Lebron jersey - A5

[kingjammy24]

here's an interesting one: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1412.html

it's a 1988 molitor jersey graded A8 and "..consigned to this auction directly from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticators David Bushing and/or Troy Kinunen". A5 + 3 points for "matching the characteristics of known Molitor game jerseys". ordinarily, "The highest grade a post-1987 jersey can obtain without team or player documentation, or verifiable provenance, or a combination of known distinct player specific traits is an A5."

so in this case, the molitor jersey apparently has some "known player characteristics" which warrant the 3 pt bump. what are the characteristics? the jersey doesn't seem to have any unique customizations. the only thing i can see is the statement on the LOO that "All known Molitor jerseys from this era are size 42".
correct size qualifies for a 3 pt bump over and above the A5 which troy said has to be of the correct size anyway? wait a minute here. the A5 definition requires a jersey to be the correct size. if it weren't, it wouldn't even get an A5. that is, correct size is already built in to the A5.

typically, the 3 pts awarded for "known player characteristics" would be for:

"Up to 3 points awarded for the following (post-1987 only):

• Customized sleeves
• Tailoring of side panels
• Shortened tails
• Added crotch pieces
• Team repairs
• Extra length
• Other team customizations"

those are all unique customizations, the molitor jersey has none of them, and i don't see "correct size" being listed as an option.

secondly, if any post-1987 A5 jersey can have 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size then why didn't MEARS add 3 pts to all of the 50+2 A5 lebron jerseys they've evaluated?

as dave bushing said: "Given that 33 of the A5 jerseys were size 50 and 7 were size 52 which if I do my math right is just over 75% of those examined were true to documented game worn sizes". so a bushing & kinunen-owned molitor A5 gets 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size yet 33 lebron A5 jerseys which are a photo-verified correct size 50 remain A5s and do not become A8s like troy and dave's molitor?

and again, this seems to yet another bushing & kinunen-owned jersey with a "..large circular stain (eight inches in diameter) that is visible on both the front and back" that has had 0 points removed, going against their own grading policy that specifies:

"½ to 5 points subtracted for the following (determined solely by authenticator):

• Fading or staining (minor to abused)"

i guess the authenticator didn't feel like removing even 1/2 pt for a "large, 8" stain visible on both front and back" on his own jersey.

given that the A5 already has the correct size built into it and the jersey had a large stain, it seems to me that it should've been graded A3-A4. i'm not sure an A3 '88 molitor would've sold for over $3800 though.

the best part? the stylematch of course! mears' strong point. according to the LOA, this 1988 molitor jersey has been stylematched to corbis image # U840524B. what is that image? it's a picture of rollie fingers taken in 1984. how's that for a stylematch? a 1988 jersey is verified to be the proper style from a 1984 photo. brilliant. apparently MEARS couldn't find any photos of the 1988 milwaukee brewers. especially fitting considering MEARS is located in milwaukee.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

robert,

here's an A6, titled "game used", with a completely restored team name and back number:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1354.html

there are multiple sub-A9 items that REA has run with "game used/worn" titles.

anyway, re: david archibald's elway jersey issues with MEARS/REA:

i don't know what rob lifson said. i do know that rob always tries to err on the side of caution. i think he genuinely wants his bidders to know all sides to all of the lots he offers regardless of the impact on hammer price. i also know that rob isn't a game-used guy. his interests lie in vintage baseball cards and ephemera. so when MEARS says that rob wasn't comfortable running a '92 elway because of handwarmers, you can be fairly certain it's not rob who came to that conclusion on his own. rob could've only come to it via input and "advice" from MEARS. it was MEARS who was uncomfortable with it and rob likely ran with their "insight" because he depends on their expertise in game-used items.

rob was comfortable running a completely restored 1936 yankees shirt as "game used" but not a '92 elway because of handwarmers? like rob is a vintage yankee flannels expert who also dabbles in 90s era elway gamers? come on. it's a little disingenious for troy to say that "The staff at REA was not comfortable calling the Elway game worn based on the undocumented addition of the Elway handwarmer". the REA staff likely had no opinion on the handwarmer and probably weren't comfortable calling it "game worn" entirely based what MEARS told them.

that said, i would like to see the scoggins letter on the piece to see if patrick somehow explained the handwarmer. i'm curious why REA didn't run the ESC letter.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

so that MEARS doesn't feel as if it's being unfairly singled out, here's a nice one:

http://www.vintageauthentics.com/cgi...unbr=105622749

54+4! lou gives it a 9.5 on the lampson-o-meter.

rudy.

[aeneas01]

the best part? the stylematch of course! mears' strong point. according to the LOA, this 1988 molitor jersey has been stylematched to corbis image # U840524B. what is that image? it's a picture of rollie fingers taken in 1984. how's that for a stylematch? a 1988 jersey is verified to be the proper style from a 1984 photo. brilliant. apparently MEARS couldn't find any photos of the 1988 milwaukee brewers. especially fitting considering MEARS is located in milwaukee.

amazing. you would think that if mears was unable to find a decent shot of molitor to use for their stylematch (which is indeed rather scary), they would have at least picked a photo of a brewers player sporting the same style of jersey as offered in the auction, a post-1985/6 jersey with the "rawlings" logo embroidered on the right sleeve.

in fact the 1984 photo of rollie fingers that mears decided to use for their "stylematch" is quite different than the shirt sold in the rea auction given that brewers shirts from that era appeared to be made of a different fabric, didn't have the rawlings logo on the sleeve, the tip of the "v" collar was reinforced with a horizontal stitch and the center pinstripe aligned perfectly with the tip of the collar's "v" - none of which is consistent with the auction shirt. btw, as a guy that doesn't collect jerseys, i found it interesting/impressive that so much attention to detail was paid to assembling pre-1987 brewers shirts given that photo after photo shows the center pinstripe aligned perfectly with the collar's "v" - just couldn't be a coincidence, could it?

from left to right: the sans rawlings logo corbis image of fingers (1984) mears used, a corbis image of molitor from roughly the same era (i guess mears didn't come across this shot or they didn't want to use it because there's no number on the shirt), the pre-1986/7 reinforced collar and perfectly aligned center pinstripe and, to the right of the red line, two shots of the auction jersey (btw, what's up with the "fringe" around the auction collar?)

here's an interesting one: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1412.html

it's a 1988 molitor jersey graded A8 and "..consigned to this auction directly from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticators David Bushing and/or Troy Kinunen". A5 + 3 points for "matching the characteristics of known Molitor game jerseys". ordinarily, "The highest grade a post-1987 jersey can obtain without team or player documentation, or verifiable provenance, or a combination of known distinct player specific traits is an A5."

so in this case, the molitor jersey apparently has some "known player characteristics" which warrant the 3 pt bump. what are the characteristics? the jersey doesn't seem to have any unique customizations. the only thing i can see is the statement on the LOO that "All known Molitor jerseys from this era are size 42".
correct size qualifies for a 3 pt bump over and above the A5 which troy said has to be of the correct size anyway? wait a minute here. the A5 definition requires a jersey to be the correct size. if it weren't, it wouldn't even get an A5. that is, correct size is already built in to the A5.

typically, the 3 pts awarded for "known player characteristics" would be for:

"Up to 3 points awarded for the following (post-1987 only):

• Customized sleeves
• Tailoring of side panels
• Shortened tails
• Added crotch pieces
• Team repairs
• Extra length
• Other team customizations"

those are all unique customizations, the molitor jersey has none of them, and i don't see "correct size" being listed as an option.

secondly, if any post-1987 A5 jersey can have 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size then why didn't MEARS add 3 pts to all of the 50+2 A5 lebron jerseys they've evaluated?

as dave bushing said: "Given that 33 of the A5 jerseys were size 50 and 7 were size 52 which if I do my math right is just over 75% of those examined were true to documented game worn sizes". so a bushing & kinunen-owned molitor A5 gets 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size yet 33 lebron A5 jerseys which are a photo-verified correct size 50 remain A5s and do not become A8s like troy and dave's molitor?

and again, this seems to yet another bushing & kinunen-owned jersey with a "..large circular stain (eight inches in diameter) that is visible on both the front and back" that has had 0 points removed, going against their own grading policy that specifies:

"½ to 5 points subtracted for the following (determined solely by authenticator):

• Fading or staining (minor to abused)"

i guess the authenticator didn't feel like removing even 1/2 pt for a "large, 8" stain visible on both front and back" on his own jersey.

given that the A5 already has the correct size built into it and the jersey had a large stain, it seems to me that it should've been graded A3-A4. i'm not sure an A3 '88 molitor would've sold for over $3800 though.

you know rudy, i really hope that forum members and forum visitors give this portion of your post a careful read given that it clearly illustrates the truly subjective nature (and ultimately inherently flawed nature) of mears' grading system.

btw what's also interesting about the molitor a8 grade is that it shows that a post-87 item can achieve this grade via one of two avenues: the item can start as an a5 (no provenance) and can be awarded additional points or it can start as an a10 (with provenance) and be deducted points (elway jersey). this of course creates a situation where an item with zero provenance can trump a shirt with "rock solid" provenance (an a5 awarded 3 points earns an a8 , while an a10 that's deducted 3 points earns an a7 - sign me up for this!).

...

[kingjammy24]

..in fact the 1984 photo of rollie fingers that mears decided to use for their "stylematch" is quite different than the shirt sold in the rea auction...

the 1988 REA shirt was made by rawlings. the shirt in the 1984 "stylematch" was made by sand-knit. doesn't everyone stylematch rawlings shirts from pics of sandknit jerseys four years prior?

it just seems like every other MEARS "stylematch" shows that MEARS spent zero time and effort finding an actual stylematch. it's disturbing on many levels. mainly because a proper stylematch builds the foundation for any sort of authentication. it's also disturbing because dave grob has railed numerous times against others doing sloppy photomatching yet his own firm leads the league in sloppy stylematching.

rudy.

[aeneas01]

the 1988 REA shirt was made by rawlings. the shirt in the 1984 "stylematch" was made by sand-knit. doesn't everyone stylematch rawlings shirts from pics of sandknit jerseys four years prior?

it just seems like every other MEARS "stylematch" shows that MEARS spent zero time and effort finding an actual stylematch. it's disturbing on many levels. mainly because a proper stylematch builds the foundation for any sort of authentication. it's also disturbing because dave grob has railed numerous times against others doing sloppy photomatching yet his own firm leads the league in sloppy stylematching.

yet, ironically, dave grob has written many interesting pieces regarding the importance of "imagery analysis" - one has to wonder what relevance a reference to a jersey manufactured by a different company, 4 years removed from the shirt in question, has to do with the imagery analysis process.

if i were a paid authenticator hired to offer my opinion on a terry bradshaw clear shell gamer up for auction (right photo), would it be understandable/acceptable if i referenced the photo on the left as an example of a stylematch - a photo of an entirely different player, wearing and entirely different helmet model, from an entirely different season? isn't this exactly what mears did in this case, or am i missing something?



given the many mears "stylematch" snafus that have been discussed (and i can only wonder what would be revealed if mears opened up their letters with stylematch references to public scrutiny), i think it's fair to ask mears exactly what there is about these photo references they find relevant to the authentication process. or is this just a matter of sloppy work, perhaps untrained personnel, or a recurring disregard for details with the assumption that the fine print (read photo references) will go unnoticed?

i'm reminded of a barry bonds "stylematch" where mears referenced a photo showing bonds wearing a completely different jersey - different manufacturer, different shoulder/sleeve seams (the photo showed set-in sleeves while the auction jersey was a butterfly seam). i mention this in light of a dave grob article on "iimagery analysis" that i came across - in part:

"For set-in sleeves, pay attention to how the jersey in the picture is constructed. By this I mean that is the front half of the jersey fabric sewn over the rear half or is the rear half sewn over the front half. This subtle detail can provide insights as to who manufactured the jersey... you may be dealing with a salesman sample from another manufacturer as these are frequently made up for a teams star player of the day."

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_f...ry+analysis%22

wow.

regarding a5 shirts and post-'87 shirts - as i mentioned in a previous post, a collector submitted an elway gamer to mears which mears considered an a10 due to provenance and other attributes, but graded it an a8 due to two points being deducted for post game use alterations. the collector was subsequently upset that rea didn't list the shirt with "game used" in the title as he he felt this negatively impacted the final (very low) hammer price. taking a look at rea auctions for this year and all of 2008, i discovered that rea has never listed a post-'87 shirt with a grade below a10 as "game used" - apparently rea reserves the "game used" title for only post-'87 a10 shirts. something to consider when thinking about listing a sub a10 jersey with rea i would imagine - and something i would think rea would want to make clear to their consignors (assuming they already don't).

dave bushing recently wrote:

"If MEARS does a letter that says "cannot authenticate, index bat, store model, A1, Pro Cut, or Piece of crap" , just claim you don't understand, it is all too confusing, and label it game worn/used. If you are wrong and called to the carpet, simply blame MEARS complicated grading system."

as i mentioned before, i don't think there would be anything confusing about this sort of approach nor do i think mears would be "called to the carpet". but i do believe mears could expect the following type of results if they chose to describe some of their a5's more accurately as they did in this case:



btw i still can't wrap my head around this a5 thing - a shirt like the one above that clearly never saw barkley's back in a game, is graded the same as post-'87 authentic gamer without provenance. mama mia!

but, hey, as bushing says:

"I think the end goal for everyone is to make sure that someone buying an A5 knows that at best , he has a perfect game style shirt with no verifiable provenance and at worst, they have a shirt that matches all of the proper tagging as found on a verified gamer but might not have a verified size or some of the special customizations that might be found on a verified gamer but that they in no way can consider an A5 a documented game worn jersey."

actually that last part should read "...but that they in no way can consider an a5 a documented game worn or game issued jersey"...

...

[kingjammy24]

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=651

"Lot #1412 In the REA Auction by Dave Grob
Below is the text of an e-mail sent to both Troy Kinunen and Rob Lifson earlier this week.

Gentlemen,

In my opinion, this jersey was not graded in accordance with our criteria and policies for post 1987 period stars or Hall of Famers. There are no customizations that are readily apparent on the jersey. In 1988, Rawlings did in fact record customizations with supplemental tagging for both body taper and length issues. As you can see from the image attached, this includes products provided to the Milwaukee Brewers.

The winning bidder needs to be contacted and informed of this and that unless I can be shown some compelling and objective reason why the jersey should warrant a grade other than A5, the letter currently written on the jersey is to be rescinded and the jersey is to be recorded as an A5 in the MEARS data base.

If the intent is to award +3 points based on "player characteristics," then those must be things that can be directly attributed to Paul Molitor in an objective and defendable manner. As such they are not things like general use and wear unless they are manifest on the jersey in a manner or pattern that is distinctive to Molitor.

Please know I will be making this e-mail and the images provided public. My intent is not to embarrass anyone, but I need to make sure this issue is not perceived as being ignored. Additionally, this is intended to provide public clarification as to how the grading criteria is to be addressed and implemented in the future.

I look forward to your cooperation in this matter. I will publish this note and images on Wednesday the 3rd of June in the MEARS Current News Section.

v/r

Dave"

i'd argue the piece should be an A4. A5 - 1 pt for the stain.

rudy.

[sportscentury]

Reid- Thanks for the suggestion about sending the jersey to MeiGray to see if they can photomatch it. I might just do that.

.

Reed, would you please send me scans of your KG? I'm trying to build a KG photo-library. I used to have tons of early KG scans but they were lost when my old computer died. Thank you. rgf2@hotmail.com

[Texans]

so that MEARS doesn't feel as if it's being unfairly singled out, here's a nice one:

http://www.vintageauthentics.com/cgi...unbr=105622749

54+4! lou gives it a 9.5 on the lampson-o-meter.

rudy.

Wow a Lebron All Star Game Used Jersey for $1700. Thats a great deal. lol


Jojo

[sportscentury]

Wow a Lebron All Star Game Used Jersey for $1700. Thats a great deal. lol


Jojo

The real one is a $15,000-20,000 jersey. Not as bad as their recent Drexler debacle, though, which had tags that read "Game Issued" and "Not Good." It really doesn't get funnier than that!