NFL tail tag fonts?

[RKGIBSON]

Eric,

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

Roger

[Eric]

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]

2004 Urlacher Pro Bowl game-issued



2004 Bernard Berrian from NFL Auctions



2003 Jerry Azumah from NFL Auctions

[G1X]

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]

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]

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]

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