1983 Seaver Alt Jersey on Greyflannel Auctions

[LHG39]

What does everyone think of this one?

http://catalog.greyflannelauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=29708&searchby=3&searchvalue=Seaver&page=0&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=25&category=1&seo=1983-Tom-Seaver-New-York-Mets-Game-Used-Alternate-Jersey

I know that there are numerous counterfeits of this particular jersey out there. Even Greyflannel hedges in their description "presented to us as game-used and in our opinion, shows appropriate use".

[TNTtoys]

What does everyone think of this one?

http://catalog.greyflannelauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=29708&searchby=3&searchvalue=Seaver&page=0&sortby=0&displayby=2&lotsperpage=25&category=1&seo=1983-Tom-Seaver-New-York-Mets-Game-Used-Alternate-Jersey

I know that there are numerous counterfeits of this particular jersey out there. Even Greyflannel hedges in their description "presented to us as game-used and in our opinion, shows appropriate use".

A few comments...

1. The name on back uses an incorrect font. What the Mets did back then is apply these extra thin letters for longer last names (i.e. 7 letters or longer) whereas shorter names (6 letters or less) used a thicker letter. This of course could be explained by the jersey having been recycled to the minors (nameplate stripped off, etc.) and the name on back being incorrectly restored... but I do recall being posed the same question when an 83 Server hit ebay a few years ago... Why would the Mets knowingly recycle a Seaver???

2. The strip tag has a couple of oddly embroidered numbers. The "1" in "41" is wrong. It should like the "1" to the far right (representing 'Set 1'). I have looked at dozens of embroidered strip tags and have not seen a straight 1. It always has a hook. Also, I have my doubts about the "3" in "83" too. It doesn't look like the "3" in other 83s I have seen.

3. This jersey is probably the least worn style out of any 83 game jersey that the Mets wore on field. In my time, I have been dared to find any footage of the Mets having worn a "home blue alternate" on field...I have come up empty. So has everyone else I know that has tried. That doesn't mean that they weren't worn, but it does give me some doubts. If I were to spend over $3K (not including the premium), that jersey better have been worn LOTS.

Come to think of it, I'm curious as to what "appropriate use" means. Does it mean that the jersey is brand new looking and might have been worn once or twice? Or does it mean it is heavily used because the jersey was recycled through the minors -- which would explain the incorrect nameplate restoration? I'd be curious as to what that expression means to be honest, because it can mean anything.

[slab0meat]

I have a (supposedly) game used 1983 Ortiz. Here's very large pic (so the tagging can be seen, sorry for the size).. make of it what you will.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8078/8258649918_978e60c310_k.jpg

[slab0meat]

And I only say supposedly because I don't know for 100% sure. I certainly believe it is.

[slab0meat]

SORRY for three-in-a-row... was just re-reading the GF description, which currently says that the Seaver jersey has a "fag tag"

;)

[slab0meat]

Final Hammer: $4957