as i recently mentioned to chris cavalier, i was shocked by the number of folks that contacted me privately about the namath post - folks from within the industry and collectors alike. frankly, this left with the distinct impression that the game used universe is monitored by many more eyes than i had originally thought - and that the game used universe has indeed made a name for itself in world of sports collectibles.
i was very tempted to share some of the emails i received with forum members, especially the emails that i received from a few in the business, but i eventually decided against it as a matter of fairness - however i will say that i was very encouraged by the support and sincerity most expressed.
with that said, i would however like to share with the forum my thoughts concerning how two sports collectible publications chose to report on the heritage incident - sports collectors digest which bills itself as the "the hobby's oldest and largest publication" and sports collectors daily.
when heritage announced that they would be offering “...arguably the most significant football artifact ever to reach the auction block” and that it would highlight their upcoming auction, both publications included the press release on their websites. rich mueller of sc daily left it at that and did not editorialize - he let the press release speak for itself. however chris nerat of sc digest did feel the need to editorialize by offering the following to his readers: "the provenance of this bad boy is rock solid...".
let me repeat this again, nerat stated that ..."the provenance of this bad boy is rock solid...". he did not say that "according to heritage" or "according to chris ivy" the provenance was solid - no, instead nerat chose to boldly, equivocally and in no uncertain terms announce to his readers that the history of this "bad boy" was "rock solid." and by extension the implication was made that nerat was privy to information that allowed him to make such a statement, information above and beyond what heritage had announced in their press release.
and nerat took matters a step further - he also announced to his readers that "I think it can bring six figures... I really think it can fetch that much at auction".
of course we now know that the history of the helmet was far from "rock solid" - and i think it's also pretty clear that the helmet will never fetch the six figures nerat claimed it might. in short, both sc daily and sc digest trusted that heritage had done their homework and, as such, plugged the authenticity of the helmet - and to some extent, they were both left with egg on their face.
but what's most telling about these two publications is how they handled the news once it became clear that the helmet was not as advertised; that the helmet's provenance had been proven suspect and that heritage had pulled the auction.
rich mueller of sc daily wasted no time by responding via his blog - he wrote a piece entitled "namath helmet in question" in which he credited game used universe and admitted that although heritage did pull the auction "...the move didn't come before a fairly heavy publicity blitz surrounding the piece... including a headline story in these pages". but more importantly, rich made it a point to offer these events as both a reminder and a warning to his readers to do their homework; he also made it a point to state that he hopes that these events will also serve as a "wake-up call" to auction houses and dealers.
and sc digest? nerat, associate editor of sc digest, chose a slightly different approach in his blog - he attacked game used forum members by calling them "instigators" and "bad for the hobby." but before nerat took aim with both barrels he reminded readers that he was qualified to speak about such matters, that he was an expert - or as he put it "Also, keep in mind I worked at a major auction house for two years..."
so apparently it was o.k. for nerat, an auction house veteran and an associate editor for a sports collecting publication, to announce to the public and his readers that an item to be auctioned off is "rock solid" and should "fetch six figures". that's good for the hobby. but when a concerned and understandably jaded collector questions whether there is anything about the item that might tempt the auction house to relist the item with an amended description, that's bad for the hobby. i don't think so.
i'll tell you what's good for the hobby: a sports collecting publication that recognizes when the industry has erred and reports it honestly and fairly while at the same hoping that a lesson will be learned - rich mueller and sc daily is good for the hobby. and i'll tell you what's bad for the hobby: a sports publication that makes excuses for the industry when it has erred, that marginalizes such errors while at the same time criticizes those that they are supposed to inform, the collectors - chris nerat and sc digest, in this case, is bad for the hobby.
i was very tempted to share some of the emails i received with forum members, especially the emails that i received from a few in the business, but i eventually decided against it as a matter of fairness - however i will say that i was very encouraged by the support and sincerity most expressed.
with that said, i would however like to share with the forum my thoughts concerning how two sports collectible publications chose to report on the heritage incident - sports collectors digest which bills itself as the "the hobby's oldest and largest publication" and sports collectors daily.
when heritage announced that they would be offering “...arguably the most significant football artifact ever to reach the auction block” and that it would highlight their upcoming auction, both publications included the press release on their websites. rich mueller of sc daily left it at that and did not editorialize - he let the press release speak for itself. however chris nerat of sc digest did feel the need to editorialize by offering the following to his readers: "the provenance of this bad boy is rock solid...".
let me repeat this again, nerat stated that ..."the provenance of this bad boy is rock solid...". he did not say that "according to heritage" or "according to chris ivy" the provenance was solid - no, instead nerat chose to boldly, equivocally and in no uncertain terms announce to his readers that the history of this "bad boy" was "rock solid." and by extension the implication was made that nerat was privy to information that allowed him to make such a statement, information above and beyond what heritage had announced in their press release.
and nerat took matters a step further - he also announced to his readers that "I think it can bring six figures... I really think it can fetch that much at auction".
of course we now know that the history of the helmet was far from "rock solid" - and i think it's also pretty clear that the helmet will never fetch the six figures nerat claimed it might. in short, both sc daily and sc digest trusted that heritage had done their homework and, as such, plugged the authenticity of the helmet - and to some extent, they were both left with egg on their face.
but what's most telling about these two publications is how they handled the news once it became clear that the helmet was not as advertised; that the helmet's provenance had been proven suspect and that heritage had pulled the auction.
rich mueller of sc daily wasted no time by responding via his blog - he wrote a piece entitled "namath helmet in question" in which he credited game used universe and admitted that although heritage did pull the auction "...the move didn't come before a fairly heavy publicity blitz surrounding the piece... including a headline story in these pages". but more importantly, rich made it a point to offer these events as both a reminder and a warning to his readers to do their homework; he also made it a point to state that he hopes that these events will also serve as a "wake-up call" to auction houses and dealers.
and sc digest? nerat, associate editor of sc digest, chose a slightly different approach in his blog - he attacked game used forum members by calling them "instigators" and "bad for the hobby." but before nerat took aim with both barrels he reminded readers that he was qualified to speak about such matters, that he was an expert - or as he put it "Also, keep in mind I worked at a major auction house for two years..."
so apparently it was o.k. for nerat, an auction house veteran and an associate editor for a sports collecting publication, to announce to the public and his readers that an item to be auctioned off is "rock solid" and should "fetch six figures". that's good for the hobby. but when a concerned and understandably jaded collector questions whether there is anything about the item that might tempt the auction house to relist the item with an amended description, that's bad for the hobby. i don't think so.
i'll tell you what's good for the hobby: a sports collecting publication that recognizes when the industry has erred and reports it honestly and fairly while at the same hoping that a lesson will be learned - rich mueller and sc daily is good for the hobby. and i'll tell you what's bad for the hobby: a sports publication that makes excuses for the industry when it has erred, that marginalizes such errors while at the same time criticizes those that they are supposed to inform, the collectors - chris nerat and sc digest, in this case, is bad for the hobby.
Comment