COA blunder by Lou Lampson and PSA/DNA

[BaseballGM]

I won these Alomar cleats and received 2 COA's with them. They both state that, "No size tagging evident, but we'd estimate them at a size eleven." :confused: It appears that they never looked in the cleats' heels because there is a size indicated - US-10, UK-9, EUR-44, CM-28 - in both heels! The tagging image even appears in the Lampson letter! How could both companies issue something so incorrect? You would figure that an important piece of information would be to determine the shoe size first.
As for the cleats themselves, I am fairly confident that Alomar wore a size ten and the autographs are good. But still, does this give anyone confidence in these two opinions? Comments welcomed.

[BaseballGM]

Just to follow up, the Nike rep I contacted said that the first two digits above the size information designates the year manufactured. So, that would put these cleats more circa 1996 rather circa 2001.

[kingjammy24]

BaseballGM,

Good work calling Nike.
I think the reason the cleats were 'authenticated' as circa 2001 is because during 1996, Alomar pretty much wore Reebok cleats for most of the season. He eventually switched to wearing Nikes for most of the time around 1999. The cleats themselves look similar to ones Alomar wore around 1999 & 2000 (rather than 2001).
(An interesting point to note: Alomar would typically wear red cleats with his home uniform, and black ones with the road uniform).

You say markings in the cleats date them (by Nike) to 1996.
Seeing as how I doubt Alomar would hang on to a pair of cleats for 3-4 yrs or that Nike would send Alomar a 3-4 yr old model, this is a curious thing.

Here is what I would do if I were you: try to nail down that particular style of Nike cleat to a year. Did that exact style exist in 1996? Did it exist in 2000? It seems unlikely that a Nike cleat would stay exactly the same (style-wise) for 4 yrs during that time frame. Find out exactly when Nike produced that exact style cleat. Once you have that information, I think it may be easier to piece together when Alomar could've worn that style.
As I said, I think him wearing that style of cleat in 1996 is far less likely than him wearing them in 2000. I'd say the most likely time period for your cleats is 1999/2000. However, the cleat is manufacturer-dated to 1996 so I'm a little confused.

If you post more pics of your cleats (side, front, back, soles), I could help try to match them to a specific year.

Below is an image showing various styles of cleats that Alomar wore during 1996-1998 and 2000-2001. (note the change in style of the black nike cleats in 2001 specifically).

http://img43.imageshack.us/img43/4070/alomar7er.jpg

Rudy.

[BaseballGM]

Rudy- Thank you for taking the time to look at the cleats and providing the great information. As for Nike, this is the quote I received from the company rep in an email - (It reads from bottom up) Also, I've included a few more pics. Opinions are welcomed.

Response (NikeRep) - 01/24/2006 12:05 PM
Dear Kevin,
Yes, that does appear to be the manufacturing date.
Sincerely,
(NikeRep)
Nike
Customer (Kevin) - 01/24/2006 11:44 AM
Ok, so does that mean a number 960112 is 1996 between Jan (01) and Dec (12)?
Response (RepName) - 01/24/2006 10:57 AM
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for contacting Nike.
In general the manufactures date can be found on the size tag just above the size. It is a 6 digit number with the first 2 numbers being the year, the other four are the 2 digit months. Hope that helps!
Thanks again for contacting us. Have a great week!
Sincerely,
(Repname)
Nike

[BaseballGM]

Final two pics- Thanks, Kevin

[kingjammy24]

Kevin,

Here's what we know so far:
- the cleats were manufacturerd in 1996.
- that style of cleat existed in 1998 and 1999.
- in 1996 and 1997, alomar favored reebok.
- starting in 1998 and then for practically all of 1999, he switched
to nike.

Solely based on the manufacturers date and photo evidence of
Alomar's cleat preferences, it would be my opinion that the cleats are more likely to be from 1999 than 2001. I'm saying this simply because it seems more plausible to have 2 or 3 yr old cleats than 5 yr old cleats.
I would be very curious to know what about these cleats caused Lampson to date them to 2001 of all years.

I think the one curious issue left is..is it plausible to for a player to wear cleats with a manufacturing date of 2-3 yrs prior? Honestly I don't know.

Although I could not find any images of him doing so, I suppose it's possible that he wore them in 1996 or 1997. He seemed far more inclined to wear that style in 1999 though. I guess that's all I can really tell. A manufacturer's date of 98 or 99 would've been nicer.

I've posted a few images below which show Alomar wearing your style of cleat.

http://img482.imageshack.us/img482/7121/alomar3hs.jpg

Rudy.

[BaseballGM]

Thanks Rudy, I have contacted American Memorabilia and they were very open to the idea of having Lou Lampson look at this item again at some point in the future. Your photos are a big help and I think you are on the money. Say for example the cleats were "made" in 12/96, the earliest time to be worn would have been 1997. Like you have pointed out, Alomar mostly wore Reebok then, so what if the O's had them in storage until Spring Training 1998? Possible, I suppose, since there is only hand written player numbers under the nike flaps. Anyway, I'll keep researching and let you know what response I receive from Mr. Lampson. Thanks again-Kevin

[hblakewolf]

Kevin-
That's great that American Memorabila has made you an offer for Lampson to re-look these shoes, however, why waste your time? Based on the information presented on this site, I would not feel too comfortable owning these. Likewise, do you feel at ease even if Lamspon comes back and indicates they are from 1996?

If you are comfortable with the shoes, and have conducted research to determine these are legit Alomar shoes, keep them. Depending on Lampson to make them good? Depending on a LOA to make a pair of shoes legit? Forget it.

I'll just add this mistake to the other dozens attributed to Lampson's LOA's that have been presented on this site and those I have seen in Broadway Rick, Bricol and American Memorabila's auctions.

As long as collectors depend on LOA's to make their items legit, these so called "experts" will continue to pump out the letters.

Homework-do your own homework and stop depending on LOA's.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[BaseballGM]

Kevin-
That's great that American Memorabila has made you an offer for Lampson to re-look these shoes, however, why waste your time? Based on the information presented on this site, I would not feel too comfortable owning these. Likewise, do you feel at ease even if Lamspon comes back and indicates they are from 1996?

If you are comfortable with the shoes, and have conducted research to determine these are legit Alomar shoes, keep them. Depending on Lampson to make them good? Depending on a LOA to make a pair of shoes legit? Forget it.

I'll just add this mistake to the other dozens attributed to Lampson's LOA's that have been presented on this site and those I have seen in Broadway Rick, Bricol and American Memorabila's auctions.

As long as collectors depend on LOA's to make their items legit, these so called "experts" will continue to pump out the letters.

Homework-do your own homework and stop depending on LOA's.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net
Howard- I agree with you regarding the way too heavy reliance on COA's from authenticators. There is no better peace of mind than good ole homework. My reasoning for getting American Memorabilia to look at this again would be to get two questions answered, not to rely on a "new opinion."
The questions I will ask are:a) What led Lampson to come to the conclusion that these spikes were circa 2001? ie., the consignor told him so or was there some research done on this point and b) explain to me like I'm a 5 year old what led Lampson to write "no size tagging evident but we'd estimate them at a size eleven." That's all. Until then, I'll keep doing my homework.

[brianborsch]

So who is good at authenticizing memorabilia?