Jerricho Cotchery Helmet

[ldavis2261]

Take a look at this auction, and take a good look at the facemask:
http://cgi.ebay.com/2006-JERRICHO-COTCHERY-Game-Used-N-Y-Jets-Helmet-PSI_W0QQitemZ220124272648QQihZ012QQcategoryZ50119Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

then look at the picture below. See the difference. In the game picture he is wearing a titanium facemask. If you look at every picture from 2006,
you will see that he is wearing titanium. How come the helmet in the auction does not have titanium?????

Also, Cotchery wears an "Air" helmet. The helmet for sale is an "Air" helmet, but it has a "Riddell" chinstrap. An "Air" helmet should have an "Air" chinstrap.

#2 If you look at the Tiki auction:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220124272525

The #21 sticker is missing. Look carefully at the picture below. There is a sticker in between the jawpad and the earpad. However there is not one in the auction.

I also doubt that Tiki would give away or sell the last helmet he ever wore in the pros.


Watch yourselves before you spend alot of money on the PSI items.

[aeneas01]

The helmet for sale is an "Air" helmet, but it has a "Riddell" chinstrap. An "Air" helmet should have an "Air" chinstrap.

this isn't at all true - many, many pros wear riddell chinstraps even though they were schutt helmets (torry holt and marshall faulk for example) - as a matter of fact, cotchery also sports a riddell chinstrap...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/nyj.jpg

as far as the rest of the helmet is concerned, it's spot on imo other than the facemask which, as you pointed out, is incorrect. amazingly cotchery has stuck with the older schutt pro air ll, even in 2006, which is what's for sale in the ebay ad - most that wear schutt have moved on to the more modern air-advantage, dna or revolution models.

as far as the tiki barber helmet is concerned, there are several questionable things going on with it which i mentioned in another thread. and, as i mentioned in the other thread, given this seller's past i would stay away from anything he has for sale....

[jayt1234]

I would not in any way be able to verify anything on the Jets helmet, but the chinstrap is correct, and is in fact one of the most difficult things to replicate.

The helmet and the face mask are in most cases actually mutually exclusive. A large number of pro's actually wear Adams brand chinstraps. Some have just blank straps, while some (Urlacher, Bledsoe) have theres rebranded with a red Riddell logo.

However the helmet in question does come with the original Riddell chinstrap in a non-stock dark green font. This is what in most cases is a very difficult part to duplicate. Riddell issues all of there stock equipment in red font. The sweatband logo is always covered in a team specific colored sticker, and the back bumper is covered by a team issued sticker as well. The chinstraps however are painted and can only be ordered in through Ridell in large quantities (I think a 40 order minimum). So when you see a Riddell chinstrap in any color other than red it is at least a good indication that there is a good possibility it could be authentic, but again is only a starting point. There are companies that sell game replica hemlmets that have these color specific chin straps but they do sell these items in bulk (Real Stuff Sports) and do not sell them as game used or issued.

Jay

[Eric]

Hey Jay

Any chance I can get you to email me at ecky3@aol.com
I'd like to send you some pics of a helmet to get your opinion.
Thanks
Eric

[G1X]

I will readily confess that I do not know much about football helmets as I am mainly a football jersey collector and do not collect helmets. However, isn't the facemask worn by Cotchery in the playoff game against the Patriots the same style mask attached to the helmet in the ebay auction? See Getty Image #73334143.

It appears that Cotchery changed facemask styles late in the season. Why would Cotchery pose for photos signing the helmet if it wasn't what he said that it was? At least give the benefit of the doubt and contact the Seller if you are concerned with the authenticity before posting in this Forum.

If I recall, that is one of the rules in this Forum, and it doesn't always seem to be followed. Where are you, Chris Cavalier, on these ongoing rule violations?

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

[aeneas01]

I will readily confess that I do not know much about football helmets as I am mainly a football jersey collector and do not collect helmets. However, isn't the facemask worn by Cotchery in the playoff game against the Patriots the same style mask attached to the helmet in the ebay auction? See Getty Image #73334143.

It appears that Cotchery changed facemask styles late in the season. Why would Cotchery pose for photos signing the helmet if it wasn't what he said that it was? At least give the benefit of the doubt and contact the Seller if you are concerned with the authenticity before posting in this Forum.

If I recall, that is one of the rules in this Forum, and it doesn't always seem to be followed. Where are you, Chris Cavalier, on these ongoing rule violations?

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

i don't consider this an example of dragging a seller's good reputation through the mud without due process - this seller has been contacted many times before on other items and it's his evasive and misleading responses which are responsible, imo, for inviting this sort of doubt.

should forum members be required to contact ebayer lambeauleeper each and every time he lists yet another "game issued", "game used" favre, elway, brees or marino helmet before posting any accusations?

i feel that members of this forum do an outstanding job giving sellers the benefit of the doubt - i also think that members are quick to praise those in the hobby that exemplify integrity, such as yourself, of whom i've read nothing but glowing words.

but once a dealer or seller opens the gates to scrutiny because of well documented shenanigans, then i believe the benefit of the doubt is forfeited and posts questioning their items very understandable.

[G1X]

In this instance, there does not seem to be a problem with the Cotchery helmet based strictly on photographic observation. The original poster appears to be incorrect about both the chin strap and the face mask.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning an item when one has their facts in order when presenting their case. On the other hand, it is terribly unfair to any Seller in a situation such as this where possibly damaging information was posted based on inaccurate information.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

[aeneas01]

In this instance, there does not seem to be a problem with the Cotchery helmet based strictly on photographic observation. The original poster appears to be incorrect about both the chin strap and the face mask.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning an item when one has their facts in order when presenting their case. On the other hand, it is terribly unfair to any Seller in a situation such as this where possibly damaging information was posted based on inaccurate information.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

i understand entirely but i believe that the seller, because of his well documented past, has invited (even caused) this sort of rash response. a harmless response, imo, given how easily it was to determine that the original poster didn't have his ducks in order.

further, i believe the poster did observe forum rules given that per the rules he stated why he felt there was a problem with the lid; he provided his opinion for consideration. whether he "tried", per forum rules, to clarify anything with the seller and allow 24 hours for a response i don't know.

if a forum member linked to, for example, a lambeauleeper "game used helmet that was issued to dan marino" and wrongly stated that it had an incorrect facemask and chinstrap, i would see little benefit or reason for the poster to contact the seller given his past - the errors, as was the case here, would simply be pointed out by forum members....

i guess i just have a tough time considering something as "unfair" to a seller when the seller in question has repeatedly demonstrated reasonable cause for doubt - or worse. jmo.

[ChrisCavalier]

Hello Mark and Robert,

I have read through this thread and understand the points you have both made. In this case, I think the forum itself did a pretty good job pointing out that the original poster was not justified in calling the item "questionable" in the way that he did (in fact, I think it was only a matter of hours before Robert's post shed more light on the topic). We have also gone back and edited the title of all the posts in this thread to remove the word "questionable".

With that said, I do also think this thread should be instructive to others who are considering calling items "questionable" in the future. As discussed at length in previous threads, we are almost always dealing with probabilities when comes to determining if items are legitimate. That is why we have incorporated the rule of contacting the seller prior to making any posts here to prevent postings that may be generated based on misunderstandings of an item. Without the rules, this would become an open frontier of people taking countless shots at others without accountability.

On the other hand, I do understand that some people have been subject to responses that have put them in uncomfortable positions when they have tried to contact sellers about items. Therefore, there may be instances where, as Aristotle put it, one must know when it is prudent to bend a rule slightly. For example, if someone has a legitimate question and they have been made uncomfortable when asking a particular seller a question in the past, we may allow questions on the forum as long as it is done in accordance with the other forum rules. I am not saying this is the case here and, in fact, if Robert didn't reply so quickly on this thread we would have asked the original poster to contact the seller about his questions. Fortunately, the issue was clarified through the forum itself so that wasn't really necessary. In addition, I will note the rule of contacting the seller first is the rule and not the exception. If anyone wishes to bypass that rule they will need to provide justification as to why.

In the end, the goal of the site is to benefit the collecting community. That is intended to be done with the dissemination of information in a responsible manner and the rules are intended to make sure that is the case. If there is ever a concern about any thread or poster not being responsible in their posts, please let us know and we will evaluate it and take action if necessary. Please let me know if that answers your questions.

Sincerely,
Chris Cavalier

[aeneas01]

very nicely put chris and i appreciate the time you took to clarify the forum's position in situations such as this.

[gridman80]

I have been collecting NFL game helmets for 17 years, form 1960's suspensions to current players, and I specialize in Jets helmets and jerseys...If you check Getty images for the Jets at Patriots Playoff game last January you will notice that not only is Cotchery wearing the mask featured on the subject helmet (2 small vertical bars top center in front of nose bumper, instead of only one), but you can also photo match the slight bubble on the jets Logo on the top front of the left hand side Jets logo. You can also precisely photo match the top edges of the 4 point high hook-up chin strap, which are usually trimmed by the team.
If you review Getty images of cotchery for the regular season, you will notice that he wears a mask with only one vertical bar on the top center over the nose bumper ... Many NFL teams breakdown and clean/polish helmets during the season. Some do it more than others...Given that the NFL wants the uniforms to sparkle for the Playoff games, my hunch is that the Jets did this before the tilt against the Pats. and they either intentionally or mistakenly put the 2 bar version back on his helmet..Maybe Cotchery wanted a change, maybe he didn' tnotice or even care
I would not buy a current NFL game helmet without being able to photo match. Given the photo match and the source/provenance...this piece is a 10 IMHO