Even when Lou gets it right, he gets it wrong.

[kingjammy24]

in almost each AMI catalog appears a section called "The Good, Bad & Ugly" where lou lampson conducts an in-depth analysis on a couple of shirts and demonstrates why a particular shirt made the grade and why a few others failed. i think it's supposed to be an attempt to show the public that lou is adept at weeding out the fakes. i usually don't pay any attention to it because showing you've weeded out 1 or 2 fakes while clearly passing substantially more doesn't hold a lot of water.

this month lou takes on a bad "1987 clemens" shirt. while the shirt is undoubtedly bad, so is lou's analysis. it shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the item being evaluated. i suppose many would say that's lou's hallmark. here's the shirt and lou's writeup:



lou says the tag "..with five lines of washing instructions strongly suggests a retail label..". the number of lines of washing instructions is completely irrelevant. in fact, the rawlings tag is from 1992-94 and is a legit pro tag. secondly, the number of lines of washing instructions has no bearing whatsoever on whether a rawlings tag is retail or pro. in AMI's current auction, they have a "1992 Barry Bonds gamer" that lou passed that has the exact same tag as this Clemens: http://www.americanmemorabilia.com/A...ction_ID=47977
both have 5 lines of washing instructions.

lou goes on to measure the jersey and finds it's not clemens' proper size, a collar tag has been cut, and a patch is missing.

none of it matters in the least of course because rawlings didn't even supply the red sox with home jerseys in 1987. they were supplied by wilson. it's like ascertaining whether this is the real mona lisa and centering the entire analysis on the brushstrokes and age of the paint:



rudy.

[suave1477]

Waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a minute King Jammy, so are you saying that Mona Lisa isn't real???

Great now I am going to have to return it back to the corner newstand where I bought it from sheesh and they swore up and down to me it was real and that some guy named Lou told them lol lol

[kingjammy24]

Waiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit a minute King Jammy, so are you saying that Mona Lisa isn't real???

of course i can't be 100% certain but having seen that painting in person, i'd say that the brushstrokes are not consistent with known davinci brushstrokes and the paint seems to have been manufactured after davinci's death. those 2 things lead me to believe it's not authentic.

that said, let's not forget that authenticating is not a science.

rudy.

[aeneas01]

more of the same....

lampson appears to have called this william perry helmet correctly (thumbs down) however he is somewhat off the mark as far as some of his reasoning is concerned...






lampson's first point of contention is that perry did not sport the shown facemask "till the 1990s" - actually perry switched to that facemask in the '80s - 1988 to be exact. below are game photos from 1988 and 1989 showing perry employing this very mask...





lampson follows this up by stating: "The 1985 shell would not have been used with a Riddell Front bumper whose calligraphy didn't commence until 1992/1993." by "calligraphy" i'm assuming lampson is referring to the type of "riddell" font style appearing on the forehead padding of this helmet. what else could he be referring to? if this is the case he is mistaken - that font style was introduced well before "1992/1993"... below are game photos from 1985-1989 showing this particular font style...




lampson goes onto say: "The majority of "Fridge" helmets were painted with "gouges" embedded in the shell and paint chips readily viewable. The (this) helmet is clean as a whistle". i wouldn't say the "majority" of perry's helmets were painted, there are certainly plenty of examples showing him wearing a non-painted shell, but as a collector i would prefer to have one of perry's battle-scarred and painted/reconditioned lids. as far as this helmet being "clean as a whistle" is concerned, could it be that this helmet is actually from perry's injury-plagued 1988, a season in which he saw almost no action? could it be that he was simply issued a lightly used helmet in 1988 that ended up not seeing much action during the course of the 1988 season because he was sidelined most of the time? could it be that he ditched this helmet after 1988? this might explain the "cleaness" of the lid - if this was the case the facemask would certainly match (given that we now know he sported this type of mask in the '80s.)...

and what to make of this point of contention posed by lampson: "No rear bumper, if in fact, other identifiers from the 1990s were real. This scenario would be an impossibility given the 1986 recon sticker." i've read this and reread it and still can't figure out what lampson is trying to say here. what i can offer is that the lack of a rear bumper is entriely consistent with this helmet model and with what perry wore at the time (mid '80s).

is this a perry gamer? probably not. i don't like the era-challenged navy blue riddell logo decal on the front bumper nor do i like the fact that the air valves are not covered/protected by a navy blue strip of tape (nor does it appear that any such tape was ever present). on the other hand could it actually be that it's indeed perry's 1988 gamer with original facemask that was cleaned up years later to present as a gift (glue remnants from the center tape removed, new "c" decals applied, new (current) navy "riddell" decal affixed to the front bumper, stock chinstrap applied, smelly leather jaw pads tossed in favor of odor-friendly vinyl jaw pads, etc.)? stranger things have happened in the world of helmet collecting!

....

[kingjammy24]

what i find interesting about these examples is what they really show; everyone's constantly heard about how knowledgable lou is and that his errors are simply the result of being rushed or some such nonsense. in this setting however the entire point of the article is to show lou's in-depth knowledge; to show his analytical mind at work as he walks the reader step-by-step through his process and offers up the wealth of his expertise. he hand-selected 2 specific items in order write an article breaking them down and showing what was wrong with them. yet he still missed the boat on both! on the clemens shirt he negates the most important point that it's the wrong manufacturer and misses the boat on the tagging. so even when he sits down and takes his time, he still screws it up. what other excuses could be left other than the fact that lou really, truly doesn't know what he's doing?

reminds me of that simpsons episode where homer becomes head of the union in a showdown against mr.burns. at the end of the episode, mr.burns caves in to homer's demands and then watches as homer proceeds to go mental. seeing this prompts mr. burns to say "I'm beginning to think that Homer Simpson was not the brilliant tactician I thought he was".

rudy.

[otismalibu]

In Lou's defense, there is not a single human on the face of the earth that has the knowledge or database to authentic an entire auction catalog full of items. Simply impossible.

But a cracka has to get paid!

[aeneas01]

In Lou's defense, there is not a single human on the face of the earth that has the knowledge or database to authentic an entire auction catalog full of items. Simply impossible.

racing against the clock, is there anyone in the hobby capable of rifling through hundreds of football, baseball, basketball and hockey "game used" items and emerging with a better batting average than lampson? is there anyone in the hobby even remotely interested in trying? i'm pretty sure the answer is no on both counts. not only is this unique "skill" exactly what auction houses are paying lampson for but, sadly, it's something auction houses seem to believe is good enough.

as far as the above examples are concerned, i don't think anything new was unearthed - in fact i think it could even be argued that lampson may have spent even less time on these items than he does on lots given they are nothing more than back page fillers that would most likely not be scrutinized.

btw that mona lisa example was funnier than shat!!!

....

[both-teams-played-hard]

[DrJ]

Unless I overlooked it, no one has brought up the point that this helmet has an NFL shield on back. The NFL shields were not added until 1991, so based on this the helmet has to be 1991 or newer (or someone just added the shield to the helmet).

[aeneas01]

Unless I overlooked it, no one has brought up the point that this helmet has an NFL shield on back. The NFL shields were not added until 1991, so based on this the helmet has to be 1991 or newer (or someone just added the shield to the helmet).

you are absolutely correct, it could not be an untouched william perry helmet from the '80s given the nfl shield decal (or given the blue riddell decal for that matter). but could it be a very lightly used helmet perry was issued in 1988, a very lightly used helmet that was fitted with his previous year's battle-scarred facemask, a helmet that didn't see any abuse during the 1988 season because perry was sidelined and barely played at all that year? further, could it be that this helmet was retired after the 1988 season and, years later, given to perry when he left the bears in 1993 or given to charity? if so, wouldn't it be possible (even likely?) that the helmet was cleaned (nasty leather jaw pads replaced with new vinyl pads, glue remnants from previous decals removed, etc.) and fitted with new, current decals (nfl shield, riddell, logo, "c" logo, etc.) prior to presenting it to perry or to a charity? anything is possible i suppose - but i would want to take a close physical look at the helmet before i bought into that story!

here's a shot of the decals the bears used during perry's last season with the team...



...