Lampson's Mantle Pants!

[both-teams-played-hard]

howard,

you have a real knack for finding the most comical items in the hobby. perhaps you could leverage this into some sort of regular feature - "howard wolf's theatre of the absurd".

anyway, the confusing part for me is the lampson letter. specifically, lampson states: "..with a supporting letter of provenance which indirectly supports the pants' origins."

the "supporting letter of provenance" that lampson refers to actually offers no provenance whatsoever. it's simply a letter that says nothing more than "write us in the future. maybe we can help then". the letter says absolutely nothing about any pants nor does it even say that the yankees ever gave anything of any sort to the recipient. it's a basic kiss-off letter sent to anyone who makes a request that cannot be accomodated. how does a team letter stating "write us in the future and maybe we'll try to help" support anything other than the fact that the recipient got a polite brush-off? this is what qualifies as a "letter of provenance" by lampson? hot dog! i've got dozens of generic team letters saying "sorry can't help you". i never imagined these were "letters of provenance"!

anyway, after lampson waxes poetic about his affection for the letterhead, he goes on to say "Obviously, the D'Andrea family had a relationship with Weiss and the Yankees, and obtained uniforms and equipment from the parent club". if I can understand this then, a letter from yankees to joe d'andrea stating "write us in the future and maybe we can help" is evidence that joe d'andrea "obtained uniforms and equipment from the parent club"? if anything i believe it's evidence that, in that instance, the yankees didn't give him anything. it's completely bizarre to think a letter saying that they couldn't help him out is evidence that they did help him out. after reading letters like this, it's genuinely difficult for me to believe that lampson hasn't completely lost it.

rudy.

Rudy
Are you a published writer? Of late, your posts have become "instant classics". Good job! The blow-off letter of authenticity? Yet, another term for the GUDictionary...

The auction ended.
Four Thousand, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Seven Dollars and Nine Cents. I ask all Forum readers to stop and think of all the cool stuff you could buy with that much coin.

[sylbry]

Lou Lampson math.

This jersey http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,MN-SE60H-3.html

plus a pair of scissors (to remove the M&N tag)

plus a letter I own from Sherry Robertson of the Senator's dated 1960 telling a fan that they do not give away player jerseys

plus a Lou Lampson LOA

equals I'M RICH!!!!

[both-teams-played-hard]

[topekabob]

I posted this on the Pistons Milicic jersey thread but it's applicable here too. How sad that my post is applicable to two jerseys with Lampson LOA's in two days...

Everybody - I don't consider myself a particularly dumb person, but I'm starting to wonder, because this Lou Lampson thing really has me befuddled.
Basically, through the many posts and evidence by posters, it is obvious that Lou Lampson just makes up a lot of things. And he hides behind ridiculous words like "examplars" to make him sound like, well, I have no idea, because I don't know what you're trying to do when you write that like.
Now, some of you out there have relationships with auction houses that use Lampson. They must know that the guy is incompetent at the least, an outright criminal at the worst.
So why do they keep sending stuff to him? I know the answer could be because he'll authenticate a shoe as game worn by Bigfoot in the Sonics-Blazers game of 2004 as typical of other Bigfoot worn examplars as long as he's being paid, and the auction houses could care less whether something is really game worn or not.
If that's true, then I guess that answers my question, that the auction houses could care less whether something is really game used or not, so they use someone who has no idea whether something is game used to write LOA's. If that is the case, that's sad. But it's also criminal, and they're ripping people off to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years.
If it's not true, and you think that the auction houses that do use him do actually care if something is what they say it is...then why the heck do they employ him?
Anyway, I've got to get back to preparing my jerseys. I have a 1976-1977 blazers jersey with the team name on the back of the jersey I need to send off to Lampson. Although no known photos of this jersey exist, it fits in with known examplars of the blazers that season because they were putting the team name on the front vertically and if they were willing to do that then surely they would put it on the back too.

[TNTtoys]

All this talk about Lou Lampoon made me wonder... I have been buying game used jerseys for years. Surely there has to be at least 1 of his LOA!!!s in my file. And so I opened the file up, and lo and behold... 1 of his LOA!!!s was there. And this was pretty good.

It was an LOA for a 1987 Mets BP #25. With utmost certainty, the BP was attributed to Keith Miller. After all, Miller played for the Mets in 1987 and wore #25.

What it doesn't mention is that ANOTHER player played for the 1987 Mets and wore #25 as well - Al Pedrique. Furthermore, Pedrique was the same size as Miller and played the same position. This of course takes away the "classic" argument "shows good second baseman use."

Now, I am not splitting hairs here. For a $100 dollar game used Mets BP in my favorite style of all time, I don't particularly care who wore it, because it makes a nice addition to my collection...

but what homework was done on it? My guess, none. I suppose QUANTITY over QUALITY...

[allstarsplus]

In how many future Yankee auctions will we see that 1954 letter recycled for circa 1950's Yankee items?

My favorite part of this auction was the Yankees letter and according to the auction---it seems you don't even get the Yankees letter with the pants---you only get the Lamsopon LOA.

Comes with a detailed LOA from Lou Lampson

$4,927 was the winning bid and maybe the bidders know something we don't know. Can anyone show a photo of this style of pants and labeling? If not, then you would have to hope the bidders had the intellect to read the Yankees letter and make an assessment that the letter lends NO provenance to this pair of pants.

I always liked the mathematical logic that if A=B and B=C then A=C. This auction is another example of A may = B and B may = C so in my opinion A=C. Okay, so here is my opinion---this auction doesn't even come close. There is no photo evidence and the letter says nothing pertinent to these pants.

Another one for the Wall of Shame!!!!!

Andrew

[kingjammy24]

warren,

very nice! you've inspired me.



rudy.

[both-teams-played-hard]

It seems that Lou Larcen has an active imagination, not unlike the other L.L.
Lampson's speculative LOA is funny and sad at the same time.

[Eric]

Oh yeah, well he's no Lou Sampson

http://cgi.ebay.com/ADAM-ARCHULETA-G...QQcmdZViewItem

[Nathan]

Rudy, that's one of the funniest things I've ever read in my life. I was trying to carry on a phone conversation when I first read that and had to call the person back because I was laughing too hard.

Shame that it's lampooning something so sad and pathetic though.