What gives with not showing us your item when you claim you have the real deal and someone else doesn't?

[Titans74]

Looks like a perfect match. The white scuff mark did it for me. Nice helmet.

[LWMM]

I dont see a photomatch.. see below. I'm not commenting on the situation or the authenticity of either helmet. I just don't see a photomatch from these images.

In regards to the black hit marks, keep in mind that while you can expect marks on an item in hand to be identifiable in a photograph, marks in a photograph could have been removed since the photograph was taken. Pete Rose, for instance, would wipe off ball marks from his black bats; as such, one can not discredit a photomatch simply because specific marks in the photo are not present on the item in hand.

I'm not commenting on whether the photos given provide a match (or matches), but rather adding something to consider.

[solarlottry]

In regards to the black hit marks, keep in mind that while you can expect marks on an item in hand to be identifiable in a photograph, marks in a photograph could have been removed since the photograph was taken. Pete Rose, for instance, would wipe off ball marks from his black bats; as such, one can not discredit a photomatch simply because specific marks in the photo are not present on the item in hand.

I'm not commenting on whether the photos given provide a match (or matches), but rather adding something to consider.

I agree. I am sure that the helmets a wiped off and cleaned especially if used in multiple games. If anyone saw the video of the packers seamstresses getting their uniforms ready for each game then you will know what I mean. Those uniforms had to look perfect before the game and repairs were made to look like they didn't exist. I dont think that the NFL would like players using dirty helmets at the start of a game. The helmet may have been cleaned before given to JO and the black marks removed but the scrape to the stripes would not come out thus they remain and the black stains do not.

With regards to the stripe and the hole it looks like there is orange in one photo and no orange in the other. I am not sure if it is the angle but if the case it is not a match.

Paul
Always buying 49ers shirts
garciajones@yahoo.com

[10thMan]

I have a considerable Gwynn (Sr.) Bat collection. I`ve had Forum members ask to purchase a Gwynn Bat, only to feel they`re Picture collectors. I`m not talking once or twice! I`ve also had 2 guys in particular, pound me personally for pics.

I do my fair share of "Service work" in this World, prolly more than the next guy, but why satisfy peoples selfish interests??? We all know how some (not most) can be in regards to collecting.

While I`ll say "Talk is Cheap" in regards to "I have this or that" Possibility they simply could care less about posting Pics???

Just my take...


Sean

[dplettn]

The helmet may have been cleaned before given to JO and the black marks removed but the scrape to the stripes would not come out thus they remain and the black stains do not.

With regards to the stripe and the hole it looks like there is orange in one photo and no orange in the other. I am not sure if it is the angle but if the case it is not a match.

Paul
Always buying 49ers shirts
garciajones@yahoo.com

It is refreshing to see objective discussion about item attributes. This forum is not mine to control, nor do I wish to control it. But, I am totally unaware why the original thread went from talking about item attributes objectively, and talking about representations that were made for various dated photo-matches to a discussion of how there was some implicit requirement that photos of a completely different helmet to the one being marketed by JO be furnished.

If I'm going to be attacked for choice not to post an item (which I've ever marketed to anyone incidentally) when I've never offered anything for sale, why is it that nobody seems to care whether JO furnishes any sort of proof as to its purported exclusive deal?

The same suspended disbelief seems present in an absence of comments on the JO helmet's internal photos here on the forum, and that nobody asks why once JO eventually furnished any attempt at photo-matching what they'd been marketing the date of the game was different than the representations they had made previously. I'm curious to see whether anyone other than myself chooses to contribute objective third party commentary on the white portion of helmet's back. This white piece has physical properties which folks (if they choose) comment objectively on.

[Masimen]

It is refreshing to see objective discussion about item attributes. This forum is not mine to control, nor do I wish to control it. But, I am totally unaware why the original thread went from talking about item attributes objectively, and talking about representations that were made for various dated photo-matches to a discussion of how there was some implicit requirement that photos of a completely different helmet to the one being marketed by JO be furnished.

If I'm going to be attacked for choice not to post an item (which I've ever marketed to anyone incidentally) when I've never offered anything for sale, why is it that nobody seems to care whether JO furnishes any sort of proof as to its purported exclusive deal?

The same suspended disbelief seems present in an absence of comments on the JO helmet's internal photos here on the forum, and that nobody asks why once JO eventually furnished any attempt at photo-matching what they'd been marketing the date of the game was different than the representations they had made previously. I'm curious to see whether anyone other than myself chooses to contribute objective third party commentary on the white portion of helmet's back. This white piece has physical properties which folks (if they choose) comment objectively on.

The last thing I wanted this post to be was an attack. I hope it did not come off that way. What I was trying to say is that it is very difficult for the forum members to come to an educated decision about someone's claims without any evidence. We have had this issue with a bat as well, where a member swears up and down he has the real deal and it is photo matched, but refuses to show it to us. It just seems to me (for whatever that's worth) that if someone is going to dispute someone else's item they should provide evidence to whomever they are disputing it to. If they are not willing to do so then why bother? Does that make sense?

As for JO providing proof they have an exclusive agreement with the team. Is there some question as to wether or not they actually do have such an agreement? I am not asking sarcastically. I am curious if I missed something here. Has that actually come into question?

[Jules9]

As far as the helmet goes, I'm not a football expert but it looks like their are two different Schutt style helmets worn during the season. The screenshot below, from 11/21/2010 and the photo of the 4 helmets on his twitter account have orange rivets near the chinstrap. The photos I posted earlier from 9/26/2010 and the photos JO posted have silver rivets near the chinstrap. I guess it's possible he could wear both helmets during a game and maybe the screen shot JO posted is the helmet with orange rivets.

Also photos from 9/2/2010 show a helmet with orange rivets

[Jules9]

dplettn,

You don't have to answer this if you don't want to but could your helmet be the Schutt with orange rivets and that's what makes it "the product JO offered to sell me duplicates what I already own"

This isn't a personal attack and maybe that's why it seams like JO was trying to sell something that you already own. Also I didn't look at pictures from every game but it looks like the majority of pics on Getty and Daylife have orange rivets so if the silver rivet helmet was only used one game or a couple of quarters it may not show sweat stains. The photos also show it was raining so maybe the sweat was washed away?

[legaleagle92481]

It is refreshing to see objective discussion about item attributes. This forum is not mine to control, nor do I wish to control it. But, I am totally unaware why the original thread went from talking about item attributes objectively, and talking about representations that were made for various dated photo-matches to a discussion of how there was some implicit requirement that photos of a completely different helmet to the one being marketed by JO be furnished.

If I'm going to be attacked for choice not to post an item (which I've ever marketed to anyone incidentally) when I've never offered anything for sale, why is it that nobody seems to care whether JO furnishes any sort of proof as to its purported exclusive deal?

The same suspended disbelief seems present in an absence of comments on the JO helmet's internal photos here on the forum, and that nobody asks why once JO eventually furnished any attempt at photo-matching what they'd been marketing the date of the game was different than the representations they had made previously. I'm curious to see whether anyone other than myself chooses to contribute objective third party commentary on the white portion of helmet's back. This white piece has physical properties which folks (if they choose) comment objectively on.

jo's deal is not an issue. i think we can all accept that as fact. why would jo make that up and expose themselves to a lawsuit from the bengals if it was not true. as for your pics. people i think take issue with your position which is essentially this: i have a real chad helmet from the 2010 season and therefore any other one is fake and these pics that jo showed me do not match the handful of pics ive seen from those games and dont show what i feel are sufficient signs of use. now that it has been refuted that you have the only chad helmet and at least three more exist pics of yours are no longer relevant. if both you and jo have one theres still two that are unaccounted for so whether your helmets legit or not noone should really care because its not on the market. as for the merits of jos helmet noone including you has seen it. aenas is an expert who is phyiscally examining it and rather than people speculate based on some pics, i think most people are content to wait to hear what the independent expert has to say after he examines the helmet in person. photomatching is imperfect noone has pics of every minute of every game and noone knows if someone cleaned an item or changed something inside of it or whatever. personally i can tell you though that jo is top notch i have done close to 20k in business with them from their team partnerships and we have not had one dispute. their stuff is top notch.

[dplettn]

jo's deal is not an issue. i think we can all accept that as fact. why would jo make that up and expose themselves to a lawsuit from the bengals if it was not true. as for your pics. people i think take issue with your position which is essentially this: i have a real chad helmet from the 2010 season and therefore any other one is fake and these pics that jo showed me do not match the handful of pics ive seen from those games and dont show what i feel are sufficient signs of use. now that it has been refuted that you have the only chad helmet and at least three more exist pics of yours are no longer relevant. if both you and jo have one theres still two that are unaccounted for so whether your helmets legit or not noone should really care because its not on the market. as for the merits of jos helmet noone including you has seen it. aenas is an expert who is phyiscally examining it and rather than people speculate based on some pics, i think most people are content to wait to hear what the independent expert has to say after he examines the helmet in person. photomatching is imperfect noone has pics of every minute of every game and noone knows if someone cleaned an item or changed something inside of it or whatever. personally i can tell you though that jo is top notch i have done close to 20k in business with them from their team partnerships and we have not had one dispute. their stuff is top notch.

I wouldn't agree with your summation of my position. My position is that JO made factually false representations as to at least photo-matching, applied high pressure sales tactics, and then chose a path of making a series of rude demands, accusations, and intimidation tactics on myself upon my observing their practices.

Your comments in the original thread could plausibly be motivated by your feeling a vested interest in JO's business practices because of high dollar merchandise you have bought, for which you may have similarly suspended disbelief as you have for the purported "exclusive" contract.

I can't entirely blame you. But over the long run, an organizations standards matter. "Game used" authentication calls for a meticulous attention to detail. Organizationally speaking, a company which replaces detail orientation and consistently accurate statements of fact with high aggression sales practices and other unsavory, unethical business practices may prove unworthy of the esteem you assign.

You may have noticed that some in this thread are now noticing certain details such as rivet colors which along with internal use, one might assume to be noticed by a company representing dated photo-matches. Is the "exclusivity" for which you suspend disbelief real? Well, JO knows. And JO can choose whether to post the exclusive contract they've purported, or not.

I do very much respect the focus on attributes in the posts of Jules9. It was my anticipation that the original thread would be similarly focused on attributes and statements made which were factually true and were factually untrue.

Once JO and/or the Bengals share the outcome of this super duper special Bengals front office meeting (sarcasm intentional, as if the Bengals were to blame for JO's representations of specific use and unsavory business practices), and the expert's authentication process on the JO helmet is complete, I would see no reason the original thread wouldn't simply be reopened for forum comment, right? I anticipate being more than happy to there discuss item attributes, factual details, true and false representations of fact, etc. In the interim, I haven't heard anything from the authenticator needing any of my help. In due course, I'll be happy to contribute to the forum's original thread once the forum's moderators see the benchmarks they intended and find the original thread appropriate again for objective discussion of attributes, facts, etc.

To those who've spent $20K or whatever other figure at JO, please know that its your items that matter, not the standards of detail that JO does or doesn't keep in its normal course of business. And nothing that I (or anyone else) observes about JO changes what the day to day standards they do or don't hold themselves to are.

There is no substitute for being meticulous in authenticating items, even more so if nobody else is applying standards of rigor wherever you find the items you buy. And that is anywhere, not specific to just any particular sales operation.