Namath's Game Worn Super Bowl Helmet? Nope.

[cohibasmoker]

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

Robert, if the hobby masters don't like your opinions, no problem. The next time you see a problem with a helmet being offered by a major auction house, say NOTHING.

Let the auction house authenticate the helmet and put it out for public offering. Wait until the auction is about half-way completed and then post your comments on the forum while at the same time sending same to the auction house as well as SCD.

It will be interesting to see what their comments will be. But that's just my opinion.

Jim

PS: Some folks in the hobby may not appreciate your expertise but I certainly am glad you are around and accessible to us novice collectors.

[commando]

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

Let's consider the game used hobby today versus fifteen years ago, and the how the internet has affected everyone involved -- from the biggest auction houses down to the casual collector.

First of all, the most obvious result of how the internet affects our hobby is the availability of product. These days, even the most advanced niche collector has a reasonable chance of finding what he's looking for, whereas fifteen years ago, he'd have to place random calls to dealers, check the weekly issues of SCD, or get catalogs from the sports auctions that were around at the time.

So what does this have to do with the "Namath" helmet? Well, plenty... Quite simply, the internet has spread word of the helmet to countless collectors who may have not even realized that it was up for auction if this were the "good old days." The internet has allowed the chance for countless collectors to see -- and question -- the helmet.

Secondly, the internet has allowed the creation of collecting communities such as this one. Think about it. Fifteen years ago, how could you ask a specific collecting question, with photos, and have a knowing person somewhere respond within five to ten minutes? If you were a Patriots collector living in Boston who stumbled upon a Chargers jersey, where would you even begin to research such an item?

Relating to the "Namath" helmet, a fellow member of this community is a true expert in the area of vintage football helmets. Can he tell you much about game used hockey sticks or basketball shorts? Probably not. But when it comes to vintage football helmets, he really knows his stuff. What if he had seen this Jets helmet in an auction catalog fifteen years ago? What could he have done, other than call the auction house? If word didn't get to the right person, and the auction continued, how would anyone else have known about the concerns with the helmet fifteen years ago?

Accountability in our hobby is finally here. Good collectors are often the owners of bad merchandise -- and that's a fact. Many of them paid good money for items that were also sold to them in good faith by good people. The problem isn't always that the seller knows he's misrepresenting an item. The problem whether an item was used by the specific athlete or not. Period.

I'm convinced that there is no expert in our hobby who knows everything about all the equipment from every team in every league. I'm convinced that there is no expert in our hobby who even knows a lot about all the equipment from every team in every league. To be a true expert on any subject, you need to know more than a few basic things about brands and tagging. You need to know how that 1985 Patrick Ewing Knicks jersey looks and feels compared to that 1985 Rory Sparrow Knicks jersey. I have serious doubts about any "expert" who writes a letter of opinion on a 1986 George Brett Royals jersey at 9:30, a 1974 Anthony Davis USC jersey at 10:00, and a Theoren Fleury stick at 10:30.

I'm trying to stay on track here. My point on the Jets helmet is that auction houses may use "experts" who do have knowledge in specific areas, but I'm sure some items are simply examined and judged based on their overall "feel." A paid authenticator may be asked for an opinion on a circa 1972 Baltimore Colts jersey, for example. Well, he can be familiar with the tagging for the era, do research on the years the number was used and compare the item to known examples in his database. But right here on this forum may be a collector who has twenty or thirty 1970's-era Colts jerseys hanging in his closet! Who do you think is more qualified to look at that item?

[rose14]

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

I just got off the phone with Chris Nerat and I have to say it was a joy talking to him. Let's just say Chris is in a very tough position concerning what I brought up about Coach's Corner.

As for Heritage and the Namath he even acknowledged that Heritage made a mistake in promoting the helmet but in now way were they trying to get one by the public. I tend to believe that as it appeared the helmet had rock solid provenance but Heritage failed to take a litte time to compare it and make sure before they started promoting it and it turned out to bite them right in the ass.

[camarokids]

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

rudy.

with the better close up picture , it looks more like a six not a five . thanks for the blow up....

[aeneas01]

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

Yep. It's sad, really. After the fact, it's "look, look...Lou found something that the board members did not!!!"

i have to say greg, nerat's comments left me with the same impression - with a little pouting and sour grapes thrown in as well. frankly, and not to put too fine of a point on it, imo nerat was pretty much saying that the "pros" are now on the job, they now have it covered, and that the armchair authenticators and hobbyists can get back to comparing bottle caps.

also, given that nerat felt compelled to pursue this topic in his blog, i'm equally curious about his following comment as well:

"Keep in mind, Lou Lampson, its (Heritage's) game-used equipment authenticator wasn’t scheduled to come in to their Dallas offices until this week, when he will look at all lots for the May Signature sale.... Was it bad judgment to run with the ads before Lou looked at the helmet? Maybe so, but they did and that was a business decision, but given the strong provenance, I believe it was a calculated risk and the majority of other auction houses probably would have done the same thing."

so let let's see if i've got this straight - lampson is actually heritage's game-used equipment authenticator (which i didn't know), the guy does work for them? yet heritage doesn't run the namath helmet by him before his scheduled trip to dallas, before they publicize the lid as ""arguably the most significant football artifact ever to reach the auction block"? lampson is in the dark as far as this item is concerned? is this what i'm hearing from nerat?

seriously, how does this work? seriously, how does one square this? obviously lampson had access to the same photos heritage included in their publicity ad - obviously lampson could have received more photos from heritage if needed. and obviously getting on a plane to dallas was not needed to determine that this "monumental piece" was not namath's authentic sb3 helmet.

but apparently, according to nerat, that's not how things work in the world of top-tier auction houses, in the world of well-known authenticators. apparently an auction house can't pick up the phone and call it's authenticator to say "hey, we know you will be here in two weeks to do your work on the lots, but how about taking a quick look at some photos of this namath helmet we got our hands on - we think it could be the biggest find of the last twenty years, could bring a boat load at auction and we want to get the word out as soon as possible."

no, apparently things just don't work like that - after all, what could be determined by just looking at some pics....

[rose14]

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

It seems that fellow board member and Sports Collectors Digest columnist Chris Nerat is a little disgusted with some of the fellow posters on this site. You can read it on his blog here: www.sportscollectorsdigest.com

Well, I decided to email a response to his blog and here is what I emailed him.

Chris, I just finished reading your blog about some of the cowardly talk on the gamusedforum.com website. I'm not going to trash Heritage for jumping the gun and advertising an item that appeared to have rock solid provenance but Heritage probably should have done a little fact checking themselves before promoting an item like this before the collecting community. By taking a little amount of time and cross checking the helmet it would have saved them from this embarrassing situation. Mistakes happen, but with an item such as the Namath helmet they should have realized that it would have been scrutinized.

My problem with your column is that you state that some posters on the forum are way out of line, some are cowards and some are instigators and are bad for the hobby. Yes, there are some overzealous posters on there but with the many fake items that have been sold at auction through supposedly reputable auction houses after being authenticated by supposedly reputable authenticators I believe the collecting public has grown tired of seeing collectors being ripped off for the sake of pure profit for certain auction houses and authenticators.

How can someone such as yourself actually call someone out as a coward and bad for the hobby when the company you work for continues to business withCoach's Corner Sports Auctions? I'm sure you have heard all the complaints about authenticity with Coach's Corners items. It seems Coach's Corner has a never ending supply of Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Honus Wagner, Cy Young and even Josh Gibson signed items. Some of the most knowledgeable and experienced autograph and memorabilia collectors in the collecting community have never even seen a genuine Josh Gibson signed item but Coach's Corner seems to find one to auction every other month. When Coach's Corner does sell these items why do they always sell at just a fraction of what the same item would sell for in say a Robert Edwards auction?

I know you frequent the message boards such as as the one for the basis of your column as well as the Net 54 Vintage Baseball Card Forum where posters have continued to ask for a response to this but no one from SCD has ever been man enough to step up and respond. In fact there was an outstanding thread that has received over 700 post that questions SCD and their relationship with Coach's Corner. I'm sure you have seen it but in case you haven't here is a link to it. http://www.network54.com/Forum/153652/thread/1201896466/last-1205088768/Open+letter+to+STAT+and+Christopher+Morales This is just one of the many threads where posters have questions SCD's motives.

Why hasn't there been a response from someone associated with Sports Collectors Digest? It is the "voice of the hobby" isn't it? I can tell you, it's money. If it wasn't for the monthly 20-25 pages of advertising that SCD gets from Coach's Corner I highly doubt that publication would continue to be in business. I am a current subscriber for now but I find it embarrassing that you can call someone out for being a coward and being bad for the hobby when the publication that you write for has done so much damage and continues to further damage the hobby each and every month.

I look forward to your response.

We will see if Chris Nerat isn't the coward that he claims some on here to be and responds to this very important question.

[otismalibu]

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

i thought i was careful to state throughout my posts that i found many other problems with the helmet but considering the two major issues i pointed to, i felt that discussing the other issues was pointless - so i didn't.

Yep.

It's sad, really. After the fact, it's "look, look...Lou found something that the board members did not!!!" Hats off to you Lou - you're a credit to the hobby.

Lou Lampson couldn't hold aeneas01's jock, when it comes to helmet knowledge. And if he did ever get his hands on it, he'd surely attribute it to Joe Montana.

[aeneas01]

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

chris nerat posted this on the scd site on 03/18:

"Today Lou determined that it is not a game-worn Namath helmet, but is a Jets gamer from an unknown player."

well this is odd. it went straight from namath to his friend/courier to the consigner. it has "namath", "12", and "jwn" written inside it. why was an unknown player running around the field with joe's name, number and initials written in his helmet??

rudy.

i just went over to scd and read chris's blog - i found his following comment interesting:

"Many board members crucified Heritage for promoting the piece as something it was not, but what they didn’t realize is that Lou never authenticated it and caught all the things wrong with it and many more things that the message board member didn’t even catch."

hmmm....

i thought i was careful to state throughout my posts that i found many other problems with the helmet but considering the two major issues i pointed to, i felt that discussing the other issues was pointless - so i didn't. as a matter of fact i stated the following:

"...as i told chris at heritage, the problems with this helmet are numerous - there are significant inconsistencies that encompass both the interior and exterior of the lid. but two inconsistencies are so major that they make discussing the others in detail moot - in fact, they're so major that they simply rule out the possibility of this helmet being namath's sb3 game worn lid. as a matter of fact, in my opinion this helmet was never worn by namath."

so i'm a little confused - why would chris nerat feel compelled to state that lou discovered problems with the helmet that i "didn't even catch" given that i clearly didn't share my other findings with the forum? chris?

[aeneas01]

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

anyway, heritage seems to have made the best of a bad situation by reacting promptly and properly. i can name a few auction houses that would've told you to take a flying leap and would continue to run the helmet because "lou says he likes it".rudy.

and that's all i've been trying to point out, especially given my experiences with other auctions houses. as i mentioned months ago, i once came across a "game used" butkus helmet at auction that didn't look right - so i contacted butkus, pointed him to the auction and he replied to my email the following day that the interior of the helmet "bothered" him, that he didn't recall his number ever being applied to the inside of the helmet in the same manner. the auction houses response? in a nutshell - butkus didn't know what he was talking about, the lid rides. beautiful.

notice the "namath", "12", and "jwm" inscriptions written in the helmet. now juxtapose those with your comment that "this helmet was never worn by namath...there are several problems relating to the interior of the helmet that, imo, rather easily disqualifies it as a helmet ever worn by namath". the helmet was never worn by namath yet the inside is marked up with his name and number. i don't doubt your evaluation but it certainly makes the inscriptions very puzzling.

imo no more puzzling than the sig on the exterior of the helmet that reads "hope you have as much luck with this as i have...", no more puzzling than a 1975 vintage cowboys' tk helmet that will soon hit auction houses with a letter from staubach stating that it was his game used lid even though staubach stopped wearing tk lids after the '72 season, no more puzzling than a 1973 vintage tk packers' lid inscribed by bart "1971 my final season".

any thoughts on how or why those inscriptions are there?

sure - just as i have thoughts as to why the size "7" appearing on the crown webbing has been carefully darkened. but, again, the helmet is clearly not namath's sb3 lid as advertised so getting into that or the several other problems with the lid seems to be beating a dead horse - or an attempt to further embarrass heritage by piling it on.

i don't think there's anything unethical about sharing info. you're assuming their reps will necessarily suffer and i don't think that's the case. kim stigall's made some errors and his rep is stellar. people can barely remember the mistakes he's made because they were so few and far between and they weren't stupid errors.

i think we'll have to agree to disagree - imo auction houses suffer when they drop the ball and their mistakes are rehashed in the public domain.

point blank, whatever heritage did, it wasn't good enough in light of the profit they stood to reap.... if they only want to look at photos for 20 min before crowing "hey we tried! noone's perfect!", then they should chop their buyers premiums down to 2% and people wouldn't expect a great job. whatever heritage did on this helmet wasn't worth a 19.5% buyers premium. for $20k, i'd expect them to see the holes.

and therein lies the rub - further, it's a point that's impossible to argue and imho you are 100% correct. collectors pay a steep premium to auction houses because they are supposed to offer what ebay doesn't - a safe haven where one can be confident and secure that what they are purchasing is indeed the authentic item that has been described. but, then again, just do a forum search on coas and it's pretty clear that auction houses are what they are.

chris nerat posted this on the scd site on 03/18:

"Today Lou determined that it is not a game-worn Namath helmet, but is a Jets gamer from an unknown player."

well lou and i agree - as i mentioned in my first post, not only did i believe that the lid wasn't namath's game used sb3 helmet, but i didn't believe that it ever belonged to namath. who says lou is a bad guy? better yet, i wonder if heritage paid lou for his input!

btw rudy, thanks for your posts on the topic - they were a great read and i'm sure 99.9% of the forum feels exactly as you, as well they should!

[kingjammy24]

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

chris nerat posted this on the scd site on 03/18:

"Today Lou determined that it is not a game-worn Namath helmet, but is a Jets gamer from an unknown player."

well this is odd. it went straight from namath to his friend/courier to the consigner. it has "namath", "12", and "jwn" written inside it. why was an unknown player running around the field with joe's name, number and initials written in his helmet??

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

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

In the photos just posted , I see a faint number 5 between the 1 and 2 ....

There is also another number after the 5 , but I cannot tell what it is .

Has anyone pointed this out ?

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

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

"couldn't the same be said for guu auctions?..."

robert, you're correct. while i think there are some inherant flaws in GUU's Auction system, i suppose the big difference in your example is that GUU explicitly requests and depends on the community to examine their items as part of their authentication process whereas most auction houses, like HA, charge far more substantial premiums to "get it right" with their own crew. with HA there's the expectation that they got it right in-house whereas with GUU i suppose there's the expectation that the community got it right. If this helmet had come up in a GUU auction and sold, i guess we could all blame ourselves

"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?"

obviously, everyone's made mistakes. the issue is the number and nature of errors. some people make very few mistakes and even fewer are stupid mistakes. others seem to make stupid mistakes every 5 minutes. i don't think people simply see the error without regarding the context. i've made errors and many people i respect have made errors but noone holds anything against them because the errors have been so few and far between and they weren't stupid errors. there's also the increased expectations when someone's paid to be an "expert" and they go around beating your chest proclaiming themselves to be the greatest ever, like many auction houses do.

i don't think there's anything unethical about sharing info. you're assuming their reps will necessarily suffer and i don't think that's the case. kim stigall's made some errors and his rep is stellar. people can barely remember the mistakes he's made because they were so few and far between and they weren't stupid errors.

with this namath helmet, i was simply floored that for $20k they couldn't spot 2 holes vs 1. $20k! if i pay someone $30, then i don't expect them to spend 2 solid days working on something. however, if i pay $20 grand, i want chris ivy's head buried in SB3 books for at least 2 solid weeks, day and night. it's all about expectations. for me, heritage failed to live up to them. errors aren't just errors. there's the context that determines how they'll be regarded.

"at the end of the day, the seller's integrity and motives will always be contemplated."

i don't really agree that they'll always be contemplated. again, it depends on the context of the error.

rudy.

[camarokids]

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

In the photos just posted , I see a faint number 5 between the 1 and 2 ....

There is also another number after the 5 , but I cannot tell what it is .

Has anyone pointed this out ?

[kingjammy24]

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

robert, i think you did a fantastic job on this.

"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."

the documentation was impressive. ultimately though, everyone knows an item must stand on its own and not simply coast on "iron-clad" provenance. we've all seen items with great provenance crash and burn. the real issue is the extent of heritage's effort. while they obviously did more than blindly list it without lifting a finger, did they go to the full extent that they should've for the profit they stood to reap? obviously noone had the expectation that they'd blindly list it and not do any work so the fact that they did more than that is a given. this was, in heritage's words, "arguably the most significant football artifact ever to reach the auction block". if chris nerat's estimate was correct, then it was possible for this helmet to have sold for $100k. at $100k, the buyer's premium alone would've been almost $20k. what are the expectations for a $20k payment? while it's difficult to quantify, i don't think it'd be unrealistic to expect 140 man-hours of work for $20k. how much time did heritage spend reviewing photos? they reviewed scores of them and noone at all noticed the holes? i know less than nothing about football helmets but i know the difference between 2 holes and 1 hole and if i spent even 20 hours looking at photos then i'd have to be completely inept not to eventually notice the holes. imagine staring at a single helmet and photos for 20 solid hours. the holes would eventually pop out like a sore thumb. if, after 20 hrs, i still didn't notice them, then do i honestly deserve to charge thousands of dollars for my services?

point blank, whatever heritage did, it wasn't good enough in light of the profit they stood to reap. some lone collector, who wasn't being paid at all, came along and pointed it out. they're the ones who ought to have serious resources at their disposal. this is their profession. i certainly can't pay thousands for magnified getty images nor can i afford to devote an entire week to staring at photos but they can and they should've. when you walk into a place that charges $100 for an entree, then you expect a $100 entree. when the chef comes out with a $6 burger, then it's hardly an excuse if he says "hey it's not like i didn't do anything. a $100 entree is hard!". that's really my beef against many of these shops; they're not good enough for what they charge. you'll find expertise on this forum that's as good if not better and costs nothing. you alone outperformed an entire crew whose job it was to suss this helmet out! they charged $20k and failed. you charged $0 and got it right. the auction houses are filled with self-annointed experts who are more skilled at writing press releases and collecting premiums than running clean auctions. the 20-30% buyers&sellers consignment rates are laughable for the lack of quality work they seem to churn out.

if they only want to look at photos for 20 min before crowing "hey we tried! noone's perfect!", then they should chop their buyers premiums down to 2% and people wouldn't expect a great job. whatever heritage did on this helmet wasn't worth a 19.5% buyers premium. for $20k, i'd expect them to see the holes.

"before these photos were posted..was it so obvious? i would say apparently not given that at no time had anyone challenged the helmet's authenticity."

the holes weren't hard to miss. the fact that noone challenged it isn't, in my opinion, evidence that it was easy to miss. i assume most didn't care to even bother looking that closely. i usually only look closely at items i'm considering purchasing or items that i find really interesting. how many serious buyers were there for a $100k helmet? plus, the auction hadn't even really begun. perhaps some people did notice but simply didn't speak up for various reasons. if you spend 40 hours examining photos and every single inch of the helmet, how blind would someone have to be to miss the 2 holes vs 1 hole? $20k worth of blindness. you don't even have to know a thing about football helmets for petes sake to notice the difference. all you have to do is know the difference between 1 and 2.

anyway, here's the most interesting issue; heritage stated "This exceptional offering has remained in the possession of Andrew Vanore, Jr. from the days just following Super Bowl III until Tuesday, February 19, 2008, when it was delivered to Heritage consignment directors."

straight from broadway joe to his friend to andrew vanore to heritage. now look at these photos:



notice the "namath", "12", and "jwm" inscriptions written in the helmet. now juxtapose those with your comment that "this helmet was never worn by namath...there are several problems relating to the interior of the helmet that, imo, rather easily disqualifies it as a helmet ever worn by namath". the helmet was never worn by namath yet the inside is marked up with his name and number. i don't doubt your evaluation but it certainly makes the inscriptions very puzzling. any thoughts on how or why those inscriptions are there?

anyway, heritage seems to have made the best of a bad situation by reacting promptly and properly. i can name a few auction houses that would've told you to take a flying leap and would continue to run the helmet because "lou says he likes it".

rudy.

[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.