Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

[aeneas01]

Had you not found the pictures , posted them on GUU and not emailed Heritage , the helmet would still be up on their website. Heritage pulled the item because they were forced to do so (bad publicity would have gotten worse) . After all the helmet looked good to them after their research ......

couldn't the same be said for guu auctions? if i understand it correctly, guu reviews items and if they pass preliminary mustard, guu goes ahead and lists them for further buyer preview/review. and should a buyer discover a problem that disqualifies the item as described, then guu removes the item - if no problems are reported, then the item rides. isn't this what heritage did?

i guess one could argue that guu does a better job than heritage at screening their items before listing them for buyer preview/review - but i didn't follow the inaugural guu auction so i don't know if any listed items were removed because of a buyer's discovery during the preview/review stage. whatever the case, imo both guu and heritage would most likely let an item ride if a) it passed preliminary mustard and b) no one questioned the item before the auction ended, no?

which brings me to another issue that i've been wanting to discuss - is it possible to bring helpful information to forum members without compromising the reputation and integrity of a seller that freely and promptly removes an item that is found to be not as described? further, is it unethical to share the details of the problem with the forum even though the seller has done everything in his power to right the situation?

take my case for example - it would seem that the forum's goal would have been fully served (an item accidentally misrepresented was removed from circulation) had i contacted heritage prior to bringing my concerns to the forum's attention and, upon heritage's prompt response including the removal of the item (which i believe would have been the case), simply left matters at that. but would the forum's goals really have been fully served had that scenario transpired? what about the sharing of useful information, the sharing of interesting discoveries, the ongoing learning process as it pertains to vintage items? would any of these important aspects that make this such a great forum have been served had i or any other member facing the same situation failed to report back, share photos, explanations and opinions about why an item is not as described? further, wouldn't forum members be deprived of knowing when certain sellers made a habit of listing items that weren't thoroughly reviewed?

frankly, it seems to me that sellers are damned if they do and damned if they don't when it comes to accidentally misrepresenting an item - that dirty laundry must and will be aired (mistakes detailed) in order for the forum to exist as the tremendous resource that it is. sure, mention can and should always be made when a seller is apologetic, thankful and appreciative that problems were brought to his attention but, at the end of the day, the seller's integrity and motives will always be contemplated.

in the "auction item discussion" section of the forum chris cavalier created a sticky entitled "template for questioning sellers prior to posting on the forum" in which he did a great job outlining the spirit of the board as it pertains to questioning items - i think this part of chris's post especially applies to this discussion:

"So why is this rule is place? As discussed many times before, we have implemented this rule because we believe publicly questioning items on this forum, especially with accusations concerning the seller's possible motivations, has the potential to adversely affect someone's livelihood in a very real and material way. This is especially true now that this site has grown to the point it has and is playing an integral role in the hobby. Therefore, we believe the appropriate and responsible thing to do is allow the seller the opportunity to reply to any potential concerns before any questions are aired publicly. This is particularly applicable if the questions are raised in a manner that appears to question the seller's intentions."

even when a seller's intentions are not questioned or accusations made, publicly airing out one's findings on this board will always be a slippery slope.

[kingjammy24]

robert, i think you did a fantastic job on this.

"imho heritage did not simply and blindly list a rare helmet without so much as lifting a finger or taking a close look at it - they were furnished with what appeared to be sound written and verbal documentation, a sworn deposition and an autograph from namath that clearly implied that the helmet in question was his sb3 lid - they also reviewed scores of photos that showed namath wearing an almost identical helmet during the super bowl. given this, their mistake is more than understandable imho."

the documentation was impressive. ultimately though, everyone knows an item must stand on its own and not simply coast on "iron-clad" provenance. we've all seen items with great provenance crash and burn. the real issue is the extent of heritage's effort. while they obviously did more than blindly list it without lifting a finger, did they go to the full extent that they should've for the profit they stood to reap? obviously noone had the expectation that they'd blindly list it and not do any work so the fact that they did more than that is a given. this was, in heritage's words, "arguably the most significant football artifact ever to reach the auction block". if chris nerat's estimate was correct, then it was possible for this helmet to have sold for $100k. at $100k, the buyer's premium alone would've been almost $20k. what are the expectations for a $20k payment? while it's difficult to quantify, i don't think it'd be unrealistic to expect 140 man-hours of work for $20k. how much time did heritage spend reviewing photos? they reviewed scores of them and noone at all noticed the holes? i know less than nothing about football helmets but i know the difference between 2 holes and 1 hole and if i spent even 20 hours looking at photos then i'd have to be completely inept not to eventually notice the holes. imagine staring at a single helmet and photos for 20 solid hours. the holes would eventually pop out like a sore thumb. if, after 20 hrs, i still didn't notice them, then do i honestly deserve to charge thousands of dollars for my services?

point blank, whatever heritage did, it wasn't good enough in light of the profit they stood to reap. some lone collector, who wasn't being paid at all, came along and pointed it out. they're the ones who ought to have serious resources at their disposal. this is their profession. i certainly can't pay thousands for magnified getty images nor can i afford to devote an entire week to staring at photos but they can and they should've. when you walk into a place that charges $100 for an entree, then you expect a $100 entree. when the chef comes out with a $6 burger, then it's hardly an excuse if he says "hey it's not like i didn't do anything. a $100 entree is hard!". that's really my beef against many of these shops; they're not good enough for what they charge. you'll find expertise on this forum that's as good if not better and costs nothing. you alone outperformed an entire crew whose job it was to suss this helmet out! they charged $20k and failed. you charged $0 and got it right. the auction houses are filled with self-annointed experts who are more skilled at writing press releases and collecting premiums than running clean auctions. the 20-30% buyers&sellers consignment rates are laughable for the lack of quality work they seem to churn out.

if they only want to look at photos for 20 min before crowing "hey we tried! noone's perfect!", then they should chop their buyers premiums down to 2% and people wouldn't expect a great job. whatever heritage did on this helmet wasn't worth a 19.5% buyers premium. for $20k, i'd expect them to see the holes.

"before these photos were posted..was it so obvious? i would say apparently not given that at no time had anyone challenged the helmet's authenticity."

the holes weren't hard to miss. the fact that noone challenged it isn't, in my opinion, evidence that it was easy to miss. i assume most didn't care to even bother looking that closely. i usually only look closely at items i'm considering purchasing or items that i find really interesting. how many serious buyers were there for a $100k helmet? plus, the auction hadn't even really begun. perhaps some people did notice but simply didn't speak up for various reasons. if you spend 40 hours examining photos and every single inch of the helmet, how blind would someone have to be to miss the 2 holes vs 1 hole? $20k worth of blindness. you don't even have to know a thing about football helmets for petes sake to notice the difference. all you have to do is know the difference between 1 and 2.

anyway, here's the most interesting issue; heritage stated "This exceptional offering has remained in the possession of Andrew Vanore, Jr. from the days just following Super Bowl III until Tuesday, February 19, 2008, when it was delivered to Heritage consignment directors."

straight from broadway joe to his friend to andrew vanore to heritage. now look at these photos:



notice the "namath", "12", and "jwm" inscriptions written in the helmet. now juxtapose those with your comment that "this helmet was never worn by namath...there are several problems relating to the interior of the helmet that, imo, rather easily disqualifies it as a helmet ever worn by namath". the helmet was never worn by namath yet the inside is marked up with his name and number. i don't doubt your evaluation but it certainly makes the inscriptions very puzzling. any thoughts on how or why those inscriptions are there?

anyway, heritage seems to have made the best of a bad situation by reacting promptly and properly. i can name a few auction houses that would've told you to take a flying leap and would continue to run the helmet because "lou says he likes it".

rudy.

[camarokids]

In the photos just posted , I see a faint number 5 between the 1 and 2 ....

There is also another number after the 5 , but I cannot tell what it is .

Has anyone pointed this out ?

[kingjammy24]

In the photos just posted , I see a faint number 5 between the 1 and 2 ....

There is also another number after the 5 , but I cannot tell what it is .

Has anyone pointed this out ?

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

chris nerat posted this on the scd site on 03/18:

"Today Lou determined that it is not a game-worn Namath helmet, but is a Jets gamer from an unknown player."

well this is odd. it went straight from namath to his friend/courier to the consigner. it has "namath", "12", and "jwn" written inside it. why was an unknown player running around the field with joe's name, number and initials written in his helmet??

rudy.

[aeneas01]

chris nerat posted this on the scd site on 03/18:

"Today Lou determined that it is not a game-worn Namath helmet, but is a Jets gamer from an unknown player."

well this is odd. it went straight from namath to his friend/courier to the consigner. it has "namath", "12", and "jwn" written inside it. why was an unknown player running around the field with joe's name, number and initials written in his helmet??

rudy.

i just went over to scd and read chris's blog - i found his following comment interesting:

"Many board members crucified Heritage for promoting the piece as something it was not, but what they didn’t realize is that Lou never authenticated it and caught all the things wrong with it and many more things that the message board member didn’t even catch."

hmmm....

i thought i was careful to state throughout my posts that i found many other problems with the helmet but considering the two major issues i pointed to, i felt that discussing the other issues was pointless - so i didn't. as a matter of fact i stated the following:

"...as i told chris at heritage, the problems with this helmet are numerous - there are significant inconsistencies that encompass both the interior and exterior of the lid. but two inconsistencies are so major that they make discussing the others in detail moot - in fact, they're so major that they simply rule out the possibility of this helmet being namath's sb3 game worn lid. as a matter of fact, in my opinion this helmet was never worn by namath."

so i'm a little confused - why would chris nerat feel compelled to state that lou discovered problems with the helmet that i "didn't even catch" given that i clearly didn't share my other findings with the forum? chris?

[otismalibu]

i thought i was careful to state throughout my posts that i found many other problems with the helmet but considering the two major issues i pointed to, i felt that discussing the other issues was pointless - so i didn't.

Yep.

It's sad, really. After the fact, it's "look, look...Lou found something that the board members did not!!!" Hats off to you Lou - you're a credit to the hobby.

Lou Lampson couldn't hold aeneas01's jock, when it comes to helmet knowledge. And if he did ever get his hands on it, he'd surely attribute it to Joe Montana.

[camarokids]

rudy.

with the better close up picture , it looks more like a six not a five . thanks for the blow up....

[rose14]

I just got off the phone with Chris Nerat and I have to say it was a joy talking to him. Let's just say Chris is in a very tough position concerning what I brought up about Coach's Corner.

As for Heritage and the Namath he even acknowledged that Heritage made a mistake in promoting the helmet but in now way were they trying to get one by the public. I tend to believe that as it appeared the helmet had rock solid provenance but Heritage failed to take a litte time to compare it and make sure before they started promoting it and it turned out to bite them right in the ass.

[cohibasmoker]

Robert, if the hobby masters don't like your opinions, no problem. The next time you see a problem with a helmet being offered by a major auction house, say NOTHING.

Let the auction house authenticate the helmet and put it out for public offering. Wait until the auction is about half-way completed and then post your comments on the forum while at the same time sending same to the auction house as well as SCD.

It will be interesting to see what their comments will be. But that's just my opinion.

Jim

PS: Some folks in the hobby may not appreciate your expertise but I certainly am glad you are around and accessible to us novice collectors.