The Jim Brown Jersey [Archive]

View Full Version : The Jim Brown Jersey

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 12:44 PM

given the potential significance of the jim brown jersey currently listed at mastro, i thought it would make sense to create a dedicated thread to discuss this item. further, i believe that the highly educational information already posted about this jersey (and game used jerseys in general) by very knowledgeable guu forum members such as g1x, nyjetsfan14, kingjammy24, rkgibson, cohibasmoker, etc. runs the risk of being lost or overlooked if not "extracted" from the "NFL jerseys in the next Mastro auction" thread. as such, in order, here are the posts from the aforementioned thread that pertain only to the brown jersey (as opposed to the posts debating mears's business model).

Number9
Wow, I'm not much of an NFL collector, would like to add more to the few I have, but have everyone seen the lots in the next Mastro auction? Has to be the largest offering of old NFL jerseys I have seen. I hate auctions, but if you like looking at football jerseys you have to check this stuff out:

beantown
Yes, some nice jerseys! The Jim Brown one looked familiar to me....I believe it's the same one... http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1524.html (http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2008/1524.html)I wonder why the winning bidder would consign so quickly? You certaintly don't see Jim Brown game used jerseys everyday!!!

scottanservitz
Man oh man! That Brown jersey is my GRAIL! I fell just $69K short. What a joy just to see it. Nuff said! Scott

CollectGU
A few observations on the Jim Brown. Anyone else find it amazing that a Jim Brown from this era has no team repairs or any substantial hit marks considering they didn't change jerseys everyday back then and I wouldn't exactly call Brown a finesse runner trying to avoid the hits. Also, It is the light weight tear away style so that would make it even more susceptible to rips...Also Jim Brown signed it "game jersey" (not "game worn") at a paid autograph show 40 years after he wore it and not when it came off his back. Regards, Dave

beantown
Yes, I've thought about all the things you brought up...has anyone ever seen a Jim Brown jersey that was not a tear away and how much wear/repairs it had?

mvandor
Re: the Brown, yes, it's hard to imagine a Brown not being pounded, even if he was wearig a new one in his final game and this is it. And if I recall correctly, hasn't Bushing left authenticating at MEARS because he took too much justified heat for authenticating his own stuff and flipping it?

troy (per trsent)
There has been some discussion on game used forum with respects to the Jim Brown jersey which was bought and auctioned in the spring 2008 REA auction and is now available in the current Mastro Net auctions. There has been some speculation and statement of facts that are just plain inaccurate and mischaracterizes Dave Bushing and his involvement in the jersey. Although Dave Bushing was in charge of the marketing of this jersey, I authored both the MEARS LOO and the supporting article. Yes, an A10 grade was given, but the jersey and its merits were carefully chronicled in the detailed MEARS LOO and had nothing to do with Bushings ownership. The history, worksheet, and final LOO along with the detailed step by step process was made available to all bidders. Some criticism of tear away materials and the degree of use was openly debated by some on the GUF, this is a good thing. You do not have to agree with our findings or grade, but at least we offered a detailed, transparent methodology of our procedures which allowed you make your own final decision.

At the time of the sale, I published an article on the MEARS website addressing the jersey. Members can view the story at:

(Link removed as it points to an article only visible by MEARS members)

Regarding the origin and history of the jersey, Dave Bushing and I purchased this item at the show at the 2007 National Convention in Cleveland. This fact was presented by Rob Lifson in his catalog and I personally spoke with the current owner about our ownership.

Part of the reason the jersey obtained a high grade was due to the fact the seller of the item was offering items directly from the estate of a long time Browns employee. Included amongst his historic offerings were photographs from the 1946 AAFC team, Championship Browns footballs, correspondence, and this Jim Brown jersey. The memorabilia along with this Jim Brown jersey were offered for public viewing for the very first time at this show. The jersey was fresh and unmarketed in the hobby. Dave Bushings ownership of the jersey had nothing to do with the assigned grade.

I addressed the issue of the game wear both in the MEARS LOO and in the article.

It is often noted that a jersey has to exhibit team repairs to be considered heavily worn. This is not a universal truth and wear can manifest itself in additional visible manners. For example, examine the area of the crotch piece of this jersey. Along the button opening reinforced stitching, you can see areas of fraying. This was caused from the buttoning and unbuttoning of the piece. The game wear is visible when examining the stress and contact marks found on the fabric. This is especially visible when examining the area of the numeral surfaces. The use may be considered light by some when comparing the fabric to a dureene example with visible team repairs, but close examination reveals wear to the overall areas of the fabric of the body shell, crotch piece and numerals.

Over the past 3 years, I have personally handled nearly 300 game used NFL jerseys. I have purchased many of them on Ebay, dealers, and game used forum members. One of the key components I have noticed was the absence of team repairs. Most of these jerseys were of common players. They were purchased with the intentions to obtain fabric samples and color templates for the MEARS archives. After each jersey was archived, many were sold.

By handling such a large random sample, I was able to empirically illustrate that NFL jerseys would have medium to heavy game wear, without team repairs. Some jerseys were found to have team repairs, but I would estimate that less than 10% of the jerseys were found with team repairs. Therefore, with the aid of actual examples, I was able to document that game worn jerseys of common players were found in high percentages (90%) to not have team repairs.

A counter argument is that common players are not superstars, nor running backs, and common players should not have the same amount of game wear as a running back of Brown's calibre. Many of the samples that we examined were of everyday starting lineman, considered common players by collectors standards. These lineman jerseys were worn in every down, yet did not have repairs. It is also interesting to note that on several instances, MEARS issued unable to authenticate on super star jerseys, bearing manufactured or contrived team repairs. It is our expert opinion team repairs do not alone make a jersey real or fake.

Now, I do not mean to offend the many collectors that have NFL jerseys exhibiting team repairs. I know they exist, and have a database file of photographed players with visible team repairs. I just want to illustrate that a jersey does not have to have a team repair in order to be considered authentic or having heavy game wear.

If any interested parties would like to further discuss the team repairs vs. non team repairs debate, I would be willing to extend an invitation this spring to the new MEARS Research and Conference Center. Our color plate copies of the NFL jerseys referenced above are available for any interested parties. We can compare your actual jerseys to our referenced color plate examples.

This jersey is manufactured from a tear away material. The design of the material is quite thin and has a transparent appearance. The name is somewhat deceiving, as although thin, the material is quite resistant to tearing. I purchased a King OShea college jersey made from this tear away material. With two of my staffers and me engaged in a tug of war, the jersey did not tear. This is also a similar material to what the Chicago Bears wore at times. I have since conducted numerous research on the tear away material, and I can find no specific reference to the materials being names or marketed as such. It is my belief that the King OShea fabric was of a lighter, but stronger blend and had more to do with perspiration absorption than tearing away. With Papa Bear Halas being notorious frugal, the practice of having jerseys tear away during the course of a game is probably more versed in legend than fact. Nevertheless, this thin type fabric is photographically documented and examples from both the Browns and Bears have entered the hobby. I have not been presented with any proof that these tear away jerseys are expected to tear after each game of use.

Again, I have several of these tear away jerseys available for examination at the new MEARS headquarters and I think you would also be surprised at the actual strength this material contains.

Furthermore, I have 4 or 5 crystal clear image of Jim Brown wearing the tear away style jerseys. None of them show visible signs of team repairs. I do feel that team repairs would show in photos, as we have several examples in our database. These images of Jim Brown can be found in the article.

At the time of the article we addressed the images of Brown as follows:

I have provided a close-up image of Jim Brown wearing a similar tear away jersey. Note how the writing of his T-shirt and shoulder pad markings can be seen through the materials.

Regarding the issue of conflict of interest, both sides of the issue have stated their cases and I do not expect to change any existing opinions. What I do feel is that a high majority of active bidders and collectors do not have issues with MEARS members buying and evaluating their own items. This is illustrated by higher prices realized of MEARS evaluated items, even on the items owned and disclosed as being owned by Dave Bushing.

I also feel that the issue of conflict of interest is unfairly targeted at Dave Bushing as he has agreed to voluntarily disclose what he owns. This is done via the our items at auction section on the MEARS website, and the disclosure line of the items for sale at MEARS For Sale. Rob Lifson also voluntarily listed the ownership of Bushing or Bushing/Kinunen in each lot description. As a consignor, both Dave and I were quite pleased with the results of our consignments in the 2008 REA auction. Each of these lots had our financial interests listed, and we did not feel there were any negative impacts from interested bidders. In some cases, collectors seek out items owned by Dave, so the disclosure process actually helps Dave sell items for higher prices. Authenticators John Taube and Lou Lampson are also dealers that have consigned to auction houses in the past. To my knowledge, they have yet to adopt the full disclosure practice mandated by MEARS, yet they never receive criticism. If the current crop of authenticators are still consigning items they own, the collecting public does not know as I know of no formal method of the identification of these items and the disclosure of their owners. Dave received the criticism, as he was the only person disclosing.

But, I guess if you do not disclose, how can anybody see the self applied target on your back? Next time you receive an item in auction that was authenticated as real or you get a PSA letter with a high grade, it might have been owned by Taube or Lampson, but you will never really know due to the lack of full disclosure policies for these individuals.

At least with Bushing, you can run for the hills when you see an item owned by him with a MEARS A10 grade. Or in the case of the Jim Brown jersey, you can bid aggressively with the exact same knowledge of disclosure and pay a World Record price!

With MEARS, we voluntarily provide you with the disclosure of ownership, give you a worksheet to review, a final letter to review, and a bulletin board to discuss. Although we cant please everyone, we still do alright.

Troy

G1X
Instead of entering into the debate about conflicts of interest, I would like to point out a hidden nugget in this thread that is absolutely invaluable to any football jersey collector who has interests in collecting 20th century football jerseys. This information can be found in post #15 where Joel Alpert quotes Troy Kinunen's post on the MEARS website regarding older football jerseys.

Troy is dead-on in his assessment. I have been very fortunate to have had thousands of game-worn football jerseys go through my hands over the years, and I can attest that my experiences and observations are in total agreement with Mr. Kinunen.

Football jerseys for most of the 20th century were made differently and worn differently than today's jerseys. Modern jerseys are not only designed differently, they are worn very tightly. With this combination, it doesn't take much to damage a modern jersey. Older jerseys were more durable by design, and players tended to wear them more loosely. It took a lot more pulling and tugging, hits, and other similar abuse to create rips and tears.

In my humble opinion, and with all due respect to Troy, labeling the Jim Brown jersey as a tear-away jersey has created a bit of confusion and understandable questioning from some GUU members. Although I have not seen the jersey in person, judging from the photos, it appears to be simply a case where a lighter weight durene was used in manufacturing and not an actual tear-away material. (The above observation is not intended to be interpreted as any type of validation or dismissal of MEARS grading of this jersey.)

For a little background on tear-away jerseys, this style came into prominence around 1970 when college teams such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama started running the wishbone. It didn't take much to destroy a tear-away jersey. Living in Alabama at the time, I was never surprised to see the QB or running backs make several changes during a game. The equipment staff would have extra jerseys tucked in their belts so that they could make quick changes on the sidelines. (The lineman and defensive players normally did not wear tear-aways.)

If the Jim Brown jersey was a true tear-away, Troy's "tugging match" would have turned a very valuable jersey into a couple of strips of cloth!

Troy's very informative and educational observation of older jerseys bears repeating. I beg each football jersey collector out there to read and absorb this golden nugget.

It is often noted that a jersey has to exhibit team repairs to be considered heavily worn. This is not a universal truth and wear can manifest itself in additional visible manners. For example, examine the area of the crotch piece of this jersey. Along the button opening reinforced stitching, you can see areas of fraying. This was caused from the buttoning and unbuttoning of the piece. The game wear is visible when examining the stress and contact marks found on the fabric. This is especially visible when examining the area of the numeral surfaces. The use may be considered light by some when comparing the fabric to a dureene example with visible team repairs, but close examination reveals wear to the overall areas of the fabric of the body shell, crotch piece and numerals.

Over the past 3 years, I have personally handled nearly 300 game used NFL jerseys. I have purchased many of them on Ebay, dealers, and game used forum members. One of the key components I have noticed was the absence of team repairs. Most of these jerseys were of common players. They were purchased with the intentions to obtain fabric samples and color templates for the MEARS archives. After each jersey was archived, many were sold.

By handling such a large random sample, I was able to empirically illustrate that NFL jerseys would have medium to heavy game wear, without team repairs. Some jerseys were found to have team repairs, but I would estimate that less than 10% of the jerseys were found with team repairs. Therefore, with the aid of actual examples, I was able to document that game worn jerseys of common players were found in high percentages (90%) to not have team repairs.

A counter argument is that common players are not superstars, nor running backs, and common players should not have the same amount of game wear as a running back of Brown's calibre. Many of the samples that we examined were of everyday starting lineman, considered common players by collectors standards. These lineman jerseys were worn in every down, yet did not have repairs. It is also interesting to note that on several instances, MEARS issued unable to authenticate on super star jerseys, bearing manufactured or contrived team repairs. It is our expert opinion team repairs do not alone make a jersey real or fake.

Now, I do not mean to offend the many collectors that have NFL jerseys exhibiting team repairs. I know they exist, and have a database file of photographed players with visible team repairs. I just want to illustrate that a jersey does not have to have a team repair in order to be considered authentic or having heavy game wear.

If any interested parties would like to further discuss the team repairs vs. non team repairs debate, I would be willing to extend an invitation this spring to the new MEARS Research and Conference Center. Our color plate copies of the NFL jerseys referenced above are available for any interested parties. We can compare your actual jerseys to our referenced color plate examples.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

lund6771
Mark...I'm looking at this outside the box...

There is fraying around the buttons from buttoning and un-buttoning the crotch piece?....that's how this is deduced as being game worn?...please

Was this jersey matched up against a known to be 100% real Jim Brown from this era? Noone knows beacuse the A10 worksheet says nothing....it reads "moderate use", "no repairs"....hmmmmm, so let's give it an A10, because if we give it a grade less than that, it won't fetch as much....what a bunch of BS...

seeing the conflict of interest yet Joel?

what do you think this jersey would have sold for if Mears would have listed it as Real, but unable to be 100% certain if it was worn on the field....like an A5 or so....half at best?

You talk about how Mears is so revolutionary....are all of the fake jerseys that have a grading of A5 revolutionary?....

until Mears decided that they were going to be an auction house, I don't think that you can make a comparison with GFC, Mastro, AMI, etc...Mears WAS an authenticator and the others are auction houses....but now that they are an auction house, they can grade everything an A10 so that they can squeeze every last penny out of the collector with their system

G1X
lund6771, My post was not intended to validate the Jim Brown jersey, but rather to point out a very educational piece of information about older football jerseys stated by Troy Kinunen that was buried in post #15. I have not seen the Jim Brown jersey in person or held it in my hands, so I have no comment about its authenticity. That was the purpose of my disclaimer at the end of the fourth paragraph in my previous post.

I was simply intending to make a point about 20th century football jerseys in general, not the Jim Brown jersey in question. In my 34 years of rambling around this hobby, this seems to be an area of collecting that is poorly understood by most collectors.

All I am trying to do is share information from my experiences with those who are willing to listen and learn.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

nyjetsfan14
Greetings Mark, long time no chat. I hope this post finds you in good health and spirits. I trust you are enjoying a very successful Falcons season thus far.

I was leaning towards letting the well knowns air this one out but when I saw your post I decided to throw my hat in the ring as it is always a rewarding exchange when we interact regarding football collecting. While I understand most on this forum (and off) are unfamiliar with me, my Jets collection, and my experience/knowledge of Jets uniform traits I think you know a little bit about me. I personally authenticate all Jets pieces I purchase/trade for and put no stock in any third party authenticators and/or their documentation when it comes to Jets items (not saying that as a slight against any particular person rather I just prefer to do and trust my own research). If and when I have any doubts/questions about a Jets piece that I cannot answer with my extensive Jets library and resources I confer with a fellow Jets collector/friend who happens to be a respected member of this forum. I unfortunately have seen more misauthenticated (yes I am aware I may have just made up a word) Jets items for auction than I care to discuss.

With that being said, I was a bit taken aback when you agreed with the authenticator that 90 plus percent of legitimate vintage game worn AFL or NFL jerseys will demonstrate no team instituted repairs. This is absolutely positively not the case with New York Jets jerseys from the AFL or early merger era. Even most common Jets player jerseys from that particular era more often than not (that could be anywhere from 51% to 49% and up) will exhibit use to include team repairs (of course obviously a players position, type of playing style, and amount of playing time will have a dynamic impact on percentages). If someone offered me say a Matt Snell NY Jets AFL or early merger era game worn jersey that had no team repairs and tried to insinuate that it was in fact a perfect example of a Matt Snell jersey from said era, that would be a laughable scenario and an insult to my collecting knowledge. I would be further insulted if they tried to tell me good wear was shown via the crotch piece with evidence of numerous buttonings and unbuttonings. I am in no way saying that a jersey of such a player as Matt Snell displaying no team repairs would or could not have belonged to/been issued for/or used by Matt Snell nor am I saying that the crotch piece wear should not be taken into consideration but to give it a label of perfect example or A10 or whatever else someone might want to call it is just not correct in my mind. While undoubtedly there would be a percentage of jerseys from said era that might not exhibit team repairs (the approximate percentage could be debated I am sure and factors as mentioned above would come into play) I find it nearly impossible to fathom that 90 or more out of 100 jerseys of players who played significant time during that era would exhibit use without team repairs, to me that is irresponsible writing solely dedicated to selling a particular item.

When we talk about perfect examples or A10's it would only stand to reason that we expect the piece to be positively the premeire example of a jersey from that player. If we are talking about a perfect example of a Jan Stenereud game worn jersey that would more than likely be a jersey with no team instituted repairs but when we are talking about a Jim Brown game worn jersey, who was clearly one of the more physical runners to ever put on shoulder pads, I just don't feel a jersey of his without team repairs but with crotch piece wear would warrant a "perfect" label or A10. I think it was the grade awarded considering the above that really stirred the conflict of interset pot.

Before we annoint pieces with LOA's, grade numbers, worksheets, expert opinions, etc...
http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_f...ad.php?t=18550 (http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=18550)

Thanks for hearing me out Mark. All the best and enjoy the rest of the NFL season. Happy collecting to all and may everyone have a warm and safe Thanksgiving!

RKGIBSON
First, I think the whole authentication field is a joke, a big rip off. The only impact any of them have had on this hobby is negative. I would think their mission is to deem a item real or not? I would like for them to admit they are not really interested is saying that a item is real or not, they are just interested in getting paid for every item that is submitted. A5 to me means that there is a 50/50 chance it is real. Its a score not a authentication. I would think that making your opinion something that is understandable and something that is not open to interpetation would be a goal if you really know what you are talking about. I would bet that most of their customers are dealers that are hoping to use their smoke and mirrors grading system to trick some unknowledgable person out of a few more bucks.

Joel, you seem to be the mouth piece for MEARS here. A couple questions;
How does any jersey that has a photo match not get the highest score? It is proven real, right?

How can any jersey that has no provenace, or photo match, get the highest score? Recieving the highest score should be reserved for a item that there is absolutely no doubt it is real, right?

I do not know any of the guys at MEARS. I would guess that each has a lot of knowledge on somethings and not much on others. Collectively they have a lot of knowledge. I would guess that to properly evaluate a Jim Brown jersey you would have had to have had one, that was known to be real, to compare to and proof that Brown wore this one, in order to render a opinion that this is perfect. It is true that general knowledge of Browns jerseys from this era could be obtained by looking at common player jerseys. I would think that if absolute accuracy was their goal in evaluating, potentially, one of the most significate jerseys in existance, the highest score would only be awarded if there was absolutely no doubt. If getting the most money out of a item was the goal, the scrutiny might be less.

Roger

G1X
Hi Matt, First and foremost, I feel the need to once again emphasize that my posts in this thread have nothing to do with MEARS grading system or the Jim Brown jersey. That issue continues to be brought up in the responses to my posts. I have no comment or opinion on the Jim Brown jersey as clearly stated in my last post as I have never seen this jersey in person or held it in my hands. I also have never given the MEARS grading system much thought as I simply do not depend on such when making purchase decision.

Let me also repeat a statement from my last post that seems to have been overlooked - "I was simply intending to make a point about 20th century football jerseys in general, not the Jim Brown jersey in question. In my 34 years of rambling around this hobby, this seems to be an area of collecting that is poorly understood by most collectors. All I am trying to do is share information from my experiences with those who are willing to listen and learn."

The key words here are "in general". I have no doubt that the Jets jerseys from the 1960s that you have seen and owned show great use and repairs. And others in the hobby may have had similar experiences in what they collect. But while you are mainly a Jets collector and expert, Troy is seeing a wide variety of jerseys from virtually every team and league. He has a much wider sampling to observe than the average collector.

As for me, I have had thousands of jerseys go through my hands over the years simply by the virtue of being in the hobby for a very long time. I have also been fortunate to view major inventories of other dealers and several large personal collections. Being a dealer myself, I have had access to a lot more jerseys and a wider variety than the average collector. For example, I have bought out nearly an entire league (WLAF) consisting of over 500 jerseys, and have made team bulk buys through the years with the largest being close to 800 jerseys. This has given me the opportunity to see a lot of jerseys.

This doesn't make me or Troy any smarter than anyone else, it simply means that we have seen and studied a whole lot of stuff and have a fairly good idea of how many repaired jerseys we've seen in a very large sampling. I am certainly not discounting you or anyone else's experiences as we all have to go on what we've seen.

Regardless of all of that, after reading your post, I thought that the 90% figure might be a bit ambitious. So, I went downstairs and wandered through my personal collection and notes. I tried to come up with a variety of items. Here is what I found:

32 various NFL durene jerseys, 19 had no repairs - 59%
50 mesh Atlanta Falcons jerseys (1973 to 1999), 40 had no repairs - 80%
33 WFL jerseys (1974 & '75), 30 had no repairs - 91%
15 various NFL jerseys (players from UAB), 13 had no repairs - 87%
22 UAB jerseys (players who went on to the NFL), 20 had no repairs - 91%

In the 1990s, I purchased 521 jerseys directly from the WLAF from the league's first two seasons (1991 & '92). I made handwritten notes on each of the jerseys. In looking at those notes, 500 of the jerseys had no repairs - 96%

In my overall sampling of 673 jerseys, 91.5% did not have team repairs. It's not that these 673 sampled jerseys don't show nice use (some have holes, rips, runs, etc.), it's simply a matter that most do not have actual repairs.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

nyjetsfan14
To start off Mark I appreciate your experiences and knowledge combined with your willingness to share. As it pertains to your figures we can throw out everything but the first line as the rest isn't in the topic of discussion for this thread. So we'll go with your 59% (assuming they are from the era of our discussion). Then, as noted in my first post, it would behoove us to further break it down by position as of course kicker & QB jerseys are much less likely to exhibit repairs. Then we would have to eliminate players who never or rarely touched the field. I stand by my assessment that if we are looking at position players who actually played from the 50's and on into the 60's that 90+ percent of those jerseys not exhibiting team instituted repairs is just not even in the same area code as realistic. Again, that doesn't rule out a jersey as being legit but in a case where a player had a brutal style of play at a position where contact is constantly absorbed an A10 or perfect rating is absurd (I understand you are not making any statements on any particular piece). You can't possibly tell me that if you came across a Falcons Junior Coffey gamer that you would expect it to have no team instituted repairs or that you would feel as confident as you would with a Coffey jersey exhibiting team repairs? We can play numbers games all evening but it really comes down to a matter of common sense.

G1X
Matt, I think that we might not be on the same page. I was speaking of 20th century jerseys in general. The mid-1970s WFL jerseys and 1991-92 WLAF jerseys are 20th century as are 1973-1999 Falcons and late 1990s UAB jerseys, so they can't be eliminated in supporting my statement. Nor can the thousands and thousands of other jerseys I've held in my hand. Nor can all of the jerseys that Troy Kinunen has observed and recorded.

All we are trying to do is share information based on what we have observed.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

Number9
Mark, Fascinating factual numbers, thanks for sharing. Mike

kingjammy24
jim, matt, mark, et al.,

despite not being a football collector, i've been enjoying your discussion regarding team repairs and the brown jersey.

a couple of questions popped up for me, regarding the brown jersey. i'd appreciate your insight. it seems that some feel that the lack of team repairs on the brown jersey is a red flag. to my layman's sensibilities, in judging the brown jersey, i wonder if there's been a step missed. from what i can tell, the jersey's been described as having light use. even without considering team repairs, shouldn't such a shirt exhibit heavy use? that is, i'm sure it's possible for a football jersey to show heavy use without having any team repairs. even if we forget the entire issue of team repairs for a minute, ought there be other substantial signs of use for such a shirt? would the absense of heavy use on such a shirt be a red flag? mastro notes that "There are no team repairs, suggesting short-term overall usage most likely during the hot weather of early season games". i've seen some modern RB football gamers that were only used for a couple of games and they appeared hammered to all hell. even if the brown shirt were only worn for a few "early season games" and didn't necessitate any team repairs, should there not be substantially more use?

i've read both the REA and Mastro descriptions of the jersey. the Mastro description notes "light surface stress marks to the numbers". i'm not sure if this refers to the "folds" in the numbers but if it does, in my experience with baseball shirts, there's a noticeable difference between wash wear on numbers (puckering) and the folds that occur simply when the jersey is crumpled/folded up. i've left many jerseys folded up and they show the exact same types of "folds/stress marks" that are seen on the brown jersey. upon looking at a closeup of one of the numbers, it's clear that the folds really are caused by folds in the shirt and not by any sort of use.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/kj.jpg

perhaps the folds aren't what mastro is referring to when the refer to the "stress marks" though. at any rate, if the numbers had encountered use that resulted in stress marks, would it be a reasonable expectation that some of the threads on these numbers be torn?

anyway, thanks in advance for humoring a layman.

rudy.

G1X
Rudy, Football jerseys for most of the 20th century were made differently and worn differently than today's jerseys. Modern jerseys are not only designed differently (with some being highly customized for the individual player), they are worn very tightly. With this combination, it doesn't take much to damage a modern jersey.

Older jerseys were more durable by design, and players tended to wear them more loosely. You rarely see special customization as most durene jerseys were sort of "box" cut and not tapered. It took a lot more pulling and tugging, hits, and other similar abuse to create rips and tears.

Hope this information is helpful.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

aeneas01
although i know virtually nothing about jerseys, i've always found game used vintage jerseys to be absolutely stunning - in my next life i will most likely opt for vintage jerseys over vintage lids, much easier to store and hide from the wife!

as far as the jb jersey is concerned, troy mentioned that he's personally handled over "300" jerseys in the past three years and has found that just 10% or so exhibit team repairs. first of all, "300" jerseys strikes me as a rather small reference sample - especially considering that mears has been presented to the sport memorabilia collecting public as a "research center". i'm not trying to be flippant here, i just think that this point is worth mentioning because a "research center" implies, at least to me, access to an extraordinary number of exemplars.

second, wouldn't any sample be rather meaningless unless the bulk of the examples were from the era in question? according to saleem choudhry (football hall of fame head researcher, 20+ years) who i spoke with on monday, vintage jerseys in the hall's possession from the jim brown era were recycled frequently and were prone to show team repairs and runs. in short, mr. choudhry's comments seemed to support exactly what forum member nyjetsfans14 stated earlier in this thread. anyway, i can't help but wonder if a sample of 300 jerseys from the late 50s & early 60s, used by starting rbs, lbs and linemen, would yield the same findings, the same 10% result.

btw, are there many photos or film footage available of jim brown actually wearing this sort of lightweight jersey in a game? there are clearly many promotional/portrait/program photos of jb posing in such a jersey but i've had no luck finding a photo (or film frame from my nfl films dvd collection) of him actually wearing such a jersey while in action. granted, i have not conducted an exhaustive search nor do i have a keen eye for for jerseys. but nonetheless i thought i would have quickly come across at least a few obvious game examples.

could it be that this jersey is something jb only wore during photo sessions, football card photo shoots, promotional shots, etc.? or could it even be a salesman sample - something a king o'shea sales rep proudly showed to nfl equipment managers around the league while boasting "jim wears a king o'shea"? if none of these scenarios can be conclusively ruled out, how can it be conclusively determined that the jersey was game worn given what appears to be light use?

as far as grading is concerned, the mears webite (for sale section) features several jerseys that fall into the salesman sample (jim covert), photo shoot (mario williams), game issued (derrick gainer) and lightly worn (blair kiel) categories. obviously none of these jerseys graded out at an a10 - but i wonder how the limited game use and light wear the kiel jersey exhibits (per mears's description) compares to the jb jersey. i'm sure such limited game use and light wear factored into the a5 the kiel was awarded, no? and weren't other jerseys graded by mears penalized points due to limited game use and wear? i believe there were a couple of threads discussing this some time ago. further, assuming two virtually identical jim brown jerseys (tags, etc.), would the one with a couple of team repairs and slightly greater wear score higher or lower than the one without repairs and lesser wear?

regarding the research conducted on this jersey, it's apparent that troy has studied the jersey - but were any other jersey experts consulted? specifically, were jersey experts that have extensive experience with jerseys from this era consulted? as i mentioned, on monday i spoke with saleem choudhry of the pro football hall of fame - among other things i asked him if the hall would ever assist a collector in determining a rare piece's authenticity, if someone could make an appointment to meet with a hall researcher to discuss the item and to compare it to exemplars in the hall's possession. mr. choudhry responded "absolutely". amazingly, mr. choudhry also told me that the hall is rarely, if ever, approached with such requests - he went on to say that those that contact the hall's research department almost always are seeking the hall's assistance in determining an item's value, not the likelihood of the item's authenticity. btw the hall will not assist collectors with an item's potential value! anyway after speaking with mr. choudhry i couldn't help but wonder if perhaps mears had approached the hall, had visited the hall to speak with their researchers and to examine their rather impressive inventory - especially considering that the hall also boasts three jim brown gamers. would this be an effort that a collector might expect from a "research center"? again, i'm not being flippant - it's an honest question.

here are a few photos showing jim brown sporting well worn, torn and/or repaired jerseys. is it at all possible that any of these jerseys, assuming they made into the collecting world and were photo matched, would score lower than an a10, lower than the mears jersey? let's say they weren't photo matched but were conclusively determined to be authenic jb gamers - is there any chance they would score below an a10? if so, how could this be possible? further, how could the mears jersey score an a10 if these jerseys existed? is it the absence of such jerseys that allows mears to score their jersey an a10?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/jb01.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/jb04.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/jb03.jpg

and, for the heck of it, here are a few "non jim brown" vintage beauties from the pro football hall of fame...

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/jb06.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/jb07.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/jb08.jpg

kingjammy24
1) light use: i think "light use" is entirely appropriate (ie: ideal) on some jerseys and wholly inappropriate on others. i passed on bidding on a certain jersey in a recent AMI auction because the wear was too heavy. that is, it seemed disproportionate to the time the player had spent on the team that season. in considering mark's rollie fingers shirt and this brown shirt, one would think that if light wear were appropriate for one jersey and not the other it'd be on the fingers and not on the brown. apparently, mears felt differently. mark hayne brought up the fact that apparently older football shirts were able to take more a beating. i'd think the brown shirt would still show something though? for a shirt of this magnitude, now offered from 2 premier auction houses, both descriptions have only mentioned the crotch piece wear.

2) from the REA description: "The offered jersey is not only the first Jim Brown game jersey we have ever seen.. but is also the only example ever seen by MEARS or documented in the MEARS population report...This is the only documented Jim Brown jersey known to date"

the first jim brown shirt MEARS has ever seen and noone from MEARS spoke to the Football HOF, who have 3 in their possession? this strikes me as really, really odd. a $70k shirt and a phone call can't be made to an institution that has 3 of what you have none of? wierd, wacky stuff as johnny c. would say.

3) promo items and salesman's samples have long posed concerns for collectors of all niches. i'm not sure how king o'shea worked back in the day but i'm curious if the promo item route was explored and if so, what sorts of conclusions were reached. it seems saleman's samples would be most common around the time that a given team is either undergoing a redesign or entertaining the notion of changing from it's current supplier. in 1996, the jays gave russell a try for their home jerseys from their main supplier wilson who'd they'd been using since 1977. i imagine around '96, russell made a few samples that led to wooing the jays away from wilson.
and of course, teams have been known to make up promo shirts for things like photo shoots and charity donations. not sure how common that was with the browns in the 60s.

rudy.

G1X
Now to the issue that most of us durene collectors don't like to think about. Not only were jerseys often recycled back in those days (they still are today, by the way), many were later reused in practice. Did the repairs come from game action or did they come from practice/camp use? So the next time you get all excited about those 17 repairs on your favorite durene jersey, you might want to think about how many resulted from a couple of years of practice and summer camp! :)

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange

...

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 01:36 PM

1) light use: i think "light use" is entirely appropriate (ie: ideal) on some jerseys and wholly inappropriate on others. i passed on bidding on a certain jersey in a recent AMI auction because the wear was too heavy. that is, it seemed disproportionate to the time the player had spent on the team that season. in considering mark's rollie fingers shirt and this brown shirt, one would think that if light wear were appropriate for one jersey and not the other it'd be on the fingers and not on the brown. apparently, mears felt differently. mark hayne brought up the fact that apparently older football shirts were able to take more a beating. i'd think the brown shirt would still show something though? for a shirt of this magnitude, now offered from 2 premier auction houses, both descriptions have only mentioned the crotch piece wear.

2) from the REA description: "The offered jersey is not only the first Jim Brown game jersey we have ever seen.. but is also the only example ever seen by MEARS or documented in the MEARS population report...This is the only documented Jim Brown jersey known to date"

the first jim brown shirt MEARS has ever seen and noone from MEARS spoke to the Football HOF, who have 3 in their possession? this strikes me as really, really odd. a $70k shirt and a phone call can't be made to an institution that has 3 of what you have none of? wierd, wacky stuff as johnny c. would say.

3) promo items and salesman's samples have long posed concerns for collectors of all niches. i'm not sure how king o'shea worked back in the day but i'm curious if the promo item route was explored and if so, what sorts of conclusions were reached. it seems saleman's samples would be most common around the time that a given team is either undergoing a redesign or entertaining the notion of changing from it's current supplier. in 1996, the jays gave russell a try for their home jerseys from their main supplier wilson who'd they'd been using since 1977. i imagine around '96, russell made a few samples that led to wooing the jays away from wilson.
and of course, teams have been known to make up promo shirts for things like photo shoots and charity donations. not sure how common that was with the browns in the 60s.

rudy.

i agree - given the significance of this piece i would think the hof might have been approached. not only does the hall have 3 jb gamers but they also have a tremendous inventory of jerseys from this era. of course the hall's opinion would not be the final word as far as the jersey's authenticity is concerned but i would think that it would certainly be a tremendous resource - a resource worth mentioning.

yesterday i emailed troy asking him what photos he had used as part of his authentication process given that i had not been able to find any photos or film footage showing brown wearing this particular type of jersey in an actual game - the only images i could find were of the "photo shoot" variety. i naturally assumed that troy/mears had in their possession photos of brown actually wearing this type of jersey in a game - especially considering troy had stated "I have 4 or 5 crystal clear image of Jim Brown wearing the tear away style jerseys."

troy's response to my email was short and sweet - he simply stated that all of his references were included in his article. when i went to the mears site to check out his article, i found that it could only be accessed by paid subscribers.

fortunately i was able to find someone that could help me out, someone that could pass along what troy had published in this article and, as it turns out, the "crystal clear" images troy had been referring to are all "photo shoot" images, no game photos in the bunch.

in short, it appears that this jersey has only been matched to publicity/promo photos. unlike the jim brown gamers found at the hall of fame which can be easily be style-matched to actual game photos, this jersey appears to be one that can only be style-matched to "photo shoot" images. if this is the case, does the jersey's "light usage" take on a completely different meaning? further, if this is the case would mears be forced to mention that the jersey could not be conclusively style-matched as far as game use is concerned?

hopefully troy simply overlooked including game photos of brown sporting this sort of style when he put together his article, hopefully he does have game photos supporting his position. i would think this would be rather important.

...

cohibasmoker

11-26-2008, 01:53 PM

So Matt, its been a few days since you posted the below statement and I am still awaiting your response to my initial question which was and still is: just how many Jets jerseys have you PERSOALLY inspected from the era you stated to substantiate the below statement. Mark Hayne gave a wonderful response and substantiated his claims and Troy stated that he personally handled over 300 jerseys but I am still wondering what your sampling was to make the below claim?

You wrote:

With that being said, I was a bit taken aback when you agreed with the authenticator that 90 plus percent of legitimate vintage game worn AFL or NFL jerseys will demonstrate no team instituted repairs. This is absolutely positively not the case with New York Jets jerseys from the AFL or early merger era. Even most common Jets player jerseys from that particular era more often than not (that could be anywhere from 51% to 49% and up) will exhibit use to include team repairs (of course obviously a players position, type of playing style, and amount of playing time will have a dynamic impact on percentages).

Was it
a) 1-5
b) 6-10
c) 11-20
d more than 20.

I am not trying to start an argument. I am just trying your understand how you came up with your percentages.

Jim

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 01:53 PM

Now to the issue that most of us durene collectors don't like to think about. Not only were jerseys often recycled back in those days (they still are today, by the way), many were later reused in practice. Did the repairs come from game action or did they come from practice/camp use? So the next time you get all excited about those 17 repairs on your favorite durene jersey, you might want to think about how many resulted from a couple of years of practice and summer camp! :)

mark, first let me say that i very much enjoy reading your insights into jerseys - actually your posts regarding this topic are what compelled me to start a dedicated thread given that i thought it would be a shame if the information you had shared, and the information others had shared, was banished to the back pages...

as far as repairs are concerned, and this is coming from someone that knows nothing about jerseys, why would it matter if the repairs were the result of camp or practice assuming that the jersey could be tied to the player in question? is this something that matters to jersey collectors? and aren't there many tell-tale signs which allow a jersey collector to determine whether or not a jersey was used by more than one player? tagging, uniform style, size, nameplate marks, number marks, etc.?

...

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 02:00 PM

trsent

11-26-2008, 02:34 PM

btw i noticed that the mears doesn't mention the jim brown jersey in their "our items at auction" section. i'm confused - does this jersey belong to mears and/or an employee(s) of mears?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/mears.jpg

...

I thought MEARS sold the jersey through REA and now it is for sale at Mastro, no longer owner by a MEARS employee. I do not believe they have to track every item the sell and disclose when the previous buyer is selling the item at another auction.

That would take a lot of time and I believe MEARS and Mastro are not on working terms at this time.

kingjammy24

11-26-2008, 02:45 PM

1) re: usage. without speaking for mark, i'll say that, for the most part, use is often qualified. championship use trumps regular season use and regular season use trumps practice use. simply put, i think collectors view many game-used items as tangible pieces of history and culture. to that end, the "provenance" of the use (where specifically the use came from) adds or detracts to the value/quality of a piece. it simply refers to the entire notion of what the piece has "seen"/been through that adds or detracts to it's historical and collectible value. relatively speaking and compared to the regular or post season, practices aren't of great significance so any wear achieved through them would be "inferior" to wear achieved through the more important regular post season. having a tear that occurred from brown half-heartedly slamming into a teammate during practice wouldn't be as interesting/valuable/historical as a tear that occurred from having that tear occur during a more significant event. it's one big reason, for example, why BP shirts go for so much less than actual gamers.

2) i've been thinking about this entire concept of promo shirts and i think it's an overly vague term that ought to be qualified. at times, teams have ordered and made up shirts for the sole purpose of donating to charity. i imagine they've also had them made up as gifts for VIPs. i'm not sure how close these types of shirts would be to their real game-issued/used counterparts.
it's well-known that players trade shirts amongst each other and have done so for awhile. i think they have extra shirts made up for the sole purpose of trading without actually wearing these shirts. (not sure what the point of trading non-issued/non-worn shirts is). jeff scott posted an excellent article a long time ago that showed that many players were trading shirts that hadn't even really been "issued" per se much less worn. they'd simply been ordered from the factory for the sole purpose of trading. a 1994 griffey shirt i saw once came with a letter of provenance from a former major league pitcher who said that he obtained the shirt directly from griffey. i believe the jersey really did come from the pitcher, i believe the pitcher really did obtain the jersey from griffey, and i believe the pitcher really believed it was a griffey gamer. in 1994, griffey was one of the game's biggest stars and i'm sure he had dozens of players all around the league requested his shirts. to meet the demand, i'm sure he had boxes of shirts ordered for the sole purpose of giving away to fellow players. unfortunately, the '94 shirt was missing a nameplate. i doubt his real gamers were missing nameplates. it was also missing his extra length customization. i think griffey just ordered some very generic blanks and had them done up (at times, improperly) to give away. again, i'm not sure how close many of these "player traded" shirts are to their real game-issued/used counterparts.
then you've got these "photo shoot" shirts. i've mulled this over a little. wouldn't a team photo-shoot shirt most likely come from the team locker room and be a legit game-issue? that is, most of the teams, especially back then, were pretty cheap. why order a shirt strictly for photo-shoot purposes when you could kill 2 birds with 1 stone and order a legit game-issue shirt, use it for the photo-shoot, and then carry it over for actual game-use? i'm just thinking to all of the "staged" blue jays team photo-shoots i've seen and the jerseys and bats and gloves all appeared to be legit game-issues. of course, they might use the same bat for all of the player photos, for example, but chances are it's a legit game bat and not a retail bat simply ordered for the shoot. it's a whole different story if we're talking about a commercial photo shoot (eg: from a sponsor or manufacturer) but if we're talking about a team photo shoot, i'd think the jerseys shown would most likely be legit game-issues from the locker room as opposed to shirts ordered solely for the shoot. conversely, in many of the commercial shoots i've seen, the jerseys pictured are usually look like retail shirts and not legit-game issues. i think a debate involving the notion of "promo shirts" ought to delve deeper into the specific sort of promo in order to more accurately ascertain the nature of the shirt pictured. that said robert, i understand you're not calling the brown jersey a retail shirt. from what i understand, you're simply saying that its use might've been wholly relegated to "promo" purposes and that the photos troy used to establish it as an actual brown gamer weren't of brown actually in a game and therefore call into question whether such a lightly-used shirt might've actually seen genuine game action. makes sense to me. if every single actual game photo i saw of joe carter showed cleat marks on his bat and then i saw obvious team promo photo of him holding one of his bats without cleat marks, i think it'd be idiotic to infer from that promo photo that carter therefore didn't always rap his cleats against his bats in games. rather, the more likely story would be that carter was simply holding a new bat that hadn't yet seen game action.

3) as i understand it, when the brown jersey was consigned to REA it was owned by troy and dave. by all accounts, the jersey seems to have sold and is now being consigned to Mastro. i don't believe troy and dave own it anymore. of course i could be wrong but that's what it seems like at first glance to me.

rudy.

trsent

11-26-2008, 02:45 PM

both-teams-played-hard

11-26-2008, 03:36 PM

How many of you with your questions have contacted Mastro to set up an appointment to view the jersey in person? If there is so much concern, I believe Mastro will let you view the item in person to make more assessments. If you are bidding on a $70,000 + jersey, wouldn't you make the trip to view the jersey being discussed?

...and while I am at it, the complete quote Rudy partially quotes me from reads: "Rudy generally appears to be a loud mouth collector who picks and chooses who he doesn't approve of in this industry and time and time again he complains about their business practices."

I do not understand why Rudy didn't use the full quote, only the part he thinks makes him look better in the industry. I would expect if I am going to be quoted, a full sentence would be used. I will add this full sentance to the bottom of all my future posts so it is clear.

Joel
Folks want to discuss the Brown jersey and learn. Folks on this message board aren't going to drop 70Gs on any jersey.
Is this tit-for-tat the reason the so-called heavy-hitters don't post on this forum anymore? It's a turn off, man!
Dude started a whole new thread about this subject to bypass the useless drivel.
Do you really think Rudy misquoted you to look better in the industry? C'mon, man. I enjoy your posts and think you are the straw that stirs the drink...but who cares about "The Industry"?

trsent

11-26-2008, 03:53 PM

Joel
Folks want to discuss the Brown jersey and learn. Folks on this message board aren't going to drop 70Gs on any jersey.
Is this tit-for-tat the reason the so-called heavy-hitters don't post on this forum anymore? It's a turn off, man!
Dude started a whole new thread about this subject to bypass the useless drivel.
Do you really think Rudy misquoted you to look better in the industry? C'mon, man. I enjoy your posts and think you are the straw that stirs the drink...but who cares about "The Industry"?

You know, my favorite baseball player growing up was Thurman Munson (and Oscar Gamble for one year - 1977). Do you think he would be happy to see me being compared to Reggie Jackson?

As for Rudy's quote, I prefer to be fully quoted and not partially quoted out of context. Does that many any sense? Do I ever make any sense?

So, what you are saying is none of the people who are questioning the Jim Brown jersey, now the second time it is up for auction, are interested in buying the jersey? Even if it sells for less than the $70,000 it sold for last time? I do not understand, I thought often if people were questioning an item, they were interested in buying the item.

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 04:38 PM

kingjammy24

11-26-2008, 06:01 PM

"would a collector really care if 6 of the 7 repairs were the result of camp or practice?"

depends on the collector i suppose but i'd wager most would prefer the repairs to be from regular season games if they had their choice. beyond that, would they regard the MJG SB jersey lower simply because it had practice repairs? probably not, no.

"as if there would be any real way of knowing? i wouldn't think so."

likely not. hence mark's comment about collectors believing their practice repairs to be (more important) game repairs. that said, i don't know anything about football shirts and perhaps there is some very subtle info regarding practice vs game repairs. theoretically speaking, perhaps the crew patched things a certain way, perhaps cheaper or faster, during practices. perhaps they weren't sure who'd be cut so the jerseys weren't as crucial as game jerseys. perhaps certain materials came into play for practice repairs vs game repairs. a pretty interesting topic to delve into.

"let's say that this type of jersey can't be style-matched to a game image as can the hall of fame jerseys. if this is the case, does the story behind the shirt really matter?"

if a jersey can't be style-matched, then it's got some serious issues that no story or provenance can compensate for.

"you could claim that it was a "game issued" shirt - but i don't know how you could prove this anymore than you could prove it wasn't a salesman sample."

i'd think it's similar to helmets in that genuinely game-issued shirts are no different than game-used shirts except for that the latter shows wear. the salesman's samples often wouldn't have the player-unique customizations. i'd think a JB game-issue would be different than a 1962 browns salesman's sample. if JB took absolutely no unique customizations and simply used a stock shirt, then yes it likely would be hard to differentiate the two.

"actually this sort of reminds me of those rams jerseys that surfaced for one year in the early 70s - blue jerseys with yellow numbers outlined in white which the rams had never worn before. all of the rams players posed individually in these jerseys for program photos etc. and they may have used them for one preseason game that year. whatever the case, these jerseys were never worn during the regular season nor were they ever heard from again. yet finding photos of rams posing in them is very easy. given their lack of use, could any of these shirts ever be held up as a quintessential example of a rams game used jersey? further, would it be fair to represent one as a game used jersey which, for example, merlin olsen wore during his most productive, pro bowl seasons?"

yes, good example. this hobby is filled with real life examples of items being made up for some sort of possible player use but never ended up being adopted. one that comes to my immediate mind were some black alternate Orioles shirts in 1995. Russell had made them up, complete with tagging and everything, with sleeve and neck piping. as the story goes, the team owner hated them and refused to use them and they were never actually worn. eventually, some (Ripken's of course) were later sold as game-used. and of course the infamous Orioles/Ripken throwback that landed GFC in the People's Court. a jersey genuinely issued to Ripken but not worn as the game was cancelled. and the even more infamous Ripken St. Pats jersey. never worn but Lampson swears he has photos or some such that he's never offered up. i imagine he keeps them beside his embalmed chupacabra and his grainy 8mm film showing moses parting the red sea.

anyhoo, not to get off the real topic. the issue, as i understand it, is that the photos used in the MEARS analysis of the JB shirt were all entirely promo photos and not of JB in-action. certainly a serious issue when it comes to evaluating a shirt of which one has absolutely no previous exemplars. in the same way that MEARS noted on tony's Arod LOA that no photos could be shown with Arod using a rawlings bat because it was relevant info, did they note on their own JB LOA that the photos they used were all promo/photo-shoot photos?

rudy.

kingjammy24

11-26-2008, 06:28 PM

super..a reply from troy. always nice to have an engaging discussion. (even if none of us are actually buying the JB jersey and only seeking to converse for the sake of discourse and to add to our knowledge). troy's article in it's entirety:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Brown Jersey: Personal Preference vs. MEARS Grading Standards
With the continued discussion regarding the Jim Brown jersey, I was asked several questions about our evaluation of the jersey. Since I chose to include photos with my response, I decided to create a short news item. The issue boils down to personal preferences vs. established MEARS grading standards.

Question: Why wasn't the Hall of Fame contacted regarding this jersey.

Answer Troy: Over a decade ago I conducted a research trip to the Football Hall of Fame. I purchased numerous Hall of Fame photos from their archive department. At that time, I photographed numerous jerseys, including the Jim Brown that was on display. At that time I took available tag shots, close-ups of font, and close-ups of team repairs. From my photo references, I could clearly see the Jim Brown jersey was made from durene. Since the questioned jersey was "tear away", I did not see any merit to questioning the Hall about this particular jersey.

In the past, I have worked with the Baseball Hall of Fame on numerous occasions, in addition to numerous professional sports team. MEARS does attempt to exhaust all avenues when examining a jersey, as we did on the Jim Brown jersey. I just didn't see a potential benefit of seeking their advice for this item. It was like comparing apples(durene) to oranges (tear away).

Question: Could this jersey be a practice or photo shoot jersey.

Answer Troy: Highly Unlikely. I have included several photographs of Jim Brown wearing a practice jersey. Judging by the numerous different styles, it illustrated the Browns employed the practice of wearing specific practice only jerseys throughout the course of several seasons. This is illustrated by the different designs found on the practice jerseys themselves, each dating the practice jersey to a different year. It was in my professional opinion the examined Jim Brown jersey was not a practice jersey, since the photo evidence clearly supported the fact that distinct and different jerseys were worn during practice.

Regarding photo shoot, there is no empirical evidence to support the fact that Jim Brown was issued a different jersey (made from the same materials as used by the Chicago Bears and worn by Gale Sayers) for photoshoots. I find it highly unlikely that if a request was made to photograph Jim Brown, that a new, special jersey would have been made for him to wear. Also, judging several photos that I referenced, the shots appeared to have been taken at different dates. Thus, implying this was a jersey worn more than on just one occasion, which was not consistent with one photo shoot session. There is nothing to support this point.

Question: Did you find a photo of Jim Brown wearing this tear away style jersey in a game.

Answer Troy: Our attempts were inconclusive. There are several clear photos of Jim Brown wearing Durene materials. Less than a dozen, but they do exist. It is challenging to find available footage to be used for photo matching. We referenced all of the available images, and consulted with dozens of period printed publications. Any pub collector will know that most images, especially action shots, were quite grainy as they appeared in these 1960s periodicals. We did examine scores of images that were photographed too far away to determine the actual materials of the jersey. What our imagery analysis did conclude that the numeral font, sleeve length, and collar design were consistent with the photos, we just could not get enough close up images of the materials. So, did we base our final opinion without a “photo match” to Jim Brown? The answer was no. In addition to the several images of Jim Brown wearing this tear away style material, we have found photographs of other teams (BEARS) and other examples of actual tear away jerseys that were worn by other teams and players. I am sure that the other football jersey collectors out there could provide additional teams and players that wore tear away style jerseys from the 1960s. There is empirical evidence to support the fact that tear away jerseys were worn in the NFL. The fact that other NFL player and teams were documented as wearing tear away materials, this Jim Brown, coupled with the photographs of Jim Brown wearing tear away materials, were the basis of our opinion.

Question: The jersey did not have any team repairs, how could it get an A10 grade:

Answer Troy: With respects to game wear and grading, the following information is listed in the jersey grading criteria section of the website and has been used by the MEARS evaluators during the process of assigning grades:

Degree of wear: With respect to grading, degree is independently measured by the staff of MEARS. Game wear is measured from light to heavy. Per the MEARS grading standards, the range of game wear may be determined from light to heavy, while still having the maximum points awarded to the jersey. A jersey may exhibit a light range of overall wear, but still be awarded the highest grade per the scale.

I think the issue is personal preferences vs. MEARS grading standards. Collectors have the right to collect what they want. If your personal preferences are the jersey has to have photo matched team repairs and NFL documentation, that is fine and acceptable, as your very own personal preferences. You may only collect jerseys that match your self-defined criteria. You are not required to buy anything that you are not comfortable with.

MEARS grading standards are the guidelines that we have created. When MEARS evaluates an item, the process (worksheet) and final results (LOO) capture our thoughts and methodology. This work and information is provided to the buyer. He has the ability now to follow the MEARS logic trail, and see if he agrees or disagrees. In the case of the Jim Brown, the winning bidder and several underbidders were in agreement with the MEARS opinion. They purchased the jersey knowing that the photo references we provided were not game action shots. They purchased the jersey knowing there were no visible team repairs. They purchased the jersey knowing the exact degree of use. The MEARS letter satisfied their personal preferences. Obviously with the continued debate, we did not meet others idea of game use or personal preferences.

If an item is found not to have been evaluated properly, the buyer is protected by the MEARS Buyers Protection policy, the only program like it of its kind. This is not the case of the Jim Brown jersey; it is simply a matter of different personal preferences.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS

--------------------------------------------------------------------

rudy.

kingjammy24

11-26-2008, 06:28 PM

oops..forgot the link:

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=569

rudy.

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 06:52 PM

depends on the collector i suppose but i'd wager most would prefer the repairs to be from regular season games if they had their choice. beyond that, would they regard the MJG SB jersey lower simply because it had practice repairs? probably not, no.

likely not. hence mark's comment about collectors believing their practice repairs to be (more important) game repairs. that said, i don't know anything about football shirts and perhaps there is some very subtle info regarding practice vs game repairs. theoretically speaking, perhaps the crew patched things a certain way, perhaps cheaper or faster, during practices. perhaps they weren't sure who'd be cut so the jerseys weren't as crucial as game jerseys. perhaps certain materials came into play for practice repairs vs game repairs. a pretty interesting topic to delve into.

again, i just can't imagine how anyone could possibly be able to tell the difference between "practice" repairs and "game" repairs - that's why i posed the question as to why anyone could possibly care. i wonder if helmet collectors out there can tell the difference between "practice" gouges and "game" gouges! btw how did we ever get on the topic of "practice" jerseys? i mean i'm not a jersey collector but i always thought that teams didn't practice in their game jerseys - was this not the case in the jim brown era? when i was a kid i went to a few new york giants practices in the mid 70s and those guys wore "property of" shirts over their pads. i'm fairly ceratin today's players don't wear game jerseys in practice/camp either. so how do game jerseys get damaged during practices?

if a jersey can't be style-matched, then it's got some serious issues that no story or provenance can compensate for.

i would definitely think that if a jersey could not be conclusively style-matched to a game photo then it would be tough to state with any sort of authority that it was indeed worn in a game by x player, regardless of the circumstantial evidence. for example there is a great shot of herschel walker on the cover of sports illustrated in the process of putting a rawlings rts helmet on his head - he can also be seen in other promo shots donning the same lid. it's clearly a cowboys gamer and the model of rawlings was a pro style used by other players around the league. would this be enough information to conclude that herschel walker wore this helmet during a game? there are many photos of walker during a game where it is impossible to tell exactly what model of helmet he is wearing - does this mean he could have easily been wearing the rawlings in these shots? or does one have to put greater weight on the conclusive photos that show, again and again, that walker wore an air helmet when he played with the cowboys, not a rawlings?

anyhoo, not to get off the real topic. the issue, as i understand it, is that the photos used in the MEARS analysis of the JB shirt were all entirely promo photos and not of JB in-action. certainly a serious issue when it comes to evaluating a shirt of which one has absolutely no previous exemplars. in the same way that MEARS noted on tony's Arod LOA that no photos could be shown with Arod using a rawlings bat because it was relevant info, did they note on their own JB LOA that the photos they used were all promo/photo-shoot photos?

i think it's been determined that a game photo conclusively showing jim brown wearing this style of jersey has not been produced. as such, one does have to wonder why mention of this is not made in the loa and why it apparently had no impact on the final grade. more importantly i think this perfectly illustrates the precarious path encountered when an auction house / dealer attempts to grade their own items without bias.

...

aeneas01

11-26-2008, 07:07 PM

wow, i wish i would have read troy's message before i posted... his thorough response requires more time than i have at the moment but i'm looking forward to asking him a few more questions. but my gobble day has officially begun and i'm off to spend time with my family! have a safe and great thanksgiving gents!

....

trsent

11-27-2008, 07:44 AM

Oh, I understand, the attacks against MEARS are for education purposes. No one here is auctually interested in buying the Jim Brown jersey in the discussion. When the jersey first sold at REA, were there this many questions about it?

I hope everyone remembers that MEARS gives an opinon of the game uses of a jersey (bat, etc) and they assign that item a number grade. In their opinon, they offer such grades and then answer questions of those who are looking for free education about the business of authenticating jerseys, etc.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

3arod13

11-27-2008, 08:00 AM

I think anytime someone is giving their opinion, vice facts, there are always going to be questions and/or controversy.

I do agree that personal attacks can be eliminated when trying to ask questions and/or make points.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards, Tony

3arod13

11-27-2008, 08:08 AM

I will also add that when an authenticator does give their opinion on a game used item, and they are later shown they were wrong, it helps to accept it vice continue to stand behind their opinion (this is not directed specifically at MEARS). This also includes auction houses.

Much more respect would be gained by the gamue used community.

commando

11-27-2008, 10:49 AM

While I can appreciate the difficulty involved in finding detailed video/photos of Brown wearing this style jersey, I personally think a grade of A10 is not appropriate.

There's no need for a long-winded explanation. The bottom line should be that the grade of A10 is INDISPUTABLE because of IRONCLAD evidence. If someone would care to point out the indisputable evidence I am missing here, I'd like to hear it.

The gentleman who discovered the Willie Mays minor league jersey a few years ago was very fortunate to find a clear photo of Mays wearing the shirt. A detailed analysis was able to match both perfectly -- and that, my friends, is what I would call an A10 jersey.

kingjammy24

11-27-2008, 02:22 PM

troy states that they have photo evidence that other players and other NFL teams wore this lighter material but i'm not sure how relevant that is to the core issue of whether brown himself wore it. as i understand it, the issue is not whether durene was ever worn in the NFL or whether other players wore it but rather whether brown wore it, in a game, during the specified time-frame.

in '93 the sf giants jerseys were supplied by russell. barry bonds chose not to wear the supplied shirts that the rest of the team wore and opted to wear rawlings. it's also very possible that some russell shirts were still made up for bonds. it's also possible that bonds posed for a few photo shoots in russell shirts. there could be various hypothesis why one might not wear actual game-shirts for photo shoots. it's not so much, as troy said, that a special shirt was made up solely and explicitly for the photo shoots but rather that a player has chosen not to actually use a shirt, in a game, that was legitimately issued to him for those purposes. i've never been able to locate a photo from '93 showing bonds wearing a russell shirt. saying that he probably did because other MLB teams were wearing them and other giants were wearing them has little bearing on what bonds actually wore in games. while i clearly don't believe that an item can only be legit if there are photos of it in use, i also think that until an item can be stylematched, there's always going to be a reasonable amount of doubt. would i purchase a '93 bonds russell shirt? not until i found 1 in-action photo of him wearing one. until i did, the leap would be too great.

anyway, one of the other issues in this entire discussion has been the accuracy or appropriateness of the A10 grade. i think it's worthwhile to look at how MEARS defines the A10. from their site:

"A10 Manufactures characteristics of the jersey have been compared to known authentic examples and exactly match tagging, lettering, numbering, size, patches and/or memorial bands, materials, style, buttons, zipper, etc. Each piece is also evaluated on the degree of evident use and wear, which must be consistent with that of the player, sport, position, field of play, and duration of use. No negative traits can be found to receive this grade. The jersey must be complete, unaltered, all original, and show optimal wear while remaining in the same condition as last worn by player."

and for good measure, the A9:

"A9 The examined jersey must have the same traits as the A10 with respect to overall characteristics and wear. The jersey is awarded the A9 grade when it exhibits a minor flaw that does not warrant more than a full point deduction. No reasonable doubt can exist as to whether or not the player wore the jersey during the proposed time frame in order to receive this grade."

the original REA description stated that "it would be hard to imagine a finer example". as well, as was stated earlier in this thread, an A10 conveys the notion of a perfect, textbook piece which, as REA stated, could not be improved upon. well from what i gather it would be very easy to imagine a better brown jersey; one of a style that could be found in actual in-game photos and one with heavy use that would be consistent with brown's position and style of play.

as for the MEARS A10/A9 descriptions: an A10, according to MEARS, must show "optimal wear". not good, not decent or satisfactory but optimal, which means most desireable. troy can discern the use for himself but he can't redefine the definition of the word "optimal" for his own purposes. is a jim brown shirt showing light wear optimal? i think that question is hits to the core of this grade. is a lightly-used brown shirt optimal, or most desireable? this would necessarily mean that a lightly-used brown shirt is preferable over a heavily used brown shirt. hard to imagine. if MEARS next came into possession of a heavily-used brown shirt showing tears and scrapes, they would necessarily have to grade that jersey lower because in their definition of the A10 applied to the brown shirt, light use on a brown jersey is optimal and therefore heavy use would not be. you can't have it both ways and say both light use and heavy use are optimal.

it must also be "consistent with the player, position, sports, field of play, etc." from some of the comments i've heard regarding brown's extremely physical style, it seems that some view the wear as not being consistent. sort of like a lightly-worn rickey henderson or lenny dykstra jersey. is it possible? sure. is it "optimal"? hardly. how on earth is it optimal? light use would be optimal for a player who saw 5 games at DH but it'd hardly be optimal for a player famous for their extremely hard style of play. if anything, it's the opposite of optimal. even under MEARS' own definition of the A10, the jersey seems to fall short because the wear isn't optimal and it apparently must be so to earn the A10. it seems more suited to an A9 with the light wear and reasonable doubt pertaining to the material being the "flaws".

rudy.

G1X

11-27-2008, 08:06 PM

Hi Robert,

First, thanks for placing this discussion into a separate thread. There are not a whole lot of discussions that are strictly about football jerseys, especially the pre-2000 era, so this is very refreshing from that standpoint. Hopefully, it will stay on the course of being educational.

To clarify about practice use, some teams were known to take their jerseys from previous seasons and use them in practice and training camp. To my knowledge, teams did not use the current season's jerseys in both practice and games, so if a player tossed his jersey into the stands after the season finale, the wear and repairs were most likely from that season (or previous seasons if the jersey had been recycled).

A few quick documentations of teams that reused durene jerseys in practice or camp at some point are the early 1970s Cowboys, the mid-1960s Jets, and the Detroit Lions. The Cowboys' use of old game jerseys in practice is well-documented in the 1973 book "The Gladiators". The Cowboys apparently stripped the plates off the back before reusing them in camp (assuming that there were plates on the back to begin with as NFC teams didn't begin using name-on-back until 1970). In Joe Namath's book "Namath" that was published in 2006, the Jets can be seen in two photos on page 155 in what appears to be training camp practice from the mid-1960s where they are wearing game jerseys. However, turn the page, and it looks like they are wearing solid color sweatshirts in a camp practice. When I made a bulk buy from the Lions in 1999, their equipment manager (who had been working for the team since the early 1970s) said that they didn't start using separate practice jerseys until sometime in the 1980s. I have always made the assumption that there aren't a whole lot of older jerseys to be found simply because teams reused them in practice until they wore out.

As for your question about telling the difference between "practice" repairs and "game" repairs, there should be no difference assuming that the same person made the repairs. That is the problem in my viewpoint. For example, I have a nice Dave Edwards Dallas Cowboys durene jersey from the early 1970s with a ton of repairs. The jersey was most likely game used as there are obvious signs that a nameplate was on the back. With the nameplate having been removed, I am convinced that the jersey was reused in practice based on the photos in "The Galdiators". So the question that always crosses my mind is whether most of the abuse came from practice wear or game wear. If the jersey was worn for one season but used everyday in camp for six weeks, I have to ask myself that question. Worse, the jersey may have never been put into game action (served as a spare or emergency jersey) and only saw practice action.

To take this a little further and make all durene collectors a little more uncomfortable :) , let's use two Washington Redskins who went on to the Hall of Fame as an example. In 1964, the 'Skins draft included both Charley Taylor and Paul Krausse. The 'Skins used the same style of burgundy jerseys for most of the 1960s. For this discussion, let's assume that the 'Skins resued previous seasons' jerseys in practice and training camp. The often unanswerable questions are these:

1. Did the wear and repairs on the #42 and #22 jerseys come from Taylor and Krausse in game action?
2. Did the wear and repairs come only from practice and camp after the jerseys - used in previous seasons - had been relegated to practice use?
3. How do we really know that Krausse and Taylor ever wore these jerseys?

The last question is the most intriguing when collecting older durene jerseys, especially regarding NFL teams prior to the nameplate era. If a team used the same jersey style (including number font) and manufacturer over the course of several seasons, it can be near impossible to pinpoint the exact season. This can be problematic if you run across a #22 or #42 'Skins jersey as these jerseys may not have been worn by Krausse and Taylor, but rather by LeRoy Jackson and Bill Anderson who wore #22 and #42 respectively in both 1962 and 1963. Trying to find proof-positive photo evidence from that era can be difficult at best.

I won't even get into the discussion of college and high school teams that wore the same style as NFL teams. Was that red jersey with white numbers worn by the Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals, University of Alabama, or Annandale High School? I once saw an old University of Iowa durene jersey that I would have bet the farm was a Steelers jersey. Glad I didn't place that bet!

When looking at any older football jersey style that seems atypical (such as the Jim Brown jersey in question), finding a photo of the paticular player in that style can be near impossible. For me to feel somewhat comfortable in that regard, I need to find at least one Browns player wearing that particular style of durene in a game action photo from that era. That might not answer the question about the paticular player being researched, but at least it would answer the question as to whether the team actually wore that style in game action.

In almost every team bulk buy I have made from a team or league, there are inevitably items that are different than the rest. I have refused to list items for sale simply because I cannot match them or explain them. But just because I can't positively match them doesn't mean that they aren't just as real as the rest (which they are).

I hope this information is helpful.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

genius

11-27-2008, 09:48 PM

I saw that Iowa durene, was a dead-ringer for a Steelers 50's durene. Only giveaway was the Sand Knit tag which if I remember correctly was from an Iowa or Nebraska distributor. I would buy that though if someone on here has it!

I posted these photos in another thread but the below jersey which I thought might have been a New York Titans jersey turned out to be University of Pittsburgh 1965. Found a photo match. I've wondered though whether this set of jerseys came from the Titans/Jets as the jerseys are identical. Would be interesting to prove that some jerseys actually did go from pro to college to H/S. Sorry for the o/t.

G1X

11-28-2008, 11:05 AM

Hi genius,

That's a sharp looking jersey! The New York Titans 1961 and 1962 jerseys were slightly different than your Pitt Panthers jersey. Here are the main differences:

1. The shoulder inserts on the Titans' jerseys were the "reverse" of your Pitt jersey. The Titans had a single gold stripe in the middle bordered on each side by white stripes.
2. The Titans had a cuff at the end of the sleeves that had white and gold striping.
3. The Titans jerseys were a darker blue with old-gold numbers and stripes. Your Pitt jersey appears lighter with yellow-gold numbers and stripes (but that might be due to the lighting/flash of your photo).

At the bottom is a 1962 Fleer card with a good view of the Titans jerseys (and the grandstands of the old Polo Grounds). There are a number of Titans in the '62 set. The Titans wore this style in 1961 and 1962. In their inaugural season in 1960, the blue jerseys had no shoulder inserts or stripes. When they changed their name in 1963 to the Jets, they changed their color scheme to green and white.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net
Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys http://i12.ebayimg.com/04/i/000/ed/26/2f87_1.JPG

kingjammy24

11-28-2008, 11:59 PM

well i've just watched a pretty incredible video courtesy of doug allen and mastro: http://live.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=VideoView&LotIndex=88730&LastLotListing=Lot%20List%20SessionOne&CurrentRow=1

the pertinent part is where doug allen says:

"..what's great is the provenance not only is that you can photomatch (unintelligible) pictures of jim brown wearing this particular uniform but on top of that its signed by him and it says 'game used' in his hand so what better way to say that 'i wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform' than a player effectively giving his own stamp of approval on the provenance by signing it and signing it as 'game used'."

unbelievably, despite having the jersey in hand, doug somehow turns a vague "game jersey" inscription into a (more lucrative) "game used" inscription. in fact, the jersey does not say "game used" and there is a world of difference between a "game jersey" inscription that brown signed 40 yrs after he last saw this shirt and a "game used" inscription that would be his "stamp of approval" that the shirt really is game used. the NFL fan shop sells what it calls "game jerseys". god only knows what brown meant by "game jersey". perhaps he meant "game style jersey". leave it to doug to twist it into "game used" and practically say that brown endorsed the jersey as one he wore. nowhere on the shirt did brown write anything close to "i wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform" in the bizarre way that doug interprets brown's vague inscription. twist it and twist it and maybe it'll be what you want it to be i guess.

while i personally don't trust doug with much, i'd at least trusted that he was able to read and apparently that was overly ambitious on my end. however, good news all around because according to what doug said, he's photomatched this particular jersey. apparently he's done even better than MEARS who simply managed to stylematch it to some promo photos. i look forward to seeing the photomatch.

doug also says that "this uniform doesn't have significant game use but it's picture-perfect in every other attribute." once again, the A10 grade requires "optimal wear".

rudy.

both-teams-played-hard

11-29-2008, 12:21 AM

I personally don't like autographed jerseys. I mean, if Brown actually wore the jersey in a game...what good is an autograph? How about a close-up photo-match of a stain, loose thread or repair mark? I think the autograph is nothing more than graffiti. He wore it right? Jim Brown is not an authenticator or jersey expert. But then again, who actually is?

G1X

11-29-2008, 06:16 AM

While the debate rages on about the MEARS A10 grading of the Jim Brown jersey, there is an important point being overlooked. I learned as a dealer a very long time ago that even though most football jersey collectors prefer jerseys that show good game use, there are some who just don't care. And there are even a few collectors who actually prefer jerseys with little or no wear.

So while folks continue to debate the game-use on this jersey, the person who ends up winning it might not even care about the amount of wear to begin with.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

kingjammy24

11-29-2008, 11:43 AM

How about a close-up photo-match of a stain, loose thread or repair mark?

warren h.: not to fear, as doug allen explicitly stated, he has photomatched this particular shirt. not sure when doug will present his photomatch but i eagerly await it.

mark h: for MEARS' and mastro's sake, let's hope mastro finds one of those football buyers who prefers light-to-no use on a $70k shirt!

rudy.

G1X

12-01-2008, 12:15 AM

After reading Troy Kinunen's response posted by Rudy in post #13 where Troy continues to refer to the Jim Brown jersey as a "tear-away", I feel that it is terribly important to repeat a posting I made in another thread and was quoted in the opening post of this thread.

In my humble opinion, and with all due respect to Troy, labeling the Jim Brown jersey as a tear-away jersey has created a bit of confusion and understandable questioning from some GUU members. Although I have not seen the jersey in person, judging from the photos (and information provided by Troy on the MEARS website), it appears to be simply a case where a lighter weight durene was used in manufacturing and not an actual tear-away material. (The above observation is not intended to be interpreted as any type of validation or dismissal of MEARS grading of this jersey.)

For a little background on tear-away jerseys, this style came into prominence around 1970 when college teams such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama started running the wishbone. It didn't take much to destroy a tear-away jersey. Living in Alabama at the time, I was never surprised to see the QB or running backs make several changes during a game. The equipment staff would have extra jerseys tucked in their belts so that they could make quick changes on the sidelines. (The lineman and defensive players normally did not wear tear-aways.)

If the Jim Brown jersey was a true tear-away, Troy's "tugging match" would have turned a very valuable jersey into a couple of strips of cloth!

By all accounts, unless there is something here that I am completely missing or hasn't been disclosed about the jersey, it is not a true "tear-away" jersey. Anyone who is interested in seeing the results of grabbing and pulling on a tear-away jersey, go to Getty Image photos #81394908 and #81340849. Those of you who were around in the early 1970s when tear-away jerseys were legal will probably recall that it did not take much to destroy one of those jerseys.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

Moustache Gang

12-01-2008, 01:55 PM

mvandor

12-01-2008, 02:34 PM

Posters,

I emailed Doug Allen at Mastro over the weekend and asked him to send me his photo match of the Jim Brown jersey that he mentions during his interview of the Jim Brown auction video which can be seen on their website. Actually, Doug responded within an hour of my email and stated he would send the photo to me today. Doug emailed me with the photo at around 11 am est.

Doug did make it clear that this is a "style match" and not an actual photo match of the jersey up for auction. Just want to make sure that everyone is clear on this matter.

Sincerely,

Mark

In my mind that pic would lend credence to the probability that the jersey was a promo/photo shoot shirt as opposed to a game used one. As big a star as he was, as much photographed as he was, is it really unlikely even the 60's Browns might have preserved a jersey for photo shoots?

Certainly would explain the very light wear on the jersey. Unfortunately, it also affects it's worth.

aeneas01

12-04-2008, 12:20 PM

great post mark and a very interesting/educational/entertaining read!

Hi Robert,

First, thanks for placing this discussion into a separate thread. There are not a whole lot of discussions that are strictly about football jerseys, especially the pre-2000 era, so this is very refreshing from that standpoint. Hopefully, it will stay on the course of being educational.

unfortunately for me and those that are primarily interested in gae used football items, the guu forum can often resemble a baseball collector's watering hole! so it's always great to see threads dedicated to football interests as well!

To clarify about practice use, some teams were known to take their jerseys from previous seasons and use them in practice and training camp. To my knowledge, teams did not use the current season's jerseys in both practice and games, so if a player tossed his jersey into the stands after the season finale, the wear and repairs were most likely from that season (or previous seasons if the jersey had been recycled).

i was curious about this point as well - as i mentioned before, as a youngster i remember watching the new york giants practice in "property of" type gear over their pads. but while i was taking a closer look at the game used football helmets currently listed at mastro, i came across a ton of photos of teams apparently practicing in their game jerseys (i've included a few of these photos below). are these photos of camp/practice and are these guys wearing jerseys from the previous season? or are some of these photos from mid-season practices and could they practicing in their game shirts?

A few quick documentations of teams that reused durene jerseys in practice or camp at some point are the early 1970s Cowboys, the mid-1960s Jets, and the Detroit Lions. The Cowboys' use of old game jerseys in practice is well-documented in the 1973 book "The Gladiators". The Cowboys apparently stripped the plates off the back before reusing them in camp (assuming that there were plates on the back to begin with as NFC teams didn't begin using name-on-back until 1970). In Joe Namath's book "Namath" that was published in 2006, the Jets can be seen in two photos on page 155 in what appears to be training camp practice from the mid-1960s where they are wearing game jerseys. However, turn the page, and it looks like they are wearing solid color sweatshirts in a camp practice. When I made a bulk buy from the Lions in 1999, their equipment manager (who had been working for the team since the early 1970s) said that they didn't start using separate practice jerseys until sometime in the 1980s. I have always made the assumption that there aren't a whole lot of older jerseys to be found simply because teams reused them in practice until they wore out.

As for your question about telling the difference between "practice" repairs and "game" repairs, there should be no difference assuming that the same person made the repairs. That is the problem in my viewpoint. For example, I have a nice Dave Edwards Dallas Cowboys durene jersey from the early 1970s with a ton of repairs. The jersey was most likely game used as there are obvious signs that a nameplate was on the back. With the nameplate having been removed, I am convinced that the jersey was reused in practice based on the photos in "The Galdiators". So the question that always crosses my mind is whether most of the abuse came from practice wear or game wear. If the jersey was worn for one season but used everyday in camp for six weeks, I have to ask myself that question. Worse, the jersey may have never been put into game action (served as a spare or emergency jersey) and only saw practice action.

as i mentioned earlier, i don't see why it would matter to a collector if the wear was caused by practice or a game given that both reflect the history of the jersey. on the other hand i could see how a collector might be less excited about a jersey if it were discovered, for example, that the wear on a newly obtained alan page rookie jersey actually came from several guys that never made the roster prior to page's arrival. but how could anyone possibly, conclusively, make this determination?

To take this a little further and make all durene collectors a little more uncomfortable :) , let's use two Washington Redskins who went on to the Hall of Fame as an example. In 1964, the 'Skins draft included both Charley Taylor and Paul Krausse. The 'Skins used the same style of burgundy jerseys for most of the 1960s. For this discussion, let's assume that the 'Skins resued previous seasons' jerseys in practice and training camp. The often unanswerable questions are these:

1. Did the wear and repairs on the #42 and #22 jerseys come from Taylor and Krausse in game action?
2. Did the wear and repairs come only from practice and camp after the jerseys - used in previous seasons - had been relegated to practice use?
3. How do we really know that Krausse and Taylor ever wore these jerseys?

1. again, why would it matter if these jerseys belonged to these guys?
2. since it would be impossible to determine, why would it matter?
3. if this could not be determined i imagine the jerseys would be valued accordingly, no?

The last question is the most intriguing when collecting older durene jerseys, especially regarding NFL teams prior to the nameplate era. If a team used the same jersey style (including number font) and manufacturer over the course of several seasons, it can be near impossible to pinpoint the exact season. This can be problematic if you run across a #22 or #42 'Skins jersey as these jerseys may not have been worn by Krausse and Taylor, but rather by LeRoy Jackson and Bill Anderson who wore #22 and #42 respectively in both 1962 and 1963. Trying to find proof-positive photo evidence from that era can be difficult at best.

either a jersey can be conclusively traced to a player or it can't i would think - if it couldn't, if you could easily argue that the jersey could have just as easily belonged to another a player, then i would think that would determine the value of the jersey, no?

I won't even get into the discussion of college and high school teams that wore the same style as NFL teams. Was that red jersey with white numbers worn by the Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals, University of Alabama, or Annandale High School? I once saw an old University of Iowa durene jersey that I would have bet the farm was a Steelers jersey. Glad I didn't place that bet!

absolutely and i've wondered about this often. the same goes for football helmets - heck, there are a lot of pop warner teams around the country that mimic what the pros wear - and i've seen some of these pop warner helmets on ebay listed as pro gamers. just recently one of the big auction houses yanked a "michigan" gamer after i informed them that it was clearly not an authentic michigan helmet and was most likely a high school lid. high schools around the country use the same helmet schemes as major college programs.

When looking at any older football jersey style that seems atypical (such as the Jim Brown jersey in question), finding a photo of the paticular player in that style can be near impossible. For me to feel somewhat comfortable in that regard, I need to find at least one Browns player wearing that particular style of durene in a game action photo from that era. That might not answer the question about the paticular player being researched, but at least it would answer the question as to whether the team actually wore that style in game action.

In almost every team bulk buy I have made from a team or league, there are inevitably items that are different than the rest. I have refused to list items for sale simply because I cannot match them or explain them. But just because I can't positively match them doesn't mean that they aren't just as real as the rest (which they are).

i agree 100%

I hope this information is helpful.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y238/aeneas1/set03.jpg

Jake51

12-04-2008, 12:32 PM

In response to Mark's post, the Broncos were also in the group that would use the previous season's game jerseys as practice jerseys. I have Rich 'Tombstone' Jackson's game jersey from 1968 - photomatched and evidence of a nameplate - and it has 49 repairs on it. While some of those repairs were ther result of game action, the majority are from practice sessions. Personally, the fact that there is practice use on the jersey does not diminish its value to me at all.

Thanks,

Tom

lund6771

12-04-2008, 12:38 PM

RKGIBSON

12-04-2008, 06:58 PM

kingjammy24

12-04-2008, 07:17 PM

Jake51,
Tom, One of the things I like about the forum is learning how other collectors think. In your opinion, how does the name plate being removed from a vintage jersey effect it in your mind, as far as collectability and value difference, compared to one that would have the name left on it? Somethimes a jersey with the name removed may be the only opportunity you have to get that player. Do you think reproducing the name, accurately, and installing it would make the jersey better?

Anyone elses opinions are welcomed here too.
Roger

for me, it's all original/unrestored or nothing. a nameplate removal, whether by the team or not, would decrease the value and collectibility. that said, i think restoring it is even worse. at least when it's removed, the jersey is still "original" in the sense that nothing unoriginal has been added to it. putting a restored nob on it just taints the whole thing.
personally, while i wouldn't want a jersey missing the original nob, if i had to take it, i wouldn't want it restored. i'd just live with the aberration. and ultimately be unhappy with it. if a grail jersey came up for me, say a 1991 joe carter shirt, and it was the only one that would ever come up, and it was missing the name, i'd probably pass on it. i know i'd just constantly be disappointed in the missing name and it'd bother me too much to enjoy the jersey fully. i know i'm probably in the minority feeling this way. it would just forever be an imperfect piece and the imperfection would gnaw at me everytime i looked at it.

rudy.

jdr3

12-04-2008, 07:41 PM

The redskins recycled game jerseys also.

aeneas01

12-05-2008, 08:58 AM

Article: Troy Kinunen

Jim Brown Jersey: Personal Preference vs. MEARS Grading Standards

With the continued discussion regarding the Jim Brown jersey, I was asked several questions about our evaluation of the jersey. Since I chose to include photos with my response, I decided to create a short news item. The issue boils down to personal preferences vs. established MEARS grading standards.

Question: Why wasn't the Hall of Fame contacted regarding this jersey.

Answer Troy: Over a decade ago I conducted a research trip to the Football Hall of Fame. I purchased numerous Hall of Fame photos from their archive department. At that time, I photographed numerous jerseys, including the Jim Brown that was on display. At that time I took available tag shots, close-ups of font, and close-ups of team repairs. From my photo references, I could clearly see the Jim Brown jersey was made from durene. Since the questioned jersey was "tear away", I did not see any merit to questioning the Hall about this particular jersey.

In the past, I have worked with the Baseball Hall of Fame on numerous occasions, in addition to numerous professional sports team. MEARS does attempt to exhaust all avenues when examining a jersey, as we did on the Jim Brown jersey. I just didn't see a potential benefit of seeking their advice for this item. It was like comparing apples(durene) to oranges (tear away).

as a "research center" i would think mears might feel a special obligation to reference the largest collection of period jersey exemplars in the country, housed at the pro football hall of fame, given the magnitude of this item - not an exercise in comparing apples to oranges, but rather an exercise in due diligence. not only does the hall own an enormous inventory of like jerseys (vintage tagging comparisons, etc.), but it also owns a tremendous photo and film library which could have possibly shed more light on the jersey. if a "research center" is not prepared to take such steps in an effort to authenticate such an important piece, then one has to wonder what separates a research center from a group of knowledgeable hobbyists sharing their opinions. this is not stated out of spite, but out of genuine concern.

Question: Could this jersey be a practice or photo shoot jersey.

Answer Troy: Highly Unlikely. I have included several photographs of Jim Brown wearing a practice jersey. Judging by the numerous different styles, it illustrated the Browns employed the practice of wearing specific practice only jerseys throughout the course of several seasons. This is illustrated by the different designs found on the practice jerseys themselves, each dating the practice jersey to a different year. It was in my professional opinion the examined Jim Brown jersey was not a practice jersey, since the photo evidence clearly supported the fact that distinct and different jerseys were worn during practice.

Regarding photo shoot, there is no empirical evidence to support the fact that Jim Brown was issued a different jersey (made from the same materials as used by the Chicago Bears and worn by Gale Sayers) for photoshoots. I find it highly unlikely that if a request was made to photograph Jim Brown, that a new, special jersey would have been made for him to wear. Also, judging several photos that I referenced, the shots appeared to have been taken at different dates. Thus, implying this was a jersey worn more than on just one occasion, which was not consistent with one photo shoot session. There is nothing to support this point.

i'm don't think anyone suggested that jim brown may have been furnished with a special jersey manufactured solely for photo shoot purposes. what i believe was suggested is that isn't it possible jim brown (and the rest of the team for that matter) was issued a jersey for game use but didn't particularly care for the style and/or fit for game use so he instead opted to wear it only for photo shoots? isn't it possible that, for whatever reasons, this style of jersey was shelved by the bears? there are examples of this situation occuring with other teams (see the '72 rams). isn't this possible given that a conclusive game photo of brown actually wearing such a jersey in a game has not been produced?

Question: Did you find a photo of Jim Brown wearing this tear away style jersey in a game.

Answer Troy: Our attempts were inconclusive. There are several clear photos of Jim Brown wearing Durene materials. Less than a dozen, but they do exist. It is challenging to find available footage to be used for photo matching. We referenced all of the available images, and consulted with dozens of period printed publications. Any pub collector will know that most images, especially action shots, were quite grainy as they appeared in these 1960s periodicals. We did examine scores of images that were photographed too far away to determine the actual materials of the jersey. What our imagery analysis did conclude that the numeral font, sleeve length, and collar design were consistent with the photos, we just could not get enough close up images of the materials. So, did we base our final opinion without a “photo match” to Jim Brown? The answer was no. In addition to the several images of Jim Brown wearing this tear away style material, we have found photographs of other teams (BEARS) and other examples of actual tear away jerseys that were worn by other teams and players. I am sure that the other football jersey collectors out there could provide additional teams and players that wore tear away style jerseys from the 1960s. There is empirical evidence to support the fact that tear away jerseys were worn in the NFL. The fact that other NFL player and teams were documented as wearing tear away materials, this Jim Brown, coupled with the photographs of Jim Brown wearing tear away materials, were the basis of our opinion.

wouldn't it be more accurate to state that mears was only able to uncover "less than a dozen" clear photos of brown wearing durene during their research? certainly you can't believe that less than a dozen such photos exist? i have more than this in my photo database, clear photos of brown wearing a durene jersey, just from my helmet research activities.

Question: The jersey did not have any team repairs, how could it get an A10 grade:

Answer Troy: With respects to game wear and grading, the following information is listed in the jersey grading criteria section of the website and has been used by the MEARS evaluators during the process of assigning grades:

Degree of wear: With respect to grading, degree is independently measured by the staff of MEARS. Game wear is measured from light to heavy. Per the MEARS grading standards, the range of game wear may be determined from light to heavy, while still having the maximum points awarded to the jersey. A jersey may exhibit a light range of overall wear, but still be awarded the highest grade per the scale.

I think the issue is personal preferences vs. MEARS grading standards. Collectors have the right to collect what they want. If your personal preferences are the jersey has to have photo matched team repairs and NFL documentation, that is fine and acceptable, as your very own personal preferences. You may only collect jerseys that match your self-defined criteria. You are not required to buy anything that you are not comfortable with.

MEARS grading standards are the guidelines that we have created. When MEARS evaluates an item, the process (worksheet) and final results (LOO) capture our thoughts and methodology. This work and information is provided to the buyer. He has the ability now to follow the MEARS logic trail, and see if he agrees or disagrees. In the case of the Jim Brown, the winning bidder and several underbidders were in agreement with the MEARS opinion. They purchased the jersey knowing that the photo references we provided were not game action shots. They purchased the jersey knowing there were no visible team repairs. They purchased the jersey knowing the exact degree of use. The MEARS letter satisfied their personal preferences. Obviously with the continued debate, we did not meet others idea of game use or personal preferences.

i believe that the your question "The jersey did not have any team repairs, how could it get an A10 grade" is poorly framed given the question collectors are asking is why a jersey with such relatively light use was awarded an a10.

If an item is found not to have been evaluated properly, the buyer is protected by the MEARS Buyers Protection policy, the only program like it of its kind. This is not the case of the Jim Brown jersey; it is simply a matter of different personal preferences.

your protection policy is tremendous. so is the swift manner in which you respond to concerns. when i discovered quite a few problematic game used football helmets auctioned through mastro in the past, helmets that mastro claimed were authenticated by mears and came with mears loas, mears immediately (and i mean immediately) sought to correct the problem. buyers were contacted and money was refunded.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS

aeneas01

12-05-2008, 09:07 AM

for me, it's all original/unrestored or nothing. a nameplate removal, whether by the team or not, would decrease the value and collectibility. that said, i think restoring it is even worse. at least when it's removed, the jersey is still "original" in the sense that nothing unoriginal has been added to it. putting a restored nob on it just taints the whole thing.
personally, while i wouldn't want a jersey missing the original nob, if i had to take it, i wouldn't want it restored. i'd just live with the aberration. and ultimately be unhappy with it. if a grail jersey came up for me, say a 1991 joe carter shirt, and it was the only one that would ever come up, and it was missing the name, i'd probably pass on it. i know i'd just constantly be disappointed in the missing name and it'd bother me too much to enjoy the jersey fully. i know i'm probably in the minority feeling this way. it would just forever be an imperfect piece and the imperfection would gnaw at me everytime i looked at it.

rudy.

i feel exactly same way about football helmets - i would rather have an original vintage helmet without the facemask than a vintage helmet fitted with a "similar" mask. the davis (packers) helmet currently listed at mastro is another good example - if nothing else it appears to be an authentic and very rare xl "husky" packers gamer. but along the way it was fitted with a reproduction (helmet hut) suspension webbing unit given that it was a gutted shell. although helmet hut did a very nice job (as they always do), this is something i would never choose to do to an original shell. but that's just my personal taste/preference - and i can easily understand why adding a reproduction suspension unit to this sort of vintage shell would make another collector very happy.

...

cohibasmoker

12-07-2008, 02:59 PM

Jake51,
Tom, One of the things I like about the forum is learning how other collectors think. In your opinion, how does the name plate being removed from a vintage jersey effect it in your mind, as far as collectability and value difference, compared to one that would have the name left on it? Somethimes a jersey with the name removed may be the only opportunity you have to get that player. Do you think reproducing the name, accurately, and installing it would make the jersey better?

Anyone elses opinions are welcomed here too.
Roger

As long as it is disclosed that the nameplate was replaced, that's fine.

- I can't speak on why some teams removed nameplates but back in the early 1970's, the Eagles removed nameplates if a jersey was sent to a charity. Why? It was explained to me that the team owned the jersey but NOT the NOB - so if a jersey was being donated to a charity, the NOB was usually removed.

- Since we're talking about the Eagles, back in the early 1970's, there were definately examples where players used previous season gamers on the practice field. Some had the NOB removed while some still had the NOB. It was NOT a common practice but there were examples. Most times, the players wore a very simple green/white numbers or white/green numbers Sand-Aire jersey with green sweatpants or shortened game pants.

Jim

Jake51

12-07-2008, 07:44 PM

Hi Roger,

While I would prefer to have the original nameplate attached, not having the nameplate would not stop me from going after a vinatge piece that I was interested it.

As to value, I think that comes down to personal preference. For me, I will go after a vintage Broncos jersey with the same amount of effort regardless of the nameplate being there or not because I know they are few and far between and if I were to wait for one with a nameplate for a long time.

As to adding a nameplate after the fact, personally I am not a fan. I want the jerseys I have to be original and if that means no nameplate, so be it.

Great question! What is your opinion on the topic?

Thanks,

Tom

RKGIBSON

12-07-2008, 10:05 PM

Jake51,

Tom, I'm like you, and everyone else, I would rather have the nameplate in place. I have only bought one jersey that had the nameplate removed since I have been in the hobby. It was a HOF players jersey that had been recycled into a practice jersey. The sleeves were cut off and hemmed also.
Being in the auto restoration business, I always want to fix things. To be honest, I had a nameplate made and had it sew on, it bothered me. I could see exactly where it was, the size and the odd shape that it was sew on. I found a picture and tried to have the name reproduced and screened exactly, that cost me. The sleeves did not bother me.
I can respect you for not worrying about them being gone. It is just part of the history of a piece. I see both sides.
Roger

CollectGU

12-09-2008, 09:25 AM

cohibasmoker

12-09-2008, 09:38 AM

lund6771

12-09-2008, 10:11 AM

Are the final selling price numbers on Masto's website correct? If so, the Brown sold for for $47K down from the 70K it sold at REA. That is a big drop. Some other realized prices on their website are so shockingly low that it is now safe to say that this recession has really hit the collectibles market really hard, much like the real estate market.

Regards,
Dave

I thought the same thing Dave...also not just the final prices, but look at how many bids were placed across the board....

I also couldn't believe that they would have chosen to have a live auction on a MONDAY????...aren't most people working that day?

I would guess that prices will continue to fall no matter where an item is sold....If I owned an auction house, the first that I would do right now would be to drop my greedy 20% rates...

The first one that does that should see the level of interest increase on both ends....if they don't, I could see e-bay getting a lot more active with really good items and not be a just a dumping ground

aeneas01

12-09-2008, 03:29 PM

imo the "economy" had nothing to do with the low selling prices - i think the auction was just very poorly executed. in fact i would be pretty pizzed if i was a consignor. it seems that mastro banked on a great "live" turnout and didn't put much energy into the internet audience - a huge mistake.

the economy wasn't any different a few months ago when the brown jersey sold for $70k. and look at some of the other items (helmets). the greg pritt clear shell mac sold for only $300 with only 1 bid entered - ou clear shell helmets, attributed to no particular player, regularly sell for much more at the cstv auction. heck, that pruitt lid would have sold for no less than $1,000 on ebay. the same goes for the garrison hearst "gamer" - it only sold for $350 with just two bids. it would have gone for much more on ebay. the great looking college all-star leather helmet is another good example - only two bids and sold for a fraction of what it would have gone for on ebay. it goes on and on - the classic bears wilson lid, attributed to turner, sold for just $375 with only two interested parties - just laughable. the james harris rams "gamer" sold for an anemic $225 with only two bids - this thing would have sold for at least $500 on ebay even if listed as nothing more than a vintage rams gamer. just pathetic.

so i'm sorry, i just don't buy into the notion that the economy had anything to do with the ridiculously low selling prices realized - just a very poorly conceived auction imo.

earlywynnfan

12-09-2008, 04:50 PM

Regarding the prices realized, I'm not a FB guy, although I've enjoyed several of the recent threads, but I still check out game used bats. Let me tell you, just about every older game used bat I've looked at has gone just as high as ever. Maybe the recession is hitting other elements of collecting, but the bat collectors aren't slowing down a bit!

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

earlywynnfan

12-09-2008, 04:52 PM

genius

12-09-2008, 04:56 PM

I've got some stuff to sell and I can tell you right now I'm putting it on ebay rather than consigning, those prices were horrible!

aeneas01

12-09-2008, 05:01 PM

Also, not only was it asinine to have a live auction on a Monday when most of the world is still at work, but what about having it in the middle of December? I've found that Christmas buying slows down almost everyone's purchasing power.

Ken

exactly ken - and how about inviting cannibalism by listing so many like items? if the seller wanted everything moved in the same auction i guess i could understand it - but i would think an auction house would do everything in its power to convince a seller that so many items would be better served spread out over several auctions...

...

cohibasmoker

12-09-2008, 05:08 PM

helmets

12-09-2008, 06:36 PM

Yes, the Christmas thing was going through my head after each of my successful bids. That and the 20% fee that I kept forgetting...

The timing of the year was the biggest concern for me. I had to stop and tell the Mastro rep that kept calling me that I wasn't interested in a couple lots even though they were going to go for less than I had originally planned to bid and aquire them.

helmets

12-09-2008, 06:50 PM

I don't know all of the rules of an auction like this, but as I am reviewing some of the lots and the final prices, there are a few with only one bid, yet, the winning bid is more than the starting bid. The Unitas jersey is one. The starting bid was 25,000 and there was only one bid, yet the final bid was 35,000. I don't get it...

Is the 35K a proxy bid that someone sent in? Do they get it for the 25K or if the proxy is 35K is that what they end of paying? There are other examples as well. I thought it may be a reserve, but I do not see one on the lots in question.

Help me understand...

RKGIBSON

12-09-2008, 07:28 PM

I think the economy did effect the final price, on the lower price stuff more than the upper end stuff. Any time you take one or two guys out of the bidding process it could reduce the sale price in half. Take the guy that owned this stuff. There are several things that I bid against him on in other auctions. At the end it was me and him. If me or him was out of that bidding process I know the price would have been half. If this stuff belonged to someone else and he was bidding, I'm sure the things he was interested in would have went for way more. Just two more bids by him at the end of the Jim Brown would have put the price at $62557.00. Thats why I think they cost their self thousands of dollar by the format they run.

The unknown with the proxy bid is why I did not handle this auction like I do on other auctions that has a item I really want. I did not know if the highest proxy bid was the starting place or if during the live auction my proxy would have only been increased with a competing bid. I did get several things less than my proxy, how I do not know. One item sold for my proxy but I did not get it, I don't know how that happened either.

Roger

VERIS#60

12-11-2008, 01:16 AM

In the jersey description it is noted the amount of wear on the crotch piece. If the buttons were used this many times putting the jersey on and taking it off, should'nt there be at least one repair? Can anyone give me an answer to that? Thanks!
Bruce

aeneas01

12-12-2008, 04:29 AM

I think the economy did effect the final price, on the lower price stuff more than the upper end stuff. Any time you take one or two guys out of the bidding process it could reduce the sale price in half. Take the guy that owned this stuff. There are several things that I bid against him on in other auctions. At the end it was me and him. If me or him was out of that bidding process I know the price would have been half. If this stuff belonged to someone else and he was bidding, I'm sure the things he was interested in would have went for way more.

roger, the reason i think this auction makes a poor poster child for a bad economy is because of the anemic number of bids submitted on just about every single lot. your point about taking one or two guys out of the bidding war is exactly right, but if you introduce the lots to a larger audience then there is the possibility that this dynamic can be diminished. anyway, i just think that if this auction was better executed, had it reached more collectors, then the hammer prices would have been much, much higher. did you happen to win any of the helmets?

...