Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

**gridman80** · 03-15-2008, 07:09 PM

Aeneas.
You are a real credit to this hobby. A true breath of fresh air...You have proved the adage I learned many years ago that no matter what the piece or the provenance you must do your homework.....Helmets are by far the toughest to authenticate but in my opinion the most desirable collectible in football.. I have been a jets fan for 40 years, a season ticket holder for 30, and a collector for 18...My guess is that one of two things occurred. either equipment mgr. Bill Hampton switched the helmet out on Joe, a trick Hampton's sons still do to this day to the players who want their stuff, or Joe told Bill that he made the kid a promise, please make me up a helmet for the kid. If I had to bet I'd go for option 1 as I think Joe is a man of integrity....Hampton's kids used to trade jets game used gear for boom boxes, cases of beer and god knows what else...In the later years of his tenure as Jets equipment mgr, Bill had to lock Joe willie's stuff in a safe to keep it from his kids and his wife as they were selling the stuff off for peanuts...right down to Joe's knee braces...

**aeneas01** · 03-16-2008, 06:02 AM

today i received an email with a link to the following article found at "sports collectors daily" who i had quoted in my original post. i'm posting a copy of the article because a) it's a nice plug for the best sports memorabilia site on the planet (which i underlined in red!) and b) because it reiterates my previous mention of heritage's prompt and professional handling of a difficult situation.

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com...-question.html

gridman80 - great story about the hampton clan! a little unsettling to collectors i'm sure, but great nonetheless! these sort of stories, and i'm sure college and nfl locker rooms are replete with them, confirm that the passion we all share for collecting these gems equates to nothing less than a bonafide treasure hunt! also, thank you and thanks to the rest of you guys for your kind words about my post - we're all in this thing together!

**camarokids** · 03-17-2008, 07:52 PM

Let me just say this aeneas01 , I think the job you did was great . I just disagree that you are thinking so highly of the auction house .

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

......

**CollectGU** · 03-17-2008, 08:27 PM

I could be wrong but I think that Heritage ran with the item in their preview without having anyone physically inspect it just based based on the provenance and story received from the family. They should have taken their time on a historic piece like that....

Regards,
Dave

**aeneas01** · 03-18-2008, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by camarokids

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** · 03-18-2008, 05:58 PM

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** · 03-18-2008, 06:35 PM

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** · 03-18-2008, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by 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 ?

rudy.

**kingjammy24** · 03-18-2008, 06:41 PM

"couldn't the same be said for guu auctions?..."

robert, you're correct. while i think there are some inherant flaws in GUU's Auction system, i suppose the big difference in your example is that GUU explicitly requests and depends on the community to examine their items as part of their authentication process whereas most auction houses, like HA, charge far more substantial premiums to "get it right" with their own crew. with HA there's the expectation that they got it right in-house whereas with GUU i suppose there's the expectation that the community got it right. If this helmet had come up in a GUU auction and sold, i guess we could all blame ourselves

"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?"

obviously, everyone's made mistakes. the issue is the number and nature of errors. some people make very few mistakes and even fewer are stupid mistakes. others seem to make stupid mistakes every 5 minutes. i don't think people simply see the error without regarding the context. i've made errors and many people i respect have made errors but noone holds anything against them because the errors have been so few and far between and they weren't stupid errors. there's also the increased expectations when someone's paid to be an "expert" and they go around beating your chest proclaiming themselves to be the greatest ever, like many auction houses do.

i don't think there's anything unethical about sharing info. you're assuming their reps will necessarily suffer and i don't think that's the case. kim stigall's made some errors and his rep is stellar. people can barely remember the mistakes he's made because they were so few and far between and they weren't stupid errors.

with this namath helmet, i was simply floored that for $20k they couldn't spot 2 holes vs 1. $20k! if i pay someone $30, then i don't expect them to spend 2 solid days working on something. however, if i pay $20 grand, i want chris ivy's head buried in SB3 books for at least 2 solid weeks, day and night. it's all about expectations. for me, heritage failed to live up to them. errors aren't just errors. there's the context that determines how they'll be regarded.

"at the end of the day, the seller's integrity and motives will always be contemplated."

i don't really agree that they'll always be contemplated. again, it depends on the context of the error.

rudy.

**aeneas01** · 03-19-2008, 12:49 AM