PDA

View Full Version : NFL tail tag fonts?



Eric
04-21-2007, 06:33 PM
Hello friends

Someone emailed me asking about the font style on NFL jersey front tail size tags. I thought it might be good to throw out there so get a photo thread going for research purposes.

Should the font be consistent among all the teams?

Also, can people post photos of the tail tags here of pieces bought from the league or mei grey, game exclusives or directly from teams (from say, the last 3 years). Please also post where you got the piece/the source.

I'll do the same. Here is one from a 2006 Marcus McNeill bolts jersey from NFL auctions. more to come

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Football/Other%20Chargers%20Throwbacks/HPIM2208.jpg

Eric
04-21-2007, 07:38 PM
2004 Jamal Williams from NFL Auctions

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Football/Jamal%20Williams/HPIM2184.jpg

2004 Jamal Williams from Chargers team store

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Football/Jamal%20Williams/HPIM2180.jpg

2002 Marcellus Wiley from Wiley

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s194/ecky3/Game%20Used%20Collection/Football/Other%20Chargers%20Jerseys/HPIM1880.jpg

RKGIBSON
04-21-2007, 08:12 PM
Eric,

Personally, I would like to see the jersey data base grow to where it could be used, by members of GUU, as reference for specific player jersey characteristics. If that was used it would cut down on the sales of bogus jerseys. Second, on these current player jerseys, BUY PAPERWORK. By that I mean NFL, team, or player paperwork, not LOA's from authenicators.

Attached are the following player/year tags:
#1 2004 Shaun Alexander
#2 2002 Drew Bledsoe
#3 1998 Dan Marino
#4 1997 Moose Johnston
#5 2004 Peyton Manning
#6 2003 Ricky Williams
#7 2002 Fred Taylor
#8 2003 Reggie Wayne
#9 2003 Zach Thomas
#10 1999 Donavon McNabb

Eric
04-21-2007, 09:36 PM
Does anyone have proof of variations in the same team in the same year with the size tags?

Look at my two 2004 jersey tags of Jamal Williams above (one from NFL Auctions and one from the team store)

The #5 is different from the one on the 2004 Antonio Gates being sold in Historic Auctions

The bottom of the 5 curves like an s on the ones in my photos. The one in Historic striaghtens out

http://www.historicauctions.com/search/showphotos/auctionid/37571/imageid/13476/

RKGIBSON
04-21-2007, 09:44 PM
Eric,

Here is my Antonio Gates, vs Browns, 2006 tag. I bought the jersey from NFL auctions.

Roger

34swtns
04-21-2007, 09:44 PM
2000 season Bears pro-cut blank

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/34swtns/Bears%20Jerseys/DSC03806.jpg

2001 season Urlacher gameworn

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/34swtns/Bears%20Jerseys/DSC03406.jpg

Eric
04-21-2007, 09:47 PM
Eric,

Here is my Antonio Gates, vs Browns, 2006 tag. I bought the jersey from NFL auctions.

Roger

Can anyone find any 2004 tags from the league/team that look like this?

34swtns
04-21-2007, 10:14 PM
2004 Urlacher Pro Bowl game-issued

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/34swtns/Bears%20Jerseys/DSC03472.jpg

2004 Bernard Berrian from NFL Auctions

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/34swtns/Bears%20Jerseys/Discpics249.jpg

2003 Jerry Azumah from NFL Auctions

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i56/34swtns/Bears%20Jerseys/Discpics250.jpg

G1X
04-22-2007, 12:22 PM
Not meaning to get off track, but as with one of the previous posts in this thread, I continue to see various references in this forum about acquiring team paperwork. If you truly trust team/league/player paperwork, you are terribly, terribly naive. Time and again I have seen "official" paperwork stating that an item has been "game-worn" when it is quite obvious that the item is nothing more than "team-issued" at best. Some teams issue COAs on every item they sell as they appear to not know the difference nor understand the relevance.

No, DON'T buy the paperwork, buy the jersey for what it is! A jersey speaks for itself. The more appropriate words of wisdom should be to buy only those items that YOU have researched (not depending on ANYONE'S COA) and that YOU feel comfortable with buying. To do otherwise is opening yourself up to a lot of heartache and frustration.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

RKGIBSON
04-22-2007, 03:05 PM
The term buy paperwork was short for, if you buy from teams, or know the history through a paper trail, your chance of getting a fake item is reduced.

Roger

kingjammy24
04-22-2007, 03:59 PM
mark,

i've never believed that all team provenance should always automatically be trusted or be the sole determining factor. depending on the circumstances, team provenance can either be entirely worthless or it can be fantastic. are you saying you find the general notion of team provenance to be entirely (and automatically) worthless?

i agree that a buyer ought never solely "buy the paperwork". however, i also don't believe any single thing should be the sole determining factor including just the jersey. for me, it's a combination of factors that lead to a final conclusion. obviously, the jersey itself needs to stand on its own. however, i'd wouldn't stop there.

i also wouldn't say that team provenance ought to automatically be dismissed simply because a few teams have screwed it up. some teams are very good at keeping track. the meigray/texas rangers system, for example, was a phenominal system that anyone could trust. (note that i'm not saying it should be the sole factor.) rather than judging each team's system based on it's individual merits and track record, you seem to have dismissed an entire concept based solely on the fact that a few teams have screwed it up. why would someone who trusts meigray be "terribly naive"? has the system shown itself to be undeserving of trust? i don't believe it has and i don't believe someone that trusts meigray is naive. in fact, i'd say they've placed their trust into a pretty good system.

i also take some issue with your idea that "A jersey speaks for itself." i used to believe this but i'm starting to feel it's becoming an antiquated notion that fails to take into account the stunning quality that some forgers are able to create. it seems to be based on the inaccurate notion that if a jersey is bad, there'll always be some sure signs and the jersey will reveal them. in many cases, i think it's true but those are just sloppy pieces of work. it's also based on the idea that if a jersey appears good, then it's likely to be good and i don't even believe that either. if it appears good, then it's just as possible that it reflects the work of a great forger.

i believe great forgeries mean that it's not as simplistic or absolute as believing jerseys always speak for themselves. the only thing imperfect about these forgeries is the complete lack of provenance. (if forged papers were created, the jersey would be more likely to get caught on the paperwork than on the jersey). look at the gretzky jerseys that lelands got taken on. these were examined thoroughly, in person, by several highly regarded authenticators, including hockey experts barry meisel and milt byron. the gretzkys were, by most standards, excellent pieces of work. why didn't they "speak for themselves"? i believe one of them even came with forged oilers paperwork. when a collector contacted the person whose name appeared on the paperwork, the person said they had never issued such a letter. it was the fake team paperwork that caught the jersey, not the jersey itself.

"The more appropriate words of wisdom should be to buy only those items that YOU have researched (not depending on ANYONE'S COA) and that YOU feel comfortable with buying."

i have to think that doing research doesn't start and end with the jersey. it necessarily includes the provenance. i don't believe a person's comfort level has much to do with the legitimacy of a jersey. if a person is comfortable with a jersey how does that effect whether or not the jersey is likely good? it doesn't. it simply makes it likely that they'll buy it.

i think it's naive to feel that team paperwork in general has little to no value. i think it's naive to think jerseys always "speak for themselves". i think that if a person feels that they possess such a stunning breadth and volume of knowledge that team paperwork has no value and they'll always be able to tell a bad jersey just by looking at it is greatly underestimating the ability of forgers and opening themselves to some heartache and frustration. if a team has consistantly shown itself to be accurate and honest in its jersey dealings, then i believe its paperwork should hold substantial influence. i think it's inaccurate to judge the entire notion of team paperwork based solely on the teams that have screwed it up.

rudy.

G1X
04-22-2007, 05:32 PM
Rudy,

Reread my first paragraph and the very last sentence in particular. Just my personal observations, but I seem to be hearing and seeing collectors who blindly accept team COAs as gospel. Doing that is being very naive and opening oneself to heartache and frustration. That's all I said.

You say that "a jersey speaks for itself" is becoming antiquated because it fails to take into account the stunning quality that some forgers are able to create. I can assure you that forgeries, including excellent forgeries, have been around since I first entered the game-worn hobby in 1974. It's nothing new.

Simply put, my motto in this hobby is this: Collectors should do their own homework. If a collector doesn't feel confident in an item after performing their own due dilligence, or are putting all of their faith in the team COA, LOA, etc., then perhaps they should not buy the item in the first place.

It's a simple rule that has kept me out of trouble many times over the years, and it's an opinion that I felt was worth sharing as it has worked well for me and many others in this hobby.

A lot of us seemed to have survived quite well in the "olden days" before the advent of COAs, authenticating services, etc. There are many more resources available to collectors in 2007 than there were in 1974 such as this forum, Getty Images, internet sources, etc. If we didn't need COAs, authenticating services, etc. back then, why are they needed now?

I don't know about you, but if I am going to spend my hard earned money in this hobby, I'm certainly not going to be reliant on someone else to determine for me whether an item is the real deal. If I can't figure it out after performing my own extensive due dilligence, then I'm simply not going to buy it.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

Nilbog
04-22-2007, 06:01 PM
Ripon Athletic uses many different fonts on their size tags and on their year tags, many within the same year. I agree with RKGIBSON in that I would like to see a database with player specs from year to year. Trying to identify bogus size tags seems like a daunting and hopeless task.

kingjammy24
04-22-2007, 06:50 PM
mark,

perhaps i mis-read your comments. i completely agree that to "blindly accept team COAs as gospel" is ill advised. to me though, blindly accepting something as gospel is very different than believing that it's not naive to put a modicum amount of trust in certain teams provenance. i have trust/place value in jays provenance but i don't blindly accept it as gospel.

"Collectors should do their own homework. If a collector doesn't feel confident in an item after performing their own due dilligence, or are putting all of their faith in the team COA, LOA, etc., then perhaps they should not buy the item in the first place."

i whole-heartedly agree.

"If we didn't need COAs, authenticating services, etc. back then, why are they needed now?"

mark, you mentioned the dramatic increase in resources available to collectors today as compared to the 70s. those resources are also available to forgers. dave miedema recently wrote a good piece where he explained that the poor forgeries of the past were partially due to a lack of resources compared to today. you can't deny that this substantial increase in resources, technology, communication, etc necessarily means that it's easier to make better forgeries today than 30 yrs ago. if the forgeries are better, then the provenance becomes more important.

"I don't know about you, but if I am going to spend my hard earned money in this hobby, I'm certainly not going to be reliant on someone else to determine for me whether an item is the real deal. If I can't figure it out after performing my own extensive due dilligence, then I'm simply not going to buy it."

again, i whole-heartedly agree. i just didn't agree that the entire notion of team or player provenance shouldn't have any trust placed in it whatsoever simply because a few didn't do a good job. teams and players are no different than dealers in that respect. saying that anyone who trusts team provenance is naive simply because a few teams have screwed up is like saying anyone who places trust in jim yackel or patrick scoggin is naive because other dealers have screwed up. jim and patrick have earned people's trust the same way that certain teams and players have. the bad apples shouldn't ruin it for the good ones. some teams i trust, some i distrust. it's not the concept, it's the specific team/player.

rudy.

G1X
04-23-2007, 12:35 AM
Rudy,

I am mainly a football collector and dealer. My feelings about team COAs are drawn exclusively from my experiences with football items. Since this thread was dealing with football tagging, my comments were intended to be geared toward football and not other sports.

I can only speak from my own experiences, but of the eight football teams from which I have received some type of official COA over the past few years with regards to a jersey purchase, five misidentified a team-issued jersey as being game-used, and one team's COA was so vague that it was difficult to determine what the COA was actually claiming.

On one occasion, I saw a legitimate team COA that claimed that the particular player's jersey was game-worn on Thanksgiving Day (throwback jersey worn only once by the particular team). When I researched the matter, I discovered that the player was not even with the team by the time Thanksgiving rolled around. Needless to say, I did not pursue the jersey.

For me, team COAs instill about as much confidence as letters from authenticating services with regards to football jerseys. In other words, not very much. I am never one to believe that anyone is intending to be dishonest or mislead, it's simply a matter of either not knowing all of the facts or not understanding the issue at hand.

As for forgeries, I agree with the point that it is easier to make forgeries due to the increase in resources in 2007 compared to 1974, but on the same token, collectors also have increased resources for discovering the forgeries. It's all relative, especially without any hard facts at hand for either of us to prove our respective point.

It could be argued that an excellent forgery made back in the early 1970s is more difficult to discover than one made in 2007 of a current-era jersey because there is a lot less reference material readily avialable for researching the forgery made 30 years ago. There seems to be some truth to this based on seeing a few football forgeries from that era still circulating in the hobby.

My apologies to all for hijacking Eric's post. Back to the original subject, below are photos of the tail tagging font from from several different teams over the past few years that I randomly pulled. Hope this is useful.
1. 2005 Eagles (green) #53-Simoneau obtained in my bulk buy from team
2. 2003 'Skins (burgundy throwback) #29-Franz obtained from the team
3. 2005 Falcons (red) #84-R. White obtained from the team
4. 2004 Giants (red alternate) #57-Maxwell obtained from private collector who obtained from Giants website
5. 2005 Giants (red alternate) #51 Emmons obtained from private collector who obtianed from Giants website
6. 2002 Browns (brown) #10-Holcomb obtained from Jim Yackel
7. 2005 Eagles (green) #34-Mahe obtained in my bulk buy from team
8. 2004 Eagles (black alternate) #93-Kearse obtained in my bulk buy from team

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange