Game Worn Peyton Manning Helmet?

[slats7]

I love how methodical this place is. Hawk-eyed members scrutinize bats, jerseys and helmets like detectives hovering over a body at a murder scene. CSI and Columbo have got nothing on you guys.

[mvandor]

Triple is on with the decal placement, but it is easier than drawing lines and alignment.

The Colts wear their decals - in most cases - with the bottom of the horseshoe touching the outside ridge of the earhole. Same with the positioning of the Steelers logo - in most cases.

You look at this "Manning" gamer and where the decals are positioned, and they are too high. Same with the "Bettis" helmet that suddenly got mixed up with another "Bettis" helmet, and then was not a "Bettis" helmet.

Look at the photos of Manning that XXX has posted and then look at the position of the decals on this "Gamer." When you look at a Proline, the deals are up where this UDA "gamer" has it's decals. Same with Proline Steelers.

When we customize helmets, we do not remove and relocate the decals. We simply add the different components to the helmet.

XXX is also correct on the buckle placement of the chinstrap. The placement of those buckles is from the Adams factory, and have never been adjusted. That chinstrap has not been worn, even by a player with a long chin like Manning...

No internal identifiers. No velcro for the communication. I thought the Riddell top clips were a problem, but I see that he did wear them on his helmet in 2001.

Facemask is from 2000. The flag was not worn on the helmet until 2001.
In 2002 Manning sported a Revolution "lid". In 2001 Manning finished the year I believe with the "injury style" custom facemask. So, was this an extra helmet from 2001 with poor decal placement, and the other mentioned problems that the equipment manager provided to Upper Deck? Or, does the owner have the original "gamer" and had a custom helmet made from an internet supplier with access to Adams chinstraps with Riddell printing, thin jawpads, decals, shockblockers and a JOP-SW in Seattle Blue.

If I had to guess, and I was not 100% sure, I'd save my money...

How sad is the state of the hobby that a company as reputable as UD can no longer be trusted?

[TriplexXxSports]

How sad is the state of the hobby that a company as reputable as UD can no longer be trusted?

I thought this same exact thing. Both of the 'supposed' gamers being discussed on this thread came with a LOA from UDA, but why?

The first gamer (the 1/1) that is listed looks 'convincing', EXCEPT that front bumper with the red lettering. The only thing that I can think of is that it was replaced or removed b/c it the pad was tore, damaged, or whatever.

Could it have been missing before UDA obtained it? Sure that is a possibility. Lets say it was removed by the equipment manager for some reason, gave Manning a new helmet to wear, and sold this one off to UDA. Since it was missing the pad UDA had to improvise and by a matching replacement pad, which as far as I know is only available in red for retail.

I can buy that senario on the first helmet, and figure UDA still might be in the clear with its authentication of that particular helmet.

As for the second helmet.....that thing is a mess! Everything is off. So why did UDA authenticate it?

My only thought goes right along with HELMETS comment in his last post. The only logical explanation is that the seller has kept the original, mocked up a Pro Line the best that he could and used the LOA in the description and photos. I would not be surprised if the lucky winner receives a photo copy of the original LOA.

Does UDA only hologram signatures? I would think that since the 2nd helmet in discussion was obtained by way of a REDEMPTION it would come with some type of identifying serial number. I've never done a redemption so I would know for sure. But it sure would make logical sense.

[kingjammy24]

imo, it's not a case of upper deck not being trustworthy per se. it's what you're specifically trusting them on; in this case, a game-used helmet. upper deck is trustworthy and reliable for the in-person, certified autographs they obtain directly from contemporary athletes. a UDA jordan or kobe or lebron autograph is rock-solid. how or why would that somehow extend to game-used items? what has upper deck done in the game-used arena that would warrant confidence and trust? again, in most circumstances, i believe upper deck obtains many of its purported game-used items from the secondary market. they do not obtain these things directly from the teams or athletes.

"Lets say it was removed by the equipment manager for some reason"

you can't evaluate a piece when you chalk something up to "some reason". what reason? you're evaluating plausibility yet there isn't even a reason given to evaluate. if a reason cannot be found, then how likely is the explanation?

"..and sold this one off to UDA."

again, why this assumption that the manning helmet was somehow obtained directly from the colts/manning by UDA when in fact it's far more likely that it was obtained via a dealer or auction house?

"Since it was missing the pad UDA had to improvise and by a matching replacement pad...I can buy that senario on the first helmet"

you really buy that as a plausible explanation? that for "some reason" the EM removed the pad and UDA then went out and obtained a replacement pad? this is a likely explanation?

"UDA still might be in the clear with its authentication of that particular helmet."

obtaining a helmet from the secondary market does not qualify as "authentication". UDA did not authenticate the helmet. they assert they believe the helmet is genuine as is the signature. where is the authentication? where has this assumption that UDA has the expertise to authenticate game-used helmets come from? who are UDA's "authenticators"? send in a 2003 peyton manning helmet to UDA and ask them to authenticate it and see what they say.

"So why did UDA authenticate it?"

they didn't. UDA is not an authentication service nor do they employ their own authenticators.

"The only logical explanation is that the seller has kept the original, mocked up a Pro Line the best that he could and used the LOA in the description and photos."

so the explanation that UDA purchased this helmet on the secondary market, as all of the other card companies have done for their game-used offerings, is not logical? when UDA cuts up vintage flannels for their game-used cards, where do you suppose they obtained those? you've ridden completely on the assumption that UDA obtained a manning gamer directly from manning/the colts and i fail to see any evidence behind that assumption.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

to clarify, the "authenticated" portion of Upper Deck Authenticated refers to autographs. UDA "authenticated" the peyton manning signature, not the game-used helmet. UDA obtains the actual signatures directly, but likely not the game-used items that are signed.

not really much of an "authentication" when UDA personally witnesses the athlete signing something.

rudy.

[TriplexXxSports]

Jammy,

With all due respect, your points are very valid. All I'm trying to do is touch on some the 'possibilities'. Please keep in mind that I'm not offering explanations, just plausible possibilities.

"Lets say it was removed by the equipment manager for some reason"

you can't evaluate a piece when you chalk something up to "some reason". what reason? you're evaluating plausibility yet there isn't even a reason given to evaluate. if a reason cannot be found, then how likely is the explanation?

* 'Some reason' is just meant to touch base on why the first Manning 'gamer' had the red letter bumper. There could be hundreds of reasons why, this was just the first thought that came to mind.

"..and sold this one off to UDA."

again, why this assumption that the manning helmet was somehow obtained directly from the colts/manning by UDA when in fact it's far more likely that it was obtained via a dealer or auction house?

* If UDA obtained a 'game used' item from the secondary market or auction house, most of those would have come with some sort of papers. Mears, 100% Authentic, Team LOA, Player LOA, NFL Auctions, or something of that nature.

And since you say they are not 'game used authenticators' wouldn't they want to include, or at least mention, that paperwork clarifying its authenticity rather than just assuming it is?

"Since it was missing the pad UDA had to improvise and by a matching replacement pad...I can buy that senario on the first helmet"

you really buy that as a plausible explanation? that for "some reason" the EM removed the pad and UDA then went out and obtained a replacement pad? this is a likely explanation?

* Any other suggestions as to why it has a red letter front bumper are welcomed. I don't see why this seems to be too far fetched. Again, there could be hundreds of logical explanations, but this was the first thought that came to mind.

"UDA still might be in the clear with its authentication of that particular helmet."

obtaining a helmet from the secondary market does not qualify as "authentication". UDA did not authenticate the helmet. they assert they believe the helmet is genuine as is the signature...

* Isn't 'authentication' commonly backed by professional opinion, or belief, as well as factual information? Doesn't UDA stand for Upper Deck Authenticated? Aren't LOA's documents that certify that an item is deemed Authentic?

"So why did UDA authenticate it?"

they didn't. UDA is not an authentication service nor do they employ their own authenticators.

* Then who is this guy?

"Shawn Wilbur, an authorized representative of The Upper Deck Company, LLC ("Upper Deck") hereby certifies that the enclosed item, Peyton Manning Helmet used in an NFL game or practice is genuine and authentic to the best of his knowledge and belief; that the item was legally procurred according to the regular procedures instituted by Upper Deck for obtaining such items in the regular course of business. UPPER DECK MAKES NO OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES AND DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES."

Isn't Mr. Wilbur assuming the roll of an 'authenticator' and isn't he said to be an 'authorized representative' of UDA? How is that not 'employing' their own authenticator? Most would think that, based on that document, that UDA did authenticate that helmet.

"The only logical explanation is that the seller has kept the original, mocked up a Pro Line the best that he could and used the LOA in the description and photos."

so the explanation that UDA purchased this helmet on the secondary market, as all of the other card companies have done for their game-used offerings, is not logical? when UDA cuts up vintage flannels for their game-used cards, where do you suppose they obtained those? you've ridden completely on the assumption that UDA obtained a manning gamer directly from manning/the colts and i fail to see any evidence behind that assumption.

* Maybe I'm giving UDA too much credit here, but they are one of the biggest names out there and for them to pick up a said 'game worn' item and issue a LOA without that proper knowledge, or research, seems ludicrous.

I am not denying the fact that they buy off the 2nd hand market. In this particular case though it seems more plausible to think that they deemed it 'game worn' because they got it direct, rather than off the market.


I like your POV Jammy....

[kingjammy24]

"If UDA obtained a 'game used' item from the secondary market or auction house, most of those would have come with some sort of papers. Mears, 100% Authentic, Team LOA, Player LOA, NFL Auctions, or something of that nature."

UDA doesn't want collectors to know how or where they acquire pieces. why do you think card companies are the best dumping grounds for dubious pieces? because they don't reveal where they acquire pieces and in many cases, they "destroy" the evidence by cutting it into a thousand pieces. there's no way to trace anything back to anyone once that's done. if UDA let it be known that it was just buying pieces from AMI for example or Blue Chip Collectibles, then there's no UDA premium to affix because collectors would just go straight there. secondly, in the event of a bad piece, such as this manning helmet, the original source would become involved which is something neither UDA nor the original source wants.

if UDA had obtained it from the secondary market, then there'd be no team/player/league LOA. those are primary market sources. it's well-known that the card companies get their "game used" pieces from dealers and/or auction houses. i don't think UDA sees much value in including an LOA from Hopalong Cassidy's House 'O Jerseys. UDA is one of those companies that doesn't really understand the game-used hobby. if they did, they wouldn't be cutting up jerseys. they don't know the terms (hence they call themselves "authenticated" when in fact there's nothing to authenticate if you've just personally witnessed an athlete sign his name. maybe "Upper Deck Witnessed" would be more appropriate") and they don't understand the unique customs and practices in this hobby. why do you have the assumption that if UDA acquired a piece from the secondary market, they would include paperwork? where does this assumption come from? have you ever seen UDA offer another dealers paperwork before? UDA doesn't want collectors to know where they acquire pieces. when UDA offered "game used" cards from long deceased players, do you really think the cards came with auction house or dealer letters? they did not.

"And since you say they are not 'game used authenticators' wouldn't they want to include, or at least mention, that paperwork clarifying its authenticity rather than just assuming it is?"

why would they want to do that? it's you who's making the assumption. they're not responsible for that. all they said was they believe they acquired a game-used manning. they never said anything about how or where it was acquired. you assumed it was from the colts/manning directly. as i said, UDA is not familiar with the subleties of the game-used hobby.

"Any other suggestions as to why it has a red letter front bumper are welcomed."

because that's how UDA original bought it.

"I don't see why this seems to be too far fetched."

because it requires specific niche expertise that UDA doesn't have. since when was UDA an expert in game-used manning helmets? it'd be akin to them acquiring a 1994 griffey jersey, noticing it was missing the MLB 125 patch, and then going out to acquire the patch. 1) they don't know enough to know it's missing 2) they wouldn't even know what to acquire or where to acquire it. this is a card company/sports marketing firm. their knowledge of game-used helmets is probably on-par with mine.

"Isn't 'authentication' commonly backed by professional opinion, or belief, as well as factual information?"

i'll refrain from any authentication jokes here and say that i agree in theory. what is the source of UDA's "professional opinion" on game-used manning helmets? what factual information did they present to indicate that it's a game-used manning helmet? some lackey signed the form which is filled with little more than legalese intent on absolving themselves of any liability. i don't see an authentication report, do you?

"Doesn't UDA stand for Upper Deck Authenticated?"

yes but it refers to their autographs and in itself, is a misnomer.

"Aren't LOA's documents that certify that an item is deemed Authentic?"

UDA is certifying that they believe the helmet is authentic. my point was that you've assumed they acquired it directly from the colts/manning. their LOA states nothing of the sort. if i go out and purchase a jersey from rob steinmetz and then write a letter simply stating "i bought this from steinmetz. i think its real", is that an "LOA"?

"* Then who is this guy?

"Shawn Wilbur, an authorized representative of The Upper Deck Company, LLC ("Upper Deck") hereby certifies that the enclosed item.."

some lackey representative who acquired the helmet. read what the UDA letter says. shawn wilbur attests that the item was "legally procurred according to the regular procedures instituted by Upper Deck for obtaining such items..". maybe wilbur's the guy who bought it from a dealer/auction house. maybe he's just the guy who witnessed manning signing it. wait a second here..you first assumption was that UDA acquired it directly from the colts/manning. if that's the case, why would they need an authenticator? if some rep walks into the colts locker room and has manning hand him a helmet, where exactly is the authentication in that? verifying peyton's ID? the only pieces that need authentication are pieces not directly obtained. you believe the piece was directly obtained and yet you also believe shawn wilbur is an authenticator who authenticated it. those 2 ideas don't jive.

"Isn't Mr. Wilbur assuming the roll of an 'authenticator'"

i don't understand how you form your assumptions. if mr.wilbur simply picked up the manning "gamer" from some local street corner dealer how is he an authenticator? he's an authorized UDA rep who made a purchase on behalf of UDA.

"and isn't he said to be an 'authorized representative' of UDA?"

and authorized rep is code for "authenticator"?

aeneas and helmets, have you either of you guys ever in your entire history in this hobby ever come across any helmet, or any football item, ever authenticated by a mr. shawn wilbur? absolutely nothing shows up on google about shawn wilbur.

"Most would think that, based on that document, that UDA did authenticate that helmet."

i wouldn't. because i know UDA does no such thing. i know they personally witness signatures. i know the "A" in "UDA" refers to their signature collection process. and i know they procure game-used items from the secondary market. like i said before, send in a manning gamer to UDA and ask them to authenticate it. ask them to put shawn wilbur on the case. see what they say.

"Maybe I'm giving UDA too much credit here, but they are one of the biggest names out there and for them to pick up a said 'game worn' item and issue a LOA without that proper knowledge, or research, seems ludicrous."

ever read "card sharks"? might change your opinion of UD's policies and processes. so it seems ludicrous to you for UD to purchase off the secondary market, which you acknowledge they do, and not know what they're buying? i'm at a loss given the many upper deck "game used" cards that have contained dubious items. retail bats, jerseys issued way after a player's retirement, etc. "ludicrous"? sure. but it happened.

"I am not denying the fact that they buy off the 2nd hand market. In this particular case though it seems more plausible to think that they deemed it 'game worn' because they got it direct, rather than off the market."

so if they had bought it from the secondary market, they wouldn't deem it game worn? what would they call it? when UD offered game-used cards with jerseys from babe ruth and lou gehrig and on the back of those cards stated the items were "game worn", where did they acquire those jerseys? directly from ruth and gehrig? according to your logic, they must've acquired them directly because they called them "game worn".

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

"Maybe I'm giving UDA too much credit here, but they are one of the biggest names out there and for them to pick up a said 'game worn' item and issue a LOA without that proper knowledge, or research, seems ludicrous.

I am not denying the fact that they buy off the 2nd hand market. In this particular case though it seems more plausible to think that they deemed it 'game worn' because they got it direct, rather than off the market."

is it plausible to you that UDA acquired a helmet directly from manning/colts and did not specify that? that is, here's a company who's entire "authentication" system relies on personally witnessing signatures and tracking every detail of that process. they know the exact date each signature was witnessed. yet according to you UDA acquires this helmet directly from manning/colts and doesn't say a word about any of that? they don't mention such a huge fact or the date it was acquired? all they say about such amazing provenance is that the item was "acquired legally". to me, that seems ludicrous; for UDA to acquire a helmet directly from manning/colts and make absolutely no mention of it when they make a huge deal about trumpeting the fact that they acquire their signatures directly. the UDA website explicitly outlines the painstaking details UDA goes to to acquire in-person signatures yet there isn't a single word anywhere about them acquiring game-used items directly from these superstar athletes. it's conspicously absent from both their website and their "LOA". if you buy a michael jordan autograph from UDA, the cert will say UDA witnessed jordan personally signing it. why is there absolutely no mention of such direct provenance in this manning UDA cert?

rudy.

[mvandor]

No matter how you slice it Jammy, these lids raise flags that do NOT reflect positively on a company of UD's position in the hobby.

[TriplexXxSports]

Jammy,

Again, I agree with your POV. I think that you have read a little too far into my 'generic' scenario.

If someone buys that second manning helmet, the one 'Ol Wilbur' has his name on the LOA, and finds out through a 2nd or 3rd opinion that it is bogus, who is responsible? I would say UDA.

It just seems that UDA would be more careful of the wording on a game used LOA if they do not deal directly with game used.

Where did they get it, who knows.

As far as the jerseys for cards and such, I could agree more about the 2nd hand market and all that you mentioned. That's not at all what I am refering to here. Just these to 'said' game worn helmets.