Propositioned to buy a Game Used Helmet (duplicating what I own) by JO Sports

[dcgreg25]

Re: Propositioned to buy a Game Used Helmet (duplicating what I own) by JO Sports

JO Sports contacted me and asked me to post a photomatch of their helmet from 9/26/10 vs. Carolina. Below are the pics provided:

[dcgreg25]

Re: Propositioned to buy a Game Used Helmet (duplicating what I own) by JO Sports

dplettn contacted me to ask to post a response on the Johnson helmet issue. The facts have been presented and discussed at length so the thread will not be reopened. Below are dplettn's comments as they were emailed to me.

"On March 19th, a JO Post on a surviving thread {which lacks the timeline and marketing facts JO hasn't disputed} claimed the indention in the decal above the GAL in "Bengals" perfect match. We (JO) will post better matches when the helmet is back in our hands.

The surviving (non-closed) thread has a title which deflects from the core focus of my original thread: false and high-pressure marketing practices.

As of April 19th, I've seen no further posting by JO on the subject. Also, the original thread (with the time-line) remained closed, making it impossible for parties that have seen both helmets to comment in that context. The JO helmet has appeared (newly added to their other Bengals helmets) on JO's website since March 19th.

The "indentation" image posted by the moderator on behalf of JO, and then later posted by JO on a new "live" thread which removes the marketing fact based time-line (JO was given opportunity to dispute any facts) from discussion is actually not a photo match. It is a style match. The "indentation" is a design feature of an adhesive element that was applied over both the JO's helmet's and my own at the same location at the white portion manufactured at the rear of the helmet by Schutt.

Whether the helmet was or wasn't used at any point of any game is not the central issue in my opinion. In my opinion, the central issue is a pattern of false statements and misrepresentations which first make a mockery the hobby, and more recently made a mockery of our forum. I hope now that these facts are publicly available, they will prove context. Context to the assertions of JO about its "photo match" and to the attacks on myself personally for not sharing any photos of my helmet (which I never found relevant to the core focus of the thread).

I will add that the source of my helmet which I've not revealed publicly, was said by Jarrod Oldridge to have told him more recently of the sale made to me. This appears to have trespassed on the confidentiality of my purchase.

I happen to own seat licenses in Paul Brown Stadium. I have inquired with the counterparty to my seat licenses whether my seat licenses might be revoked should I publish about that that counterparty's various dealings and the business practices inherent. That counter-party has been non-responsive to my specific question instead leaving me to wonder what it would hold the agreement's language to mean."