Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

[camarokids]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

[quote=aeneas01;76384 i actually feel rather bad given that chris ivy at heritage is a very nice guy. as a matter of fact, everyone i have ever spoken to at heritage has always been nothing but extremely nice, courteous and very helpful. it's just an unfortunate incident that heritage, much to their credit, appears to have corrected promptly once it was brought to their attention.[/quote]


Why should you feel bad for the auction house ??????

The only emotions you should feel is one of disbelief and relief .

Disbelief that these auction houses can be this stupid ....

Relief that you helped save someone over $50K....

Once again someone on this forum DID their homework for them !!!!!!

I cannot believe the auction house was irresponsible enough to promote such a supposedly great item , with out doing the necessary research .

So they deserve the embarrassment brought upon themselves due to their lack of attention to ALL the details......

Others have said the same thing , blinded by the might dollar !

[otismalibu]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

fwiw, i'm not getting a kick out out of this - i actually feel rather bad given that chris ivy at heritage is a very nice guy. as a matter of fact, everyone i have ever spoken to at heritage has always been nothing but extremely nice, courteous and very helpful. it's just an unfortunate incident that heritage, much to their credit, appears to have corrected promptly once it was brought to their attention.

But really, if an item is supposed to be from a specific game, what should be the first step for the auction house to take?

Maybe glance at a game tape or some still photos? Nah.

I guess we have to commend them for not drilling a second hole.

[aeneas01]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

It's still listed as "coming soon" if you search namath on their site. This page comes up
http://sports.ha.com/common/view_ite...hdnSearch=true

that's interesting eric - how did you get to that page? check out the new lot description appearing a the top of the listing. the original listing read: 1969 joe namath super bowl lll game worn helmet. the new listing reads: namath helmet copy....

if and when heritage does relist the helmet i hope they do do in fact list it as a namath "copy" or a namath "reproduction" instead of a namath game worn helmet from the "mid '60s" or some other obscure description that tries to imply that namath once wore this helmet - because, again, imo he never did....


new ad:




original ad:

[skipcareyisfat]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

Ivy and the Heritage gang may be nice but they embarrassed themselves by ignoring evidence that's accessible to anyone with or without a reference library. (They say Lampson's quite a pleasant fellow too, btw.) Like too many houses, they expect us to take their catalogs as fact. I guess they haven't caught on to Google and the whole public collector forum thing either.

[mvandor]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

With your eye for detail aeneas I can only wonder what you do for a living. Split genes? Design space shuttles?

Your thoroughness is a credit to the hobby and an invaluable service to us here at GUU. Thank you again!

[aeneas01]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

Why should you feel bad for the auction house ??????

The only emotions you should feel is one of disbelief and relief .

Disbelief that these auction houses can be this stupid ....

Relief that you helped save someone over $50K....

Once again someone on this forum DID their homework for them !!!!!!

I cannot believe the auction house was irresponsible enough to promote such a supposedly great item , with out doing the necessary research .

So they deserve the embarrassment brought upon themselves due to their lack of attention to ALL the details......

Others have said the same thing , blinded by the might dollar !

i believe that honest mistakes can and do happen - in all walks of life. 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.

further, imho heritage is not alone in this thing. this helmet has been in the public domain for close to a month now and has received much attention from other auction related organizations - yet no one challenged it. quite to the contrary, everyone seemed to be quite dazzled by it. the helmet was even discussed here at the forum and taken at face value.

looking at the photos i posted it now seems more than obvious that the helmet wasn't namath's sb3 lid - now that we all know what to look for. but before these photos were posted, especially the additional photos heritage promptly furnished upon my request, was it so obvious? i would say apparently not given that at no time had anyone challenged the helmet's authenticity.

as i mentioned previously, i furnished chris ivy (director of sports collectibles - heritage auctions) with my findings late last night via email and reported to the forum that it would be interesting to see how he and heritage would respond. well now we know - chris immediately removed the item from heritage's website (although one can apparently locate evidence of the original listing) - it is no longer prominently featured on heritage's home page nor do searches link to it. no double-talk, no brush offs, no dragging feet - heritage was informed of a problem and acted immediately.

and, finally, heritage has a wonderful feature which is twofold - it allows heritage to quickly add items to their auction as they become available, for the mutual benefit of auction house and buyer, with the understanding that information can change and be updated. the feature also allows prospective buyers to voice concerns about an item, report errors and offer suggestions. in my case i utilized this feature by contacting heritage about problems with the helmet. heritage responded by promptly removing the item.



in a perfect world every auction house would have indisputable evidence that every item it they put up for auction was exactly as described - no excuses, no errors. but we don't live in a perfect world. fortunately for collectors there is at least one high profile memorabilia auction house, heritage, which tries to do the next best thing. i wish the same could be said for the other usual suspects.

[beantown]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

Great Job Robert! I would love to see some of the helmets in your collection! Please post for all to enjoy!!!

[camarokids]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

A job well done by YOU ! Apparently you have access to pictures or an internet that auction houses do not have access to .......

Honest mistakes are fine as long their mistakes don't cost someone big money or hurt someone !

Apparently no one at Heritage thought to double check what appeared to 100% provenance ......once again ... it is all about doing your homework....

[gingi79]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

On the one hand, I think it is very good that Heritage took the evidence from aeneas and pulled this obvious mistake of a helmet from the auction. On the other, there is a Buyers Premium of 19.5% which is used to cover fees from authenticators..... I was told by Lelands once "The premium covers all fees associated with marketing, authenticating, storage etc." It should give me "piece of mind."

Therefore, since aeneas did the actual grunt work research and saved the Auction house tremendous bad press, a possible lawsuit and some collector a minimum of $50k, shouldn't he be offer the Buyers Premium......Just a suggestion for the guys at Heritage......

[aeneas01]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

aeneas01, fascinating breakdown as usual. I'm interested in hearing more about why you don't think Namath ever wore it. If Heritage decides to back off the SB3 connection, I think they'll likely still try and pass it off as a SB3-era Namath helmet. So what exactly prevents this from being a Namath gamer?

there are several problems relating to the interior of the helmet that, imo, rather easily disqualifies it as a helmet ever worn by namath. but i would rather not be specific about these issues at this time given that this info might furnish some of our unscrupulous ebay buddies with material to work with - if you know what i mean.

Great Job Robert! I would love to see some of the helmets in your collection! Please post for all to enjoy!!!

my collection would bore the forum to death - two huge piles of lids disrespectfully piled on top of each other, about 150-200 lids per pile. my lids really deserve much better given that they are almost exclusively rare, vintage gems - i've been promising myself for years that i will finally organize them but the years seem to keep passing by and the piles seem to keep growing! but, really, i'm kind of weird when it comes to helmets in that i love them all - just as long as they are classic, unique, not-often-seen pieces of football history no longer manufactured. in short, i don't place a great deal of emphasis on whether a lid is nfl or college nor do i place a great deal of emphasis on whether or not the lid can be tied to a specific player. it's the rarity, uniqueness, age and beauty of a lid that turns my crank.

you, gridman80, rkgibson, cohibasmoker, drj, jake51, barry-debi (just to name a few) are the ones that have collections worth sharing - and i'm very appreciative that you have!

[gridman80]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

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]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

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/sports-collectors-blog/namath-helmet-in-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]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

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]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

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]

Re: Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

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.