"Enough of Lampson", or "Is there a lawyer in the house?"

[Nathan]

There are two items out there at auctions houses (Grey Flannel and Historic) that simply reek. One is represented as a Troy Polamalu 2006 white Steelers jersey, the other is a 1996 Willie McGinest white Patriots jersey. The problem with both is that the names are misspelled ("POLOMALU" and "McGINIST"). Both of them are "authenticated" by Lou Lampson.

At what point do we as collectors stop laughing and rolling our eyes and start looking at any way that legal options can be pursued against Lampson/100% Authentic/auction houses that carry this stuff? I figure that, bare minimum, various forms of fraud are being committed by either negligently authenticating something without due diligence in research OR willfully by looking at a bad item and writing a letter for it for the sake of collecting fees.

Is there a lawyer in the house who can comment on this at all? Forget the civil action of simply attempting to get a refund (most of which would be eaten up by legal fees anyway), is there criminal action that can be pursued for passing off who knows how many bogus items?

[staindsox]

I have been thinking the same exact thing forever. Maybe GUU should start a fund. We can paypal money to the forum and hire a lawyer to go after Lou. I think we have enough proof on these countless threads to make a case.

[Marichal27]

Lampson, GFC, MEARS, etc are all in the same boat. Thier "COA's" are only worth the paper they are written on. GFC has a Bonds HR #531 "GU" jersey, on their premeir auction. Those "HR" Bonds jerseys have made the rounds more times than a merry go round. Fakes!

[kylehess10]

I have been thinking the same exact thing forever. Maybe GUU should start a fund. We can paypal money to the forum and hire a lawyer to go after Lou. I think we have enough proof on these countless threads to make a case.


I agree 100% with this idea. We have so much proof to bring this guy down and a fund would be perfect

[ChrisCavalier]

I have been thinking the same exact thing forever. Maybe GUU should start a fund. We can paypal money to the forum and hire a lawyer to go after Lou. I think we have enough proof on these countless threads to make a case.
Hello Everyone,

Just a quick note here. Please keep in mind that the purpose behind the forum is to provide a platform for collectors to share information and help each other. While I am not making any statements regarding whether or not ideas like these have merit, please note that forming a legal team, etc. is beyond the current scope of what we are looking to do with this site. As such, any individual or group wishing to pursue such an effort would have to do so on their own.

Please feel free to let me know if anyone has any further questions in this area.

Sincerely,
Chris Cavalier

[sylbry]

Lawyering up may be a bit of a challenge.

An idea would be to start a separate website detailing Lampson's screw ups. You could enter the item, the problem with it, and the auctionhouse & date which is was sold (if it was sold at auction.) The result would be threefold.

1) Have a list of Lampson's noted screwups.

2) Attach the names of auctionhouses with his screwups. They may not be as eager to use him if their name is directly involved.

3) Have a online resource to refute the constant barrage of "Lou Lampson is the foremost authority.... BS that all auctionhouses use in their descriptions of him. Currently this forum is the only place to find out the truth about him. If you had a website that came up through a web search that showed his incompetence then people would start to change their minds.

It could be called "The collecting publics opinion on Lou Lampson's opinions."

[worldchamps]

What I would like to know is if the auction houses go after the consignors in the situations. I would hope they would be banned of consigning more items????

Anyone have any knowledge of the houses practices on this?

[Frank]

While IANAL but I am for Lou to stop authenticating, what would you sue for and under what?

I don't think you could sue him for a specific jersey being incorrectly authenticated. Even if you purchased it, he doesn't give any guarantee (obviously) for his work and so Lou doesn't have any sort of contract with the purchaser. Additionally, you personally aren't suffering any loss by him (i.e. that you could prove in court).

I also wouldn't think you could sue someone to stop doing their job. He is producing "Letters of Opinion" and therefore are you going to ask a court to force someone to stop giving their opinion? Opinions can be wrong (as we see with him frequently) and that is why they are opinions.

Other than educating the industry as to his practices, I'm not sure what other recourse you would have.

If someone is an actual lawyer, I would love to know if I'm wrong on any of this and also if we can do anything in the court system.

[staindsox]

All you need is one person who has bought a bogus Lampson item to take it to court. I think there is a deliberate intent to defraud and is why I believe there is a case...knowingly a part of passing along counterfeit items. Although I work in the law field, I am not a lawyer, so I would love to hear thoughts from a pro.

My point is this: we can keep bitching and bitching and bitching about him, but how many actually get off our asses and do something about it? How many of you still buy items with a Lampson LOA? How many of you will still buy from Historic after they block out links to this site? I think Bryan is on to something with his suggestion, but what I'm saying is that it takes more than one person. WE ARE THE HOBBY...if none of us bought anything, Lampson would be waiting drive-thru at Mickey D's. I think it's put up or shut up. Bitching about it on a forum isn't enough. If you're not willing to do anything about it, stop whining about Ol' Lou in these repetitive posts.

Chris

[Frank]

All you need is one person who has bought a bogus Lampson item to take it to court. I think there is a deliberate intent to defraud and is why I believe there is a case...knowingly a part of passing along counterfeit items. Although I work in the law field, I am not a lawyer, so I would love to hear thoughts from a pro.

My point is this: we can keep bitching and bitching and bitching about him, but how many actually get off our asses and do something about it? How many of you still buy items with a Lampson LOA? How many of you will still buy from Historic after they block out links to this site? I think Bryan is on to something with his suggestion, but what I'm saying is that it takes more than one person. WE ARE THE HOBBY...if none of us bought anything, Lampson would be waiting drive-thru at Mickey D's. I think it's put up or shut up. Bitching about it on a forum isn't enough. If you're not willing to do anything about it, stop whining about Ol' Lou in these repetitive posts.

Chris

I agree that action should be taken. Education and not buying Lou items is a huge start.

However, showing a deliberate intent to defraud I think would be much harder because the court is going to look at the relationships of the parties. Lou is providing his opinion to an auction house and not directly to the customer. He is not mass-producing fake jerseys in order to produce a huge profit (assumingly) and is only telling what he thinks about an item. They would probably look at his intent also. If you compiled a full list of all his mistakes, I'm guessing it would be a small number, percentage-wise, to the number that you don't have on your list. Let's assume it is even around 5% (I'm guessing he write a LOT of letters). If malicious intent is determined by 5% of being wrong (assuming you could, in a court of law, prove every single one was wrong) then a lot of companies/people inside and outside of our industry would be in trouble.

I'm just saying that I think it is going to be tough to prove deliberate intent to defraud to some judge that doesn't understand the industry and just wants to move on to the next case. In court you have to prove things to be able to use them against somebody.

I think it would be smarter to "prove" with our wallets and education that we are tired of him authenticating anything. If everybody stopped bidding on any item that had a Lou letter, it would cause auction houses to notice and stop using him.

If a real lawyer (and not my e-lawyer ideas) could give us some direction, that would be great!

[staindsox]

Frank, I completely agree. I'm getting tired of hearing people gripe about Lou, but who continue to buy things in which he handles the LOAs. We could even start a petition to send to auction houses that use Lou...that we will not bid on any lots that involve him whatsoever. When it hits them in the wallet, maybe they will listen to us.

[kingjammy24]

let me preface things by saying i'm not a lawyer. anything i say should not be construed as any sort of legal advice. that said, here is my personal opinion:

frank: hypothetically, you could sue for malpractice and the damages incurred as a result. many in this hobby echo the sentiment that "it's just an opinion". unfortunately, when you're getting paid for it, it's not longer "just an opinion". it's a professional duty that carries with it certain obligations including the requirement to perform due diligence. several professions are based around issuing opinions. doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment advisors all issue opinions and they can all be sued for malpractice. if any professional authenticator genuinely believes they're immune to legal prosecution simply because it's "just an opinion" then i suggest they seek out the thousands of doctors, lawyers and accountants who have been successfully sued for "just issuing an opinion".
essentially, you're suing for either nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance. ie: either he didn't do his duty at all, he did it poorly or inadequately, or he deliberately mislead others in the course of his duty (respectively). in my personal opinion, lampson is the poster child for misfeasance. he authenticates jerseys of styles that were never worn. he clearly fails to do his due diligence. some might also be of the opinion that his lack of due diligence is so egregious at times, that it seems to constitute fraud. that is, given his experience he ought to know that he needs to verify the uniform style, for example. when he clearly fails to do this due diligence, is it intentional? hypothetically, fraud is another charge someone could bring. in short, when lampson authenticates in a paid, professional capacity he has a legal obligation to execute his authentications to the best of his ability and to commonly accepted standards and principles. if he fails in this respect, then it's my personal opinion that a case for malpractice can be made. if it's shown that his failures have been intentional, then it may also be fraud.

"I don't think you could sue him for a specific jersey being incorrectly authenticated"

sure you could. it's happened before. successfully. see: GFC and their TBTC Ripken. GFC was brilliant enough to decide to show their sloppy authentication on national TV.

"Even if you purchased it, he doesn't give any guarantee for his work"

doctors, lawyers and investment advisors don't give guarantees either. however, there is the reasonable expectation that they have done their due diligence and fulfilled their duties and obligations according to accepted principles, to the best of their abilities, and to reasonable expectations. a doctor will never give someone a "guarantee" that their cancer will never return, for example. they'd simply say that, after considering all of the evidence, it's their professional opinion that it's unlikely to return. they have a professional and legal obligation to make their opinions as informed and as accurate as possible. if it was discovered that a doctor issued an opinion without doing any due diligence whatsoever, then it'd be a case for malpractice. many would argue lampson doesn't attempt to make his opinions as informed and accurate as possible. look at this jersey: http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auction_Item.asp?Auction_ID=22278

the description reads "..it is safe to say that he wore this jersey for the majority of the home schedule given its great use". lou's loa on it says
"Surprisingly strong wear on this white Oakland A's jersey would suggest it was Big Mac's main home shirt during the strike-shortened 1994 season."

in 1994, the A's wore 2 color names on the back. lou didn't even look at any images of the A's in 1994 to verify the nob. (or did he?) as an professional, paid authenticator he failed to verify the nob which is a common and fundamental expectation in authenticating jerseys. lou knew it and he didn't do it. seems to scream "misfeasance" to me.

"Additionally, you personally aren't suffering any loss by him (i.e. that you could prove in court)."

a person accepts lou's opinion, they purchase a jersey based on his opinion as a "professional authenticator", the jersey turns out to be bogus. they're out thousands of dollars. pretty easy to prove those losses in court. "i paid $6k for a jersey that lou said was a ripken gamer. it turns out the orioles never even wore this style. the jersey is now worth $100. i'm out $5900". saying that the person didn't have to accept his opinion is rubbish. he was paid for it so there was the natural expectation that people would accept it. do auction houses pay lampson with the intent and expectation that people won't accept his opinions? rubbish. they pay lampson because they hope people will accept his opinion. when a doctor fails to do his due diligence, he can't turn to the patient and say "noone told you to listen to me. you should've done your own homework".

"I also wouldn't think you could sue someone to stop doing their job."

you wouldn't sue lampson to "stop him from doing his job". you'd sue for malpractice and possibly fraud. realistically though, unless lampson is very wealthy, the weight of substantial litigation and the possible resulting penalties, fines, and restitution would naturally put a big damper on his authenticating.

"He is producing "Letters of Opinion" and therefore are you going to ask a court to force someone to stop giving their opinion?"

no. hypothetically, you'd go to court to sue him to a) collect damages which have resulted from any mis/mal/nonfeasance and/or fraud b) have him face the legal penalties resulting from judgements against him. whether lou wants to keep authenticating after all of that is up to him.

"Opinions can be wrong (as we see with him frequently) and that is why they are opinions."

it's not that simple. if you were right, there'd be no such thing as malpractice or even malpractice insurance. millions of doctors would rejoice. ever notice why the legal profession insists that non-lawyers preface their legal advice with the disclaimer that they're not a lawyer and their advice ("opinion") doesn't constitute legal advice? it's because people can incur substantial damages by following poor advice and they can, in turn, sue if such advice was given without fulfilling the necessary obligations. "it's just an opinion" doesn't fly when you're being paid for it.
if you don't want to be held liable, then sell the items strictly "as is" with no claims whatsoever as to what they are or are not. when you charge for your services and advertise yourself as a "foremost expert", then people will take your advice seriously. you have an obligation to perform certain duties in the execution of this advice. that's the reality in other professions and industries. if authenticators and auction houses are rarely sued, then i have to think it's because most hobbyists have actually fallen hook, line, and sinker for the rubbish line of "it's just an opinion". too bad that's not how the real world works. GFC found that out nicely on the People's Court.

chris: i agree with you but also, remember.. "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". at some point, noise becomes too loud to simply ignore.

rudy.

[Frank]

let me preface things by saying i'm not a lawyer. anything i say should not be construed as any sort of legal advice. that said, here is my personal opinion:

frank: hypothetically, you could sue for malpractice and the damages incurred as a result. many in this hobby echo the sentiment that "it's just an opinion". unfortunately, when you're getting paid for it, it's not longer "just an opinion". it's a professional duty that carries with it certain obligations including the requirement to perform due diligence. several professions are based around issuing opinions. doctors, lawyers, accountants, investment advisors all issue opinions and they can all be sued for malpractice. if any professional authenticator genuinely believes they're immune to legal prosecution simply because it's "just an opinion" then i suggest they seek out the thousands of doctors, lawyers and accountants who have been successfully sued for "just issuing an opinion".
essentially, you're suing for either nonfeasance, misfeasance, or malfeasance. ie: either he didn't do his duty at all, he did it poorly or inadequately, or he deliberately mislead others in the course of his duty (respectively). in my personal opinion, lampson is the poster child for misfeasance. he authenticates jerseys of styles that were never worn. he clearly fails to do his due diligence. some might also be of the opinion that his lack of due diligence is so egregious at times, that it seems to constitute fraud. that is, given his experience he ought to know that he needs to verify the uniform style, for example. when he clearly fails to do this due diligence, is it intentional? hypothetically, fraud is another charge someone could bring. in short, when lampson authenticates in a paid, professional capacity he has a legal obligation to execute his authentications to the best of his ability and to commonly accepted standards and principles. if he fails in this respect, then it's my personal opinion that a case for malpractice can be made. if it's shown that his failures have been intentional, then it may also be fraud.

"I don't think you could sue him for a specific jersey being incorrectly authenticated"

sure you could. it's happened before. successfully. see: GFC and their TBTC Ripken. GFC was brilliant enough to decide to show their sloppy authentication on national TV.

"Even if you purchased it, he doesn't give any guarantee for his work"

doctors, lawyers and investment advisors don't give guarantees either. however, there is the reasonable expectation that they have done their due diligence and fulfilled their duties and obligations according to accepted principles, to the best of their abilities, and to reasonable expectations. a doctor will never give someone a "guarantee" that their cancer will never return, for example. they'd simply say that, after considering all of the evidence, it's their professional opinion that it's unlikely to return. they have a professional and legal obligation to make their opinions as informed and as accurate as possible. if it was discovered that a doctor issued an opinion without doing any due diligence whatsoever, then it'd be a case for malpractice. many would argue lampson doesn't attempt to make his opinions as informed and accurate as possible. look at this jersey: http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/Auction_Item.asp?Auction_ID=22278

the description reads "..it is safe to say that he wore this jersey for the majority of the home schedule given its great use". lou's loa on it says
"Surprisingly strong wear on this white Oakland A's jersey would suggest it was Big Mac's main home shirt during the strike-shortened 1994 season."

in 1994, the A's wore 2 color names on the back. lou didn't even look at any images of the A's in 1994 to verify the nob. (or did he?) as an professional, paid authenticator he failed to verify the nob which is a common and fundamental expectation in authenticating jerseys. lou knew it and he didn't do it. seems to scream "misfeasance" to me.

"Additionally, you personally aren't suffering any loss by him (i.e. that you could prove in court)."

a person accepts lou's opinion, they purchase a jersey based on his opinion as a "professional authenticator", the jersey turns out to be bogus. they're out thousands of dollars. pretty easy to prove those losses in court. "i paid $6k for a jersey that lou said was a ripken gamer. it turns out the orioles never even wore this style. the jersey is now worth $100. i'm out $5900". saying that the person didn't have to accept his opinion is rubbish. he was paid for it so there was the natural expectation that people would accept it. do auction houses pay lampson with the intent and expectation that people won't accept his opinions? rubbish. they pay lampson because they hope people will accept his opinion. when a doctor fails to do his due diligence, he can't turn to the patient and say "noone told you to listen to me. you should've done your own homework".

"I also wouldn't think you could sue someone to stop doing their job."

you wouldn't sue lampson to "stop him from doing his job". you'd sue for malpractice and possibly fraud. realistically though, unless lampson is very wealthy, the weight of substantial litigation and the possible resulting penalties, fines, and restitution would naturally put a big damper on his authenticating.

"He is producing "Letters of Opinion" and therefore are you going to ask a court to force someone to stop giving their opinion?"

no. hypothetically, you'd go to court to sue him to a) collect damages which have resulted from any mis/mal/nonfeasance and/or fraud b) have him face the legal penalties resulting from judgements against him. whether lou wants to keep authenticating after all of that is up to him.

"Opinions can be wrong (as we see with him frequently) and that is why they are opinions."

it's not that simple. if you were right, there'd be no such thing as malpractice or even malpractice insurance. millions of doctors would rejoice. ever notice why the legal profession insists that non-lawyers preface their legal advice with the disclaimer that they're not a lawyer and their advice ("opinion") doesn't constitute legal advice? it's because people can incur substantial damages by following poor advice and they can, in turn, sue if such advice was given without fulfilling the necessary obligations. "it's just an opinion" doesn't fly when you're being paid for it.
if you don't want to be held liable, then sell the items strictly "as is" with no claims whatsoever as to what they are or are not. when you charge for your services and advertise yourself as a "foremost expert", then people will take your advice seriously. you have an obligation to perform certain duties in the execution of this advice. that's the reality in other professions and industries. if authenticators and auction houses are rarely sued, then i have to think it's because most hobbyists have actually fallen hook, line, and sinker for the rubbish line of "it's just an opinion". too bad that's not how the real world works. GFC found that out nicely on the People's Court.

chris: i agree with you but also, remember.. "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". at some point, noise becomes too loud to simply ignore.

rudy.

Rudy,
You are slightly wrong here. You have to have privity of contract to sue someone. That actually means two things in the circumstances we are discussing.

1) You could not sue the authenticator or the auction house, unless you directly purchased the item.

2) You could not sue the authenticator directly if you purchased the item.

Basically, if you didn’t purchase the item, you can’t do anything. However, if you did purchase the item, you could sue the auction house, who could sue the authenticator. The exceptions here are if the authenticator sold the item or if you directly paid the authenticator to authenticate the item. When you give your examples of a doctor or lawyer, you are directly hiring the professional to do the work you are contracting them to do. By purchasing an item in an auction house, you do not have a contract with the authenticator. So, in your example, the person is out $5,900 and can sue the auction house but not the authenticator. The auction house could sue the authenticator (or try to bring him into court under a cross-claim) but the person couldn’t sue directly. Also, with your example with GFC, they were the authenticator and the auction house, so the person who bought the item did have a contract with the authenticator.

So, unless you purchase the item, you have no recourse, and if you are the unfortunate person to buy an item with a Lou Letter, you can sue the auction house, not the authenticator.

That all being said and in regards to the original post, you could sue the person selling the jersey and have to show damages to be able to take it to court.

Keep in mind that any auction house that gets sued could immediately offer you a refund and the case would be quickly dismissed because you have mitigated your damages (e.g. you couldn't keep the case going just to make an example of an auction house). It would be up to the auction house if they wanted to sue the authenticator for the money or just return the item to the consignor.

Again, I am not a lawyer and anything I say should not be construed as any sort of legal advice.

Frank

[bigtime59]

While I admit I have "won" items with Lampson! LOAs! I also knew what those items REALLY were, regardless of what Lou! had to say about them. When "Dunder-Mifflin" Lou "authenticates" Bluefield Orioles common or coaches jerseys as Baltimore Orioles common or coaches jerseys, I just laugh, and hold to my (generally cheap) minor league bidding standards. When he signs off on high-dollar fakes, however, it is then our duty

NOT!
TO!
EFFIN'!
BID!

The more that happens, the more money the auction houses don't realize, and the more likely we'll be talking about some OTHER knuckleheads "LOAs" next year.

Mark
bigtime39@aol.com

[kingjammy24]

hi frank,

"Basically, if you didn’t purchase the item, you can’t do anything."

well..yes. of course. if i hadn't purchased the item, then i wouldn't really care if lampson screwed it up nor would there be any damages for me to collect. my post assumed that the plaintiff would be the buyer.

"However, if you did purchase the item, you could sue the auction house, who could sue the authenticator. The exceptions here are if the authenticator sold the item or if you directly paid the authenticator to authenticate the item."

completely agreed.

"So, unless you purchase the item, you have no recourse"

of course. the plaintiff must be the buyer. can't imagine anyone wanting to sue for an item they didn't even purchase.

"Keep in mind that any auction house that gets sued could immediately offer you a refund and the case would be quickly dismissed because you have mitigated your damages (e.g. you couldn't keep the case going just to make an example of an auction house). It would be up to the auction house if they wanted to sue the authenticator for the money or just return the item to the consignor."

again, completely agreed. at a minimum, if it were done publically, the press would be damaging. perhaps the auction house might also have to pay for your legal fees? at any rate, i think the scenario you describe here is the likeliest. if a person bought a bad jersey for $5k and sued, the auction house, if they were smart, would just give them back their full payment, and return the bad jersey to the consigner. no need to even go after the authenticator because nobody is out any money. of course, this wouldn't work if the auction house wasn't really a true consignment house and actually bought the items in their auction. shocking i know. in this case, if they bought the items outright, then they'd have to go after the authenticator to recoup the money they just refunded to the buyer. either that or sue the original seller? or both!

if my post implied suing lampson directly, then it was not my intent. the only way would be if the buyer had directly hired the authenticator. since the authenticator is hired by auction house, it's the auction that would be sued. realistically, there are additional points to consider here: 1) regardless of how much an auction house likes lou, they aren't going to incur litigation and its consequences for him. if they end up incurring any losses because of him, i think its very likely they'd try to recoup them from him. 2) if an auction house is repeatedly sued solely because of lampson's authentications, then how quickly do you think they'll stop using him?

the intent of my original post was simply to shed some light on the misconception that you can't be sued for "issuing an opinion" as well as provide some details on what lampson could, theoretically, be sued for. (it wasn't so much to give a step-by-step on how, when, why, and where).

what i think might be interesting is how such legal action would pan out given the auction houses' disclaimers about "all sales final. no returns. no guarantees about authenticity". none of it seemed to work in gfc's case but who knows. what's funny is that if you read the terms and conditions of some auction houses, the fine print, which tries to absolve them of as much as possible, almost seems to read as if they're selling the items as-is. then they go out and hire authenticators and make very specific, bold claims about the items.

rudy.

[Frank]

Rudy,

Don't get me wrong, I certainly wasn't trying to go on the offensive with you. We're going for the same thing thing.

I just wanted things to be clear for any members reading this. I mistakenly took your post to mean anybody could sue an authenticator over a bad item. I do apologize.

While suing auction houses is a option, I think a better idea is to spread the truth about Lou (and every bad authenticator for that matter) and also not spend money on items authenticated by them. Suing auction houses over and over would take considerable time and money and, though suing should be done, education and bad publicity I think would be a quicker route to follow.

I also think every member should call (not just email) and express their concern directly to each auction house. That will get their attention.

[mr.miracle]

Rudy,

Don't get me wrong, I certainly wasn't trying to go on the offensive with you. We're going for the same thing thing.

I just wanted things to be clear for any members reading this. I mistakenly took your post to mean anybody could sue an authenticator over a bad item. I do apologize.

While suing auction houses is a option, I think a better idea is to spread the truth about Lou (and every bad authenticator for that matter) and also not spend money on items authenticated by them. Suing auction houses over and over would take considerable time and money and, though suing should be done, education and bad publicity I think would be a quicker route to follow.

I also think every member should call (not just email) and express their concern directly to each auction house. That will get their attention.


The question is, how much if anything is actually being accomplished. Although it would seem especially lately, that Lou has been on a tear writing bad LOA's, we have been complaining on this forum about his worthless LOA's for well over a year and what if anything has come of it? While we have no idea if any of the auction houses that use him are about to kick him to the curb, it would appear based upon members contacting various auction houses that in some cases they could care less. In the past year, dozens of items have been pointed out on this forum that have ranged from questionable to major screwups by Lampson. Other than the continuous complaint fest on here, what has it accomplished? Lampson is still employed by all the same auctions and is still writing LOA's faster than the federal government prints money.

We are also assuming that everyone who collects game used items and buys from the auction houses is a member here. Obviously, if everybody who reads this forum and contributes to it were the only buyers in the auctions, Lampson would be out of a job by now. At some point, there would be some type of correlation between Lampson authenticated items not selling vs. other non Lampson items that do sell through the auctions. Of course, once again we are not privy to those numbers if in fact anyone has noticed that anything like this is taking place at all anyway.

Unless we can reach the entire collecting universe, simply spreading the word about Lampson via the forum is quite honestly not getting the job done as evidenced by his continued employment.

I personally would like to see him work the fry station at McDonald's for a couple of months. If he is knowledgable about bagels, then by god he sure should be able to make a mean order of fries.

[ripkengamers]

Stay tuned Forum Fans.................there is something brewing which will be made public...........I'll let everyone know when I get more details.