at multiple AH, and it is a rule, rather than an exception (I have also seen some lots pulled from the auction, hence the exception part) It is sad, but a reason this forum exists, and I can clearly see a global liability hedge for the AH, where it is not incumbent on them to do the due diligence, but have a TPA perform those functions. Of course, while the TPA may try to get it right all the time, some times it may be questionable or flat out wrong. This is where the consumer perhaps is at a disadvantage. No need to belabor consequences for this thread, but I think I agree in principle with you, but not perhaps on the "amount of silver bullets" the AH may use. Clearly on a $100,000 item which is set to go for $50,000, it may trigger a response, but I am not sure you will see it on 50 items expected to go at $2000, but are about to sell for $1000 on the average. I am not sure they have that much cash on hand, and, while I can understand being a "market maker" I do not see them trying to become or corner the market inventory
-
-
There's no liability for shill bidding in their state. No liability for the owner of the piece, the house, or the buyer. In their state anybody can bid on it. John Q. Public, NP Gresham (their well known bidding account, it's no secret at all, they'll even tell you about it), Heritage employees, owners, agents, families of all the above, and even the consignor. Now unless the consignor is Heritage, they won't know what the amounts of the bids have been/are being placed, only Heritage owners/agents/employees can see that and bid to shill accordingly. And again, without any legal peril, it's all part of the rules and permissible in Texas, the only state it is allowed.
So, what you must accept when chasing a Heritage offering, is that it's more like a sale than an auction. Once the house is bidding, based on your bids, all pretenses of it being an auction dissipate, it is a sale, and if you are willing to keep bidding and reach the figure high enough for them to allow you to "win it", it's yours. Which is also why they have those 15 minute rules, where an auction can keep going indefinitely as long as there's a bid within 15 minutes of the close of the auction and another and another and another, etc., within 15 minutes after that last 15 minute bid. You can "win" an auction and still lose it after the close time of the auction.
To recap: You have to outbid the world of interested bidders that are not affiliated with Heritage. You have to outbid Heritage, their agents, owners, and families of Heritage. You have to outbid the consignor. And even if you manage to accomplish all that, you have to hope that you don't lose the piece, after you've "won it" to the "15 minute rule".
And there's no legal liability associated with any of this because in Texas, this is all perfectly legal in the auction business, which when you come right down to it, all things considered, sounds a lot more like a straight sale with a high asking price than an "auction".
-
-
it's quite common for Heritage (as with any auction house) to have to pull an item for concerns over authenticity, as this one should have been in my estimation.
-
-
I don't think many here were commenting on the Ruth because it just looks so strange, so foreign to them based on most solid Ruths, there's just nothing really to say, the entire vibe is off. Most forgeries look more convincing than this. The whole mechanics are off, even down to the slash through the 't' starting in the wrong place and being a 30 degree upward arc. Ruth didn't end his "h" in that direction quite like this, back towards a starting point above the 'u' to cross the 't' from left to right. Ruth lifted the nib after completing the 'h', and crossed his 't' with very little movement up from the terminating point of the 'h' and back-slashed his 't', moving from right to left. It's easy to see by how the "t" crossing is boldest on the left and fades to the right, indicating a left to right stroke, which just is one of the things here that is not Ruth.
-
-
I hear you and I share the concerns
would be useful to get some momentum with Zarelli, Terrier, Williams or some of those folks who know the Yankees and 1930's HOFers left and right.
I was looking at multi signed sheets like that, and they usually go in excess fo $10K (Goldin, RR,) This one had just enough names to be in that class, but perhaps not as many names, so maybe, just maybe the market settled at $7800. Nonetheless, it is $7799 more than one would pay for a forgery, so my desire to "bait" others into an oinion
-
-
Well it's worth a lot more than a buck. I'm sure Coach's Corner would get at least $40 for it, maybe even a few dollars more, in one of their stellar grand auctions. 8O)
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
Photos
Videos
Groups
© 2024 Created by Steve Cyrkin, Admin.
Powered by
Badges | Report an Issue | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
