kingjammy24
08-15-2006, 12:34 AM
for those who like to read, here's a few thoughts:
everything stems from asking the right question. wrong questions tend to generate flawed results. for me, the wrong question when evaluating a jerseys asks "is this jersey game-worn or not?". it's a question with two flaws:
first, this hobby is based upon educated guesswork. barring a solid photomatch or rocksolid provenance, in most cases it's often impossible to undoubtedly prove that a jersey was or was not gameworn. if it's impossible to prove either, then trying is a waste of time.
second, the category of "game worn jersey" is inherantly liberal enough that it includes many anomalies, a large number of which may not be legit. more specifically, during the course of a season, players may experiment with atypical sizes and customizations, font errors may legitimately occur, etc. i think of these as anomalies. it's impossible to know all of the anomalies that have occurred for each player throughout history. without this knowledge, how can you know which specific anomlies saw game use and which didn't? did cecil fielder ever wear a size 46 in 1992 or is that fielder jersey on ebay a doctored game-issue that's too small? did pedro martinez ever pitch without custom sleeves in 2004 or is someone just trying to unload a martinez pro-cut? it's often impossible to say for certain which anomalies saw game use and which did not. the problem then is that if you aren't positive which anomalies are legit and which are not, then you're unable to prevent some illegitimate jerseys from unknowingly being included in the category of "legit/gameworn".
for example, when confronted with anomalies in their jerseys, some sellers counter by saying "you don't have a video of every single game so you can't prove he never wore it". while the seller is technically right, the entire question sets up a false assumption and requires me to prove a negative which is often impossible; the logic being that if i can't prove the athelete didn't wear it, then that means they might have worn it and therefore the jersey must be considered legit (albeit atypical). cognitively, the question paints me into a corner with this sort of flawed logic.
instead, i find it more helpful to qualify the definition of what i want. i don't want just a "game worn" jersey. what i really want is a jersey that has the highest possible odds of being game worn; a "textbook" jersey so to speak. the difference is that one may have been worn in a game, the other is very likely to have been worn in a game. by a "likely jersey", i mean a jersey with no anomalies that also has all of the typical, known attributes for that team/year/player/manufacturer/style. the fewer the anomalies, the more likely a jersey is to have been gameworn. when i don't have a concrete photomatch or impeccable provenance, i want no anomalies. this means that i may disregard some legitimately gameworn jerseys but it also means it's unlikely i'll get stuck with a bad one. for my purposes, i'd rather err on the side of caution as opposed to being so liberal that i'm buying jerseys based on the notion that i can't disprove their anomalies.
ultimately then, the right question for me asks if a jersey was "likely or unlikely to be gameworn". the more anomalies, the less likely. the fewer anomalies, the more likely. at the end, i want to feel that i'm looking at a jersey that was very likely to have been gameworn. this mindset overcomes the problems with viewing jerseys as "gameworn or not" because it disregards atypical jerseys which were previously accepted because their anomalies couldn't be disproven. with this mindset, i don't need to know every anomaly because i don't accept any. so in the example of the size 46 cecil fielder, i'd say that while it's possible that fielder may have worn a size 46 in 1992, it's unlikely. i would pass on the jersey not because it's fake per se (because i have no way of conclusively knowing if fielder put on a 46 one game when he was feeling trim) but rather because it's unlikely. maybe i'm wrong and i just tossed away a nice fielder jersey, but by relying on likelihoods rather than absolutes i'm going to end up being right more times than i will wrong. it's a small price to pay to put the odds constantly in my favor over the long term.
thanks for reading my yapping.
rudy.
everything stems from asking the right question. wrong questions tend to generate flawed results. for me, the wrong question when evaluating a jerseys asks "is this jersey game-worn or not?". it's a question with two flaws:
first, this hobby is based upon educated guesswork. barring a solid photomatch or rocksolid provenance, in most cases it's often impossible to undoubtedly prove that a jersey was or was not gameworn. if it's impossible to prove either, then trying is a waste of time.
second, the category of "game worn jersey" is inherantly liberal enough that it includes many anomalies, a large number of which may not be legit. more specifically, during the course of a season, players may experiment with atypical sizes and customizations, font errors may legitimately occur, etc. i think of these as anomalies. it's impossible to know all of the anomalies that have occurred for each player throughout history. without this knowledge, how can you know which specific anomlies saw game use and which didn't? did cecil fielder ever wear a size 46 in 1992 or is that fielder jersey on ebay a doctored game-issue that's too small? did pedro martinez ever pitch without custom sleeves in 2004 or is someone just trying to unload a martinez pro-cut? it's often impossible to say for certain which anomalies saw game use and which did not. the problem then is that if you aren't positive which anomalies are legit and which are not, then you're unable to prevent some illegitimate jerseys from unknowingly being included in the category of "legit/gameworn".
for example, when confronted with anomalies in their jerseys, some sellers counter by saying "you don't have a video of every single game so you can't prove he never wore it". while the seller is technically right, the entire question sets up a false assumption and requires me to prove a negative which is often impossible; the logic being that if i can't prove the athelete didn't wear it, then that means they might have worn it and therefore the jersey must be considered legit (albeit atypical). cognitively, the question paints me into a corner with this sort of flawed logic.
instead, i find it more helpful to qualify the definition of what i want. i don't want just a "game worn" jersey. what i really want is a jersey that has the highest possible odds of being game worn; a "textbook" jersey so to speak. the difference is that one may have been worn in a game, the other is very likely to have been worn in a game. by a "likely jersey", i mean a jersey with no anomalies that also has all of the typical, known attributes for that team/year/player/manufacturer/style. the fewer the anomalies, the more likely a jersey is to have been gameworn. when i don't have a concrete photomatch or impeccable provenance, i want no anomalies. this means that i may disregard some legitimately gameworn jerseys but it also means it's unlikely i'll get stuck with a bad one. for my purposes, i'd rather err on the side of caution as opposed to being so liberal that i'm buying jerseys based on the notion that i can't disprove their anomalies.
ultimately then, the right question for me asks if a jersey was "likely or unlikely to be gameworn". the more anomalies, the less likely. the fewer anomalies, the more likely. at the end, i want to feel that i'm looking at a jersey that was very likely to have been gameworn. this mindset overcomes the problems with viewing jerseys as "gameworn or not" because it disregards atypical jerseys which were previously accepted because their anomalies couldn't be disproven. with this mindset, i don't need to know every anomaly because i don't accept any. so in the example of the size 46 cecil fielder, i'd say that while it's possible that fielder may have worn a size 46 in 1992, it's unlikely. i would pass on the jersey not because it's fake per se (because i have no way of conclusively knowing if fielder put on a 46 one game when he was feeling trim) but rather because it's unlikely. maybe i'm wrong and i just tossed away a nice fielder jersey, but by relying on likelihoods rather than absolutes i'm going to end up being right more times than i will wrong. it's a small price to pay to put the odds constantly in my favor over the long term.
thanks for reading my yapping.
rudy.