PSI "80's Montana" on Ebay - issues

[kingjammy24]

"PSI: Late 80's Joe Montana jersey"

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=8739034612

The "1" font is wrong. The 49'ers used a "short/snub-nosed" style of "1". The PSI "1" is much longer and the geometry is incorrect. It's not the same font. Close by not the same. As well, there is an excess of white material on the ends of the sleeves for some reason.

See below:




Rudy.

[kingjammy24]

The identical issues I mentioned on the road jersey also affect a home "80's Montana" jersey that PSI is auctioning on Ebay. Currently bids have reached over $1000. The "1" is wrong and there is an issue with the sleeves. I'm wondering if both Montana jerseys came from the same source. The "1" is identical in both auction jerseys yet not identical
to any photos of Montana in the 80's.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=8739034776

Rudy.

[hof89]

Rudy,

Great detailed explanation!!! This will help ALL prospective buyers wit this much detailed insight! I don't care who writes a COA, everyone must do their homework and you have done yours!!! The second photo from '87, the black and white one, appears that there is a matching amount of sleeve material compared to the one offered by PSI on EBAY, however, it does not match your breakdown of the #1. Again, thanks for taking the time to make mention of this....

HOF89

[CollectGU]

Rudy,

Is it just me or does the 8th picture (black and white) show the same amount of extra material as the one offered?

Thanks,

Dave

[Eric]

Here are some photos that seem to match the Montana jersey being offered by PSI.
I think the allegations being thrown at Bernie are unfair and should be retracted by the poster. I want to know people's thoughts on this.

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/sou...53155865&cdi=0

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=247836&cdi=0

http://editorial.gettyimages.com/source/search/details_pop.aspx?iid=52635710&cdi=0

[ChrisCavalier]

Is it just me or does the 8th picture (black and white) show the same amount of extra material as the one offered?

Hello Dave-

I have to say I agree with you. In addition, I have some concerns about the claims that the "1" is also wrong. After giving the post a careful look, my concerns are based on the following:

1) Unless I am mistaken, the images being used by Rudy are being blown up multiple times and are images that come from action photos. The PSI jersey is laying flat and is unaltered. As such, I do not think they are an appropriate comparison to use to compare the "nose" of the number "1".

2) Even if you accept the comparison, unless my eyes need to be checked (which is possible), the "1" in the 1987 photo looks like it might very well be the same as the one being offered by PSI (especially since the "1" being shown by Rudy is being pulled back due to the action shot). I am not saying whether they are or are not the same. However, given the burden of proof lies with the person contending the jersey is bad, I don't think the evidence is sufficient.

Though I have been taught a few things about jerseys, I do not consider myself an expert. Therefore, I am not the appropriate person to ask if the jersey is good. However, I will say I feel strongly that before someone posts something that can have an adverse affect on someones livelihood, I think they need to be absolutely sure and need to present better evidence than is presented here.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier
CEO - Game Used Universe

[kingjammy24]

I will address the issues and questions one by one to make sure I don't miss any.

CollectGU/Dave: re: the sleeves in the 8th picture: Yes I thought they may have supported the PSI jersey as well. Upon further detailed analysis,
the PSI jersey shows twice the amount of white space after the last red stripe. The 8th pic shows only a little more white space than was used in previous white stripes. More disconcerting though is that I found that the white spaces themselves are different in sizing. See my pic to see what I mean.

Eric: I have taken the photos which you say support the PSI jersey and incorporated them into my pic below. Maybe it's only me, but they don't seem to support it at all. The "1" in all of your pics is a snub-nosed font. The sleeves in your color pic don't show any excess white. What about your pics supports the PSI jersey?
Re: Allegations "thrown at Bernie".
What allegations have I thrown at Bernie exactly? I have not mentioned his name once, I have not said this jersey is fake. I have said the font is wrong, which I stand by and that the sleeves have issues. I have documented my beliefs with substantial photo evidence. I have thrown absolutely no allegations at Bernie or even at PSI. I have "thrown" 2 at this specific jersey. Having words put into my mouth by a moderator is a little surprising.

Chris: Your comments seem odd. The PSI image is not altered?
Chris, the PSI pic is 8" wide! So unless, Joe Montana wore an 8" wide jersey, the image was absolutely 'altered'. Secondly, enlarging an image, as I have done, has absolutely no effect on it's inherant proportions. Have you ever ordered 8x10's or 11x14's from a photo lab? What do you think happens there? They've simply enlarged your negatives or your 4x6's. The images are identical in their proportions. Do you think if you get a 4x6 blown up to 11x14, that the image's inherant ratios have changed at all? Of course not. Thirdly, how else could I provide an accurate and true comparison if I DIDN'T re-size all the images so that they were the same size?
Fourthly, Chris if it was "inappropriate" to ever use action photos to compare to auction photos, then we'd never be able to compare game jerseys would we? How many times have you seen an athlete take his jersey off after a game and lay it flat on the field so people could take photos? We've been comparing 'action photos' to auction photos on this site for a long time. Apparently this is the first time you've ever felt it was an inappropriate comparison.
Lastly, you say if a person "posts something that can have an adverse affect on someones livelihood..they need to be absolutely sure and need to present better evidence than is presented here". Chris this forum is filled to the brim with people "making allegations" based purely on their experience and knowledge. If I post a question about a Pete Rose Phillies jersey on Ebay, for example, and Howard replies simply saying it's bad because the font is wrong, what sort of "evidence" is that?
More than any other forum member, I repeatedly post detailed photos with my posts and this is the first time I've ever seen you say the evidence is insufficient. Can I expect you'll make the same comment when another forum member makes an assertion based solely on their experience without any photos or 'hard evidence' ?

Let me end by saying, I have nothing against Bernie. Truth be told, I actually think he seems like a nice guy. I have nothing against Joe Montana, the 49'ers, or Russell Athletic. I am also not saying this jersey is fake. What I am saying is that the "1" is the wrong font and the sleeves seem odd. Marcus Chmaj had an 80's Montana jersey on here awhile ago. Chris, here's a pic of Marcus's jersey "flat" and not "in action".






Rudy.

[trsent]

I know I have butted heads with Rudy also, but it is hard to argue with his methods. Once again as a innocent witness, I feel Rudy's testimony has once again taken the lead in this case.

As usual, I don't know if the jersey in question is valid or not, I just know the evidence against points in the wrong direction.

Happy Holidays!

[ChrisCavalier]

Chris: Your comments seem odd.

Hello Rudy-

I think it would be a good idea to back up for a moment and look at my post in context so it is not misunderstood.

First of all, was I suggesting that images can never be blown up or action shots cannot be used to evaluate items? Absolutely not. My point was, in this case, the images used to conclude the “nose” of the number “1” had “issues” seemed inconclusive to me. For example, the blue line you drew in 1987 example seemed to be straight up and down to me while the rest of the number “1” in the picture seemed to be on a slight angle. That is what I also meant by saying it is difficult to make the comparison since one image is from an action shot and the other is laying flat. Whether or not they are different, as I said in my post, I do not know. However, to me the evidence from the images originally posted did not seem conclusive.

In fact, when I look at the first 1988 image you posted of Montana wearing a jersey (the one where he is on the phone), it looks to me like that one could very well have the larger “nose” you mention. Whether or not the exact geometric proportions can be reproduced to make the case, again I do not know. However, I didn’t feel I saw enough evidence from the images provided (especially given they are action shots) that make the matter-of-fact statement that the “#1” is wrong”. Can more evidence be provided? Certainly. I was simply stating I didn’t think there was enough evidence based on what was shown to make that determination. For example, if evidence were provided from the 49ers directly (or from an exhaustive analysis of all 49ers 1980s jerseys) that the #1 always had a “short, blunt nose” than I think that evidence would be conclusive and would be extremely beneficial to the hobby. However, I didn’t feel as though the definitive statement that “#1 is wrong” was fully supported from what I saw.

As for the sleeves (the other “issue” presented in the post), I think we have already established that the point made that “there is an excess of white material on the ends of the sleeves for some reason” has already been proven to have precedent. While your later post suggests the white space between the stripes is different (an entirely different question), that was not the “issue” raised in the initial post. Once again, I didn’t feel there was enough evidence to support the matter-of-fact statement that this was an “issue”.

That brings me to my other point. When anyone makes a post definitely stating that a jersey has “issues” what will the reader assume? I can’t speak for everyone but I know I (and I’m sure there are a number of other people out there) who will instinctively question the credibility of the item as well as the seller. That was my point that before posting something that can potentially damage the credibility of the seller I think really strong evidence needs to be provided. Can that evidence be provided…yes. Did I think it was provided in the initial post…no. Notably, I also think the post would have also had a different affect it was presented as a question rather than a statement definitively suggesting the jersey had “issues”.

Rudy, please know that I think you do a great job with the material you provide and I am all for finding out more information to help the hobby evaluate game-used material. That is one of the main reasons Game Used Universe was created. All I was suggesting was that I thought the evidence provided in the initial post didn’t appear to be sufficient to make the definitive “issues” claim. That statement, though maybe not intended, could have the potential to damage someones credibility and livelihood. As to your question as to whether or not all posts should be as responsible in this regard, I would personally say yes.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier
CEO – Game Used Universe

[kingjammy24]

Chris,
This applies to you and everyone: I genuinely more than welcome any inquiry whatsoever to the methods of my analysis. If you think I've done something wrong graphically or simply want to know how the results were produced, I'm more than happy to provide a full explanation.

Re: your point about the lines drawn on the 87 pic. If the line is on an angle, the angle simply follows the rest of the number. It's irrelevant though. Look purely at the nose of the "1". I've cut the bottoms of the images to show simply the nose below.

Re: your point about the 1988 pic with the seeming long-nose.
Good eye as it does appear to have a long nose in that pic. Unfortunately, it seems the the "1" itself is being distorted by how the jersesy is positioned. I've attached another angle of the same pic (1988, Joe on the phone). Notice the difference.



I don't know 49'er jerseys, but I do know fonts and that's not the same font.

"As to your question as to whether or not all posts should be as responsible in this regard, I would personally say yes."

Well that's a forum precedent; to require posts that call into question the authenticity of an item to provide solid evidence. Note: solid evidence is not the same as a "fervent" opinion. Should be interesting.

Rudy.