Pujols Jersey-steinmetz/jeff Opinion?

[hblakewolf]

Forum Readers, especially Rob Steinmetz and Birdbats Jeff--
I ask for an expert opinion on a "2003 Pujols road jersey" currently offered on Ebay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/2003-Albert-Pujols-Game-Used-Worn-Jersey-Grey-Flannel_W0QQitemZ220065767425QQihZ012QQcategoryZ60 597QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

The jersey has several traits that make me uncomfortable with it:
1. It has 5 written on the front Majestic tag. I've never seen any other 2003 Cardinals roads with #'s written on this tag.

2. It has some faded initials written in the collar. According to the Grey Flannel LOA, these are Albert's family members initials. Again, I've not seen any other Pujols jerseys with initials written in the collar.

3. The washing tag on the inside is not present. I asked the seller, and he confirmed it is not present.. Based on this, there is no way to know if it had the pro code 0062 or the retail code 6200. The shirt is a size 48, a retail size.

4. The email that's included in the sellers description. Who writes like this?, "My jerseys, if kept by me, are put away at the Banks Safe Deposit Vault. They sit there until I sell or trade them." "I wanted to get a letter on the jersey, so I sent it to Grey Flannel, trying to beat the All Star break to help with early authentication." "Feel. This jersey is not a store bought or spring training jersey. This jersey has a nice sheen to it, as only road MLB gamers do. Its not the dull flat gray color of a store bought jersey. It has the touch and feel of a gamer. "

Rob, Jeff, or any other experienced Cardinals collector I ask you the following:
1. In your opinion, is this a correct example of agame worn 2003 road
Pujols?
2. Without the washing tag and thus the pro code 0062, would you feel
comfortable owning this?
3. Based on this jersey, and the fact that there is no way to determine if
it had a 0062 or 6200 code, could you provide a LOA, as Grey Flannel
did, stating "...this is an authentic St. Louis Cardinals game-used road
knit jersey worn by Albert Pujols during the 2003 season"?

Wishing all of the Forum Readers a Happy and Healthy New Year.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[stlbats]

Hey Howard,
I cant say for sure on the jersey, but the nameplate does look good, compared to a lot of fakes that have the plate extending way to far beyond the name. I dont know why a team/player would remove the inside wash tag either. Looks like it left a nice hole there.

jason

[bigtime59]

Howard:
Based on the LIMITED number of common Cardinals jerseys I own, I would be concerned about the double sewn #s on this jersey. The ones I have are single sewn.
Mark
bigtime39@aol.com

[jessicawinters]

Why are people even talking about this jersey???

Why would the wash code tag be removed??? IT'S IDIOTIC to even think of a scenario in which it would be removed. "Hmmm, I'm Albert Pujols, let me use a razor and take this tag off, so that there will be a BIG OLD HOLE here FOR FUN!!"

The nameplate looks good??? ALL authentic retail jersey's nameplates look good!

"It has the touch and feel of a gamer." Well, there you go!

EDITORIAL COMMENTS DELETED

[hblakewolf]

[quote=jessicawinters;29316]Why are people even talking about this jersey???

Why would the wash code tag be removed??? IT'S IDIOTIC to even think of a scenario in which it would be removed. "Hmmm, I'm Albert Pujols, let me use a razor and take this tag off, so that there will be a BIG OLD HOLE here FOR FUN!!"

The nameplate looks good??? ALL authentic retail jersey's nameplates look good!

"It has the touch and feel of a gamer." Well, there you go!

Jessica-
All vaild points.

Add your comments to those from another Forum Readers I received, "I have an extensive Cardinals game worn uniform collection including several 2003 road gamers. None of my jerseys from any year, including 2003 have double stitched numbers and none have had the wash tag removed".

Based on this, and the fact that there is no wash tag to indicate if it is a 0062 or 6200, I'll ask any forum reader or a representative from Grey Flannel to provide the basis for which a LOA was written on this jersey indicating is it a game worn 2003 road Albert Pujols?

What are we missing here?

Rob Steinmetz, can you comment on this jersey?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[kingjammy24]

this particular jersey has a somewhat sordid history that rob steinmetz is familiar with. perhaps he'll share his experience with it. it's the third time it's been up for auction. the seller originally stated it was acquired from authenticgamers. oddly enough, the price has gone up substantially this third time.

at any rate, i concur with mark sutton that the most disconcerting issue is the double-stitching on both the front and back numbers. perhaps my experience is limited, but i've never seen double-stitching on 2-color numbers on a legit gamer. any insight into this issue would be appreciated.

as for the numbers, i think that even a person intimately familiar with pujols' traits still wouldn't be able to conclusively say what pujols has or hasn't done in every single instance. perhaps it's atypical but that's hardly to say it's impossible or even unlikely.

i think too much importance is placed on wash codes. i've persued so many ebay auctions that state "it has the 0062 code that only real gamers do" or "it has the 0062 code so you know it's a real gamer". it's ludicrous to think it's so cut and dry. i have little doubt that 6200 jerseys have seen legit game action. conversely, i'm aware that 0062 jerseys have been found in retail stores.

as for the wash tag being removed, is it idiotic to think that pujols may have removed it for the same reason clemens removes his manufacturer's tags? "hmm, i'm roger clemens, let me use a razor and take this tag off for fun". yet we've all seen irrefutable evidence that clemens removes his tags so apparently it's true despite the fact that none of us knows why or can see the logic behind it. (i have little doubt it's done "for fun"). since size is a far more important determinant than the wash code, a missing manufacturer's/size tags pose a greater problem than a missing wash tag. while a ripped out wash tag is alarming, poses somewhat of a problem and would likely cause me to stay away, i'm not going to pretend as if i know what pujols has done with every one of his jerseys and/or that a missing wash tag is a completely implausible, "idiotic" scenario.

as for the "feel of the fabric" comment in the ebay ad, i'm not entirely sure what it was meant to convey. i'm not aware of any difference in the "sheen" of gamers vs retail jerseys. perhaps it's true, i just haven't felt a retail jersey in years. i don't know if current pro jerseys have a sheen while retail jerseys are dull. what i do know is that one of the best ways of gauging the legit use on a gamer is to feel the fabric. this is common knowledge. a jersey that's been laundered 50 times feels noticeably different than a jersey that's been laundered once. the fabric is undeniably and noticeably softer.

(it seems that when someone's going to fake a jersey, they rarely have the patience or foresight to launder it 50+ times in an industrial/commerical washing environment. they can easily curl flag tags in a few seconds but the fabric still feels coarse.)

as i said earlier, the double-stitching is the biggest issue for me.

rudy.

[RobSteinmetz]

Rudy,

The jersey in question did not originate from me or my company. I have been in communication with the seller, and he is aware of the fact that this jersey was not sourced from my company (as his original description stated). I concur with you and Mark Sutton regarding the double stitching...a characteristic not typically found on Cardinals gamers.

[hblakewolf]

How about this suggestion to resolve it.......

Rob Steinmetz/Authentic Gamers ALWAYS provides a LOA with EVERY item sold. As such, where's the LOA with this particular Pujols jersey or at least a receipt? There must be some type of paperwork that was provided from Rob-that is, if he indeed did sell this?

Based on my experience and from his reputation in the equipment arena, I find it a bit hard to believe he's behind this particular jersey.

Proof please.........

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[sur54srd]

How about this suggestion to resolve it.......

Rob Steinmetz/Authentic Gamers ALWAYS provides a LOA with EVERY item sold. As such, where's the LOA with this particular Pujols jersey or at least a receipt? There must be some type of paperwork that was provided from Rob-that is, if he indeed did sell this?

Based on my experience and from his reputation in the equipment arena, I find it a bit hard to believe he's behind this particular jersey.

Proof please.........

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

I was told Rob was not providing LOA's for every purchase at that time. Did anyone else here buy and item from Rob prior to June, 2003? If so, please post the LOA.

[hblakewolf]

Sur54srd-
Did you remove your post I responded to? Was it removed by someone on the Forum?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

[ChrisCavalier]

After reviewing a number of previous posts on this thread, I decided to delete them for the following reasons:

1) The poster presented information he/she claimed to receive from an anonymous source who claimed they wanted to remain anonymous;

2) The supposed source of the information was quoted as saying "I would ask that you not put my comments on ebay, share them with anyone else, replicate them, paraphrase them or anything else."

Needless to say, whether the source really exists or not, this forum would not be very credible if it allowed members to make posts with controversial content that supposedly comes from an anonymous source that claims they don't want their identity revealed.

In the future, please note that one of our forum rules states:

Valid Email Address Required to Post. A valid email address is required to register and it is incumbent upon all members to keep their profile current.

This rule also applies in that posters on the forum cannot post supposed information that comes from a source who will not publicly stand behind their statements. I trust everyone understands where that could lead if allowed.

Sincerely,
Chris Cavalier

[3arod13]

Sur54srd, are you authenticsports2006 (http://myworld.ebay.com/authenticsports2006/) on ebay?

[ChrisCavalier]

Hello Everyone,

This morning I had to delete a number of additional posts from this thread that violated the forum rules (I also deleted a number of posts that were in response to the ones that were deleted since they would not be in context given the removal of the other posts). Apparently my last post was not clear in regard to the forum rules. As I stated previously, the forum rule requiring a valid email address to post also applies in that posters cannot post presumed information that comes from a source who claims they want to remain anonymous. Such postings, in effect, would serve the same purpose as an anonymous post.

The forum is intended to help collectors become more informed. However, as we have stressed many times, it must be done in a responsible manner. In this case, the numerous post that have continuously been attributed to a source who claims he/she does not want to be identified is not, in our opinion, responsible.

If the individual who was presumably involved in the situation would like to come forward and post in a manner consistent with the forum rules then it will certainly be allowed. However, given the disparity in claimed information in this instance, it would be irresponsible to allow anyone to post on behalf of someone else who asks not to be identified. This can lead to any number of problems which include, but are not limited to, a potential inaccurate or misunderstood recounting of events, a deliberate misrepresentation of events, etc.

Thus, if the person supposedly involved in the situation would like to come forward, we will be happy to allow them to post any information that they feel would be helpful to the collecting community. However, for the reasons stated above, we will not allow posts from a second-hand source who claims to be posting on behalf of someone else who doesn't want to be identified.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier

[3arod13]

Rudy,

The jersey in question did not originate from me or my company. I have been in communication with the seller, and he is aware of the fact that this jersey was not sourced from my company (as his original description stated). I concur with you and Mark Sutton regarding the double stitching...a characteristic not typically found on Cardinals gamers.

Jersey relisted on ebay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/2003-Albert-Pujols-Game-Used-Worn-Jersey-Grey-Flannel_W0QQitemZ220073316959QQihZ012QQcategoryZ60 597QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[cjosefy]

I would think the LOA would mention that the wash tag has been removed since it describes every other detail of the jersey. Instead, it states that there are no alterations of any kind.

[kingjammy24]

back up for auction. this time around, it's said that pujols himself has confirmed its legitimacy:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220104325906

rudy.

[b.heagy]

Is there a letter from Pujols for this jersey? I would think "game worn" or "game used" would have been added to the signature if a letter could not be provided. Thoughts?