- Shiny Thing$
- Posts
- SHINY THING$ 0151 ✨
Collectibles are intended to trigger nostalgia and happiness and joy… and maybe make you some money in the future if you pick right.
That’s where it gets complicated sometimes.
On the heels of a fight over the true owner of Shohei Ohtani 50th home run ball and the potential 7 figure windfall for the man who caught it, we take a look at some of the recent legal disputes that have the potential to shape the auction and collectible artifact space for decades to come.
Shiny Thing$ No.151: Tell it to the judge…
The $500K Fight Brewing Over The Ohtani Ball
Earlier this past week, Ken Goldin announced that Goldin Auctions had secured Shohei Ohtani's 50th home run ball, which was “caught” by fan Chris Belanski during a game last week.
However, 18-year-old Max Matus has filed a lawsuit claiming he is the rightful owner of the ball, alleging that it was forcibly taken from him by Belanski in a physical altercation as the ball landed in the stands. While there was a scramble for the ball by multiple fans (all caught on video), Matus claims he caught the ball “first” during the Dodgers-Marlins game and is seeking to prevent the sale at Goldin, which is set to begin with a $500,000 opening bid. The lawsuit, filed in Florida, accuses Belanski of civil battery and asks the court to declare Matus the legitimate owner of the ball.
Goldin Auctions has set a $4.5 million buy-now price for the ball, but Matus is trying to block the auction from proceeding. Goldin declined to comment on the situation
The US Government vs. Anyone Who Wants to Take Artifacts from the Titanic
The most recent piece of R.M.S Titanic memorabilia to sell at auction was a menu from the onboard lunch service on April 14th 1912, achieving a $340K final price earlier this month.
There’s big money in the Titanic.
In 1985, after the discovery of the Titanic's wreck, Congress sought to regulate access to the site, calling for international collaboration, as the wreck lies in international waters. Despite these efforts, American salvors began retrieving artifacts, sparking debates about the control over the wreck’s remnants. Currently, the U.S. government is taking legal action to assert authority over future Titanic salvage expeditions, especially in light of the recent Titan submersible disaster.
The federal government aims to block a several upcoming expeditions, one from a company that holds exclusive salvage rights granted by a Virginia court in 1994. The company has resisted federal oversight, arguing that the court alone governs the site. However, the government contends that federal laws, enacted to enforce a 2019 U.S.-U.K. treaty, require approval from the Secretary of Commerce and NOAA for any artifact recovery.
Legal experts suggest the case could become protracted, potentially reaching the Supreme Court due to its complex international and constitutional implications. The dispute highlights the evolving maritime laws governing historical shipwrecks and who has jurisdiction over the Titanic’s remains. While the company has not yet responded, the legal battle over the wreck’s future is far from settled.
A Famous T-Rex and the Family Feud that Followed
The discovery of Sue, one of the most complete T. rex fossils ever found, has a long history of legal disputes. The fossil was sold for $8.36 million in 1997 to the Field Museum in Chicago, where it remains a centerpiece. The ongoing conflict over Williams' estate is the latest chapter in the saga that began with Sue’s unearthing.
Darlene Williams, whose family ranch in South Dakota was the site of the 1990 discovery of “the fossil passed away in 2020. Ever since that day, her children have been embroiled in a legal battle over her estate, which stems from conflicting wills she left behind. In 2017, Williams named her daughter Sandra Williams Luther as her estate’s personal representative. However, a 2020 will designated Sandra as the sole heir and executor, urging her children not to fight.
Jaqueline Schwartz, one of Darlene’s daughters, is contesting her mother’s 2020 will, claiming Darlene was critically ill, barely conscious, and vulnerable to undue influence at the time it was signed. She argues the will is flawed and questions the management of her mother’s funds by her siblings, alleging they misappropriated proceeds from the sale of their mother’s home.
Heritage Auctions vs. The Atlanta Braves
On the eve of a Hank Aaron memorabilia auction this past August, Heritage Auctions filed suit against Aarons former team, the Atlanta Braves. The item inquisition: bases and home plate from Aaron's iconic 715th home run, which broke Babe Ruth’s record. In the weeks leading up to the auction, the Braves caught wind of the auction and issued a cease-and-desist letter questioning the authenticity of the items, prompting Heritage to halt the auction just days before it was set to conclude.
Heritage claims that the Braves made false statements about the memorabilia's provenance, leading to accusations of defamation and business disparagement, seeking $75,000 in damages, asserting that the Braves’ claims have negatively impacted their reputation. The Braves, however, refused to back down on the ownership claims.
Adding complexity, the National Baseball Hall of Fame confirmed that Aaron donated the third-base bag from the game to the Hall in 1982. Both parties remain firm, with Heritage Auctions maintaining the authenticity of the items and the Braves protecting what they believe is their rightful property.
Fanatics vs. Panini, and the Big Business of Trading Cards
Fanatics is king in the trading card industry - that’s basically impossible to argue at this point. But the companies that once shared the crown just a few years ago will argue whether or not Fanatics aggressive expansion into the space was done legally.
Panini in particular, another trading card company that has lost significant market share to Fanatics, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Fanatics, alleging anti-competitive practices. Panini, which holds exclusive rights to produce NBA and NFL cards until 2025 and 2026 respectively, accuses Fanatics of interfering with these contracts and trying to monopolize the trading card market.
Panini’s lawsuit, filed in Florida last year, claims that Fanatics is undermining its business by attempting to hire key Panini employees and acquiring GC Packaging, which prints most of Panini’s cards. Panini argues that Fanatics’ tactics aim to weaken its ability to operate and force a sale, similar to Fanatics’ acquisition of Topps after securing the MLB card contract in 2021.
Fanatics, which denies the allegations, describes Panini’s lawsuit as a “baseless” attempt to blame Fanatics for its own business struggles. Fanatics insists that its innovations have improved the industry and strengthened connections between players and fans. The legal battle comes amid Fanatics’ rapid expansion and growing influence in the hobby, raising concerns about its dominance in the market. Panini seeks to nullify Fanatics’ acquisitions and stop its aggressive expansion.
Until Next Week…