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.