PDA

View Full Version : MEARS responds on the A5



kingjammy24
04-05-2006, 03:49 PM
I thought some might be interested by the fact that MEARS has responded to my issues with their A5 grade. Here is a recap of the A5 issues:
http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=1922

MEARS' reply (edited by myself solely for the sake of brevity. The full piece is available on their forum):

"Dave G: Although this is not a new phenomenon in the hobby as we have always wrestled with both salesman samples and shirts made for retail, it has made authenticating and purchasing a more precarious proposition. For collectors, shirts are easier to obtain because of the volume, but then this naturally begs the question are all of these actually game worn? Same set of circumstances, but a different scope of problem for authenticators. When shirts for play are often the same as those for retail or promotion, what then become the discriminating factors between good and bad? Many collectors have viewed such aspects of additional tagging such as “extra length” to mean additional assurance that the item was in fact a gamer. This is a false assumption at best. In many cases the shirts are physically indiscernible from the ones worn by the players in the field."

If you genuinely believe that retail jerseys are indiscernable from gamers then I would offer you're in the wrong profession. There is little doubt in my mind that I could send a retail jersey to Steinmetz, Wolf or Weimerskirch and have them come back and tell me it's a retail jersey. There are a myriad of differences between the two, as Troy himself states below, beyond any "extra length tagging". If you're unaware of these differences, then I'm genuinely dismayed by this lack of expertise. Suffice it to say, retail jerseys are in fact discernable from gamers and many authenticators seem to be consistently able to discern the two.

"Dave G: The challenge for both collectors and authenticators is that more attention needs to focus on evaluating wear and provenance than on manufacturer characteristics."

God I hope not. Wear can be faked far more easily than manufacturer characteristics. A 7 yr year old with some finegrit sandpaper can create pilling much more easily than someone can seamlessly sew in a legit wash tag or flag tag. Most gamers don't have genuine provenance so that's out. (Saying you bought the jersey from Bob on Ebay doesn't qualify as genuine provenance). All aspects of a jersey need to be equally and substantially evaluated. Of course, this entirely depends on the authenticator being acutely aware of all of the manufacturer subleties, which I'm starting to think may be overly hopeful.

"Dave G: In the case of looking at game used wear; both the dealer and collector need to consider such factors as position played as well as surface. Grass stains on a home uniform for a player whose team plays on Astroturf would call a jerseys into question."

When was the last time you saw legit grass stains on a jersey? Such stains have almost always been washed out. Where are you finding unwashed jerseys? Never mind about manufacturer characteristics which are present on every single jersey, relatively consistent, unique to gamers, and can even be used to date the jersey. Instead pay attention to grass stains which you'll almost never see. If you see grass stains on a jersey, I'd be genuinely questioning whether or not they're legit given how unbelievably difficult it is to obtain an unwashed jersey.

"Troy: All of the below text is examined and MUST be present to be awarded the grade of the A5. This includes tagging, lettering, numbering, size, patches, memorial bands, and other items that are most often and almost exclusively associated with game issued/game worn jerseys."

Proper lettering, numbering, size, patches, bands, etc are not exclusively associated with gamers. Tons of retail jerseys are properly lettered, numbered, and patched. If you really believe that only legit gamers have proper lettering, numbering, and patches then you've likely been taken more than you may realize.
As for tagging, you've got one piece of the puzzle there but if you believe tagging is essential (which I agree that it is) then why did MEARS award a 1992 Fisk in the current Mastro auction an A10 when in fact it is not only devoid of the typical team tagging but also includes retail neck tags?

"Troy: In no instances has MEARS ever issued the grade of an A5 for what is referred to in the industry as a retail jersey. ( a retail jersey most often does not include all of the traits of a game issued jersey)"

How can MEARS possibly know they've never given a retail jersey an A5 when Dave Grob has said that retail jerseys and gamers are "physically indiscernable"? Troy, you're completely right in saying that a retail jersey does not include all of the traits of a gamer. Please inform Dave Grob of that fact as he feels that there are no differences between the two and is thus forced to rely on some pilling and provenance. Dave says they're indiscernable, you say they're different. At least I agree with one of you.

"Troy: In almost all cases, these jerseys are missing some of the key identifying manufacturing characteristics that are found on team issued/game issued/ or game worn items only. Again, in almost all cases, there are some traits that distinguish a retail jersey from a game issued/worn item."

I couldn't agree more Troy. You've hit the nail on the head. Please inform Dave of your opinion that retail jerseys and gamers are different. Apparently, he feels they're identical which is a frightening scenario.

Finally here is the real answer:
"Troy: For clarification, the phrase in our criteria, ...may have been made for retail or promotion.. only applies and is awarded the A5 grade, when , after examination, all of the other manufacturing characteristics have been found to be present that must be present on a game issued/worn jersey."

If a jersey has been found to have "all of the manufacturing characteristics of a game-issued jersey" then why not call it a game-issued jersey?!

"Troy: The reason for the phrase to be included in our A5 defintion is in the case of a team's own auctions or charitities that may make game issued jerseys made available to the public. Therefore, a properly tagged jersey (team issued) may be offered for retail and promotion, and in this case, would be awarded the grade of an A5."

Troy, earlier you stated that your "understanding of a retail jersey is one that was made to be worn by fans". Here you state that you're calling a team-issued jersey a retail jersey because it may have been offered by the team via an auction or promotion. Follow your original idea; team-issued jerseys are not made to be worn by fans, therefore they are not retail jerseys. Whether they're offered by a team via auctions or charities is completely irrelevant. Such team-issued jerseys remain exactly that: team-issued. Retail jerseys are those not offered by a team. Just take the word retail out completely and call it what it is - a game-issued jersey. Calling a game-issued jersey a retail jersey is false and misleading. This is similar to the "photomatching" debacle where MEARS would state that jerseys were photomatched when they were in fact stylematched. Of course, this issue of semantics is a far cry from Dave Grob's explanation that the reason the A5 includes "retail jerseys" is because they're "physically indiscernable" from gamers. Troy, kudos for admitting the obvious that they are indeed different. Now all that's required is an authenticator who knows how to tell the differences without relying on grass stains and a letter from an athlete with a failing memory.

"Troy: Again, the A5 jersey is recognized as a jersey that is ready for game action and the amount of wear/use is measured".

Excellent, then don't call it a retail jersey because retail jerseys aren't made for game action. As you said, they're made for fans. Problem solved.

Rudy.

porsche544
04-05-2006, 06:12 PM
Why are auction houses marketing these MEARS A5 jerseys as game used? Are the auctions houses misleading its customers? Also, on the previous Vintage Authentics auction. There was an ICHIRO GAME ISSUED MEARS A5 LETTER AND ANOTHER AUCTION MARKETED AS ICHIRO GAME USED MEARS A5. I AM CONFUSED.

Gerald

kingjammy24
04-06-2006, 04:31 PM
Gerald,

I have a feeling you aren't the only one. Collectors and auction houses alike may be confused with MEARS' proprietary grading system. Why call something an A7, A8, A5 or whatever when you can just come out, in accepted hobby nomenclature, and call it "game issued", "retail", or "game used"? I have absolutely clue what the differences are between an A7 or A10 or A8 or A9 or A3 and I'm probably not alone.

The point of all this is that I'd suggest that the auction houses are not intentionally misleading their customers. Rather, if there's any sort of discrepancy between MEARS' grading system/definitions and an auction house description, I'd offer it's because the auction house, like many others, is confused as well. (I've read the MEARS A5 definition about 15 times now, for example, and it still puts my brain in knots. It reads like something a lawyer spent 4 hours cooking up). I can't imagine if I was poor Steve Jensen getting in 300 items, graded A8, A5, A9, A7, etc and trying to make heads or tails of it all. The auction houses' expertise lies in finding items, conducting the auction process, and running an auction business. They rely on third party authentication firms to handle the authentication side of things, which they should given the money they're paying these firms. They don't know if an item is game-used or game-issued or fake. That's why they hire third party authenticators. When the third party authenticator comes back and says "this jersey is an A5. Here's the headtwisting, 150 word definition of an A5", then there are bound to be some errors made. I've had some brief experience with Steve of Vintage Authentics and I get the cursory impression that he's a good guy who genuinely wants to run good auctions. If he mislabeled two A5 jerseys then it's probably because, like me, he got lost in the convoluted language of the A5.

By the way, speaking of VA, I think Steve and his company got a bum rap on the Carew glove incident. He pays MEARS to look at the glove, depends on their opinion for his business, it's found to be bad and exposed (even written about in a major newspaper for pete's sake), and MEARS turns around and says "we only said it was a model A2800 and that's it" thereby inadvertently pointing the finger back at the guy who paid them to look at it. Maybe I'm wrong, but do you really think someone would pay an authenticator to tell them just the model number? If you've got a glove that blatantly says "A2800" on it then are you really going to go pay an authenticator simply to tell you the model? Ludicrous. It's akin to taking a black bat to John Taube and paying him to tell you what color it is. Nobody in their right mind pays just for a tiny, obvious description of an item. They pay you to suss out some real information about the item.

Rudy.

porsche544
04-06-2006, 04:44 PM
Rudy,
Thank you for your response. I think Vintage Authentics is the only auction house that posts their LOA/COA available for viewing to its customers. I think that's great. I believe it is then up to buyers to do their homework based on what is given to them. I think all major auction houses should follow the same suit by allowing their COA/LOA to be viewed online.

thanks
Gerald

porsche544
04-06-2006, 06:57 PM
I saw this Mears LOA on EBAY and I wonder if they ever received permission from MLB, NBA and NFL for using their respective logos.

MSpecht
04-06-2006, 09:46 PM
Correct me if i am wrong, but isn't this letter another example of Rudy's assertion above ? All this LOA does is describe the jersey that the authenticators are (hopefully) looking at. There is no mention whether the manufacturer, tagging, etc is correct for the season. There is no mention of correct sizing or game use characteristics for the specific player,. There is no mention what the "evidence of game use" is. Taken literally, the opinion of "authentic game-used" is based solely on the source of the jersey, who is not named in the letter and possibly was not even disclosed to the authenticator.

This type of LOA reminds me of the classic definition of a cousultant as a person who, when you ask him what time it is, looks at your watch and tells you.

See my blog on The evolution of LOAs for more thoughts on this.

Mike

trsent
04-06-2006, 10:03 PM
Look at that letter - It is fake in every way.

It comes from MEARS with Grey Flannel's address on it?

It is signed by Keith Vari, who works for Grey Flannel?

I wonder if this letter is a faked letter that went with the guy who stole my images for a rookie LeBron James game used jersey I sold a few months ago with a MEARS letter. eBay ended his auctions a few times, but he kept coming back with similar auctions.

kingjammy24
04-07-2006, 01:12 PM
To be fair, here is what I think is undoubtedly a legit and recent MEARS LOO:

http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/8628/mears9ck.jpg

I believe it supports my original assertion as well as Mike Spechts. Namely,
please look at the LOO, which is the result of a paid authentication performed by "experts" and tell me if it answers these fundamental questions:

- are the name and number fonts correct?
- is the material correct?
- is the size correct for Garnett during that year?
- are there any size customizations (eg: extra length)? if not, should there be? (the LOO says "Player alterations: N/A". I don't know why they're not applicable)
- is the layout and kerning of the name and numbers correct?
- the LOO indicates there is no nameplate. Should there be one?
- should there be any patches?
- what sort of use is displayed?
- is the NBA logo correct in every aspect?

The LOO does not answer any of those questions. What does the LOO do? It's merely an obvious description and fails to render any sort of genuine authentication. How is the jersey authenticated when I still don't know the answers to the basic questions above?. The only authenticating that was done was in the "Properly tagged" and "Team repairs" category. I'd offer not to put too much stock in the answers to those categories because I've seen MEARS' LOOs that said jerseys were properly tagged when in fact they were not. (In all fairness to the authenticator named on this LOO and the only one who signed the corresponding worksheet, Dave Bushing, if my expertise was in bats, I probably wouldn't know what to say on a 1995 Timberwolves jersey either). In short, the LOO doesn't reveal anything that isn't already obvious to even the most novice eye.
For something really comedic, consider this: This LOO came from an Ebay auction. The auction description states "The visible signs of game use include dark sweat stains along the white part of the jersey neckline". Please tell me why an Ebay seller manages to describe the actual use when MEARS doesn't.

Rudy.