PDA

View Full Version : Lampson's Mantle Pants!



hblakewolf
03-09-2007, 12:01 PM
Forum Readers-

http://cgi.ebay.com/1954-55-Mickey-Mantle-Game-Used-Yankees-Road-Pants_W0QQitemZ290089750843QQcategoryZ50117QQrdZ1Q QcmdZViewItem

Offered by Broadway Rick is a pair of "1950's Mantle Pants" with 2 LOA's. The one letter is from some individual in 1950 who is seeking equipment from the Yankees. Please read this letter, as there is no connection anywhere in the letter to this particular oair of "Mantle" pants. Then read Lampson's LOA.

I've seen plenty of Yankees pants, however, have never seen a pair tagged like these that are attributed to being used by the New York Yankees. No name stitched in the waist, no year, etc. Just a 7. Are these even New York Yankees pants? How do we know they are not from a minor league team or even spring training?

In my opinion, there is no possible way that one can prove that these are Mantle pants, let along ever worn by anyone with the Yankees! Has anyone on this Forum ever seen Yankees pants tagged like this?

Thoughts?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

ALWAYS BUYING PHILLIES, PORTLAND BEAVERS, PORTLAND MAVERICKS JERSEYS

otismalibu
03-09-2007, 12:29 PM
Broadway Rick & Lou Lampson. If those names don't trigger your Spider senses, nothing will.

Which bidder is Rick?

suave1477
03-09-2007, 12:40 PM
Correct me if I am wrong on this.

But if you pay close attention to the waistband pants mateirial and the actual #7 swatch affixed to the pants they are 2 totally different materials which would definitely lead me to believe that the #7 was added to it long after the pants were used.
The #7 is on a heringbone stitch swatch which I don't know if that was common then but I could be wrong!!

TNTtoys
03-09-2007, 01:29 PM
Not that I have anything constructive to add to this thread, but I couldn't help notice Howard's typo of Lampson's name... which reminded me of another word - Lampoon!

As defined, a lampoon is a work of literature, art, or the like, ridiculing severely the character or behavior of a person, society, etc.

Are these infamous LOAs considered a form of literature? Maybe we were not meant to take them seriously from the start!!

cjosefy
03-09-2007, 01:38 PM
As the LOA states, the pants were most likely sourced from "the miners." Maybe that explains the use.

http://www.jimwalterresources.com/old%20coal%20miner1.jpg

MSpecht
03-09-2007, 01:42 PM
After reading Broadway Rick's description of this item, I have an even greater appreciation for Mantle's abilities.

"He started the tape measure craze with two blasts over 530 feet in his 1953 campaign. In 1955 he hit his eighth longest, and one of the most spectacular homeruns of his career up to this point, a 550 yard mammoth blast that flew over the top of Comiskey Park off of Billy Pierce."
---Broadway Rick

A 1,650 ft home run must have been a sight to behold.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com (Jackitout7@aol.com)

BTW -- yes, for those who have asked, my email address is a reference to The Mick.

hblakewolf
03-09-2007, 02:08 PM
....honestly.....no joking.....how can these pants be attributed to Mantle, or for that matter, the Yankees? Someone on this Forum must know how Mantle's pants should be tagged. Are these even close?

Also interesting, Lampson's remarks about the Yankee letterhead. He notes that it should be framed with the pants, etc. He appears to at least have some experience in interior decorating! Likewise, when has anyone here ever seen an authenticator delve into describing a supporting LOA in such fashion?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Eric
03-09-2007, 02:19 PM
I can only provide peripheral info. It's a different year, but here's how my 1960 Stengel pants are tagged

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Baseball/Casey%20Stengel/HPIM2569.jpg

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Baseball/Casey%20Stengel/HPIM2568.jpg

and my Kubek pants are tagged

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Sold/HPIM2572.jpg

Eric

hblakewolf
03-09-2007, 02:29 PM
Eric-
Your pants are tagged the same as other Yankees from this era and thus, the reason for my initial post.

I've NEVER seen a pair of Mantle pants or for that matter, Yankees pants, tagged with just a uniform number. They should have year, name, etc.

Again, how in the world can Lampson attribute these to the Yankees, let alone Mantle?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

kingjammy24
03-09-2007, 03:37 PM
howard,

you have a real knack for finding the most comical items in the hobby. perhaps you could leverage this into some sort of regular feature - "howard wolf's theatre of the absurd".

anyway, the confusing part for me is the lampson letter. specifically, lampson states: "..with a supporting letter of provenance which indirectly supports the pants' origins."

the "supporting letter of provenance" that lampson refers to actually offers no provenance whatsoever. it's simply a letter that says nothing more than "write us in the future. maybe we can help then". the letter says absolutely nothing about any pants nor does it even say that the yankees ever gave anything of any sort to the recipient. it's a basic kiss-off letter sent to anyone who makes a request that cannot be accomodated. how does a team letter stating "write us in the future and maybe we'll try to help" support anything other than the fact that the recipient got a polite brush-off? this is what qualifies as a "letter of provenance" by lampson? hot dog! i've got dozens of generic team letters saying "sorry can't help you". i never imagined these were "letters of provenance"!

anyway, after lampson waxes poetic about his affection for the letterhead, he goes on to say "Obviously, the D'Andrea family had a relationship with Weiss and the Yankees, and obtained uniforms and equipment from the parent club". if I can understand this then, a letter from yankees to joe d'andrea stating "write us in the future and maybe we can help" is evidence that joe d'andrea "obtained uniforms and equipment from the parent club"? if anything i believe it's evidence that, in that instance, the yankees didn't give him anything. it's completely bizarre to think a letter saying that they couldn't help him out is evidence that they did help him out. after reading letters like this, it's genuinely difficult for me to believe that lampson hasn't completely lost it.

rudy.

both-teams-played-hard
03-09-2007, 05:05 PM
howard,

you have a real knack for finding the most comical items in the hobby. perhaps you could leverage this into some sort of regular feature - "howard wolf's theatre of the absurd".

anyway, the confusing part for me is the lampson letter. specifically, lampson states: "..with a supporting letter of provenance which indirectly supports the pants' origins."

the "supporting letter of provenance" that lampson refers to actually offers no provenance whatsoever. it's simply a letter that says nothing more than "write us in the future. maybe we can help then". the letter says absolutely nothing about any pants nor does it even say that the yankees ever gave anything of any sort to the recipient. it's a basic kiss-off letter sent to anyone who makes a request that cannot be accomodated. how does a team letter stating "write us in the future and maybe we'll try to help" support anything other than the fact that the recipient got a polite brush-off? this is what qualifies as a "letter of provenance" by lampson? hot dog! i've got dozens of generic team letters saying "sorry can't help you". i never imagined these were "letters of provenance"!

anyway, after lampson waxes poetic about his affection for the letterhead, he goes on to say "Obviously, the D'Andrea family had a relationship with Weiss and the Yankees, and obtained uniforms and equipment from the parent club". if I can understand this then, a letter from yankees to joe d'andrea stating "write us in the future and maybe we can help" is evidence that joe d'andrea "obtained uniforms and equipment from the parent club"? if anything i believe it's evidence that, in that instance, the yankees didn't give him anything. it's completely bizarre to think a letter saying that they couldn't help him out is evidence that they did help him out. after reading letters like this, it's genuinely difficult for me to believe that lampson hasn't completely lost it.

rudy.

Rudy
Are you a published writer? Of late, your posts have become "instant classics". Good job! The blow-off letter of authenticity? Yet, another term for the GUDictionary...

The auction ended.
Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Seven Dollars and Nine Cents. I ask all Forum readers to stop and think of all the cool stuff you could buy with that much coin.

sylbry
03-09-2007, 05:42 PM
Lou Lampson math.

This jersey http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,MN-SE60H-3.html

plus a pair of scissors (to remove the M&N tag)

plus a letter I own from Sherry Robertson of the Senator's dated 1960 telling a fan that they do not give away player jerseys

plus a Lou Lampson LOA

equals I'M RICH!!!!

both-teams-played-hard
03-09-2007, 07:36 PM
http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/2165/mantlepantsletteryv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

topekabob
03-10-2007, 01:33 AM
I posted this on the Pistons Milicic jersey thread but it's applicable here too. How sad that my post is applicable to two jerseys with Lampson LOA's in two days...

Everybody - I don't consider myself a particularly dumb person, but I'm starting to wonder, because this Lou Lampson thing really has me befuddled.
Basically, through the many posts and evidence by posters, it is obvious that Lou Lampson just makes up a lot of things. And he hides behind ridiculous words like "examplars" to make him sound like, well, I have no idea, because I don't know what you're trying to do when you write that like.
Now, some of you out there have relationships with auction houses that use Lampson. They must know that the guy is incompetent at the least, an outright criminal at the worst.
So why do they keep sending stuff to him? I know the answer could be because he'll authenticate a shoe as game worn by Bigfoot in the Sonics-Blazers game of 2004 as typical of other Bigfoot worn examplars as long as he's being paid, and the auction houses could care less whether something is really game worn or not.
If that's true, then I guess that answers my question, that the auction houses could care less whether something is really game used or not, so they use someone who has no idea whether something is game used to write LOA's. If that is the case, that's sad. But it's also criminal, and they're ripping people off to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.
If it's not true, and you think that the auction houses that do use him do actually care if something is what they say it is...then why the heck do they employ him?
Anyway, I've got to get back to preparing my jerseys. I have a 1976-1977 blazers jersey with the team name on the back of the jersey I need to send off to Lampson. Although no known photos of this jersey exist, it fits in with known examplars of the blazers that season because they were putting the team name on the front vertically and if they were willing to do that then surely they would put it on the back too.

TNTtoys
03-10-2007, 01:24 PM
All this talk about Lou Lampoon made me wonder... I have been buying game used jerseys for years. Surely there has to be at least 1 of his LOA!!!s in my file. And so I opened the file up, and lo and behold... 1 of his LOA!!!s was there. And this was pretty good.

It was an LOA for a 1987 Mets BP #25. With utmost certainty, the BP was attributed to Keith Miller. After all, Miller played for the Mets in 1987 and wore #25.

What it doesn't mention is that ANOTHER player played for the 1987 Mets and wore #25 as well - Al Pedrique. Furthermore, Pedrique was the same size as Miller and played the same position. This of course takes away the "classic" argument "shows good second baseman use."

Now, I am not splitting hairs here. For a $100 dollar game used Mets BP in my favorite style of all time, I don't particularly care who wore it, because it makes a nice addition to my collection...

but what homework was done on it? My guess, none. I suppose QUANTITY over QUALITY...

allstarsplus
03-11-2007, 12:28 AM
In how many future Yankee auctions will we see that 1954 letter recycled for circa 1950's Yankee items?

My favorite part of this auction was the Yankees letter and according to the auction---it seems you don't even get the Yankees letter with the pants---you only get the Lamsopon LOA.

Comes with a detailed LOA from Lou Lampson

$4,927 was the winning bid and maybe the bidders know something we don't know. Can anyone show a photo of this style of pants and labeling? If not, then you would have to hope the bidders had the intellect to read the Yankees letter and make an assessment that the letter lends NO provenance to this pair of pants.

I always liked the mathematical logic that if A=B and B=C then A=C. This auction is another example of A may = B and B may = C so in my opinion A=C. Okay, so here is my opinion---this auction doesn't even come close. There is no photo evidence and the letter says nothing pertinent to these pants.

Another one for the Wall of Shame!!!!!

Andrew

kingjammy24
03-11-2007, 10:10 PM
warren,

very nice! you've inspired me.

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8809/mantleet3.jpg

rudy.

both-teams-played-hard
03-13-2007, 03:25 AM
It seems that Lou Larcen has an active imagination, not unlike the other L.L.
Lampson's speculative LOA is funny and sad at the same time.

Eric
03-13-2007, 10:26 AM
Oh yeah, well he's no Lou Sampson

http://cgi.ebay.com/ADAM-ARCHULETA-Game-used-Uniform_W0QQitemZ150101115733QQcategoryZ86829QQssP ageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Nathan
03-13-2007, 08:46 PM
Rudy, that's one of the funniest things I've ever read in my life. I was trying to carry on a phone conversation when I first read that and had to call the person back because I was laughing too hard.

Shame that it's lampooning something so sad and pathetic though.

EndzoneSports
03-17-2007, 08:45 AM
Don't get me wrong, because this is not an attempt to either defend or bash Lou L, MEARS, GFC, etc., but the bottom line is that, as part of the collecting community, we are all tied into this vicious circle.

Collectors, particularly new ones, want assurances as to an items' legitimacy. Lacking the experience to research and make this determination themselves, they want/need someone else to reasonably convince them of an items' authenticity. Recognizing the conflict of interest, we are often unlikely to trust the claims of a seller who is positioned to profit from the sale.
Sellers who recognize the economic impact of nurturing new clientèle will cater to these new and inexperience collectors. They do so by hiring 3rd-party, independent authenticators to provide educated opinions in testament to the legitimacy of the items which the sellers have submitted. From a business sense stand-point, they will forge relationships with recognizable (for better or worse) names, who will (with minimal interference) routinely provide them with accompanying COAs at the most cost-effective price. These sellers really don't care that the COA doesn't add anything of value to the item itself, but only that it makes the item more readily salable, since the word of an unbiased 3rd-party who removes the seller's conflict of interest is what the collective purchasing community is after.
Authenticators understand this relationship between buyers and sellers, and their craft arose as a result of the potential for conflict on the part of the seller. These folks understand that their livelihood is dependent upon providing a needed service at a competitive price. In oder to best accommodate their clients (who are typically the professional sellers), low cost and the political savvy requiring them not to overly scrutinize items set before them are the secrets to securing that customer's future business.If as a collecting community, the reality of this arrangement has become bothersome, it is simple to do away with.... Curtail the demand and the businesses/individuals providing this service will go away. Collectively, we must let the sellers know, through our words and actions, that we are no longer interested in this non-value-added service... That we are no longer willing to pay the additional premium for having someone else's opinion attached to the item... That we can trust what the sellers are putting in front of of and/or be able to do our own homework where that trust has not yet been established.

Through our past actions, we have created a demand for these services; good, bad, or otherwise, we have gotten what we asked for. If now the tides have turned and we simply want something else, all we need do is ask. We must, however, exercise care in what we ask for. Just as history has show, we might get just what we asked for.

Regards,