Need help w/jersey

[Swoboda4]

The following ebay auction,by a very good seller,offers the following Van Slyke G/U jersey:

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=2

Did 1988 Pirates Jerseys have a sewn on or screened on "RSC" sleeve patch? -and- On this 1988 jersey the Rawlings tag is indicative of those seen on 1990-91 jerseys,does anyone have any reasons why this could be aside from a sewn on set tag taken from a common player?
Thanks

[R. C. Walker]

Re: Need help w/jersey

The RCS initials were screened. Found a Sid Bream Getty’s photo as a model. I too saw the jersey and was somewhat interested until I saw the “RCS”. Always thought it amateurish for a MLB team to have “screened” letters on a jersey, so I never picked up one when they were plentiful.

As far as the Rawlings tag, all my 1988’s have the primer example. Why it would have an ‘90’s style is beyond me. But like I always say, just ‘cause you seen one doesn’t mean you’ve seen ‘em all.

Hope this helps

[Swoboda4]

Re: Need help w/jersey

sorry,here's the jersey :

http://cgi.ebay.com/1988-Andy-Van-Slyke-PIRATES-Game-Used-Baseball-Jersey_W0QQitemZ8786950560QQcategoryZ60597QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks RC Walker for solving half the puzzle.
And here's the primer:

[Robert Sanders]

Re: Need help w/jersey

As far as the Rawlings tag, all my 1988’s have the primer example. Why it would have an ‘90’s style is beyond me. But like I always say, just ‘cause you seen one doesn’t mean you’ve seen ‘em all.

FWIW, I just had a look at a 1989 Pirates jersey I picked up on eBay a few years ago. It too has the exact same style Rawlings tag as the Van Slyke jersey in question, which according to the primer did not come into use until 1990. However, I am perfectly open to the possibility that my jersey (of a non-star) is not in fact legitimate, though there is absolutely no evidence of a name or number change, or of a replacement of the year tag.

Robert

[kingjammy24]

Re: Need help w/jersey

A little late to the game (I was off doing the backstroke in the Caribbean).. but..

re: the Rawlings tag issue:
I've tried to make the primer as accurate as possible. However, due to the fact that I haven't had direct input from Rawlings, I can't say it's 100% perfect and foolproof. Personally, I believe it's pretty damn close though.
Occasionally I'll come across a jersey that goes against what my primers say. These jerseys have been extremely few and far between. In every case thus far, I genuinely believe the jersey was either a fake (see: the recent Thurman Munson Yankees jersey with an incongruous Wilson tag) or a promo like the Scoreboard Bo Jacksons, Griffeys, and Cansecos.
In this case, I'm not sure what to say except the obvious: I don't believe Rawlings was using those tags in 1988. I believe they first came into usage in 1990. 1988 is far enough from 1990 that I really question the odds of me being wrong. That is, I can see if I erred on a single year; for example if I made a mistake in 1990 and the tag really came out in 1989. To make a mistake for 2 yrs though is slim. Is the Van Slyke a fake? I don't know. A promo? I don't know. At the end of the day though, I would personally make the decision that the tag issue is enough for me not to feel comfortable. Why take the risk? Why not just wait for a 1988 Pirates jersey with a "more typical" 1988 style Rawlings tag? I wouldn't see much of a point in purchasing the Van Slyke and constantly looking at the tag and wondering. Purchase a jersey where all of the aspects measure up to typical exemplars and you can sleep soundly at night. All I can say about the Van Slyke is that, according to my research and experience, the Rawlings tag "is not consistent with known exemplars" and that alone would make me pass. Perhaps the jersey is entirely legit but why risk it when you can go out and instead purchase a jersey with no big question marks.

If anyone has any sort of insight, opinion, experience, or knowledge that contradicts anything in my manufacturer tagging primers, please share it.
My aim is to be completely confident that they're 100% accurate.

Rudy.