Need help with Russell jerseys year tags

[Haylo]

Hello,
I need some help with figuring out if Russell ever did year tags on jerseys? I have a Twins Mientkiewicz jersey from 1998. It doesn't have a year tag, all it has in the Russell Ath. tag with the size 46. I bought it from the Twins team shop back in 1999 (I'm guess), it comes with a Letter on Twins letter head. The jersey has a good amount of use. Does Russell have year tags?

seasonwithangels@aol.com

[sportscentury]

Aaron,

Based on my observations, 1998 Twins jerseys were manufactured by Russell, but should have year tagging in the neck. Flag tagging (under the Russell mfr tag in the tail) was standard among these shirts, too, to designate the fabric and tailoring specifications. For example, see:

http://cgi.ebay.com/1998-TWINS-COREY-KOSKIE-GAME-USED-WORN-JERSEY-W-COA_W0QQitemZ270011217153

I hope this helps. Best of luck,

Reid

[Haylo]

I saw an example, I have a Mientkiewicz jersey from 1998 a Rookie jersey #51. The collar has tagging, all it has is the Russell tag. Could the Twins have just made him a jersey since he was a Sept call up? So there might not be a tag in the collar? I bought the jersey directly from the Team shop. What do you think?

how about 1995 Angels Russell jerseys? year tag or no year tag?

seasonwithangels@aol.com

[sportscentury]

Aaron,

Yes, it's possible. If you bought it directly from the Twins Team shop, it shows real game use, it was advertised as game used, etc., these are all things that you should take into consideration in determining your comfort level. There are many REAL jerseys out there that do not perfectly match the norms.

As for Angels jerseys, someone else may want to chime in on that one for you.

You're welcome,
Reid

[kingjammy24]

aaron: i'm unsure if 1995 angels jerseys had year tagging. if i had to guess based solely on their 93 and 94 russell jerseys and 96 wilson jerseys, i'd say there was a good likelihood there was year tagging.
regarding twins (and other jerseys), spares will often be tagged differently from jerseys that were issued at the start of the season. in many cases, it's not possible to tag spares in the same way. in the case of 98 twins jerseys, for example, it'd be difficult to tag a spare with the number/year/set when you aren't sure which number will be eventually applied to it. there ought to be a norm for spare tagging and a norm for standard tagging. if you're asking if russell has year tagging in general, the answer would be yes.

slightly different topic:

reid: i agree that there are real jerseys out there that don't match the standard specs. regarding this, i've got a question for you; barring impeccable provenance or a concrete photo match, how do you discern whether atypical specs are due to legit causes or unlegit causes?

rudy.

[sportscentury]

reid: i agree that there are real jerseys out there that don't match the standard specs. regarding this, i've got a question for you; barring impeccable provenance or a concrete photo match, how do you discern whether atypical specs are due to legit causes or unlegit causes?

rudy.

Rudy,

It's a good and tough question. Every person has to come to terms with their own standards of comfort, I suppose. If the physical attributes of the jersey are inconsistent (e.g., tagging is unusual) with known, real examples, and a person is not sure of the history/provenance of the shirt, it may be best to simply pass on it.

Here's a story for you. I purchased a Cal Ripken Jr. jersey once that was represented as a gamer. I found that there had been some restoration of the jersey. Dan Knoll kindly took a look at it for me and his observations raised other questions/issues. I passed on the jersey and returned it to the seller for a refund, because some of the physical attributes were inconsistent and I didn't have a confident understanding of the jersey's history/provenance. I now know the seller much better and I have a far greater understanding as to his connections, sources, and integrity; and, more to the point, I have a much better understanding as to how the jersey was obtained. The jersey is long gone and I am sure that I passed on a real Ripken jersey (though not all original, mind you) at a very fair price. But I did learn from the experience, which is all one can do in this type of situation.

Reid

[kingjammy24]

reid,
what did you learn from the ripken experience?
in retrospect, do you regret not purchasing it?

i think at some point we all encounter a jersey that we're interested in but has one or two odd issues. at this fork in the road, there are two schools of thought. one says that there are legit jerseys out there that aren't up to spec. awhile ago, eric posted a uniwatch that showed photographic evidence of some of the zany jersey errors that occurred in the past year. therefore, the idea goes, if we know that errors/anomalies occur, then you've got to loosen your standards of what a legit jersey is and accept that there are going to be anomalies. this is fine except for one, huge, fundamental flaw: how do you know which anomalies really happened and which didn't? did ripken, for example, really take the field in an upside-down "8" or is someone trying to pass off a bad ripken? in most cases, there's no way of knowing. if there's no way of knowing, then this approach seems to involve a great deal of unnecessary risk and requires an inordinate amount of faith.

the other school of thought says "i know anomalies legitimately exist but if i don't know which are legit and which aren't, then the risk is too great and the odds of it being good are too low". why take the chance when you can instead opt for a properly-spec'd jersey?

you feel that you passed up a legit (albeit altered) ripken. however, you know that in that situation the odds of the ripken being bad were greater than it being good. by definition, an anomaly is rare. therefore, the odds of an atypical jersey being good are lower than it being bad. personally, i'd say you made the right decision even if in retrospect it ended up being legit. the thing is, having the mindset that you won't take a chance on an atypical jersey means you'll bypass many more bad jerseys than good ones. i think bypassing 1 good jersey justifies not being stuck with 10 bad ones.

(the funny thing is that an anomaly on an atypical yet legit jersey would make it much easier to photomatch. the anomaly provides a unique marker that wouldn't exist on a standard, "up to spec" jersey. i remember steiner once sold a mattingly jersey where the "2" was a noticeably different size than the "3". it's such a rare circumstance that it easily lends itself to a photomatch if you could ever find the right photo. unfortunately, unlike the mattingly or the jerseys on uniwatch, i don't think the majority of atypical jerseys in the marketplace are legit.)

rudy.

[sportscentury]

Rudy,

For the most part, I don't think we disagree. A lot of discussions on GUF are dedicated to exposing false positives (i.e., jerseys or other items that are purported to be real but are not). Some of my recent posts (in this thread and in the Red Sox tagging thread) have pointed to the issue of false negatives (i.e., a jersey or item that is rejected or ruled out, but is, in fact, good). Both false positives and false negatives are types of error and I think it is important to avoid both types as best possible. By thoroughly covering all aspects of an item (physical attributes, player characteristics, provenance, etc.) in one's "homework" or research, one can better reduce both types of error.

The Ripken jersey situation was many years ago. You asked what I learned from it. I learned how to ask better questions and be more inclusive and thorough in my research on, and investigation of, an item. I learned that, although false positives exist, you can't be so concerned with false positives that you start to make incorrect judgments in the form of false negatives. With respect to the Ripken, as soon as the inconsistencies were revealed, I didn't want the jersey any longer. I wasn't interested in asking more questions or collecting more information. My only concern was whether the shirt was a false positive ... and I was so focused on this issue that I turned the shirt into a false negative by rejecting it.

I'm not sure that there is all that much to debate with respect to these points. I'm sure that the both of us (and the vast majority of thoughtful collectors out there) agree that it is important to avoid errors, no matter what the type. It's kind of hard to (reasonably) argue against this.

Reid