PDA

View Full Version : What gives with not showing us your item when you claim you have the real deal and someone else doesn't?



Masimen
03-17-2011, 07:28 PM
It seems that recently we have had 2 disputes on this board where members have claimed that other members or well respected companies are misrepresenting items they have and that the real item is actually in their possession and not that of the other member/company. While I take no sides in either of those arguments, what I don't understand is that in both cases the folks who are throwing up the red flags are not willing to show us their purported item. Both of whom claim they have photo matches.

If you aren't willing to show your item, which is totally understandable, then why raise the red flag on a public forum? I understand that you may not want people to know or see what you have, but if that is the case, I think it best that you just leave it alone or contact the other party privately.

The other thing that is a bit perplexing to me is that the 2 items in question, while being very cool and not cheap by any standard aren't exactly super high end items likely to be Copied, or sought out for some sort of nefarious activity. We are talking about a bat that on a good day is probably worth a few grand and a helmet that I am guessing is in the same ballpark. I think that if this issues goes to a public forum for all to see, then at least show us some evidence so we can all make an informed decision/judgment.

Apologies if I offended anyone, this is just something that seems a bit odd to me.

therealaxis
03-17-2011, 07:31 PM
I completely agree well said!

therealaxis
03-17-2011, 07:35 PM
I completely agree well said!

Wish you could edit...

I forgot to add at least with the helmet situation the op has no problems sending photos to mods instead of expecting people to meet him at a airport 1000's of miles away to see the item in question!

frikativ54
03-17-2011, 07:59 PM
Again - Totally agree with the OP. If you've got the goods, then do share them. It always makes me wonder when people claim they have some really rare item but are unwilling to show pics.

-Frik

BU54CB
03-18-2011, 11:32 AM
I guess I don't understand why posting the photos of the items is such a big deal? There are countless threads in this forum that members have voluntarily photos posted of items and collections that run the spectrum of value.

In my short time as a member, I don't recall seeing any posts from members claiming someone has mis-appropriated their photos or something bad happenning to their items because they posted them in this forum.

MLB_Authentic
03-18-2011, 11:36 AM
Is it possible he is AFRAID to post it because he believes that it may be proven NOT AUTHENTIC??

xpress34
03-18-2011, 02:11 PM
Is it possible he is AFRAID to post it because he believes that it may be proven NOT AUTHENTIC??

That's what my thoughts are as well.

The claim always seems to be that they don't want the item or it's features to be 'copied'.

I am certain that posting pics of your items will lead to mass copies going into production... all you have to do is show SOME pics of the item that show the Game Use - you don't necessarily need to show things like writing under the bill that is unique to the player or whatever.

I just don't get it - I've always been more than happy to show pics.

All the best -

Smitty

Greenbaumer
03-18-2011, 06:44 PM
In reference to that thread from earlier bashing JO, not only is all my GU Jets stuff from them, but the Vice President of the Jets told me himself that all of their game worn stuff goes to JO and that they cannot get me anything through the team because of their contract with JO. Take that for what it's worth.

The other thread was obviously a guy with some time on his hands trying to bad mouth a company he couldn't get a good deal with. It's stuff like that that usually makes me stay away from message boards/chats/forums/etc.

Have a good night.

josportsco
03-18-2011, 07:43 PM
Here is our helmet match. we are doing more work on it as we speak. I would love to add more now but we sent the helmet to arenas01 to view.
Also notice the indention in the decal above the GAL in "Bengals" perfect match. We will post better matches when the helmet is back in our hands.

solarlottry
03-18-2011, 11:26 PM
The photo match is sweet with the stripes and the stickers acting like pinstripes on a Yankees shirt. We now have one side of the story at least with regards to whose helmet is a photo match! It will be interesting to see how the OP follows this up.

The entire thread is just another example of people speaking before thinking. If someone has a problem go to the moderator first. Years ago I purchased some 49er gamers from someone and they were not quite as advertised. Instead of going " public" I asked for some help via Chris Cav. and guess what- the entire situation was resolved with both parties happy.

Always buying 1994 49ers and ANY shirt with a team letter
Paul
garciajones@yahoo.com

BU54CB
03-19-2011, 08:28 AM
The photo match is sweet with the stripes and the stickers acting like pinstripes on a Yankees shirt. We now have one side of the story at least with regards to whose helmet is a photo match! It will be interesting to see how the OP follows this up.

The entire thread is just another example of people speaking before thinking. If someone has a problem go to the moderator first. Years ago I purchased some 49er gamers from someone and they were not quite as advertised. Instead of going " public" I asked for some help via Chris Cav. and guess what- the entire situation was resolved with both parties happy.

Always buying 1994 49ers and ANY shirt with a team letter
Paul
garciajones@yahoo.com

I agree, that's exactly how things should be handled. What kills me with this situation is nothing was bought or sold, someone just had a grudge they chose to express the absolute wrong way.

beavisrules
03-19-2011, 11:53 AM
I guess I don't understand why posting the photos of the items is such a big deal? There are countless threads in this forum that members have voluntarily photos posted of items and collections that run the spectrum of value.

BU54CB,
I am actually going to give you a different perspective on why I don't post many pics - it's because many of these pics may then serve as "templates" to those who like to "doctor" ND jerseys.
In the past 3 years, I have seen more mis-represented or altered ND "game worn" jerseys then I have seen of true, quality game worn jerseys (excluding the modern day gamers with Steiner letters, which are fine and legit). And I don't just mean ebay - many major auction houses have also had bad jerseys, and yes, I have contacted them to alert them - most don't respond or tell me not to bid if I don't like the item, which I find sad because their knowledge of ND gamers is minimal at best. In particular, my favorite response is "the source is good" - so apparently even though Notre Dame NEVER wore green jerseys in 2003, it is ok to sell a green ND jersey tagged 2003 as game worn instead of team issue, I guess. I started a thread on general ND jersey information a while back that I need to resume, but again, I am keeping it general to aspects of the jersey that would take a heroic effort to alter (sleeve style, etc). I think it is really sad how much bad/altered product there is out on the market, and my lack of spending money on game used items over the past year definitely goes along with this. Anyway, this is why I am cautious about posting pics, because at least I can still typically discern a gamer from a team issue from a fake because there is such a lack of easy access to close up ND gamer pics, especially from the 1980s and 1990s.

solarlottry
03-19-2011, 01:08 PM
BU54CB,
I am actually going to give you a different perspective on why I don't post many pics - it's because many of these pics may then serve as "templates" to those who like to "doctor" ND jerseys.
In the past 3 years, I have seen more mis-represented or altered ND "game worn" jerseys then I have seen of true, quality game worn jerseys (excluding the modern day gamers with Steiner letters, which are fine and legit). And I .don't just mean ebay - many major auction houses have also had bad jerseys, and yes, I have contacted them to alert them - most don't respond or tell me not to bid if I don't like the item, which I find sad because their knowledge of ND gamers is minimal at best. In particular, my favorite response is "the source is good" - so apparently even though Notre Dame NEVER wore green jerseys in 2003, it is ok to sell a green ND jersey tagged 2003 as game worn instead of team issue, I guess. I started a thread on general ND jersey information a while back that I need to resume, but again, I am keeping it general to aspects of the jersey that would take a heroic effort to alter (sleeve style, etc). I think it is really sad how much bad/altered product there is out on the market, and my lack of spending money on game used items over the past year definitely goes along with this. Anyway, this is why I am cautious about posting pics, because at least I can still typically discern a gamer from a team issue from a fake because there is such a lack of easy access to close up ND gamer pics, especially from the 1980s and 1990s.

I understand your point about not wanting to post pics which would give forgers more information to use to make the finished product. The problem with that that is that pictures are everywhere already. NFL, NBA auctions, all the major auction houses, eBay etc etc. If someone is going to make a fake shirt and they are that good at it chances are your few images are not going to change that fact. Maybe someone will see your images and realize that a shirt is a fake and not buy and stop the forger from producing them. I think it can go both ways. Posted images can be used as a valuable learning source for collectors and as a way to weed out bad shirts so, as with everything in life, there is risk and benefits. What kind of hobby would game used collecting be if everyone just bought the stuff they liked and hoarded it in a dark room for only themselves to look at. What fun is that. A good part of the satisfaction of this hobby is sharing the stuff you like with others and to not do that due to fear seems like the forgers have already won. Criminals like a to fill a void and they are going to make shirts regardless of what we do. If we don't continue to share the stuff we like, communicate with each other and weed out the bad stuff then the hobby is sure to suffer.

Jules9
03-19-2011, 04:37 PM
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c273/John1913/ochoc.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c273/John1913/ocho-1.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c273/John1913/ochoci.jpg
http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c273/John1913/x999.jpg


These pictures are from Daylife and can be enlarged there. Looks like you can see the white scratch on the stripes.

cliffjmp33
03-19-2011, 10:13 PM
I know the other thread is closed, but here is a photo from Bengals/Colts on 11/14/10 by AP attributed to Chad's helmet and you can obviously see the difference in style.

As for why people don't post, I love seeing peoples collections, but I don't mind if they don't want to. It is their choice. The one thing that I thought of as I followed the thread was the possibility that a person may be afraid of having their item stolen. I know that it is a worst-case scenario, but we're talking about items that could range well over four and five figures. Just a thought, but I don't blame anyone for not wanting to share either.

Here's the pic...Photo credit to the Associated Press (Mods, if any copyrights are violated, please remove pic).

solarlottry
03-19-2011, 10:39 PM
That is one thought and danger of showing images- that by posting expensive items they may be stolen. It would take some work and selling the items might be difficult as the collecting world is not that huge but it is a risk and something I have thought about. One issue is that the thieves don't know what they are getting themselves into with security systems and homeowners with weapons. No one wants to get killed over a jersey and when a homeowner is armed to the teeth that could occur.

Like everyone else I am prepared for the zombie war with the necessary laundry list of items so trying to steal a bunch of 49ers shirts might be met with a shot to the head.

Paul

therealaxis
03-19-2011, 11:08 PM
I also agree there are some special circumstances were not posting something is defiantly justifiable.I do however feel if you are going to publicly call someone out claiming you own the real deal of what they supposedly have be prepared to prove it.If it is not relevant to the situation I have no issues with people not posting photos but don't call someone out with out backing up your argument if relevant.Now that this situation is somewhat cleared I sure would like some closure on my bat situation.I feel a fair way to settle things is to have Scott send mods photos of his bat and let them be the judge of things.I am not trying to beat a dead horse but if he is not willing to do that then that raises red flags with me...

Bravesfan
03-19-2011, 11:47 PM
I sold a game used item to another member a couple of months ago. I had posted a pic of it here in a thread and the buyer asked me to ask the forum administator to remove the pic.
I guess he has his reasons and is kind of private.
I asked twice and as far as I know the pic is still up.
I did my best for the buyer but that is all I can do. :confused:

legaleagle92481
03-19-2011, 11:50 PM
The risk of having stuff stolen is baloney. First of all what is the difference between telling people I obtained a 2010 Chad Ocho Cinco helmet and posting a pic of it? The risk is the same, the potential thief reads about said item being obtained instead of seeing the item as well. Not much of a difference. Second, one can minimize theft risks. Store your loas apart from your stuff so if a thief takes the stuff you will still have the loa. Dont let anyone know where you store your stuff.

GoTigers
03-20-2011, 12:25 AM
I dont see a photomatch.. see below. I'm not commenting on the situation or the authenticity of either helmet. I just don't see a photomatch from these images.

Titans74
03-20-2011, 11:39 AM
Looks like a perfect match. The white scuff mark did it for me. Nice helmet.

LWMM
03-20-2011, 03:55 PM
I dont see a photomatch.. see below. I'm not commenting on the situation or the authenticity of either helmet. I just don't see a photomatch from these images.

In regards to the black hit marks, keep in mind that while you can expect marks on an item in hand to be identifiable in a photograph, marks in a photograph could have been removed since the photograph was taken. Pete Rose, for instance, would wipe off ball marks from his black bats; as such, one can not discredit a photomatch simply because specific marks in the photo are not present on the item in hand.

I'm not commenting on whether the photos given provide a match (or matches), but rather adding something to consider.

solarlottry
03-20-2011, 04:29 PM
In regards to the black hit marks, keep in mind that while you can expect marks on an item in hand to be identifiable in a photograph, marks in a photograph could have been removed since the photograph was taken. Pete Rose, for instance, would wipe off ball marks from his black bats; as such, one can not discredit a photomatch simply because specific marks in the photo are not present on the item in hand.

I'm not commenting on whether the photos given provide a match (or matches), but rather adding something to consider.

I agree. I am sure that the helmets a wiped off and cleaned especially if used in multiple games. If anyone saw the video of the packers seamstresses getting their uniforms ready for each game then you will know what I mean. Those uniforms had to look perfect before the game and repairs were made to look like they didn't exist. I dont think that the NFL would like players using dirty helmets at the start of a game. The helmet may have been cleaned before given to JO and the black marks removed but the scrape to the stripes would not come out thus they remain and the black stains do not.

With regards to the stripe and the hole it looks like there is orange in one photo and no orange in the other. I am not sure if it is the angle but if the case it is not a match.

Paul
Always buying 49ers shirts
garciajones@yahoo.com

10thMan
03-20-2011, 04:56 PM
I have a considerable Gwynn (Sr.) Bat collection. I`ve had Forum members ask to purchase a Gwynn Bat, only to feel they`re Picture collectors. I`m not talking once or twice! I`ve also had 2 guys in particular, pound me personally for pics.

I do my fair share of "Service work" in this World, prolly more than the next guy, but why satisfy peoples selfish interests??? We all know how some (not most) can be in regards to collecting.

While I`ll say "Talk is Cheap" in regards to "I have this or that" Possibility they simply could care less about posting Pics???

Just my take...


Sean

dplettn
03-21-2011, 11:22 AM
The helmet may have been cleaned before given to JO and the black marks removed but the scrape to the stripes would not come out thus they remain and the black stains do not.

With regards to the stripe and the hole it looks like there is orange in one photo and no orange in the other. I am not sure if it is the angle but if the case it is not a match.

Paul
Always buying 49ers shirts
garciajones@yahoo.com


It is refreshing to see objective discussion about item attributes. This forum is not mine to control, nor do I wish to control it. But, I am totally unaware why the original thread went from talking about item attributes objectively, and talking about representations that were made for various dated photo-matches to a discussion of how there was some implicit requirement that photos of a completely different helmet to the one being marketed by JO be furnished.

If I'm going to be attacked for choice not to post an item (which I've ever marketed to anyone incidentally) when I've never offered anything for sale, why is it that nobody seems to care whether JO furnishes any sort of proof as to its purported exclusive deal?

The same suspended disbelief seems present in an absence of comments on the JO helmet's internal photos here on the forum, and that nobody asks why once JO eventually furnished any attempt at photo-matching what they'd been marketing the date of the game was different than the representations they had made previously. I'm curious to see whether anyone other than myself chooses to contribute objective third party commentary on the white portion of helmet's back. This white piece has physical properties which folks (if they choose) comment objectively on.

Masimen
03-21-2011, 03:24 PM
It is refreshing to see objective discussion about item attributes. This forum is not mine to control, nor do I wish to control it. But, I am totally unaware why the original thread went from talking about item attributes objectively, and talking about representations that were made for various dated photo-matches to a discussion of how there was some implicit requirement that photos of a completely different helmet to the one being marketed by JO be furnished.

If I'm going to be attacked for choice not to post an item (which I've ever marketed to anyone incidentally) when I've never offered anything for sale, why is it that nobody seems to care whether JO furnishes any sort of proof as to its purported exclusive deal?

The same suspended disbelief seems present in an absence of comments on the JO helmet's internal photos here on the forum, and that nobody asks why once JO eventually furnished any attempt at photo-matching what they'd been marketing the date of the game was different than the representations they had made previously. I'm curious to see whether anyone other than myself chooses to contribute objective third party commentary on the white portion of helmet's back. This white piece has physical properties which folks (if they choose) comment objectively on.

The last thing I wanted this post to be was an attack. I hope it did not come off that way. What I was trying to say is that it is very difficult for the forum members to come to an educated decision about someone's claims without any evidence. We have had this issue with a bat as well, where a member swears up and down he has the real deal and it is photo matched, but refuses to show it to us. It just seems to me (for whatever that's worth) that if someone is going to dispute someone else's item they should provide evidence to whomever they are disputing it to. If they are not willing to do so then why bother? Does that make sense?

As for JO providing proof they have an exclusive agreement with the team. Is there some question as to wether or not they actually do have such an agreement? I am not asking sarcastically. I am curious if I missed something here. Has that actually come into question?

Jules9
03-21-2011, 03:45 PM
As far as the helmet goes, I'm not a football expert but it looks like their are two different Schutt style helmets worn during the season. The screenshot below, from 11/21/2010 and the photo of the 4 helmets on his twitter account have orange rivets near the chinstrap. The photos I posted earlier from 9/26/2010 and the photos JO posted have silver rivets near the chinstrap. I guess it's possible he could wear both helmets during a game and maybe the screen shot JO posted is the helmet with orange rivets.

Also photos from 9/2/2010 show a helmet with orange rivets


http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c273/John1913/ochocinc.jpg

Jules9
03-21-2011, 03:57 PM
dplettn,

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to but could your helmet be the Schutt with orange rivets and that's what makes it "the product JO offered to sell me duplicates what I already own"

This isn't a personal attack and maybe that's why it seams like JO was trying to sell something that you already own. Also I didn't look at pictures from every game but it looks like the majority of pics on Getty and Daylife have orange rivets so if the silver rivet helmet was only used one game or a couple of quarters it may not show sweat stains. The photos also show it was raining so maybe the sweat was washed away?

legaleagle92481
03-21-2011, 07:15 PM
It is refreshing to see objective discussion about item attributes. This forum is not mine to control, nor do I wish to control it. But, I am totally unaware why the original thread went from talking about item attributes objectively, and talking about representations that were made for various dated photo-matches to a discussion of how there was some implicit requirement that photos of a completely different helmet to the one being marketed by JO be furnished.

If I'm going to be attacked for choice not to post an item (which I've ever marketed to anyone incidentally) when I've never offered anything for sale, why is it that nobody seems to care whether JO furnishes any sort of proof as to its purported exclusive deal?

The same suspended disbelief seems present in an absence of comments on the JO helmet's internal photos here on the forum, and that nobody asks why once JO eventually furnished any attempt at photo-matching what they'd been marketing the date of the game was different than the representations they had made previously. I'm curious to see whether anyone other than myself chooses to contribute objective third party commentary on the white portion of helmet's back. This white piece has physical properties which folks (if they choose) comment objectively on.

jo's deal is not an issue. i think we can all accept that as fact. why would jo make that up and expose themselves to a lawsuit from the bengals if it was not true. as for your pics. people i think take issue with your position which is essentially this: i have a real chad helmet from the 2010 season and therefore any other one is fake and these pics that jo showed me do not match the handful of pics ive seen from those games and dont show what i feel are sufficient signs of use. now that it has been refuted that you have the only chad helmet and at least three more exist pics of yours are no longer relevant. if both you and jo have one theres still two that are unaccounted for so whether your helmets legit or not noone should really care because its not on the market. as for the merits of jos helmet noone including you has seen it. aenas is an expert who is phyiscally examining it and rather than people speculate based on some pics, i think most people are content to wait to hear what the independent expert has to say after he examines the helmet in person. photomatching is imperfect noone has pics of every minute of every game and noone knows if someone cleaned an item or changed something inside of it or whatever. personally i can tell you though that jo is top notch i have done close to 20k in business with them from their team partnerships and we have not had one dispute. their stuff is top notch.

dplettn
03-22-2011, 12:24 AM
jo's deal is not an issue. i think we can all accept that as fact. why would jo make that up and expose themselves to a lawsuit from the bengals if it was not true. as for your pics. people i think take issue with your position which is essentially this: i have a real chad helmet from the 2010 season and therefore any other one is fake and these pics that jo showed me do not match the handful of pics ive seen from those games and dont show what i feel are sufficient signs of use. now that it has been refuted that you have the only chad helmet and at least three more exist pics of yours are no longer relevant. if both you and jo have one theres still two that are unaccounted for so whether your helmets legit or not noone should really care because its not on the market. as for the merits of jos helmet noone including you has seen it. aenas is an expert who is phyiscally examining it and rather than people speculate based on some pics, i think most people are content to wait to hear what the independent expert has to say after he examines the helmet in person. photomatching is imperfect noone has pics of every minute of every game and noone knows if someone cleaned an item or changed something inside of it or whatever. personally i can tell you though that jo is top notch i have done close to 20k in business with them from their team partnerships and we have not had one dispute. their stuff is top notch.

I wouldn't agree with your summation of my position. My position is that JO made factually false representations as to at least photo-matching, applied high pressure sales tactics, and then chose a path of making a series of rude demands, accusations, and intimidation tactics on myself upon my observing their practices.

Your comments in the original thread could plausibly be motivated by your feeling a vested interest in JO's business practices because of high dollar merchandise you have bought, for which you may have similarly suspended disbelief as you have for the purported "exclusive" contract.

I can't entirely blame you. But over the long run, an organizations standards matter. "Game used" authentication calls for a meticulous attention to detail. Organizationally speaking, a company which replaces detail orientation and consistently accurate statements of fact with high aggression sales practices and other unsavory, unethical business practices may prove unworthy of the esteem you assign.

You may have noticed that some in this thread are now noticing certain details such as rivet colors which along with internal use, one might assume to be noticed by a company representing dated photo-matches. Is the "exclusivity" for which you suspend disbelief real? Well, JO knows. And JO can choose whether to post the exclusive contract they've purported, or not.

I do very much respect the focus on attributes in the posts of Jules9. It was my anticipation that the original thread would be similarly focused on attributes and statements made which were factually true and were factually untrue.

Once JO and/or the Bengals share the outcome of this super duper special Bengals front office meeting (sarcasm intentional, as if the Bengals were to blame for JO's representations of specific use and unsavory business practices), and the expert's authentication process on the JO helmet is complete, I would see no reason the original thread wouldn't simply be reopened for forum comment, right? I anticipate being more than happy to there discuss item attributes, factual details, true and false representations of fact, etc. In the interim, I haven't heard anything from the authenticator needing any of my help. In due course, I'll be happy to contribute to the forum's original thread once the forum's moderators see the benchmarks they intended and find the original thread appropriate again for objective discussion of attributes, facts, etc.

To those who've spent $20K or whatever other figure at JO, please know that its your items that matter, not the standards of detail that JO does or doesn't keep in its normal course of business. And nothing that I (or anyone else) observes about JO changes what the day to day standards they do or don't hold themselves to are.

There is no substitute for being meticulous in authenticating items, even more so if nobody else is applying standards of rigor wherever you find the items you buy. And that is anywhere, not specific to just any particular sales operation.

commando
03-22-2011, 01:26 AM
There's another thread active here on the forum that talks about a guy named Wayne Otto. Wayne was one of the first to deal directly with ballclubs to purchase game used items in bulk. What that meant was Wayne would get the "good, bad and ugly" all together in these deals -- some jerseys might look like they never left the equipment room, while others might be hammered beyond belief. But they all came directly form the team, so that fact was undisputed.

It seems to me like the JO/Bengals situation might be the same. Sure, sometimes equipment is carefully documented on a per-game basis, especially when an item is only worn for one or two games, depending on the team and player. But I have a feeling that the Bengals gave JO a huge cache of the good, bad and ugly, and most if not all of the items had no specific game history attached.

dplettn
03-22-2011, 10:16 AM
But I have a feeling that the Bengals gave JO a huge cache of the good, bad and ugly, and most if not all of the items had no specific game history attached.

You very well may be correct. Your position would certainly also work toward explaining the lack of factually accurate text in the marketing detail among some of JO's other Bengals merchandise.

Absent clearly false statements of fact, who would have a problem with that?

However unique JO is to historical memorabilia business models, one can take a contextual approach at looking at a broader array of retailing.

Looking at retail business models, Outlet Malls are an example of places that bundle "this with that" and the buyer needs to look closely at what they are buying. So are used car delearships. Each has a broad array of stock with alternate backgrounds. The difference in the underlying assumptions between those two types of businesses is that we all expect that a salesman (and perhaps also his manager) will try to take advantage of us in a used car dealerships and make statements that may represent fractions of truth.

I'm not saying JO does or doesn't have similarities in sales tactics to a used car dealership. I'm also not saying it does or doesn't have similarities to an Outlet Mall. Outlet Malls sell an array of great inventory along with irregulars. Outlet mall sticker pricing doesn't imply great worth and has anyone ever been lied to at an outlet mall.

We each can understand JO's business however we choose, and each of our assessments represents only that of ourselves. The currently closed thread does not make any analogies either, it merely offers statements of fact as to how an item was marketed, and it offers a further glimpse into how the company handled a situation by placing demands and using other intimidation tactics on the very consumer who'd they previously marketed with factually false statements of photo-matches, and unsavory aggressive sales practices.

The displayed pricing at JO certainly implies great "worth" to the merchandise they sell. I'm surprised how little the actual prices paid get talked about here.

JO is a young business with unique business strategies and business tactics. I don't want to make negative statements about JO, but I will do my best to try and say something positive: there are ways I respect the intellect of its business design.

legaleagle92481
03-22-2011, 10:25 AM
high pressure sales tactics are part of the game. alot of companies use them. steiner does also. every car dealer ive ever dealt with has and so do many other businesses. jo has messed up before. i called them out on the jason taylor skins jersey they had attributed to a game he was inactive for. i alerted them as well when i saw on their site a ravens jersey from trevor pryce attributed to a game after he was released and on the jets. they are not perfect, they, me, you and everyone else knows it. they also are very misleading on their team partnerships. if you look at their site you are led to believe that they have deals with the titans, jags, saints, browns and falcons when they dont. i also believe their skins deal is nonexclusive. they must have some sort of deal with the bengals, they have so much stuff and their stuff usually comes with coa from the team at least the broncos, jets and chargers and vikings stuff i bought did. i just felt that your original post came off more like sour grapes then anything else and i think that there is really no way to prove the helmet real or fake. unless you have pic of every game this year and can say for sure nothing was cleaned. also every company makes mistakes. steiner and meigray have, every auction house has. when you have that kind of volume there are bound to be a few now and then.

solarlottry
03-22-2011, 10:31 AM
I think that its a very good point about how much difference there is in the list price and the actual price of most of JO's items. The list price is quite expensive whereas the actual price is sometimes 1/5 of the actual price. Most items on their website can be acquired for half (if it is a premier player) to almost 75-80% off the actual price for lesser known players. It is all in the bargaining and how long they have tried to sell a particular shirt. The longer things sit around the cheaper they get.

Paul
garciajones@yahoo.com
Looking for and paying ridiculously well for 49ers gamers!

dplettn
03-22-2011, 11:11 AM
high pressure sales tactics are part of the game. alot of companies use them. steiner does also. every car dealer ive ever dealt with has and so do many other businesses. jo has messed up before. i called them out on the jason taylor skins jersey they had attributed to a game he was inactive for. i alerted them as well when i saw on their site a ravens jersey from trevor pryce attributed to a game after he was released and on the jets. they are not perfect, they, me, you and everyone else knows it. they also are very misleading on their team partnerships. if you look at their site you are led to believe that they have deals with the titans, jags, saints, browns and falcons when they dont. i also believe their skins deal is nonexclusive. they must have some sort of deal with the bengals, they have so much stuff and their stuff usually comes with coa from the team at least the broncos, jets and chargers and vikings stuff i bought did. i just felt that your original post came off more like sour grapes then anything else and i think that there is really no way to prove the helmet real or fake. unless you have pic of every game this year and can say for sure nothing was cleaned. also every company makes mistakes. steiner and meigray have, every auction house has. when you have that kind of volume there are bound to be a few now and then.

Nothing you say about JO represent positions for which I'm unable to understand. However, your contention of "sour grapes" paired with the ongoing effort to characterize my position as having anything to do with calling a helmet real or fake suggests that you may not have read the original post in detail. Hopefully, if and when the moderators see fit to reopen the original post (hopefully once JO has had time to get their hands around all issues they do and don't want to speak on) we can discuss the fact pattern that was presented logically, in the context for which we all seem to agree would be appropriate.

I'm confident in looking at the text of the original posts and timeline that you were not responding on the grounds of what was actually presented in that text. That isn't any attack on you, perhaps I covered too broad an array of facts in the thread too quickly. Its merely a hope that if you now accept that I'm not some crazy lunatic, that you re-read the original thread with an open mind and ask yourself whether your first impression of the thread is still the impression you would have after a slow and thorough reading of the actual time-line I presented.