1997 McGwire Cards Road - ebay

[mattmueller]

Listed on ebay is a 1997 Cards Road McGwire jersey. They recently updated the listing with a photo of the tag, listed below. All other 1997 Rawlings I have seen have a flag tag on them, not this strip.

ebay ID# is 140328130215

http://i.ebayimg.com/21/!BU5gIL!!2k~$(KGrHgoOKkIEjlLmVUyCBKP2n4Pl8!~~_12.J PG (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140328130215&indexURL=0&photoDisplayType=2#ebayphotohosting)

Any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks,
Matt

[hblakewolf]

Matt-

I've seen plenty of Cardinal gamers from 1997, and never tagging similar to the jersey on ebay.

Here's a shot of a 1997 that has the traditional tagging that I've seen on all Cardinal gamers from that season:

22796

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

[mattmueller]

Howard:

Thanks for the feedback. Side question, is that jersy a spring training jersey (from the patch?).

Matt

[hblakewolf]

Howard:

Thanks for the feedback. Side question, is that jersy a spring training jersey (from the patch?).

Matt

Matt-
According to the AMI description, yes. It was worn for the regular season 1997, then spring 1998.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

[Birdbats]

I've never seen a '97 Cardinals jersey tagged like the McGwire. There were a few Cardinals jerseys in '92 that had strip tagging (first year they switched from pullovers to button-down shirts), but every '97 I've seen had the common flag tags like the shot Howard posted.

I've been told that many, if not most '97 Cardinals jerseys were recycled for spring training 1998. They removed the Jackie Robinson patches and replaced them with spring training patches. I don't think I've ever seen a jersey with the 1998 Roger Dean patch that wasn't tagged 1997. In 1998, the Cardinals updated their birds-on-bat logo and I'm pretty sure that logo didn't debut until opening day.

[hblakewolf]

Matt-

I'm in complete agreement with Jeff, and after re-reading the Ebay description, noticed it has a LOA from Grey Flannel clearly stating it is 100% original and was game worn by MAC in 1997. The LOA is signed by Rich Russek:

26398

Have you tried to contact Rich to learn what type of research or information allowed him to determine this is a MAC 1997 gamer?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

[hblakewolf]

Here's the LOA:

22797






Matt-

I'm in complete agreement with Jeff, and after re-reading the Ebay description, noticed it has a LOA from Grey Flannel clearly stating it is 100% original and was game worn by MAC in 1997. The LOA is signed by Rich Russek:

26398

Have you tried to contact Rich to learn what type of research or information allowed him to determine this is a MAC 1997 gamer?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

[sox83cubs84]

I must agree with Jeff: a strip tag on a 1997 Cardinals gamer doesn't sound proper.

Dave M.
Chicago area

[rj_lucas]

What's this? A questionable McGwire jersey on eBay, with LOA from Grey Flannel?

I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[mattmueller]

Howard - I have not attempted to contact Grey Flannel to question their LOA on the item. As I may want to participate in one of their auctions in the future, I likely will not do so. That point aside, in my opinion, since the seller of the jersey is a) acting as an agent in the sale of the jersey and b) relying upon the LOA from Grey Flannel as the primary evidence of authenticity, its on the seller to alleviate concerns a buyer has on the unusual nature of the tagging.

Rick - Thank you for adding to the educational nature of the forum....

Matt

[rj_lucas]

Point taken. Here's an educational observation. The Grey Flannel LOA states the nature of the item as being "in our opinion".

As established by commercial speech case law, a business cannot be found for commercial fraud if presenting information to the consumer in the form of opinion.

Can we assume that GF is aware of this fact, even if most consumers are not? How did this jersey originally enter the marketplace? Could it have been through a GF auction per chance?

The doctrine of caveat emptor has been the rule of law in the U.S. since 1817, and with good reason. Good luck with the rest of your schooling.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[rj_lucas]

Sorry Matt, I forgot to add...

GO HAWKEYES!

:D

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[mattmueller]

Hey, whats not to like about that, a lawyer from Iowa. Actually, that is cool, its kinda like finding a snowman in Hawaii. Insert your favorite smiley dodiddle here.

Just kidding of course.

Oh, forgot to add... Go Badgers.

Now back to the regularly scheduled commentary on if anybody has ever seen a strip tag on a 1997 Rawlings Cards jersey.

[hblakewolf]

Point taken. Here's an educational observation. The Grey Flannel LOA states the nature of the item as being "in our opinion".

As established by commercial speech case law, a business cannot be found for commercial fraud if presenting information to the consumer in the form of opinion.

Can we assume that GF is aware of this fact, even if most consumers are not? How did this jersey originally enter the marketplace? Could it have been through a GF auction per chance?

The doctrine of caveat emptor has been the rule of law in the U.S. since 1817, and with good reason. Good luck with the rest of your schooling.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

Rick-

You may find this previous post by Kingjammy rather interesting, especially for the fact that the buyer also had a LOA from Grey Flannel. Looks like the Judge discarded the "opinion" of Grey Flannel's owner Rich Russek and ruled against him.

05-06-2008, 04:09 PM
http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/image.php?u=559&dateline=1144346474 (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/member.php?u=559)kingjammy24 (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/member.php?u=559) http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif vbmenu_register("postmenu_82729", true);
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,843


http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/images/icons/icon1.gif Best of O'Keeffe: Lots of Grey area in game-worn rip-offs
Lots of Grey area in game-worn rip-offs

By Michael O'Keeffe
New York Daily News

Justice may be blind, Grey Flannel president Richard Russek recently learned, but it certainly knows when a letter of authenticity ain't worth a damn.

Grey Flannel, the Long Island sports memorabilia house, bills itself as the world's foremost authenticator of game-used jerseys, but Judge Marilyn Milian issued a sharp dissent in a July 7 broadcast of "The People's Court."

"The Case of the Ripken Rip-off" began when collector John Cherpock bought what dealer Sean Ford claimed was a Cal Ripken game-used retro jersey tailored for the second game of the Orioles' July 18, 2001, doubleheader with the Texas Rangers. Cherpock paid $2,475 for the jersey, which was accompanied by a letter of authenticity from Grey Flannel.

"I wouldn't have bought it without the letter from Grey Flannel," Cherpock said.

Six months later, Cherpock consigned the jersey to Robert Edward Auctions. The New Jersey auction sent it back because, contrary to Grey Flannel's LOA, the second game of the doubleheader was canceled thanks to a chemical spill that shut down parts of downtown Baltimore.

Cherpock told Russek and Grey Flannel CEO Howard Rosenkrantz he wanted them to reimburse him for the $2,475. Grey Flannel was liable, Cherpock says, because it issued the letter vouching for the jersey. "This is why people pay premiums for certificates, because they hold themselves out as experts," Cherpock says. Russek and Rosenkrantz offered Cherpock the $400 Ford had spent to get the jersey authenticated. Cherpock filed suit in Nassau County small-claims court, but agreed to bring the case to TV when contacted by The People's Court producers.

"Even if I lost, I would have let the public know what kind of guys they are," he says.

Before Judge Milian, Russek admitted his company had erred. But he said Grey Flannel didn't owe Cherpock the $2,475 because Cherpock didn't hire Grey Flannel. Besides, he added, a disclaimer on the bottom of the certificate of authenticity was just opinion.

Russek said Grey Flannel thought it had reliable sources for its opinion - a letter from a limo driver who said Ripken gave him the jersey and a letter from a guy named Charles Jeffrey - but he later acknowledged he didn't even have a letter from the driver.

"Let me talk to you about negligence," the judge said. "There are two types of negligence. There's plain old simple negligences, and then there is negligence that is so out there, that is so bad, that is so wrong, that it is gross negligence...it takes two seconds to just find out if the game even ended up being played on the date and time you are certifying."

Milian then went ballistic: "What you have is just a paragraph signed by some schmo named Charles Jeffrey with no address, no phone number!" she screamed.

By the end of the show, Russek looked like a whipped dog. "This is what gives the memorabilia business the bad reputation that it enjoys right now," the exit interviewer told him.

"Yeah, well listen, in almost all cases we're correct," Russek countered. "We made a mistake. The judge ruled. What can I say?"

"Yeah, but gross negligence," the interviewer added. "You didn't even try."


If any lawyer cares to add to this, please feel free to share how our legal system may see the "opinion" LOA.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@comcast.net

[rj_lucas]

Thanks for the reminder Howard, I had read that post but forgotten about it.

For the sake of accuracy, I'll note that the decisions handed down on programs like People's Court, Judge Judy et al are not legal rulings per se. The 'judge' has complete discretion to rule as they wish, without regard to statutory law.

As you might imagine, those shows wouldn't enjoy nearly the popularity if the judge said to the impoverished widow "Sorry ma'am, but I've got to rule for the sleazy plaintiff because my hands are tied by case law'.

The decision made by the judge IS legally binding, but only because both parties sign a contract prior to the taping stating they agree to be bound by the outcome.

All that said, I still get a kick out of reading about that episode involving Grey Flannel. Lest I get accused of hijacking this thread I'll post this scan of another 1997 McGwire jersey, from a November 1998 Oregon Trail Sports Auction, also featuring a LOA from guess who.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[mattmueller]

Now that is interesting.

[rj_lucas]

No reference to strip tag in this listing:

https://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?lot=542&auctionid=905

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[mattmueller]

Rick:

The Lelands jersey was apparently manufactured "special" for the one game only, has many oddities - numbers on front are not typical for 1997 jerseys, JR patch in French, worn for only 2 plate appearances....

Still, I think we are finding the strip tag is atypical. But very interesting two of them exist, both set 2, both authenticated by Grey Flannel. Maybe I will be nice about it and ask Grey Flannel what they know about that type of tagging after all.

Also of note, the same seller has now also listed a 1986 A's Home McGwire jersey, combo with a Sosa 1989 road jersey. LOA on the McGwire also from Grey Flannel in February 1995.

[kingjammy24]

Also of note, the same seller has now also listed a 1986 A's Home McGwire jersey, combo with a Sosa 1989 road jersey. LOA on the McGwire also from Grey Flannel in February 1995.

the 1986 mcgwire is homemade. the "K" is a dead giveaway.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=20296

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

the 1986 mcgwire is homemade. the "K" is a dead giveaway.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=20296

rudy.

also see this thread:

https://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=21522

rudy.

[suicide_squeeze]

Hello mattmueller,

Hope all is well.

I just wanted to check in with you. Are you still trying to do research on the strip tagged 1997 McGwire "gamer"?

If so, please.....read the posts issued by the fine gentlemen here again..... the light will eventually go on.

Look at the evidence. Look at the circumstantial evidence. Look, using logic and common sense, at the consistencies in what has been pointed out to you.....and use those consistencies, coupled with your common sense and logic, and draw your own conclusion which is reasonable.

The jersey tagging is a red herring.....it stinks no matter what direction the wind is blowing.

It is MY OPINION that the results of your reasonable conclusion will be consistent with almost every single other thread here on the forum, at least in the past 9 months, that Grey Flannel letters are, to be kind, their "opinions" and nothing more, and more to the point, worthless pieces of wasted tree remains printed to support their ongoing efforts to separate honest unknowing collectors from their hard earned cash.

The only thing that solidifies this point more concretely is......Richards signature at the bottom........IN MY opinion ;)

[suicide_squeeze]

The decision made by the judge IS legally binding, but only because both parties sign a contract prior to the taping stating they agree to be bound by the outcome.

All that said, I still get a kick out of reading about that episode involving Grey Flannel. Lest I get accused of hijacking this thread I'll post this scan of another 1997 McGwire jersey, from a November 1998 Oregon Trail Sports Auction, also featuring a LOA from guess who.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com


Rick,

I will start by stating you are correct in your statements. But I'd like to add one small fact you left out...

The "binding agreement" signed and agreed to by both parties becomes what the show makes of it.....as mentioned (for ratings, for drama, etc.).
But make no mistake, the RESULTS of the decision by the judge is paid 100% by the show.....hence, the reason Richard Russek agreed to go on the show in the first place. He knew no matter what the decision was.... it wasn't going to be paid for by him or his company.

Amazing as it is, he let his company take a heavy blow in it's reputation JUST so he could get out of something his company put in writing and was responsible for (I think in the Judge's own words with emphasis....."GROSS negligence").


Nice.

[suicide_squeeze]

Rick:

The Lelands jersey was apparently manufactured "special" for the one game only, has many oddities - numbers on front are not typical for 1997 jerseys, JR patch in French, worn for only 2 plate appearances....

Still, I think we are finding the strip tag is atypical. But very interesting two of them exist, both set 2, both authenticated by Grey Flannel. Maybe I will be nice about it and ask Grey Flannel what they know about that type of tagging after all.

Also of note, the same seller has now also listed a 1986 A's Home McGwire jersey, combo with a Sosa 1989 road jersey. LOA on the McGwire also from Grey Flannel in February 1995.

Matt,

Do yourself a favor........don't.

Let it go.

Their knowledge is that of "an opinion".

Why add yourself to the growing list of banned members who can no longer bid on their auctions?

Just a thought....


Steve