PHOTO MATCH ...expert please

[LEGEND33]

Photo match ?....

[mattmueller]

Although not an expert and I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately, I would say no to a photo match. To me photo match means there are a) distinguishing characteristics found and matched on both the jersey and photo(s), as well as b) no areas where the photo and jersey do not match. I don't see anything that is distinctive and meets criteria a.

Matt

[joelsabi]

Photo match ?....

i am not an expert but would like to tell you what i would be looking.
on the gettys image, i am looking at the stain on the 1 and on your photo of you jersey they only thing that stood out was the stitches under the armpit area.

i tried zoom in on the area on the armpit and the photo was too blurry to see a match.

the stain on the jersey is entirely missing on your jersey.


looks like a nice photo match.

would like feedfack if i am doing this right.

[joelsabi]

i am not an expert but would like to tell you what i would be looking.
on the gettys image, i am looking at the stain on the 1 and on your photo of you jersey they only thing that stood out was the stitches under the armpit area.

i tried zoom in on the area on the armpit and the photo was too blurry to see a match.

the stain on the jersey is entirely missing on your jersey.


looks like a nice photo match.

would like feedfack if i am doing this right.


photo attached for what i mentioned above


another i notice is the number placement. it looks to be place in the same position relative to the lettering. i dont know if this can be used. i drew lines but dont now if this is an accepted method but just throw it out there.

[joelsabi]

I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately
Matt

what does this refer too? curious.

[sportscentury]

Although not an expert and I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express lately, I would say no to a photo match. To me photo match means there are a) distinguishing characteristics found and matched on both the jersey and photo(s), as well as b) no areas where the photo and jersey do not match. I don't see anything that is distinctive and meets criteria a.

Matt

I agree with Matt. The photo is not of sufficient resolution to definitively say yes (and so you have to conclude no). However, I blew up the photos and it looks like you may have a match if you were able to get a higher resolution version of the photo. You may want to contact MeiGray. For example, there is what I call a "patch bump" at the base of the 2 that looks like it may match the 2 in the Getty image. There are some other similarities, but again, not enough to say it's a match. I've said it before and I'll say it again ... photomatching is not horseshoes. A photomatch is definitive and undeniable. Looks like you have a great jersey with very good potential for a photomatch.

As a general note, I am really enjoying all of the posts and threads on GUU that address issues of photomatching (or present possible photomatch items). I think this process is going to be a centerpiece of the hobby's future. Not only is it cool for the collector (I know I enjoy an item more after it has been photomatched), but it may well serve to help eliminate some of the hobby's persistent fraud. I say this solely as a collector, as I have no tie to any photomatching service such as MeiGray's whatsoever (just want to make this clear up front).

[sportscentury]

what does this refer too? curious.

Joel - you've never seen the Holiday Inn Express commercials? A few of them are gut-splitting funny. Go on youtube and see if you can find the one with Cal Ripken Jr. ... it is priceless.

[joelsabi]

so the stain on the one not being may mean it was washed? would that come off? if not then it cant be a match.

[sportscentury]

so the stain on the one not being may mean it was washed? would that come off? if not then it cant be a match.

I don't see a stain. I see a buckle in the number fabric which is very common in laundered jerseys. Unless the buckling in question is tight with a specific, involved pattern, I would hesitate to call a jersey photomatched based on it. Just my 2 cents.

[LEGEND33]

I noticed what you call "stain"...
No stain on my jersey, there is a sort of "wave" in the # 1 fabric probably due to washing

[joelsabi]

I don't see a stain. I see a buckle in the number fabric which is very common in laundered jerseys. Unless the buckling in question is tight with a specific, involved pattern, I would hesitate to call a jersey photomatched based on it. Just my 2 cents.

whats a buckle? is that the unevenness of the number due to washing?

[suicide_squeeze]

I agree with Matt. The photo is not of sufficient resolution to definitively say yes (and so you have to conclude no). However, I blew up the photos and it looks like you may have a match if you were able to get a higher resolution version of the photo. You may want to contact MeiGray. For example, there is what I call a "patch bump" at the base of the 2 that looks like it may match the 2 in the Getty image. There are some other similarities, but again, not enough to say it's a match. I've said it before and I'll say it again ... photomatching is not horseshoes. A photomatch is definitive and undeniable. Looks like you have a great jersey with very good potential for a photomatch.

As a general note, I am really enjoying all of the posts and threads on GUU that address issues of photomatching (or present possible photomatch items). I think this process is going to be a centerpiece of the hobby's future. Not only is it cool for the collector (I know I enjoy an item more after it has been photomatched), but it may well serve to help eliminate some of the hobby's persistent fraud. I say this solely as a collector, as I have no tie to any photomatching service such as MeiGray's whatsoever (just want to make this clear up front).

sportscentury,

I couldn't agree more. Photo matching is about the single most important way to take out any guesswork on an item, and it's the single-most important tool in the collecting hobby.

I would like to add that the "stain" on the one, refered to by joelsabi is not a stain, but a shade created by the large wrinkle in the jersey/number. It appears darker, like a stain, but is just shading, therefore the jersey in question would not have a stain going accross it as mentioned.

I think there is a very real (great, highly likely) chance that these jerseys are the same. It is just too tough to determine by this one picture. Obviously if there was a chance to obtain a few more pictures of the jersey, particularly the name and placement of the letters on the back in regards to the numbers....then you may have your proof.

Last comment is.....mattmueller hit the point that a distinguishing characteristic....ex. a crooked numer or letter, a loose thread, a thicker portion of the piping around the neck or arm, etc., is always the best in adding iron-clad proof it is one of the same.

Good luck in finding a few more pictures that give you your proof. Whatever you do, don't give up, I think you may have the jersey in the picture.

[sportscentury]

Just a brief note to clarify terminology. The word wrinkle in this thread is what I have always understood to be a buckle. Buckling in tackle twill numbers and numbers/patches made of other materials is often one of the first characteristics collectors look for to identify of laundering. So, wrinkle and buckle are used in this thread to mean the same thing.

I agree with everyone that there is a good chance that the jersey is the same one as shown in the in-action photo. MeiGray could end the mystery pretty quickly. They just did Allen Iverson's final Nuggets road jersey for me.

[sportscentury]

whats a buckle? is that the unevenness of the number due to washing?

Joel - yes, this is exactly correct. See my last post (post 13 in this thread).

.

[LEGEND33]

found another picture....

[LEGEND33]

World B. Free