Set 3 Rangers Arods/Palmeiros

[kingjammy24]

i have a few questions about the set 3 rangers arod and palmeiro jerseys that many have seen floating around. hopefully some forum members may be able to lend some insight.

these jerseys lack the rangers inventory code that should be present on all 2002+ rangers jerseys. in response to how and why a rangers jersey would lack the inventory code, barry meisel stated:

"According to the team, they tag every jersey that is prepared for use by, and eventually worn by, the team. They have done so since 2002.
..there are other jerseys that we don't get (promotional jerseys, charitable contributions, jerseys given to team staff, etc). Those, however, also have inventory tags. Does there exist a game-worn jersey that does not have a Texas Rangers inventory tag? It is possible, of course, but highly unlikely. For that to have happened, a player or some other staffer would have had to work a non-inventory tagged jersey into the locker room, worn it, and then removed it from the locker room."

reid stated "I was told that Arod ordered and sold boxes of them, literally. The HAMMERED Arod jerseys that MeiGray obtained were the ones from the team (all Set 1 and Set 2 jerseys)... I know there were a lot (A LOT) of Set 3 jerseys that were bought by AROD himself for his own "distribution"

juan stated "as we know AROD purchased his own inventory, used them, and sold them. Its most probable that all these pieces are legitimate with the most use going to the set 1's and 2's"

my questions:

- i don't understand how or why all of these jerseys are specifically set 3's. the inventory tagged, set 1s and 2s were obviously ordered by the team but if arod was purchasing jerseys on his own then wouldn't that constitute a separate purchase order? all of the rangers-ordered jerseys are inventory tagged and yet arods are not so i doubt arod was piggybacking on the rangers order. (had he been piggybacking, the sets would make sense. sets 1 and 2 to the rangers and set 3 to arod only makes sense in a single order). arod's orders would be separate from the rangers' and so i don't see how they would legitimately be assigned a set 3 unless arod specifically requested they be labeled "set 3" which he could likely do. if that's the case, why would he specifically request "set 3" on boxes and boxes worth of jerseys? is it because he knew his all of his set 1 and 2 jerseys were with the rangers and tagged and so set 3 would seem legit to buyers?

- why are tons of non-inventory tagged, arod-ordered jerseys all labeled set 3? how do you have 50 set 3 jerseys? as i understand it, sets may be relative to a specific purchase order. thus - order 1 includes set 1, 2 and 3. order 2 includes set 1, 2 and 3 as well. i have no idea how you legitimately wind up with nothing but 50 set 3's and no untagged, set 2's or 4's or 5's, unless, like i said, arod specifically ordered dozens of jerseys to be specifically labeled "set 3" and i have to wonder why he did that.

- why the issue is identical for both arod and palmeiro? (i haven't seen any untagged, set 3 jerseys for any other rangers players)

- juan you said that "it's most probable" that all of the inventory arod purchased is legit (ie: gameused). given that barry called these jerseys "highly unlikely" i'm curious why you call them "most probable"? what makes them probable?
given arod's history of writing "gameused" on anything and writing homerun numbers on items that were never the actual items used for that homerun, i'm more inclined to think these jerseys aren't very probable at all. if you've got any firsthand insight regarding these jerseys, i'd love to hear it.

thanks!,

rudy.

[sportscentury]

Rudy,

Good question - one that I asked myself a few years back when I noticed this tagging distinction and investigated the issue. I was told that this decision was made at the manufacturer level to distinguish jerseys that were team-ordered/purchased from those that were player-ordered/purchased. Players could order any number of "game-tagged" jerseys they wanted, but they were all set 3s, regardless of the number ordered. You should add Pudge to this list. I won't touch set 3 Pudge, ARod, or Palmeiro jerseys from their Texas years. Before I start getting crazy or angry responses to this post of mine, I should say up front that if the source of your rebuttal information is ASI, I will not even bother responding to you. My source was someone who knows MeiGray well and has purchased from them; he has also purchased directly from ARod for many years; he has also had regular communications with major manufacturers such as Rawlings, Wilson, Majestic, and Russell over the years in order to clarify jersey/uniform questions.

Reid

[kingjammy24]

reid,

excellent information, thanks. that makes a little more sense.

your information begs a few more questions:

- was the practice of using "set 3" for all player purchases used solely by one manufacturer or across the board? was it used by the manufacturer(s) for all teams or for the rangers exclusively? if "set 3" is code for player purchase from a certain manufacturer or team, then i think this information has far reaching effects beyond simply arod/palmeiro/pudge rangers jerseys.

- as you're aware, at the start of the season, each player tells the equipment manager how many jerseys they want for the season (along with sizes and customizations). i'm talking about jerseys that the players intend to wear, not those they intend to sell/trade. set 3 isn't a very high number. it's easy to reason that a player would ask the team to order 3 jerseys and then genuinely use all 3 in a season. how then does "set 3" distinguish between a team-purchase and a player-purchase? i guess i'm saying that set 3 is such a low number that it's likely to be included in a team-purchase and as such, this code makes it difficult to discern team purchase from player purchase.

it'd make more sense for everyone if the manufacturer would set the code at something like ""set X". numbers for team purchases, letters for player purchases. they need a genius like me over at majestic.

p.s. re: rangers jerseys: personally, i think the lack of inventory tagging is a bigger redflag on rangers jerseys than set 3s. if a set 1 or 2 popped up and didn't have the inventory tagging, i wouldn't touch it.

rudy.

[trsent]

I am confused why this is such an issue.

If A-Rod ordered jerseys by himself or through the Rangers (and Palimero at the same situation) and then claims he wore the jerseys and sold them separately than the jerseys MeiGray distributed, what is the big deal?

Then the next question is did Alex Rodriguez really wear the jersey he gives/sells himself or did he just state they were worn?

I can guarantee you, he didn't ask for Set 3 jerseys. He ordered jerseys and that is how they came labeled. Could he have worn his own jerseys and left the team jerseys separate? Sure.

Did he? That is a different story. I would assume if this was a major concern Michael O'Keeffe could use his New York press credentials and ask Alex in the locker room. I last talked to Alex about three years ago at The Bellagio where he was playing poker.

We exchanged stories about playing professional poker and mutual friends (Scott Malblum and Jeff Johnson) and then Alex wouldn't start a $1 - $2 no limit game because he thought I was hustling him. Funny, I just wanted to play poker against a guy who was making $25,000,000 a year.

Why I bring this up is I found Alex a really nice guy to talk to. I figure you could ask your friend to ask Alex since he has press credentials.

[stkmtimo]

reid,

excellent information, thanks. that makes a little more sense.

your information begs a few more questions:

- was the practice of using "set 3" for all player purchases used solely by one manufacturer or across the board? was it used by the manufacturer(s) for all teams or for the rangers exclusively? if "set 3" is code for player purchase from a certain manufacturer or team, then i think this information has far reaching effects beyond simply arod/palmeiro/pudge rangers jerseys.

- as you're aware, at the start of the season, each player tells the equipment manager how many jerseys they want for the season (along with sizes and customizations). i'm talking about jerseys that the players intend to wear, not those they intend to sell/trade. set 3 isn't a very high number. it's easy to reason that a player would ask the team to order 3 jerseys and then genuinely use all 3 in a season. how then does "set 3" distinguish between a team-purchase and a player-purchase? i guess i'm saying that set 3 is such a low number that it's likely to be included in a team-purchase and as such, this code makes it difficult to discern team purchase from player purchase.

it'd make more sense for everyone if the manufacturer would set the code at something like ""set X". numbers for team purchases, letters for player purchases. they need a genius like me over at majestic.

p.s. re: rangers jerseys: personally, i think the lack of inventory tagging is a bigger redflag on rangers jerseys than set 3s. if a set 1 or 2 popped up and didn't have the inventory tagging, i wouldn't touch it.

rudy.

Rudy,
Great post. I will never touch a Set 3 no matter what it's described as and I try and stick only to Rangers jerseys from the past few years. The MeiGray collections are fantastic and I have many great pieces from them in my collection.

Tim

[sportscentury]

Rudy and Joel,

See my responses below.


reid,

excellent information, thanks. that makes a little more sense.

your information begs a few more questions:

- was the practice of using "set 3" for all player purchases used solely by one manufacturer or across the board? was it used by the manufacturer(s) for all teams or for the rangers exclusively? if "set 3" is code for player purchase from a certain manufacturer or team, then i think this information has far reaching effects beyond simply arod/palmeiro/pudge rangers jerseys.

I'm not sure. Others will need to chime in here.


- as you're aware, at the start of the season, each player tells the equipment manager how many jerseys they want for the season (along with sizes and customizations). i'm talking about jerseys that the players intend to wear, not those they intend to sell/trade. set 3 isn't a very high number. it's easy to reason that a player would ask the team to order 3 jerseys and then genuinely use all 3 in a season. how then does "set 3" distinguish between a team-purchase and a player-purchase? i guess i'm saying that set 3 is such a low number that it's likely to be included in a team-purchase and as such, this code makes it difficult to discern team purchase from player purchase.

The Rangers ordered two home/whites, two road/greys, and two alt/blues for each player. These were sets 1 and 2. The players who ordered extras got set 3s.


it'd make more sense for everyone if the manufacturer would set the code at something like ""set X". numbers for team purchases, letters for player purchases. they need a genius like me over at majestic.

Well, a genius like you ... as well as someone who actually cares about these collecting-related issues like you.


p.s. re: rangers jerseys: personally, i think the lack of inventory tagging is a bigger redflag on rangers jerseys than set 3s. if a set 1 or 2 popped up and didn't have the inventory tagging, i wouldn't touch it.

rudy.

Rank the red flags however you wish. If you have a set 3 with a team serial tag, it is not right. If you have a set 1 or a set 2 without a team serial tag, it is not right. In this context, the term "not right" is defined as: not a jersey that was ordered and tracked for game use by the Rangers.


I am confused why this is such an issue.

I'm not surprised ... and, in fact, I'm not sure this is saying all that much.


If A-Rod ordered jerseys by himself or through the Rangers (and Palimero at the same situation) and then claims he wore the jerseys and sold them separately than the jerseys MeiGray distributed, what is the big deal?

If you assume all of these things to be true, then you believe that the extra jerseys that were ordered by the players were in fact game worn by the players. If that is what you believe, I say GO FOR IT. Do you really believe that the five gazillion set 3 jerseys that were signed as game worn and sold as game worn were actually game worn? Joel, I know you love to argue, but you must see through this one. Have you inspected any of these jerseys closely? I certainly have. Stiff as a board and smell brand new (redefining the term "factory fresh").


Then the next question is did Alex Rodriguez really wear the jersey he gives/sells himself or did he just state they were worn?

Hmmmm..... that's a tough one. I'm stumped.


I would assume if this was a major concern Michael O'Keeffe could use his New York press credentials and ask Alex in the locker room.

Joel, this is brilliant. O'Keefe should definitely do this...I can picture it now. ARod tells O'Keefe to sit down because he has something that he just has to get off of his chest: "Michael, here is the thing...I didn't wear the jerseys but I knew I would get more money if I sold them as game worn. I'm greedy, you see, and $252M is just not enough." PERFECT RESOLUTION. Whereas Majestic may need a genius like Rudy, the FBI needs a genius like you.


Why I bring this up is I found Alex a really nice guy to talk to. I figure you could ask your friend to ask Alex since he has press credentials.

Joel, I've met ARod ... I agree, he's terribly likable. But this is entirely irrelevant.

Reid

[trsent]

Reid, what you are missing is maybe A-Rod doesn't think twice about this whole debate. Maybe his entourage does, but making $25,000,000.00 a year, maybe he doesn't think about issues like this at night as you and I do.

Did you lose any sleep over this debate last night?

[sportscentury]

Reid, what you are missing is maybe A-Rod doesn't think twice about this whole debate. Maybe his entourage does, but making $25,000,000.00 a year, maybe he doesn't think about issues like this at night as you and I do.

Great point. Maybe ARod does not think twice as to whether the jerseys are actually game worn when he orders them, signs them as game worn, sells them as game worn, and spends the money he has made from selling them as game worn. Nice work, Joel ... I completely missed that!


Did you lose any sleep over this debate last night?

This is a rich question coming from perhaps the most stressed out guy on the forum.

Joel, as always, it is a great pleasure (and you know I mean this genuinely)...

Reid

[trsent]

You are really wrong with this one.

- Howard stacked the helmets so the photos from back were not clear.

- I find no stress over Game Used Universe debates.

- I think A-Rod doesn't pay attention, because he is worth more than Steve Austin (not Stone Cold, the original Six Million Dollar Man) and his friends have fun with him at our expense.