MEARS' Evaluations Continue to Baffle...

[aeneas01]

dave grob recently and publicly informed troy kinunen and rob lifson, in an open letter at the mears site, that a paul molitor jersey hailing "from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticators david bushing and/or troy kinunen", that was evaluated and graded by mears and sold through rea, was awarded an undeserving a8 based on the very grading criteria set forth by mears. further, dave directed kinunen and lifson to contact the buyer of the $4,000 jersey.

the decision by dave to address this matter was undoubtedly prompted by a post by rudy in another thread (lebron jersey - a5, auction item discussion) in which rudy pointed out very valid issues concerning the grade this jersey received.

while i applaud dave's public addressing of this issue (which can be found at the mears site, current news section), i think those reading the article would be better served if dave made it perfectly clear that a) a collector, not mears, uncovered this issue and b) that such lapses are especially disconcerting when they pertain to items owned and sold by mears personnel, as was the case with the molitor jersey.

on another front, i recently discovered that post-'87, sub a10 jerseys are not listed by rea with the term "game used" in the lot title (at least that's been the case this year and last year) regardless, apparently, of the circumstances surrounding the jersey. i suggested in another thread that perhaps it would be a good idea if rea made this practice clear to consignors.

in fact one recent consignor was very unhappy (and rightfully so imo) that his post-'87 elway jersey was not listed as "game used" by rea despite mears having started it with an a10 base (due to provenance and other attributes) with two points deducted for alterations resulting in an a8. troy kinunen's response to the consignor was:

"Rob Lifson has a long history of added caution when listing items. Many of his bats, (many of which Dave Bushing and/or I have consigned) were listed as Professional Model in the title, without the use of the phrase game used. This is a professional choice of REA auctions, and one that is respected by many members of the auction community."

troy's comments to the consignor clearly imply that it's rea (rob lifson), not mears, that makes these decisions. but after further pressing by the consignor, rob responded with the following:

"I just spoke with both Tom D'Alonzo at REA, who works directly with MEARS for our company, and also with Troy Kinunen. This is what they both had to say: The Elway jersey could not possibly have had the phrase "Game-Used" in the title based on MEARS policy simply because it is a post-1987 jersey that was not accompanied by documented provenance... My understanding is that if I had identified the jersey as "Game-Used" in the title, this would have been contrary to MEARS policies, and they would have actually requested that I remove this attribution from the title...I am cc'ing Troy Kinunen so that he can verify my understanding that the title of this jersey was correct without the phrase "Game-Used" in the title according to MEARS policy, and that REA would have been requested to remove this phrase had it been included, according to MEARS policy, based on the fact that this is a post-1987 without relevant accompanying documented provenance."

so, despite what troy had told the consignor, it turns out that it's actually mears that dictates how rea (lifson) lists items evaluated by mears, not lifson/rea - and in a complete about-face, troy eventually confirms this. in fact troy eventually tells the consignor that rea is actually bound by a contractual agreement to list mears-evaluated items as they appear in mears' loo:

"I have been following this debate and need to interject. Rob's listing of your Elway jersey was in accordance with the language set forth in the contract signed between REA and MEARS. If you note the title of the MEARS letter, the phrase game worn was not included, therefore Rob was contractually committed to follow the title per our LOO."

so what on earth was with all of that "rob lifson, long history, added caution, rea's professional choice" talk troy was telling the consignor?

as i mentioned, rea does not include the term "game used" in the lot titles of the post-'87, sub a10 jerseys they list. and apparently rea is also bound by what mears tells them they can or can't say when it comes to mears-evaluated items. so why doesn't this policy extend to mears' own auctions or mears' "items for sale" section - both are littered with post-'87, sub a10 jerseys with "game used" or "game worn" in the lot title. what would happen, for example, if i was the winner of lot #1109 found in mears' last auction, an item described in the lot title as a "1993 rose miami dolphins game used preseason road jersey (mears a4.5)? could i flip it at rea expecting rea to list it in exactly the same manner? apparently i couldn't!

in fact just about every post-'87, sub a10 jersey sold through mears' auctions and mears' "items for sale" section with "game used" or "game worn" in the lot title could not be sold as such at mears' one and only preferred and recommended auction house - rea. can someone please explain this to me?

apparently dave grob found mears' practice of listing these type of jerseys, especially a5 shirts, with the term "game used" or "game worn" in their lot descriptions to be as confounding as i. in fact dave asked mears to knock it off - in part:

"The issue is, and one I feel does have merit, is how is that then items graded A5 (not pre-1987 items that may have lost points of team name changes etc…) be listed as “game worn jerseys?” If the jersey could in fact be one such offering as an extra or one manufactured for promotional sale or distribution and the use and wear and only noted and not attributed, then describing it in a generic title listing as “game used” is not consistent with the language or logic of the A5 grade. I have made my feelings known to Troy in this matter and have suggested that these items be listed without this language in the title."

browsing through mears' auction archives and items for sale, even recent ones, it's pretty clear that mears has chosen to ignore dave in this matter.


dave grob's "game used" recommendations:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1218320275/The+A5+Grade+and+Listings+on+the+Bushing+%26amp%3B +Kinunen+For+Sale+Section

"game used" 4.5 dolphins jersey sold at mears' auction:
http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=3359

mears' items for sale - jerseys:
http://www.mearsonline.com/forsale/results/?page=8&title=jersey&cat=-1

mears' last auction - jerseys:
http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/catalog.aspx?category=16&auctionid=6


...

[jonincleve]

robert i love your posts and they are very informative.

the sentence you wrote about rea being mears only one and preferred auction house i believe is misleading. i think mears went through and sent letters to every auction house saying that they wanted to be associated with 'transparent' auction houses. listing items as 'auction house' owned. etc... rea was one of the few/only one that agreed with their policy.

personally i understand what mears is trying to do, but the grading system is very confusing. why even grade a procut? also there is an inherent conflict of interest of grading AND selling your items no matter how you do it. either you are the best game used grading company out there or you are the best game used selling company out there.

my other .02 is that i think mears does have the best intentions of any grading company. just need to tighten up the ship a little bit.

take care
john

[kingjammy24]

the issues surrounding david archibald's elway jersey were an offshoot from the "Lebron - A5" story but it still highlighted serious deficiencies in the MEARS system.

when this recent round of the elway issues began, REA's initial explanation was that they were uncomfortable calling the jersey "game used" because of the handwarmer/crotchpiece issues. (in fact, the jersey does not have a "crotchpiece" as MEARS states but that's another story). i found this confusing because the piece was graded an A8 and it seemed that rob lifson was "overruling" MEARS in a sense. after all, MEARS had simply said that the jersey was worn in '92 and the handwarmer was likely in '93. rob lifson seemed to doubt the entire authenticity of the jersey itself. when troy was first asked about it, he stated that "The staff at REA was not comfortable calling the Elway game worn based on the undocumented addition of the Elway handwarmer". personally, i didn't understand how the staff at REA had the experience and knowledge to make such a call. of course none of this turned out to be the truth. REA and MEARS later revealed that the real reason behind the lack of a "game used" heading was that it went against MEARS policy.

specifically, REA stated "The Elway jersey could not possibly have had the phrase "Game-Used" in the title based on MEARS policy simply because it is a post-1987 jersey that was not accompanied by documented provenance....My understanding is that if I had identified the jersey as "Game-Used" in the title, this would have been contrary to MEARS policies, and they would have actually requested that I remove this attribution from the title... I am cc'ing Troy Kinunen so that he can verify my understanding that the title of this jersey was correct without the phrase "Game-Used" in the title according to MEARS policy, and that REA would have been requested to remove this phrase had it been included, according to MEARS policy, based on the fact that this is a post-1987 without relevant accompanying documented provenance."

ok so apparently a post-1987 jersey without documented provenance cannot be called "game used" as stipulated by MEARS right?

wrong. as robert pointed out, MEARS has no problems calling it's own post-1987 jerseys with no documented provenance "game used", not only in its "for sale" section but also in its auctions. to wit:

1997 Green Bay Packers Doug Evans #33 Home Game Worn Jersey - A5
http://www.mearsonline.com/forsale/item/?id=1176

1998 Carolina Panthers Paul Janus #74 Road Game Worn Jersey - A5
http://www.mearsonline.com/forsale/item/?id=1593

1999 Kansas City Chiefs Wasswa Serwanga #29 Home Game Worn Jersey - A5
http://www.mearsonline.com/forsale/item/?id=2085

i could go on and on. apparently the MEARS policies don't allow for REA to call their post-1987 jerseys with no provenance "game used" but those same MEARS policies don't apply to MEARS' own items. excellent. some say it's "confusing" but i think that'd be a charitable understatement.

i also find it confusing that the MEARS LOO on the elway jersey stated that "..MEARS is confident this jersey was most likely originally worn during the 1992 season..". MEARS says they're confident the jersey was worn but they don't permit REA to call it worn. what?!

as robert mentioned, it's the absolute height of idiocy to be able to go to mearsonline.com, purchase a post-1987 A5 sold as "game worn", submit it to REA and then be told that MEARS' policies do not allow it to be called "game worn". of course they do! only on mearsonline.com though.

i think one of the most troublesome aspects to all of these errors is that they constantly seem to be in MEARS' favor. where are the A4s sold by troy and dave that they later re-graded to A8s? why is it the collector that's regularly receiving the short end of the stick on these "mistakes"?

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

..there is an inherent conflict of interest of grading AND selling your items no matter how you do it.

i have real trouble seeing the objectivity in two of the hobby's biggest dealers operating an authentication service AND an auction house where they also grade their own items. disclosure or not. MEARS never addresses this conflict. all they ever say is collectors can decide if they're comfortable with it. for most collectors, if it means acquiring a piece they really like, they'll put up with all sorts of nonsense. it doesn't make it any less nonsensical. it just means people are putting up with it. many collectors were angry at mastro's undisclosed alterations to cards. it hardly addresses the issue for doug allen to have said "hey, if you don't like it, don't buy it".

before MEARS ran their own auction house and were still soliciting auction house contracts, they railed about the importance of true third party authentication. apparently when they opened up their own auction house, true third party authentication suddenly wasn't so important.

what's good for MEARS apparently isn't good for others. REA can't run post-1987, sub-A10 jerseys as "game worn" but MEARS can.

i'm sure this will make troy livid as usual until he's confronted with irrefutable evidence of MEARS' egregious inconsistencies and then he becomes very silent.

rudy.

[nyjetsfan14]

I am often accused of over simplifying but I believe the issue lies in a "grading system" and that is where the conversation should focus (i think this has been touched on by others in previous threads). I am not totally against a grading system (and not enamored with one either) but only AFTER an an item has been determined to be 100% genuine/authentic and game worn/used. Because, as we all know, either a piece is genuine/authentic and game worn/used or it isn't. That is a pretty simple deduction. I know authenticators would generate a little less profit on this premis and have to turn away a few more items but... Than after it has been determined to be 100% game used I suppose a grading system could be employed - basically for desirability reasons. The problem with these grading systems as they currently exist is they give authenticators an out for writing paper work for bad items or items they aren't 100% sure about yet they can still collect authentication fees and the items can still be marketed as game worn/used.

Matthew

[aeneas01]

as robert mentioned, it's the absolute height of idiocy to be able to go to mearsonline.com, purchase a post-1987 A5 sold as "game worn", submit it to REA and then be told that MEARS' policies do not allow it to be called "game worn". of course they do! only on mearsonline.com though. i think one of the most troublesome aspects to all of these errors is that they constantly seem to be in MEARS' favor....

when one weighs the inconsistencies in mears' grading system and lot descriptions, it's not too difficult to understand why a consignor might entertain suspicions when his hall of fame qb jersey isn't listed with "game used" in the title, but one owned and consigned by mears is. such was the case in rea's last auction when both a consignor's elway and a mears' marino were featured.

looking at mears' auction archives you find this - two a5 shirts, without "game used" featured in the lot titles, that didn't sell:

Lot #258: 1990 circa Pat Corrales Philadelphia Phillies Road Old Timers Jersey (MEARS A5)
Lot #262: 1990's (early) Moe Drabowsky All-Star Old Timers Jersey (MEARS A5)

and in mears' very next auction? the same a5 shirts, listed once again, but this time around with "game used" added to the lot title:

Lot #585: 1990-95 Pat Corrales Philadelphia Phillies Old Timers All-Star Game Game Used Jersey (MEARS A5)
Lot #590: 1991-95 Moe Drabowsky Philadelphia Phillies Old Timers All-Star Game Game Used Jersey (MEARS A5)

how are collectors supposed to interpret this sort of thing, this sort of practice? could mears argue that this was just a mistake? or does it appear pretty obvious that mears employs a sliding scale when it comes to describing their items?

and what about mears' use of "game jersey" in the lot titles of many of their a5 type shirts? is this a way around dave grob's recommendation that mears put a stop to describing a5 type shirts as "game used" or "game worn"? if so, it's a rather poor stab at compliance:

Lot #501: 1989/93 Don Maggs Denver Broncos Home Game Jersey (MEARS A5): In an 8-year career at various positions on the OL, Maggs spent the final two of those years at Mile High Stadium, with this jersey worn by him in the first of those two years...

as i mentioned before, dave grob is aware of this rather questionable practice, describing a5 type shirts as "game used" or "game worn", and has in the past asked mears to knock it off. in fact dave did his own quick audit of mears' onsite sales outlets last year and immediately found that the following shirts available for sale were not described accurately, per mears' criteria - dave grob:

Incorrectly Listed:

1994 Mark McGwire Oakland Athletics Road Game Worn Jersey A5
1996 New York Yankees Wade Boggs #12 Road Game Worn Road Jersey (Ex-Barry Halper Auction) A5
1997 Mark McGwire Oakland A's Final Season Game Jersey (with Jackie Robinson Patch) A5
1999 Ken Griffey Jr. Seattle Mariners Alternate Game Jersey A5
2002 Atlanta Braves Gary Sheffield #11 Road Game Worn Jersey A5
2003-04 Colorado Rockies road #33 Larry Walker Game Jersey A5
2005 Minnesota Twins Johan Santana #57 Batting Practice Worn Jersey A5
2005-2006 Seattle Mariners Richie Sexson #44 Alternate Game Worn Jersey A5

dave pointed out that these shirts only represented the baseball shirts he happened to look at and still needed to check out the other shirts as well (football, basketball, etc.). a full year later, nothing has changed - here's just a small sampling:

Lot #573: 1989 Roger Mason Houston Astros Batting Practice Used Jersey (MEARS A3)
Lot #653: 2000-01 Ricky Bones Florida Marlins Home Game Used Jersey (MEARS A4.5)
Lot #758: 1994 Drew Denson Chicago White Sox Alternate Game Used Jersey (MEARS A5)
Lot #759: 1997 Roberto Hernandez Chicago White Sox Game Used Alternate Jersey (MEARS A6.5)
Lot #760: 1999 Chris Haney Cleveland Indians Game Used Home Jersey (MEARS A6.5)
Lot #762: 2001 John Parrish Baltimore Orioles Game Used Home Jersey - Post 9/11 (MEARS A6.5)
Lot #1070: 1995 Perry University of Miami Hurricanes Game Used Road Jersey (MEARS A5)
Lot #1108: 1991 Harvey Salem Denver Broncos Game Used Road Jersey (MEARS A8)
Lot #1109: 1993 Rose Miami Dolphins Game Used Preseason Road Jersey (MEARS A4.5)
Lot #517: 1991 Green Bay Packers Vai Sikahema #45 Road Game Worn Jersey (MEARS A5)
Lot #518: 1991 Miami Dolphins Lang #14 Road Game Worn Jersey (Preseason) (MEARS A3)
Lot #520: 1992-93 Miami Dolphins Larry Webster #79 Home Game Worn Jersey (MEARS A4)
Lot #523: 1995 Miami Hurricanes Perry #73 road game-worn jersey (MEARS A5)
Lot #524: 1995-1996 Green Bay Packer Earl Dotson #72 Road Game Worn Jersey (MEARS A6)
Lot #290: 1988 Joe Boever Atlanta Braves game-worn jersey (MEARS A6.5)
Lot #291: 1987-89 Trey Junkin Los Angeles Raiders game-worn jersey MEARS A5
Lot #294: 1989-90 Mitchell Wiggins Houston Rockets game-worn jersey MEARS A5
Lot #590: 1989 Cincinnati Bengals Reggie Williams #57 Home Game Worn Jersey MEARS A5

of course none of these shirts, nor the many others not listed, could be sold through rea with the same lot titles given that rea does not list post-'87, sub a10 shirts as game used. some sort of non-competition contractual arrangement between mears and rea? who knows. twilight zone.


the sentence you wrote about rea being mears only one and preferred auction house i believe is misleading. i think mears went through and sent letters to every auction house saying that they wanted to be associated with 'transparent' auction houses. listing items as 'auction house' owned. etc... rea was one of the few/only one that agreed with their policy.

jon, thanks for pointing this out and i stand corrected - mears in fact makes it clear that they aren't in the business of recommending or rating other auction houses:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/mearz.jpg


however i would argue that "transparency" wasn't what kept most auction houses from partnering with mears; asking that auction houses divulge client lists, among other information, to a company with auction aspirations was probably quite a deal breaker. anyway, rea is the only auction house listed in mears' "auction house links" section and the only auction house that seems to have partnered with mears. as such it's rather odd that rea doesn't/won't/can't list post-'87, sub a10 items using the same language as mears...


my other .02 is that i think mears does have the best intentions of any grading company. just need to tighten up the ship a little bit.

personally, i like much of what mears does, especially many of their articles featured in their "current news" section. their grading "system"? for the birds. truly. not even an "almost works". fraught with inconsistencies and enormous subjectivity. and nothing short of comical at times.

...

[zonker]

R.E.A. does run post 1987 as game used, here's an example. there are "other" catagories they could be listed under. http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images_items/thumbs/thumb_Item_12694_1.jpg (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=12694#pic) LOT 1234: 1997 Mark McGwire Oakland A's Home Jersey
Category: Game-Used Jerseys/Equipment (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/default.aspx?catid=41)
http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images/bid_button_mouse.gifBid (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=12694#bid) http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images/description_button_nomouse.gifDescription (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=12694#desc)


CURRENT BID: $800.00

Start: 4/8/2009 11:00:00 AM EST
End: 5/3/2009 3:58:05 AM EST
Time Left For Initial Bid:
STARTING BID: $200.00

BID COUNT: 10 (Bid History (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/biddetail.aspx?itemid=12694&auctionid=15))
http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images/watch_button_nomouse.gifAdd to Watchlist (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/watchlist.aspx?itemid=12694)
http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images/question_button.gifEmail Robert Edward Auctions (http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/question.aspx?itemid=12694)
DESCRIPTIONMark McGwire Oakland A’s home jersey dating to his final season with the club, in 1997. The white knit jersey is lettered “Oakland” across the front and features the number “25” on both the left breast and reverse. “McGwire” is lettered on the reverse above the number. All letters and numbers are appliquéd in green on gold tackle twill. A 1997 anniversary patch commemorating the 50th anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s Major League debut appears on the right sleeve, while an Oakland A’s 30th anniversary patch (“1968-1997”) adorns the left sleeve. Situated on the left front tail are a “Russell Athletic 48” label, and two overlapping flag tags reading, respectively, “2 inch Extra Length” and “Tapered Body.” Although no year tag is present, the two year-specific patches conclusively date the jersey to 1997. Aside from the tapered waist (done specifically for McGwire) the jersey is original and unaltered, displaying light wear. McGwire appeared in 105 games with the Athletics in 1997 before being traded to the St. Louis Cardinals, where he was reunited with former A’s manager Tony LaRussa. Oakland fans were certainly sorry to see him go, as he was in the midst of what appeared to be an historic season. McGwire had already tallied 34 home runs and was on pace to challenge Roger Maris’ long-standing single-season home run record. He eventually added 24 more home runs with the Cardinals, finishing the year with 58 home runs, just three shy of the record. In doing so he became the first Major League player to hit 20 or more home runs with two different teams in the same season and the first to hit the most home runs in a season without qualifying as the home run champion in either league. The following year, of course, he shattered Maris’ single-season home run record by hitting 70 home runs. He finished his career in 2001 with 583 home runs, which ranks eighth on the all-time list. Graded A5 by MEARS (no post-1987 jersey can achieve a higher grade than A5 without additional provenance). This jersey has been consigned to this auction directly from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticator Troy Kinunen. LOA from Troy Kinunen/MEARS. Reserve $200. Estimate $400+. http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images_items/thumbs/thumb_Item_12694_1.jpghttp://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images_items/thumbs/thumb_Item_12694_2.jpghttp://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images_items/thumbs/thumb_Item_12694_3.jpghttp://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/images_items/thumbs/thumb_Item_12694_4.jpg

[aeneas01]

R.E.A. does run post 1987 as game used, here's an example. there are "other" catagories they could be listed under.

we're talking about rea not using the term "game used" in the lot description title when listing post-'87, sub a10 shirts. your mcgwire example further illustrates the point given that rea described it as a "1997 Mark McGwire Oakland A's Home Jersey", not a "1997 Mark McGwire Game Used Oakland A's Home Jersey".

troy kinunen tried to claim that this was a "professional choice" exercised by rea. then troy admitted that rea was actually bound by a contractual agreement to word items (including lot titles) according to how mears described the items in their evaluations. so, apparently, it's mears that doesn't allow rea to describe post-'87, sub a10 shirts as "game used" in the lot title.

yet mears does it all of the time at their site, in their auction section and their items for sale section. why would mears feel that it was ok to describe post-'87, sub a10 shirts as "game used" in their lot titles but not ok for rea to do the same? especially when it comes to a5 type shirts? mears' policy guy, dave grob, thinks it's bush and has asked mears to quit - yet mears continues to do so.

some, perhaps even mears, would argue that excluding the term "game-used" in a lot description title is no big deal - well in the case of rea's last auction, a consignor's elway gamer (jersey) would not have shown up if a prospective buyer searched lot titles using term "game-used" - but mears' marino gamer would have.

i think it's pretty clear that having the term "game used" or "game worn" in the lot description title is advantageous to the consignor - tough to argue otherwise imo. in fact i think it's pretty clear that mears (and troy) understand that it's advantageous as well given mears listed a couple of a5 shirts without the term in one of their auctions (the shirts didn't sell), and then relisted them again in their next auction using the term "game used".

...

[aeneas01]

btw, in response to the discussion going on at the "lebron jersey-a5" thread, troy kinunen promised the following:

"I plan on writing an article about the purpose and the benefits of the A5 grade, as although not a perfect system, when proper understood, it offers the collective collecting community very important data that it can use to make informed collecting decisions."

that was close to two weeks ago and nothing yet. but when he does get around to it hopefully he will also address a) why mears continues to describe a5 style shirts for sale at their site as "game used" despite grob's valid concerns, b) why rea isn't allowed to describe shirts in the same manner (is it indeed due to a contractual agreement?) and c) why mears feels it's ok to edit an a5's lot title to include the term "game used" when it doesn't sell the first time around without this term included in the lot title.

...

[aeneas01]

my other .02 is that i think mears does have the best intentions of any grading company. just need to tighten up the ship a little bit.

john, check out the jersey lots in mears' last two auctions (apr/09 & may/09), note the lots that have adjusted grades (additions and/or subtractions), read the final grade explanations (a5 base, 2 point deduction for xyz, etc.) and then let me know if you still believe that mears "just needs to tighten up the ship a little bit". you know what i think? if you check out these lots, and compare the grades, i think you will say to yourself "holy sh...". and i think that you will include yourself with the many others that just assumed mears was employing some sort of consistent, logical grading system that made sense, not strained it.

here's what i found after looking at 59 shirts with adjusted grades from mears' last two auctions:

1. "player characteristics" can apparently be worth 1.5 or 3 points - the mears owned molitor shirt that dave grob called out received the 3 point version, go figure. of the shirts i looked at, 7 got the 1.5 point nod and 7 got the 3 point nod.

2. while technically "player charactersitics", mears uses other terms such as "player traits/wear", "player traits/use", just plain "player traits", "player customizations & wear" and "player customizations" - these can be worth 1.5 or 3 points. one of the shirts i looked at received 1.5 points for exhibiting "player traits/use" while another one i looked at received 3 points for "player traits/wear". you got me.

3. "team characteristics" can also fetch 1.5 points or 3 points.

4. here's a weird one - of the 59 shirts i looked at only one was given credit for being a "common player", good for 1.5 points. and, get this, the same shirt was docked 2 points for "unable to identify player". anyway i thought it was odd that only one shirt got a "common player" credit given that i looked at other common player shirts.

5. "removed nameplate", "missing nob", "nob removed", "missing name on back", "restored nameplate" and "nameplate change" - mears' terms that i came across that were all good for a 2 point clip. if it concerns the nameplate/nob, 2 points are gonna get zapped. consistent at least? but, and i'm not a shirt guy, don't nameplate changes come with the territory, something that's a part of life in college/pro sports?

6. "unidentified player", "unable to identify player", "lack of player id" and "no player identification" - all terms that i came across that i took to mean roughly (?) the same thing. for "unidentified player" alone, i found point deductions of 1, 2 and 3. all told, point deductions ranged from 1 to 4 points.

7. "peeling & cracking" will cost you 1 point but "cracking & fading" will cost you 1.5 points. "fading" will cost you 1.5 points but "tag fading" will cost you 1 point. a "replaced button"? .5 points. a "replaced zipper"? 1 point.

8. "trimmed sleeves" will set you back .5 points but a "tail trim" will cost you four times as much, 2 points. "number changes"? a 2 point deduction. "name & number changes"? 2 points as well - apparently letter changes are a freebie when combined with number changes.

here's a breakdown of the additions and subtractions i came across - the "points" column is the amount of points added or subtracted per each term i found and the "occur." column reflects how many times i came across the term/points combo. example: i found 7 occurrences of "player characteristics" worth 3 points and 3 occurrences of "player traits/wear worth 3 points.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/mearz001.png


some more findings:

1. lot 519 was graded an a3, despite an a5 base and a -3 point deduction for "unidentified player" (sb an a2, not a3). lot 607 was graded an a5 despite an a5 base, 3 point addition for "player characteristics" and a 1 point deduction for "missing year tag" (sb an a7, not a5). lot 226 was graded an a1 despite an a10 base, -3 for multi-player use, -2 for loose lettering, -2 for number changes and -1 for missing patch (sb an a2, not an a1). moral? if mears miscalculates grades on their own stuff, it would behoove collectors to double check the math on any mears worksheets they might have.

2. "team provenance" is worth 3 points. "team provenance" with a team letter is worth 5 points. what sort of provenance does mears consider good enough for the 3 point "team provenance" version i wonder? apparently a team letter is not required given a letter would get you the 5 point "team provenance" model.

3. lot 527 isn't a post-'87 shirt yet it was started with a base of a5 (should have been started with an a10 base) and it was given 3 additional points for "team characteristics" for a total grade of a8. if this shirt was graded correctly per mears' criteria, would it have scored an a10? the 3 points (team characteristics) would have already been included in the a10 base and, since it wasn't deducted any other points, it would've had to receive an a10, no?

4. the 1992 elway shirt sold at rea was assigned an a10 start point (according to mears' criteria it should have started with an a5) and was deducted 2 points for alterations resulting in a final a8 grade. if it was graded correctly, it should have started with an a5 base, been given 3 points for "team provenance" (couldn't get 5 points because there's no team letter, right?) and then docked 2 points for alterations resulting in an a6 final grade, no?

5. lot 477 was a 1984 shirt but was treated as a post-'87 shirt. it was started with an a5 base (instead of an a10 base), was given 2 points for "team characteristics", docked 2 for "two player jersey" and 1 for "peeling & cracking" resulting in a final grade of a4. if it was graded correctly it would have started with an a10, "team characteristics" would have been included in the a10, and (i guess) it would have been docked the same 3 points mentioned above for a score of a7. a4 vs a7. ouch. this is the work mears did on their OWN shirt! wow!

lots more, i could go on and on, but i'll spare you. check into it, you'll find the same. but you get the idea. not exactly what one might call a system that just needs to be tightened up a bit, know what i mean? and that's why i stated:

"their (mears') grading "system"? for the birds. truly. not even an "almost works". fraught with inconsistencies and enormous subjectivity. and nothing short of comical at times."

and, of course, there's the whole stylematching thing - mears claims they stylematch items when they don't. rudy challenged troy to produce 3 stylematched photos that mears claimed they used for 3 shrts (a couple of bp shirts and a vintage flannel) and troy hasn't. rudy even upped the ante saying that he would print out and eat the stylematches if troy could produce them. troy still hasn't coughed them up. because he doesn't have them. because mears continues to claim they "stylematch" items when they don't.

dave grob recently posted a thread at mears stating that perhaps it's time to "re-look" the a5 thing. apparently dave plans to submit an article on the topic as well. troy, two weeks ago, promised to do the same but hasn't. anyway i would suggest that dave and/or troy save their time and instead do a piece on "re-looking" the entire mears grading thing. as in shelving it. it doesn't work. not even close.

...

[Fraudfinder!!]

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=652

[silkman22]

I just saw the listing below posted on eBay. See the MEARS letter - the jersey has 2 points deducted for having a nameplate removed but somehow manages to get 1.5 points added in for "player characteristics".

How is this possible? The jersey looks new and barely worn yet shows player characteristics? How would one figure out or know the characteristics of Ricky Bones?

It appears to me that points can be added in when convenient.

Any thoughts?

http://cgi.ebay.com/2000-RICKY-BONES-FLORIDA-MARLINS-GAME-WORN-JERSEY-A4-5_W0QQitemZ200349931722QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_SM_Fa n_Shop?hash=item2ea5c958ca&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A10%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318%7 C301%3A0%7C293%3A1%7C294%3A50

JP

[otismalibu]

Ricky Bones? Eve Massive?

Don't make me start a Show Us Your Best Adult Film Name Gamers thread.

[Marichal27]

MEARS is a joke. The stupid grading on game used jerseys. They are either game used or not. One or the other. They are another bunch that are down there with Lampson, and the other degenerates.

[sportscentury]

MEARS is a joke. The stupid grading on game used jerseys. They are either game used or not. One or the other. They are another bunch that are down there with Lampson, and the other degenerates.

MEARS has made some mistakes, but this comparison is way over the top.

[mvandor]

MEARS has made some mistakes, but this comparison is way over the top.

WAY over.

[Marichal27]

MEARS has made some mistakes, but this comparison is way over the top.
My take is you think MEARS is ok overall. Correct me if I'm wrong.Most of these authenticators are jokes. I collect SF Giants jerseys, and I wish Dick Dobbins was still alive. If he saw what has happened to this hobby, he would get sick to his stomach. You'd never have half of the BS that goes on with these so called authenticators. MEARS will give a jersey of A!) or whatever their highest grade is, especially if they have a financial stake with the item.

[joelsabi]

btw, in response to the discussion going on at the "lebron jersey-a5" thread, troy kinunen promised the following:

[SIZE=2]"I plan on writing an article about the purpose and the benefits of the A5 grade, as although not a perfect system, when proper understood, it offers the collective collecting community very important data that it can use to make informed collecting decisions."



has this article been written yet on the A5 grade?