Hines Ward Game Cut/Game Worn in Vintage Authentics

[Eric]

Hello everyone-

I have received emails about an issue with a 2004 game used and autographed black Hines Ward jersey listed in Vintage Authentics current auction.

An observant forum member emailed me to ask if I would take a look at this item, which had been authenticated a5 by mears and had a letter from lou lampson grading it a 4.

Here is the photo:

1228

If you look carefully, the stitching is over parts of the autograph, suggesting the numeral had been added to this jersey after the number was autographed. Apparently this is done with the game cuts sold on NFL Auctions.

The forum reader contacted mears about how a game cut jersey could get the a5 grade.

They responded on their website mearsonline.com, defending the a5 grade with this explanation.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Hines Ward Pittsburgh Steelers Home Jersey Current Vintage Authentics auction, A5
August 2 2006 at 11:27 PM Troy R. Kinunen (Login TroyKinunen)
A question was asked regarding Lot #245, the Hines Ward 2004 Steelers jersey offered in the current Vintage Authentics auction. It was brought to our attention that the number on the Ward jersey was autographed and then applied to the jersey. Upon re-inspection, we concur with that opinion. You can see the stitching is applied over parts of the autograph, meaning the number was signed then applied to the jersey.


Lot 245: Hines Ward 2004 Game Used & Autographed Jersey GU 4, GU grade per Lou Lampson


Vintage Authentics Catalog Description: Black home Pittsburgh Steelers Reebok jersey used by Pro Bowl wide receiver Hines Ward during his 2004 season and autographed by Ward on the back numeral in black sharpie. The jersey is appropriately strip-tagged in collar with "04-48" year-size ID and the outer tail houses the Reebok label with size 48 flag with untagged extra length added to the tail. All aspects are original and consistent. It earns a final grade of 4.

The Lou Lampson letter of authenticity is titled as “Hines Ward 2004 Game Used & Autographed Jersey GU 4”, and per the provided worksheet, 0 points was assigned for use. This information is gathered from the Vintage Authentics website.

The MEARS letters reads,

2004 Hines Ward Pittsburgh Steelers Home Jersey, Final Grade with respect to characteristics and game use: A5

Definition of A5: A5 Manufactures characteristics of the jersey have been compared to known authentic examples and match all criteria. Each piece is also evaluated on the degree of evident use and wear, which must be consistent with that of the player, sport, position, field of play, and duration of use. The degree of wear will be measured from minimal to heavy and the jersey cannot exhibit negative, missing, or incorrect manufacturers traits or use characteristics. When team or player provenance is lacking, wear can be measured, but not attributed directly to examined player. Without reasonable and verifiable provenance for post-1987 Hall of Fame or period star player jersey's, the A5 designation may still be assigned if the jersey possesses all the qualities and physical characteristics of a Major League jersey that was manufactured for player use or as an extra for a team or player, or one that may have been made available for retail sale or promotion. For jersey's assigned the A5 grade, use and wear will be described, but not verified.

The jersey still matches our definition of an A5, but we have included language stating the jersey was originally offered via NFL auctions.

The comment section reads, “… the autograph on the 8 was signed by Ward then applied to the jersey. This can be seen via the thread sewn over the jersey numeral. This was a common practice of jerseys offered via NFL auctions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's an important thing for hobbyists to understand. This has come up before, but here we have a perfect example. It appears someone bought a game issued/game cut jersey from NFL Auctions, submitted it to the auction house and it got the A5 grade. Understand what you're buying when you're doing your research.

I sent an email to Steve Jensen at Vintage Authentics, who always is receptive to questions and comments. I pointed out that since the thread was over the autograph, the number was applied later. Either this was a real game used jersey that had been doctored, or it was a game cut NFL Auctions jersey in which case the listing title of "Game Used" did not apply.

Since there were issues here, Steve pulled the jersey from the auction.

There is a lot to learn here.
1) Do your own homework, as the forum reader did. Do not rely solely on the authenticators
2) Ask questions. Mears gave an explanation of what A5 means. It might not be the definition people perceive. Also, Steve Jensen was willing to look into the situation from his end and ultimately did a good thing by pulling it.
3) Know the meaning of the terms. There is a wide range covering the A5 grade, which include this item- one which never even saw a locker room.

As an aside, people could buy game cuts and submit them to auction houses which use mears, get the a5 grade (which is also given to game used modern items) and cash in on an unknowing public. In my opinion, game cut jerseys should never have the same grade as ones which are used in games but that's a whole other discussion.

Thanks for reading this long email and I'd be interested in people's responses.
Eric

[CollectGU]

MEARS can never admit they were wrong and are ALWAYS full of double talk.....

[skipcareyisfat]

Kudos to the person that spotted that. Rudy wrote a nice post the other day that folks should read if they get a chance. I rarely read long posts like that, but it was a good one. The issues with the Ward jersey mirror the complaints brought up in that post and in a lot of others before it. How Lampson still gets work is baffling. His sales pitch must be amazing.

[trsent]

What did MEARS do wrong?

They graded the jersey as an A5 grade.

Their letter makes it clear, the jersey could be game used or game cut, in this case it appears to have be a game ready jersey. I know, everyone wants to believe that game issued, team issued, game ready, etc. means the jersey hung in the locker room but was never worn, but I do not believe a "game" jersey has to have hit the locker room.

They state the jersey is the same style worn on the field, they do not stand behind any promises of game use for this jersey.

Then again, what does the Lou Lampson A4 stand for in this situation? Does his letter promise game use?

[hblakewolf]

Joel-
I have to agree with Dave Collect GU on this one (hard to believe!).

MEARS is really doing the Chicken Dance on this one. Is it common for MEARS to write LOA's on jerseys that were never intended to be worn in a game? Would these jerseys be called replicas? Knock-offs? Copies? # applied almost game ready replica jerseys? What the hell do you call a jersey that has had the autographed number re-applied?

In regards to your question about the Lampson letter, does it really matter what he writes or the actual grade he assigns to this or any jersey he writes "an opinion" LOA? In this case, does an A4 really make it any better than an A3 or an A1? Based on his past LOA's, I consider all of Lampson's LOA's "ACompletely Worthless piece of paper"

I think Rudy's recent thread about Lampson summed up the feeling by those with a day's experience in the uniform collecting world-WORTHLESS!

Joel, you can try to defend the authenticators once again, however, the shirt in question was incorrectly authenticated and now the back peddlin' has started, or in this case, the Chicken Dance.

QUACK, QUACK, QUACK

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


What did MEARS do wrong?

They graded the jersey as an A5 grade.

Their letter makes it clear, the jersey could be game used or game cut, in this case it appears to have be a game ready jersey. I know, everyone wants to believe that game issued, team issued, game ready, etc. means the jersey hung in the locker room but was never worn, but I do not believe a "game" jersey has to have hit the locker room.

They state the jersey is the same style worn on the field, they do not stand behind any promises of game use for this jersey.

Then again, what does the Lou Lampson A4 stand for in this situation? Does his letter promise game use?

[Eric]

Call it what you want, but I think MEARS' statement is important because they're on the record saying that non game used jerseys can get an A5, which is also given to game used jerseys.

As a consumer and for the sellers, that's an important thing to understand.

In my opinion, the a5 grade is sort of a non-commital one- could be game used, could be issued, which means auction houses should be careful not to describe A5s as game used unless there's specific evidence. That seems to eliminate a lot of modern items.

Eric

[trsent]

Eric, correct. While Howard cannot discuss a topic without cutting corners and having Coco Puffs on his mind (in other words, comments that do not defend his situation, just puts down the other party), the fact is simple - MEARS doesn't ever state the jersey in question is game used.

My question was did the Lou Lampson letter state the item was game used? I do not believe the MEARS letter ever stated game used, which everyone assumes A5 states, but it doesn't.

The seller of the item is still responsible to advertise the item as game used or game ready.

[hblakewolf]

Eric/Joel-

The issue here relates to semantics-end of story. People are depending on MEARS or an authenticator for their expertise. Is the item in question "GAME WORN" or "GAME ISSUED". Eric, you note that the A5 is "non-commital"-then I ask-what's the point of the LOA in the first place? What exactly does this or any A5 LOA prove or better yet, allow us to learn about the shirt in question?:confused:

I'm still miffed about this football jersey-what is it? Based on your post, why even have MEARS provide a LOA?:confused:

As I always note, do your own homework and wipe your rear with this particular LOA and all the rest of them.

What a complete joke............

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


Call it what you want, but I think MEARS' statement is important because they're on the record saying that non game used jerseys can get an A5, which is also given to game used jerseys.

As a consumer and for the sellers, that's an important thing to understand.

In my opinion, the a5 grade is sort of a non-commital one- could be game used, could be issued, which means auction houses should be careful not to describe A5s as game used unless there's specific evidence. That seems to eliminate a lot of modern items.

Eric

[both-teams-played-hard]

In my opinion, the a5 grade is sort of a non-commital one- could be game used, could be issued, which means auction houses should be careful not to describe A5s as game used unless there's specific evidence. That seems to eliminate a lot of modern items.



Letter of Authenticity, Letter of Opinion, Certificate of Authenticity, Certificate of Opinion, Game Used, Game Worn, Team Issued, Game Issued, Game Ready, Photo-shoot worn, Impeccable letter of Provenance, All the correct tags, or the ever popular "typical Quarterback use", A4, A3, A5.
Am I forgeting something?

[trsent]

Howard, with all my love...

...The A5 letter is provided to state the jersey is a game used or game ready jersey. The next seller has to make that clarification. If this modern jersey had a better background, then it could receive a higher grade, but it was presented to MEARS just as a jersey with no background history.

What is the point?

When you open your own auction house you'll see how important your LOAs are to your final bid prices.

[otismalibu]

The A5 letter is provided to state the jersey is a game used or game ready jersey.

Can a jersey be game ready w/o numbers?

Am I understanding this correctly? Was this a blank Steelers jerseys that had numbers (one signed) added?

[hblakewolf]

Letter of Authenticity, Letter of Opinion, Certificate of Authenticity, Certificate of Opinion, Game Used, Game Worn, Team Issued, Game Issued, Game Ready, Photo-shoot worn, Impeccable letter of Provenance, All the correct tags, or the ever popular "typical Quarterback use", A4, A3, A5.
Am I forgeting something?

FANTASTIC! Glad to see others are aware of the SEMANTICS and total sham we are discussing. As for Joel's quote,

What is the point? When you open your own auction house you'll see how important your LOAs are to your final bid prices.

Joel, I could not agree with you more, however, I'm not aware of any plans to open my own auction house. If I ever open one, however, the only LOA's I would ever allow to be included with an item are those provided with an item from a team with a team issued LOA, or possibly a LOA from the player or family member. As for the MEARS/LAMPSON/GREY FLANNEL LOA's-you'll never see one coming from H. Blake Wolf Auctions International unless for some strange reason I included a bag of dog droppings with your item and the paper I used to pick up the soiled mess (in this case, the LOA from the above).

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[encinorick]

You guys are driving me to a Mel Gibson meltdown with regard to the A5 Mears rate designation. Mastros' current auction has 4 Laker GU jerseys, 3 Abdul Jabbar and one Magic. Two Jabbar's are rate A5, as is the Magic, and the other Jabbar is rated A9.5. It is my understanding that the A5 designation is given because the jersey was made and worn after 1985, with no conclusive documentation from the player or team that it was acutally worn. It is my further understanding that the authenticator verifies that the is jersey was exclusively made for the player, and that the jersey could not be store bought or come from some other source, and that the only issue is whether it can be conclusively proven that the player ever wore it in a NBA game. I realize that the manufacture of the jersey may make about 50 of these jerseys for a player for the season, and that some are used and others not, but it its also my understanding that all jerseys are given to the player, or the team and are not distributed to others without permission from the team or player. In othe words, if I bid on the Magic jersey I can be confident that it was a jersey made for him exclusively, that there aren't alot out there, and that depending on the "apparent use" of the jersey, the jersey could have been worn by the player in an NBA game. Correct?

[trsent]

Ok, so this discussion is settled, right?

I believe the point you are trying to make is that you think all LOAs from anyone you mentioned above is worthless. This is your point, right?

Now we can conduct business as usual since we know where you stand.

As for the Malibu question, I do not know, I do not write these letters. I bet if you emailed Dave Grob he would answer your question. I do not know his email address off the top of my head, but you can reach him on the MEARS web site at www.mearsonline.com (http://www.mearsonline.com).

[Eric]

Seems to me like an A5 designation puts the auction house in the position of still having to determine themselves or find another expert to determine if a piece is game worn or game issued. Otherwise, how will they know how to accurately list it?

I did say it was a non-commital grade in my opinion, and I think auction houses might agree. Because of the wide range accepted within an a5, auction houses risk accidentally misrepresenting an item.

I wanted to again applaud Steve Jensen and Vintage Authentics for doing the right thing here.
Eric

[hblakewolf]

Eric-
Thank the Lord! Amen! My original question, once again, "WHAT's THE POINT OF THE LOA IN THE FIRST PLACE, LET ALONE IF THE ITEM IN QUESTION CAN'T ACCURATELY BE DETERMINEDTO EVEN BE REAL??????"

Eric, now once a wining bidder gets the item with the MEARS A5 LOA, they should try to locate yet another authenticator to write yet another LOA in hopes of determining if the item is real? Should the second LOA also receive a grade of A5, should a third "Expert Authenticator" be located in hopes of providing a LOA with a higher rating, maybe a A6 or A7?



Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net




Seems to me like an A5 designation puts the auction house in the position of still having to determine themselves or find another expert to determine if a piece is game worn or game issued. Otherwise, how will they know how to accurately list it?

I did say it was a non-commital grade in my opinion, and I think auction houses might agree. Because of the wide range accepted within an a5, auction houses risk accidentally misrepresenting an item.

I wanted to again applaud Steve Jensen and Vintage Authentics for doing the right thing here.
Eric

[trsent]

Eric-
Thank the Lord! Amen! My original question, once again, "WHAT's THE POINT OF THE LOA IN THE FIRST PLACE, LET ALONE IF THE ITEM IN QUESTION CAN'T ACCURATELY BE DETERMINEDTO EVEN BE REAL??????"

Eric, now once a wining bidder gets the item with the MEARS A5 LOA, they should try to locate yet another authenticator to write yet another LOA in hopes of determining if the item is real? Should the second LOA also receive a grade of A5, should a third "Expert Authenticator" be located in hopes of providing a LOA with a higher rating, maybe a A6 or A7?



Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Howard, so, what do you want because you are not going to get it so stop wasting time with your continued putting everything down in the industry because it is not up to your standard?

MEARS has a nice system, but for modern items they cannot offer more than they do. You want them to write everything is game used when it just isn't going to happen because there is no way to be sure. They came up with the A5 grade for modern jerseys that show the same characteristics as game used jerseys - Hats off to them for this system because it is far better than anything else out there in this industry.

Howard, if you care so much, open your own fool-proof service and let us find your mistakes. :)

[trsent]

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?p=16962#post16962

Revisiting the A5 Grade - From MEARS

I would find it safe to say this is your response from MEARS.

This company goes out of their way to keep up with the industry and then a select few keep getting on their case.

[sportscentury]

Howard, if you care so much, open your own fool-proof service and let us find your mistakes.

Joel,

On multiple occasions, Howard has invited all forum members to send him their Phillies items with return shipping costs and he will examine them and give his conclusions for FREE. Not sure if you caught the last part, but it reads:

FOR FREE.

As you know, Howard's evaluations are detailed and thorough, to say the least.

I don't disagree with you about MEARS. I think that they try very hard to get things right, listen to the collecting public, and stay ahead of the pack. I'm not arguing this point at all, so be clear about that.

But Howard has offered far more than most people would in terms of FREE and THOROUGH inspections and evaluations and it just isn't fair to insist that he open a comprehensive authentication service in order for him to freely speak his mind.

If anyone imposed the same unfair standard upon you, I would say the same thing in your defense, as well. Howard may complain a lot, but I would think that his substantive contributions should far outweigh any annoyance that you experience.

Reid

[trsent]

Reid, you know Howard sits at home and thinks of ways to make my blood pressure rise.

Do you think he has a life insurance policy out in my name?

[kingjammy24]

Eric:
You say it's important for people to know what an A5 means so that they understand what they may or may not be getting. What they're getting is evident in the item itself. MEARS issues these grades and you feel it behooves collectors to understand them. Let me go a step further and take an opposite approach and say it behooves them more to do the opposite; to ignore the grade. To refrain from giving it any real weight or consideration. That way, collectors will a) acquire the skills to evaluate items on their own b) cease depending on MEARS which has shown itself to unreliable c) not be required to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort reading MEARS self-serving legalese. Ignoring the grades means there's little value to discussing them.
The A5 has long failed to provide collectors with any real insight. It's an entirely proprietary term, clearly confusing, seemingly drafted by a lawyer in an attempt to absolve a company of any sort of genuine authentication, doled out by an individual with a severe lack of expertise in anything except bats who has been selected to authenticate everything from vintage football jerseys to modern batting helmets because the company lacks the resources to hire people with the necessary skills. Why then should collectors to pay any attention to it? I'd like to understand why you take the grade seriously.
A sharp collector noticed the issue with the Ward jersey and a couple of likely conclusions were reached. Great work! The necessary work was done and, as usual, not by the paid authenticator. Isn't this the way it always plays out though? MEARS makes an error, someone else spots it, Troy or Dave do the "read the fine print" dance, and we all debate their semantics for a week. The grades can't do any harm if noone takes them seriously and I stopped taking MEARS seriously a long time ago.

Joel: You're right, these LOAs are necessary for sales by the auction houses and dealers. Perhaps if they notice collectors are ignoring them, they'll stop paying for them? After all, it's only an added expense. I'll go on record saying that whether items have been "authenticated" or not has absolutely no bearing on my decision to purchase them. If others echo this sentiment, then hopefully over time we'll see a change.
Regarding MEARS "nice system", take a look at the current Mastro auction. Here's a very small sample of items authenticated by Bushing in that auction:

1933-34 Link Lyman Chicago Bears Game Worn Road Uniform
1969 Lloyd Mumford Miami Dolphins Game Worn Home Jersey
1993 Art Monk Washington Redskins Game Worn Home Jersey
1936 Charles "Red" Ruffing New York Yankees Game Worn Road Jersey
1940-41 Dick Errickson Boston Bees/Braves Game Worn Home Uniform
1968 Leo Durocher Chicago Cubs Game Worn Road Jersey
1984 Jim Palmer Baltimore Orioles Game Worn Road Jersey
2002 Sammy Sosa Chicago Cubs Game Worn Home Jersey
1974-75 Pat Riley Los Angeles Lakers Game Worn Jersey
1993-94 Charles Barkley Phoenix Suns Game Worn Road Jersey
1993 Jim Thome AAA Charlotte Knights Game Used Batting Helmet
Hall of Famers & Star Players Game Used Batting Gloves (24)

Holy. hot. crap. It looks like a joke doesn't? One man apparently has the expertise to authenticate everything from a 1933 Bears uniform to a 1974 Lakers jersey to a 1940 Bees Jersey to a 2003 Cavs jersey. Even a pair of 1940 pants, modern batting gloves and a minor league batting helmet! And that's of course in addition to his expertise on bats and fielding gloves. Now either he's the most brilliant guy to ever walk the planet (afterall, he did get a Masters degree) or .. well I'll leave you to come up with your own conclusion. Asserting that 1 man can authenticate 70 yrs worth of jerseys, helmets, and gloves across 3 sports is not "a nice system". At best it's a complete joke. It's almost like he went to the Lou Lampson "authenticate anything anyone gives you" School of Authenticating. A "nice system" is the last thing I'd call it. A profit making machine, sure.

Rudy.

[Eric]

Rudy-
You have a great point- if one does all of his/her own homework then the coas/loas and grades are meaningless. My point is, personally I pay attention to the work put into their determination of an a1 a5 a7 or a10. Perhaps there is provenance. Perhaps there is evidence of restoration which i cannot see from internet photos. My definition of doing your homework is to gather all information (the info is weighted differently in my mind based on who it's coming from). A letter which says the vague "it has all identifiers and proper tagging" is worthless, but perhaps there is something within the worksheet which will help me complete my investigation.
Eric

[trsent]

Rudy, do you think Dave Bushing authenticates all these items himself? Did you ever ask how many people work on their staff and what type of database they have to authenticate items?

Why don't you go to the MEARS forum (where you will receive personal responses) and ask your questions. I bet Troy and Dave Grob will gladly spend the time working with your issues.

In the meantime, I am glad to have you back on Game Used Universe, you were missed. In the present-time, I sort of wish you would not get all over Dave Bushing's case because as he is involved, but there is an extensive staff working for MEARS trying their best to authenticate genuine items.

Is your list from Mastro stating that they all can't be genuine items because you think it is too much for them to authenticate even though you have never asked them personally about their staff and entire process?

The web site is http://www.mearsonline.com/

[kingjammy24]

eric: agreed. i would take whatever information you feel is handy from the authentication but getting into a lather over the grade seems to be a waste. a2 a5 a10 it all means the same - nothing.

joel: the only 2 names on the loas are bushing and troy. while i can't account for every single worksheet MEARS has ever done, i'll say that the only signature i've ever seen on them is bushings'. hence my conclusion. if my signature is on the loa and the worksheet then i must've been the one to authenticate it. a database, as you know, is only as good as the data inputed. i have serious reservations about the quality of the MEARS database after seeing the items that have slipped past it. once, for example, i emailed troy to correct a "1993" mcgwire they had authenticated. i said it was a 1996. troy emailed me and explained the error by saying they didn't have necessary images in their database. (of course these images were all over getty). so they don't have a 1996 oakland jersey in their database but a 1933 chicago bears is apparently no problem? wow.
regarding me working with mears: i've absolutely nothing to gain from that. i help them for free and they in turn charge others for the very information i've given them? i think my time is better spent here discussing jerseys rather than listening to dave grob show me why he would've made a great used car salesman. however, i agree with not being all over bushing. i genuinely hope this the last i speak of mears. i don't find them relevant in the least. lets talk jerseys!
fyi: my list from mastro isn't meant to question the authenticity of any of their items. rather, it's simply meant to show the shocking variety of items bushing authenticates. grob has admitted they don't have specialized experts in all of these fields. hence you get a bat expert looking at jerseys. hence you get a 1996 mcgwire jersey being authenticated as a 1993. at any rate, no more mears. let's move on! :)

rudy.

[JimCaravello]

Just my two cents on this thread which I have been following closely.............

First off - Rudy - EXTREMELY happy to have you back and I agree 100% with your comments...............

Secondly - this thread validates why GUU is so great for the collector. It will help prevent people from making $100 and $1000 mistakes........

Relative to authenticators, last year I purchased a few items in auction and two of them I still laugh at what occured relative to the COAs. The first item was my 1986 Dave Righetti Game Worn Road jersey authenticated by MEARS with an A-10 Grade. The jersey was missing an armband and had team altered stitching on the buttons. Neither of these items was mentioned by MEARS. When I pointed this out to Dave Grob, they acknowledeged they made a mistake and regraded the jersey an A9 ( they never sent another COA ) and they sent me 10% of the purchase price back. How does MEARS - the supposed leader in the hobby not see an armband missing on a 1986 Yankees jersey? What about the team altered stitching on the buttons? This was mind boggling to me. I can't agree with Rudy's comments more - they missgrade a 1986 Yankees jersey but yet they can grade all sports from all eras?

The second item I won in auction last year that I continue to laugh at is my Ernie Banks 1950's Game Used Bat that comes with a COA from PSA ( auto guys and not the bat guys ) authenticating the autograph on my bat. Folks - the bat is not autographed and the COA is clearly printed for my bat. What a travesty!

Before these events, I never relied on COAs which is my Third Point - Do your own homework! Make yourself an expert! I have learned so much by participating in this Forum and GUU and I NEVER RELY ON OTHER COAS - this goes for both jerseys and bats that I purchase. If you have concerns, pass on these A5 jerseys - in my opinion half of them are not legitimate. I had a conversation recently with a good friend and we were discussing game used football jerseys and we discussed how 90% of them looked like they came off the rack with tags and had no use! Yet - these jersey are graded and authenticated as game used.

In my opinion, one of the problems with MEARS is that they are assigning grades for items which should not be graded at all. For instance - a team index bat should not be graded A7, or A8 or whatever grade they want to give it because it will confuse the novice collector when you compare that grade to a legitimate factory documented player bat that has the same grade. People have spent thousands on team index bats that were used by John Doe instead of Clemente, Mathews, etc. I am firm in my conviction on this. I think they are misleading the collector. The problem with MEARS is that they are too liberal in their grading. Sorry Troy and Dave - but you are. Do you have to grade everything that comes across your desk and assign it a grade? Are we not trying to authenticate an item as being a game used item? If its borderline, can we just pass on it and not call it A5 or A4?

Here is a great example for all to examine. The following link is from Vintage Authentics current auction for a Yaz bat:

http://vintageauthentics.at.truition.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=71673254&prmenbr=57735959&aunbr=72019964

This bat has been graded A6 by MEARS. Here is the description by Vintage:

Description:

Blonde Louisville Slugger C271 signature model bat used by Hall of Fame Triple Crown winner Carl Yastrzemski during his 1983 final MLB season. The bat measures 31.2 oz and 34 3/8" exhibiting light game use with light ball marks and surface stitch marks with an uncracked handle. The bat's knob has been markered with Yaz's #8 in black. The bat earns a final grade of 6.

In reading this, you assume that the bat was used by Yaz in 1983 and has light use and was graded A6 because it matches factory records and has light use. The bat has a standard finish per the MEARS Letter of Opinion. The MEARS Letter of Opinion goes on to say:

Matches Factory Records: Yes - Baseball Promotions
Bat Used During: Regular Season
Finish: Standard ( wording below says natural )

In the comments section of the MEARS COA they indicate that "Louisville Slugger factory records show that all of the small grain 34 1/2" C271 model bats in natural finish were shpped to Baseball Promotions in 1983-1984, not sent to Yaz or the Red Sox". They also say that the bat is a professional signature model, use and manufacturer characteristics cannot be attributed to Yaz.

Let's look at some facts:

Yaz's last year was 1983
This bat is probably from 84 or 85 ( 83 and 84 was a crossover labeling period ) - could be from 1983, but I highly doubt it
The bat clearly does not match anything that Yaz or the Red Sox ordered and even MEARS acknowledges this
Yaz ordered only WIDE GRAIN C271 bats in 1983 with Natural Finish ( he also ordered C271 Hickory Models )
The MEARS COA clearly says this bat was used during the regular season
The COA is in conflict with itselfNow - the question is, how can you give this bat an A6 grade and also grade a legitimate Yaz bat from any year with light use an A6? Someone will be buying nothing more than a promotional signed bat and both Vintage Authentics ( with their description in the auction ) and MEARS ( with their A6 grade ) are misleading the collector - both too liberal in my opinion............YAZ HAD ONLY ONE SHIPMENT OF BLONDE C271 BATS IN 1983 - 12 pieces on AUGUST 12th - WIDE GRAIN NATURAL FINISH BATS - Dave and Troy - why did you even grade this bat????????????????? The bat in auction does not match what he ordered his last year in 1983?! In my opinion, he never used this bat in a game.........

Back to my third point - do your own homework. Don't rely on anyone but yourself. If you have any question on an item - ask around and get some answers and if you are still not satisfied - pass on it. I personally am tired of MEARS beating their chest on how great they are and yet they continue to grade things incorrectly or too liberally ( as is the case with the Yaz bat above )............

Jim

[trsent]

eric: agreed. i would take whatever information you feel is handy from the authentication but getting into a lather over the grade seems to be a waste. a2 a5 a10 it all means the same - nothing.

joel: the only 2 names on the loas are bushing and troy. while i can't account for every single worksheet MEARS has ever done, i'll say that the only signature i've ever seen on them is bushings'. hence my conclusion. if my signature is on the loa and the worksheet then i must've been the one to authenticate it. a database, as you know, is only as good as the data inputed. i have serious reservations about the quality of the MEARS database after seeing the items that have slipped past it. once, for example, i emailed troy to correct a "1993" mcgwire they had authenticated. i said it was a 1996. troy emailed me and explained the error by saying they didn't have necessary images in their database. (of course these images were all over getty). so they don't have a 1996 oakland jersey in their database but a 1933 chicago bears is apparently no problem? wow.
regarding me working with mears: i've absolutely nothing to gain from that. i help them for free and they in turn charge others for the very information i've given them? i think my time is better spent here discussing jerseys rather than listening to dave grob show me why he would've made a great used car salesman. however, i agree with not being all over bushing. i genuinely hope this the last i speak of mears. i don't find them relevant in the least. lets talk jerseys!
fyi: my list from mastro isn't meant to question the authenticity of any of their items. rather, it's simply meant to show the shocking variety of items bushing authenticates. grob has admitted they don't have specialized experts in all of these fields. hence you get a bat expert looking at jerseys. hence you get a 1996 mcgwire jersey being authenticated as a 1993. at any rate, no more mears. let's move on! :)

rudy.

Rudy, someone called me yesterday and asked if you and Michael O'Keeffe are the same person. Your arguments all sound the same.

Your post and Jim's post show that some people will never accept MEARS no matter how hard they try. Sure, errors are going to be made, and it's how you correct the error when it is made that makes your reputation strong.

I asked you to ask your questions of MEARS on their web site, but you rather tear them apart on this forum because you know they will not respond to you here. Basically it appears you are making the accusations that they are intentionally making an error once every few thousand authentications, which is in no way proved to be the case. Why you dislike a company where Dave Grob stands behind their work like a true professional and then he is compared to a used car salesman is just plain low.

I appreciate your side, but I do not feel you are being fair in your assessments. If you do not like the way they work, start something better yourself. I remember I offered to start a company with you over a year ago and you said this was a hobby and you didn't wish to start a photo style matching authentication service.

The knowledge of this industry has changed because of the concepts of MEARS. The knowledge of this industry has changed because of Rudy's ground-breaking techniques for photo style matching and other hard work. Both sides are great for this industry, but to put down the MEARS letters of authenticity and their entire concept without talking to MEARS directly about your concern shows that you do not want to work with them to make this a better situation and that is sad because I respect both MEARS and yourself.

[JimCaravello]

Joel - I think you are missing some of my points............

First off - its not that I don't accept MEARS ( I believe the folks are MEARS are very knowledgeable ) - In my opinion, I believe they are careless with how they authenticate material in the marketplace as evidenced by the Yaz bat I mentioned in my original post as well as the Righetti jersey. These are just two items I mention and I have seen other discrepancies in the past that I scratch my head on including the various items that have been discussed on this Forum.

If you consider this bashing MEARS - that's fine - I look at it as constructive criticism. Those guys know so much - yet in my opinion, I believe their SOPS and how they authenticate material needs to be re-examined.

Back to Yaz for a moment. The Yaz COA is in conflict with itself. The COA clearly says the bat was used during the Regular Season, and then goes on to say that the bat does not have any characteristics that can be attributed to Yaz. They also go on to say that the bat matches records ordered by Baseball Promotions and not by the Red Sox or Yaz. Yet they grade this bat A6? As a buyer looking at two Yaz bats - this one and let's assume a legitimate factory documented Yaz bat with light use that they would grade A6, shouldn't there be a distinction in the grades between the two bats? Forget for a moment my opinion on the bat never being in Yaz's hands or that I really believe its from 1984 or 1985 - these points are irrelevant - how can you grade this bat A6? It does not match factory records for Yaz or have use characteristics attributed to Yaz and to top it all off, the Vintage Authentics auction description says that Yaz used this bat in 1983! In my opinion, both Vintage and MEARS are sloppy and careless in the presentation and final grade of the COA as well as the auction Listing.

Secondly - you are correct - everyone is entitled to a mistake or two. The problem in my opinion with MEARS is that they make a lot of mistakes and yet you continue to give them a free pass because of the knowledge they are sharing and what they have done for the hobby? Are we not allowed to discuss deficiencies of any authenticator on this website? How can you continue to give them this free pass when you read posts like mine or others that we have all seen in the past?

I am pretty knowledgeable about bats from certain time periods and I am fortunate enough to have records and information that 99% of the hobby does not have - and I share everything I know to all in the hobby, yet no one has accused me of making a mistake when I look at a bat. If I don't know something - I tell you and I help you find the answer to your questions. If I make a mistake, I want to know about it and I don't want a free pass.......

The knowledge of the industry has changed because of MEARS and Rudy and most definitely Game Used Universe - but when people make numerous errors, those examples need to be discussed to continue to educate the collector. Jim

[hblakewolf]

Rudy-
Is this current EBAY McGwire the jersey in question?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


eric: agreed. i would take whatever information you feel is handy from the authentication but getting into a lather over the grade seems to be a waste. a2 a5 a10 it all means the same - nothing.

joel: the only 2 names on the loas are bushing and troy. while i can't account for every single worksheet MEARS has ever done, i'll say that the only signature i've ever seen on them is bushings'. hence my conclusion. if my signature is on the loa and the worksheet then i must've been the one to authenticate it. a database, as you know, is only as good as the data inputed. i have serious reservations about the quality of the MEARS database after seeing the items that have slipped past it. once, for example, i emailed troy to correct a "1993" mcgwire they had authenticated. i said it was a 1996. troy emailed me and explained the error by saying they didn't have necessary images in their database. (of course these images were all over getty). so they don't have a 1996 oakland jersey in their database but a 1933 chicago bears is apparently no problem? wow.
regarding me working with mears: i've absolutely nothing to gain from that. i help them for free and they in turn charge others for the very information i've given them? i think my time is better spent here discussing jerseys rather than listening to dave grob show me why he would've made a great used car salesman. however, i agree with not being all over bushing. i genuinely hope this the last i speak of mears. i don't find them relevant in the least. lets talk jerseys!
fyi: my list from mastro isn't meant to question the authenticity of any of their items. rather, it's simply meant to show the shocking variety of items bushing authenticates. grob has admitted they don't have specialized experts in all of these fields. hence you get a bat expert looking at jerseys. hence you get a 1996 mcgwire jersey being authenticated as a 1993. at any rate, no more mears. let's move on! :)

rudy.

[hblakewolf]

Sorry-here is the Ebay McGwire link:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220014120882


Rudy-
Is this current EBAY McGwire the jersey in question?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net


eric: agreed. i would take whatever information you feel is handy from the authentication but getting into a lather over the grade seems to be a waste. a2 a5 a10 it all means the same - nothing.

joel: the only 2 names on the loas are bushing and troy. while i can't account for every single worksheet MEARS has ever done, i'll say that the only signature i've ever seen on them is bushings'. hence my conclusion. if my signature is on the loa and the worksheet then i must've been the one to authenticate it. a database, as you know, is only as good as the data inputed. i have serious reservations about the quality of the MEARS database after seeing the items that have slipped past it. once, for example, i emailed troy to correct a "1993" mcgwire they had authenticated. i said it was a 1996. troy emailed me and explained the error by saying they didn't have necessary images in their database. (of course these images were all over getty). so they don't have a 1996 oakland jersey in their database but a 1933 chicago bears is apparently no problem? wow.
regarding me working with mears: i've absolutely nothing to gain from that. i help them for free and they in turn charge others for the very information i've given them? i think my time is better spent here discussing jerseys rather than listening to dave grob show me why he would've made a great used car salesman. however, i agree with not being all over bushing. i genuinely hope this the last i speak of mears. i don't find them relevant in the least. lets talk jerseys!
fyi: my list from mastro isn't meant to question the authenticity of any of their items. rather, it's simply meant to show the shocking variety of items bushing authenticates. grob has admitted they don't have specialized experts in all of these fields. hence you get a bat expert looking at jerseys. hence you get a 1996 mcgwire jersey being authenticated as a 1993. at any rate, no more mears. let's move on! :)

rudy.

[CollectGU]

Joel,

I often agree with you, but not necessarily on MEARS, and going to them directly with concerns. Did you read my thread on their site about the Yogi berra mask, where when I questioned the item, they began deleting my posts like children because I didn't follow the "rules". They never answered my questions either..Check it out if you have a chance under pg. 4 of the Baseball section of their website bulletin board

[JimCaravello]

CollectGU - I read those posts on the MEARS site. I was suprised to never see any finality to those threads. I didn't realize that you were CollectGU on the Forum. You bring up a great point......Jim

[trsent]

What happened exactly on the forum?

I know Dave is very anal about attaching your name (and email address?) to every post. Please elaborate.

[jboosted92]

Just my two cents on this thread which I have been following closely.............

First off - Rudy - EXTREMELY happy to have you back and I agree 100% with your comments...............

Secondly - this thread validates why GUU is so great for the collector. It will help prevent people from making $100 and $1000 mistakes........

Relative to authenticators, last year I purchased a few items in auction and two of them I still laugh at what occured relative to the COAs. The first item was my 1986 Dave Righetti Game Worn Road jersey authenticated by MEARS with an A-10 Grade. The jersey was missing an armband and had team altered stitching on the buttons. Neither of these items was mentioned by MEARS. When I pointed this out to Dave Grob, they acknowledeged they made a mistake and regraded the jersey an A9 ( they never sent another COA ) and they sent me 10% of the purchase price back. How does MEARS - the supposed leader in the hobby not see an armband missing on a 1986 Yankees jersey? What about the team altered stitching on the buttons? This was mind boggling to me. I can't agree with Rudy's comments more - they missgrade a 1986 Yankees jersey but yet they can grade all sports from all eras?

The second item I won in auction last year that I continue to laugh at is my Ernie Banks 1950's Game Used Bat that comes with a COA from PSA ( auto guys and not the bat guys ) authenticating the autograph on my bat. Folks - the bat is not autographed and the COA is clearly printed for my bat. What a travesty!

Before these events, I never relied on COAs which is my Third Point - Do your own homework! Make yourself an expert! I have learned so much by participating in this Forum and GUU and I NEVER RELY ON OTHER COAS - this goes for both jerseys and bats that I purchase. If you have concerns, pass on these A5 jerseys - in my opinion half of them are not legitimate. I had a conversation recently with a good friend and we were discussing game used football jerseys and we discussed how 90% of them looked like they came off the rack with tags and had no use! Yet - these jersey are graded and authenticated as game used.

In my opinion, one of the problems with MEARS is that they are assigning grades for items which should not be graded at all. For instance - a team index bat should not be graded A7, or A8 or whatever grade they want to give it because it will confuse the novice collector when you compare that grade to a legitimate factory documented player bat that has the same grade. People have spent thousands on team index bats that were used by John Doe instead of Clemente, Mathews, etc. I am firm in my conviction on this. I think they are misleading the collector. The problem with MEARS is that they are too liberal in their grading. Sorry Troy and Dave - but you are. Do you have to grade everything that comes across your desk and assign it a grade? Are we not trying to authenticate an item as being a game used item? If its borderline, can we just pass on it and not call it A5 or A4?

Here is a great example for all to examine. The following link is from Vintage Authentics current auction for a Yaz bat:

http://vintageauthentics.at.truition.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=71673254&prmenbr=57735959&aunbr=72019964

This bat has been graded A6 by MEARS. Here is the description by Vintage:

Description:

Blonde Louisville Slugger C271 signature model bat used by Hall of Fame Triple Crown winner Carl Yastrzemski during his 1983 final MLB season. The bat measures 31.2 oz and 34 3/8" exhibiting light game use with light ball marks and surface stitch marks with an uncracked handle. The bat's knob has been markered with Yaz's #8 in black. The bat earns a final grade of 6.

In reading this, you assume that the bat was used by Yaz in 1983 and has light use and was graded A6 because it matches factory records and has light use. The bat has a standard finish per the MEARS Letter of Opinion. The MEARS Letter of Opinion goes on to say:

Matches Factory Records: Yes - Baseball Promotions
Bat Used During: Regular Season
Finish: Standard ( wording below says natural )

In the comments section of the MEARS COA they indicate that "Louisville Slugger factory records show that all of the small grain 34 1/2" C271 model bats in natural finish were shpped to Baseball Promotions in 1983-1984, not sent to Yaz or the Red Sox". They also say that the bat is a professional signature model, use and manufacturer characteristics cannot be attributed to Yaz.

Let's look at some facts:

Yaz's last year was 1983
This bat is probably from 84 or 85 ( 83 and 84 was a crossover labeling period ) - could be from 1983, but I highly doubt it
The bat clearly does not match anything that Yaz or the Red Sox ordered and even MEARS acknowledges this
Yaz ordered only WIDE GRAIN C271 bats in 1983 with Natural Finish ( he also ordered C271 Hickory Models )
The MEARS COA clearly says this bat was used during the regular season
The COA is in conflict with itselfNow - the question is, how can you give this bat an A6 grade and also grade a legitimate Yaz bat from any year with light use an A6? Someone will be buying nothing more than a promotional signed bat and both Vintage Authentics ( with their description in the auction ) and MEARS ( with their A6 grade ) are misleading the collector - both too liberal in my opinion............YAZ HAD ONLY ONE SHIPMENT OF BLONDE C271 BATS IN 1983 - 12 pieces on AUGUST 12th - WIDE GRAIN NATURAL FINISH BATS - Dave and Troy - why did you even grade this bat????????????????? The bat in auction does not match what he ordered his last year in 1983?! In my opinion, he never used this bat in a game.........

Back to my third point - do your own homework. Don't rely on anyone but yourself. If you have any question on an item - ask around and get some answers and if you are still not satisfied - pass on it. I personally am tired of MEARS beating their chest on how great they are and yet they continue to grade things incorrectly or too liberally ( as is the case with the Yaz bat above )............

Jim


Now Jim, you are part of GUU self titled "Expert's Corner". Now, I am an Expert in Microsoft Networking, and like most Experts they are professionals in that field.

How come you dont Expertise professionally?

When someone asks me about there Microsoft problem, i give my OPINION on best practice. They dont have to take it. point is, they dont have to buy Microsoft in the first place.

Armband?? Cmon.. 1st rule of business... promote your own, b4 you knock the competition...

But if you are not a deemed "Professional", What can you promote? your Expertise? Well contact Vintage Authentics, MastroNet, Lelands, and any other auction house, and ask them to write in job description:

If you would like an additional opinion on this item, email Jim C for an "Experts" Opinion.

See if that weight carries....

[sportscentury]

Now Jim, you are part of GUU self titled "Expert's Corner". Now, I am an Expert in Microsoft Networking, and like most Experts they are professionals in that field.

How come you dont Expertise professionally?

When someone asks me about there Microsoft problem, i give my OPINION on best practice. They dont have to take it. point is, they dont have to buy Microsoft in the first place.

Armband?? Cmon.. 1st rule of business... promote your own, b4 you knock the competition...

But if you are not a deemed "Professional", What can you promote? your Expertise? Well contact Vintage Authentics, MastroNet, Lelands, and any other auction house, and ask them to write in job description:

If you would like an additional opinion on this item, email Jim C for an "Experts" Opinion.

See if that weight carries....

Huh?

[jboosted92]

Huh?

No need to say Huh? read it again. It obviously shows me making the point of saying if you dont like it.....Do it yourself...... and worry less about what others are doing. It you feel its flawed, invent a system of your own and implement it.

If I b*tched that Honda had crappy Variable Valve timing configurations within there VTEC system, they would say to me "dont use it, and try to make your own"

So AGAIN... If you dont like it, Create your own...

[kingjammy24]

howard,

the ebay mcgwire is not the one i was referring too. my goodness the ebay one has a lot of pine tar on the shoulder. having seen many mcgwires', do they usually have pine tar on the right shoulder? the tag on that one is interesting. at any rate, here is the '96 mcgwire i was referring to:

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1743/tag2uc5.jpg

funny. the 2 of them have different versions of russell tags. oh well!

rudy.

[CollectGU]

What happened exactly on the forum?

I know Dave is very anal about attaching your name (and email address?) to every post. Please elaborate.

I began the thread and was only Dave posting in the tread and the only one responding, BUT each time I wrote a reply, I either gave my first name and e-mail but no last name, by First and last name but no-e-mail, my-e-mail but no name, my first name, last name, AND phone number, but no e-mail...etc...ad nauseum...It's my fault for not following the "rules" but read the posts in their totality and you'll catch a "vibe"

[JimCaravello]

JBoosted

I guess I am missing something with your comment and am really surprised to see how many people do not really care about this topic and are just willing to give these guys a free pass all the time..........and yes - an armband missing - that's a huge item to miss when examining a jersey......

[CollectGU]

Jim,

From Dave's response on MEARS he feels like we, or at least I am trying to bring MEARS down which is not my intent..I wanted answers which I felt I didn't get and they felt they provided sufficient answers...Oh well..I'm done with the Berra mask issue...

[jboosted92]

JBoosted

I guess I am missing something with your comment and am really surprised to see how many people do not really care about this topic and are just willing to give these guys a free pass all the time..........and yes - an armband missing - that's a huge item to miss when examining a jersey......

Free Pass All the time? How many free passes? what else is wrong? Your talking about 1000s and 1000s of items...

I think your just more upset with the grading scale, then the once in awhile "mistake". I think most buyers are willing to forgo a mistake made, as long as they agree or understand the process itself. Just like the A5 thing.

I think the number system is weighted to much. What A5 means in regards to the particular item is more important than the number "5"...

I know A4 and A6 items that might be better than an A8 item. Its more in the description...

Plus thats why theres GAI, PSADNA, MEARS, LL...

You want a different opinion, then get one with the item, or dont buy it..if you disagree with the authethicators

[JimCaravello]

CollectGu

After reading your post, I saw the comments on MEARS. My intent is also not to bring MEARS down - my intent is to help collectors understand the nuances of COAs in the market and to discuss issues and discrepancies that I have seen in the past.

As I indicated in a previous post, the guys at MEARS are very knowledgeable and they have helped advance the hobby. If they feel like I am throwing stones, then they can feel that way. I can't change that. No one is perfect and mistakes are going to be made, but in my opinion, I really feel that MEARS needs to look at some of their SOPS relative to authentication. Once again - in my opinion, the Yaz bat is a perfect example of a flaw in their system.

I would like someone to tell me what I am missing with the Yaz bat and why that bat should be graded A6. I am all ears and I will be the first to apologize and say I was wrong if someone, including MEARS can tell me how a bat with the facts I have presented earns an A6 grade and can be equally compared to a factory documented, lightly used Yaz bat that would grade and earn an A6 grade.

Yaz retired at the end of the 1983 season and ( 1 ) if use characteristics can not be attributed to Yaz, ( 2 ) and the bat has a standard finish ( he only ordered Natural finish bats in one order in 1983, so the bat does not match anything that Yaz ordered in 1983 and MEARS acknowledges this ), ( 3 ) and they say the bat was used in the Regular Season ( after saying that use characteristics can not be attributed to Yaz, which is the conflict of COA issue mentioned ) - how does this bat grade A6? My point is if what they acknowledge in the COA is correct, then the bat is from 1984 or 1985 and should not receive an A6 grade and it should not be listed by Vintage Authentics as a 1983 bat used by Yaz in his last year?? It is nothing more than a promotional ordered bat.

Jim

[JimCaravello]

As an addendum to the last post, I wanted to provide everyone the criteria for an A6 grade on the Mears site........

A6 and A7 - Authenticated Bat with Evaluated Use and Noted Player Characteristics

"Factory production details of the bat have been compared to known records and have been determined to match recorded length ( +/- 1 to 4 ounces ), model, and correspond with proper labeling period from point in examined players career" Bat does not match anything Yaz or the Red Sox ordered in 1983 ( examined players career ) and MEARS acknowledges this in the COA.

"Use characteristics & player traits have been examined and player use has been found to be light or medium. Player traits may be present but no additional points are awarded" Mears acknowledges in the COA that "use and manufacturer characteristics can not be attributed to Yaz"

So - once again, why is this bat even graded in the first place?

Jim

[trsent]

As an addendum to the last post, I wanted to provide everyone the criteria for an A6 grade on the Mears site........

A6 and A7 - Authenticated Bat with Evaluated Use and Noted Player Characteristics

"Factory production details of the bat have been compared to known records and have been determined to match recorded length ( +/- 1 to 4 ounces ), model, and correspond with proper labeling period from point in examined players career" Bat does not match anything Yaz or the Red Sox ordered in 1983 ( examined players career ) and MEARS acknowledges this in the COA.

"Use characteristics & player traits have been examined and player use has been found to be light or medium. Player traits may be present but no additional points are awarded" Mears acknowledges in the COA that "use and manufacturer characteristics can not be attributed to Yaz"

So - once again, why is this bat even graded in the first place?

Jim



Jim, forgive me if I missed something, but what was MEARS response to your last question: "So - once again, why is this bat even graded in the first place?"

[JimCaravello]

Joel - they have seen my questions on the Yaz by virtue of their posts yesterday and their comments on items in my original posts and I have not heard back from them with my concerns

JBoosted - your last thead is right on - the grading scale is one of my primary concerns and the logic behind it does not make any sense. It is clear that this Yaz bat is a promotional bat that does not match anything he ordered in 1983. The A6 grade is misleading to the collecting community. The COA does state Professional Model Bat - Baseball Promotions at the top ( which I am sure MEARS if they respond, will say that under their grading criteria, they have every right to assign an A6 grade to this bat ) - but this bat can not be compared equally to a legitimate A6 Yaz bat that matches factory records. In addition, Vintage Authentics in their auction description clearly state that this is a bat that Yaz used in 1983, which is incorrect and they along with the MEARS COA are misleading the collector. This Yaz bat and the A6 grade are similar to my concerns over MEARS grading Team Index bats in the past with A6, A7, etc. grades that have been marketed by auction companies as game used bats by the player - when in fact, they are nothing more than team indexed bat or bats ordered by other players and not used by the player whose name appears on the barrel..... a previous thread on this topic is listed below

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=2114&highlight=index+bats

The Yaz bat is currently at $372 before the hammer ( with a few more days to go ) which is a complete travesty for a bat that Yaz only touched when he signed it.

Jim

[trsent]

My question was did you email MEARS or only assume they saw your post on this forum?

[JimCaravello]

Joel - I did not e-mail them and felt that I did not need to, as they have already commented on my original posts which included the information and questions on the Yaz bat. If they want to respond, they are more than welcome. If they don't, that's their choice. In reading the MEARS site, its clear they responded with comments they wanted to make about other things in my original posts and didn't respond on the Yaz questions. They read the Forum everday as evidenced by their posts over the last few months. Jim

[trsent]

I just though the rules of Game Used Universe were if you questioned an item as being genuine you were to contact the seller or authenticator in advance of posting issues with an item.

I know not all authenticators are available to answer questions, but I do know MEARS has a web site, email addresses and phone numbers they can be contacted to question an item.

Part of the reason I support MEARS, they stand behind their service and they will communicate with individuals when questions arise.

[b.heagy]

My question is for Joel. If you had any interest in obtaining this bat for your personal collection or for re-sale, would you be comfortable purchasing this item understanding what the letter of opinion states and what Mr. Caravello has pointed out. I am in no way trying to pick a fight or argue with you in any way. Just curious of where you would stand. Thanks for your time.

[JimCaravello]

Hi Joel - I believe our rules indicate we should contact the seller ( not the authenticator ) which I have done and will post their response when they get back to me. In addition, MEARS as mentioned, knows about my concerns on the bat as they have read and responded to my original posts ( not on the Yaz bat specifically ) on their web site. Also - the authenticity is not in question - MEARS has already indicated this is a promotional bat with use not attributed to Yaz. The answer I am looking for is two fold - ( 1 ) why is this graded an A6 as it is clearly a promotional bat the player never used and how do you distinguish this from a legitimate factory ordered Yaz bat that grades A6 and ( 2 ) Why is Vintage marketing this as a game used bat that Yaz used in 1983?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on Bill's question. Thanks, Jim

[trsent]

My question is for Joel. If you had any interest in obtaining this bat for your personal collection or for re-sale, would you be comfortable purchasing this item understanding what the letter of opinion states and what Mr. Caravello has pointed out. I am in no way trying to pick a fight or argue with you in any way. Just curious of where you would stand. Thanks for your time.

Nope, I have owned two bats in the last few years and this one is not one I am looking for. Generally, I prefer bats with grades of A8 or higher from MEARS.

If the statistics matter, I have owned hundreds of jerseys over this period of time.

[b.heagy]

Nope, I have owned two bats in the last few years and this one is not one I am looking for. Generally, I prefer bats with grades of A8 or higher from MEARS.

If the statistics matter, I have owned hundreds of jerseys over this period of time.

Good answer, I like it. Let's say it was one that fit your needs - would you spend your money on this piece. Yes or No. Thanks again for your time.

[RKGIBSON]

It would be interesting to know how many items all of these authenticators flat turn down. Lets face it the authenticating business is out of control. I have had my issues over the past few years and suggested that certain experts letters are worthless, but they are still being used. I guess they just get up after a mistake, brush their ego off and hold out their hand out for the next dollar due, for a worthless piece of paper, that most collectors do not need anyway. These mistakes cost everyone involved but them, the best I can tell. A while back someone posted that AMI told them, "if your not comfortable, do not bid on this item", thats the best advice they could have given. I alway talk, or communicate, with the auction house or seller, and ask enough questions to satisfy myself.
It would be refreshing if these authenticators would state their expertise. I certainly would not send a 1960 football jersey to someone that is a baseball expert. I always supposed that was why a group of experts got together to pool their knowledge. Do you think that all of the experts in the group look at every item, or do they all lend their name as long as one guy says OK? It eviedent that the jersey in question was not looked at very closely. I think they give certain submitters a pass in questioning items, because of who they are or were.
Unless a item comes straight from the player or the team with documents, none of us know if any item is real. When I question a item the first thing I want to know it where it came from. If the auction house refuses to give some chain of ownership or source, we all should pass. When I look at the MEARS LOA when they say no provenance. Forget it.

Roger

[JimCaravello]

One other tid bit of information on this Yaz bat that is very important. According to MEARS website, the following items should be subtracted in arriving at the overall grade of a bat:

( 1 ) No Factory records, but bat exhibits known player length, weight or model specifications ( - 3 points ) Our bat in question does not match the ordering records for Yaz and or the Red Sox. Matching Baseball Promotions is not matching factory records for the player

( 2 ) Use can not be attributed to examined player ( -1/2 to 2 points ) Mears has clearly said in the COA that the use can not be attributed to Yaz

Now - assuming we should even grade a promotional bat which I think is ludicrous, how does this bat grade A6? If you were even to take the aggressive and liberal appraoch in grading this bat, it would be 5 as the base grade for matching I don't know what - 3 ( does not match factory records ) - at least 1/2 ( use attributes don't match player ) , + 1 for light use for a grade no higher than 2.5 which is a complete stretch.........

Jim

[both-teams-played-hard]

It would be interesting to know how many items all of these authenticators flat turn down.

An interesting example of this is outlined on the MEARS website. Dave Bushing breaks down the flaws of a fabricated "1955 Hank Aaron Braves Flannel" that was submitted for authentication. The problems are outlined in detail; from the phoney tags, to the hand-cut lettering, to wrong number fonts. It reminded me very much of the 70s Superstar knits that we see regularly on eBay, with bad chain-stitched NIC, inconsistent year tags, etc.
It is worth reading.

[JimCaravello]

Folks - the right thing has been done relative to the Yaz bat. Please see the dialogue below of my conversation via e-mail with Mark Redmond of Vintage Authentics. Thanks, Jim

Thanks - you definitely did the right thing and I applaud your stance on this item. Thanks, Jim

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Redmond <mark@vintageauthentics.com>
Date: Monday, August 7, 2006 12:15 pm
Subject: lot 76
To: jcaravello@nc.rr.com

> Hello,
>
>
>
> The listing was an oversight on our part. We have pulled the lot.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>
>
> Mark Redmond
>
> Co-CEO Vintage Authentics
>
> 866-304-3090 Phone
>
> 763-208-2890 Fax

[Eric]

Another thumbs up for vintage authentics. People have said this numerous times around these parts- Mistakes are going to happen, it's how you handle those mistakes which defines your character.

Eric

[34swtns]

And for the record, not ALL auto'd jerseys auctioned by NFL Auctions have applied numbers. I recently purchased 2 Bears jerseys and the auto's are clearly over the stitching.

[34swtns]

And for the record, not ALL auto'd jerseys auctioned by NFL Auctions have applied numbers. I recently purchased 2 Bears jerseys and the auto's are clearly over the stitching.

LOL. Maybe I should've started a new thread to make that comment as the original point of this post has been completely deviated from. I don't think anybody even remembers what this thread was originally ABOUT! Talk about meandering subject matter.........
Has anyone considered breaking up the forums by sport? 'Cuz me and the other (maybe) 3 people on this board who are primarilly interested in NFL items would dig not having an NFL discussion turn into another bizitch session about a freakin' BAT.
Just a thought.