LWMM
02-19-2011, 06:05 PM
I was looking through the current Mears auction, and was somewhat surprised by lot 1420, a "1946-51 Detroit Tigers Salesman Sample Road Jersey - (MEARS A10)" (http://www.mearsonlineauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=26439).
The description:
Flannels are the most coveted of the jersey styles. Many of the flannels from the 1940s or '50s have fallen victim to moth holes or were used until they were in taters.
Circa 1946-51 is this Detroit Tigers road salesman sample jersey - graded MEARS A10. According to the comment section on the LOA, MacGregor/Goldsmith made Tigers jerseys in the late '40s but never incorporated this style of outfit. Thus, it has been deemed a salesman sample/prototype. "DETROIT" is arched across the chest in blue felt material. Blue/white/blue piping surrounds the neckline, flows down the button path on front and encircles the sleeve ends.
A MacGregor/Goldsmith size "42" manufacturer's tag is sewn in the collar.
a1465
file:///C:/Users/Luc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png
I have no reason to think that this jersey is anything other than what it is advertised as, a salesman sample. However, it strikes me as odd that a salesman sample jersey would receive a grade, let alone a perfect one. Mears's grading criteria (http://www.mearsonline.com/services/jersey.asp) "evaluates game-used jerseys based on a 1-10 grading scale", which would make one think that samples would not fit in under the system. Moreover, several mentions are made in the specific A10 criteria to characteristic and optimal use, while for an A9 "[n]o reasonable doubt can exist as to whether or not the player wore the jersey during the proposed time frame".
It seems that with the jersey in question, the A10 grade is being used to say "this jersey is a perfect representation of an authentic and unaltered salesman sample". Using that version of the A10, I'm not sure why a retail jersey, for example, couldn't be given the same grade, as "a perfect representation of an authentic and unaltered retail jersey". It seems to me that if anything, the jersey should just be labeled an "authentic salesman sample", and left ungraded.
Other than the fact that the jersey is graded under the game used grading criteria, I also wonder about the fact that the jersey received a perfect A10. A jersey with this grade must have "[m]anufactures (sic) characteristics of the jersey [that] have been compared to known authentic examples and exactly match tagging, lettering, numbering, size, patches and/or memorial bands, materials, style, buttons, zipper, etc." An A10, in other words, must match examples of comparable documented jerseys. Yet the description of the salesman sample makes it seem as if the jersey's authenticity as a sample was derived precisely from the fact that it did not match documented items. I.e., because the jersey does not match any style that was worn in a game, the idea that the jersey is a salesman sample was hatched in order to explain its existence. However likely that idea is, it still strikes me as a theory--and I don't see why a theorized jersey would receive a perfect grade. While it is possible that other similar examples exist and that this jersey was compared against them, the fact that there is no mention of such exemplars, along with the wording of the description, makes such a scenario seem unlikely.
To recap:
I'm uncomfortable with a non-game used item being graded under the system set up for game used items. I don't have any reason to believe that this jersey is being misrepresented, but giving it a grade seems odd and perhaps ultimately misleading, especially after the jersey--and the grade--leaves Mears. Furthermore, I don't see why this jersey was given a perfect grade, when its existence seems to be explained only by conjecture.
This may be a somewhat controversial time to post this thread, considering today's post about Mears Online Auctions. The timing is coincidental, however. I'm not trying to fan the flames, but rather just see what others' opinions are about the grading of the salesman sample jersey.
The description:
Flannels are the most coveted of the jersey styles. Many of the flannels from the 1940s or '50s have fallen victim to moth holes or were used until they were in taters.
Circa 1946-51 is this Detroit Tigers road salesman sample jersey - graded MEARS A10. According to the comment section on the LOA, MacGregor/Goldsmith made Tigers jerseys in the late '40s but never incorporated this style of outfit. Thus, it has been deemed a salesman sample/prototype. "DETROIT" is arched across the chest in blue felt material. Blue/white/blue piping surrounds the neckline, flows down the button path on front and encircles the sleeve ends.
A MacGregor/Goldsmith size "42" manufacturer's tag is sewn in the collar.
a1465
file:///C:/Users/Luc/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png
I have no reason to think that this jersey is anything other than what it is advertised as, a salesman sample. However, it strikes me as odd that a salesman sample jersey would receive a grade, let alone a perfect one. Mears's grading criteria (http://www.mearsonline.com/services/jersey.asp) "evaluates game-used jerseys based on a 1-10 grading scale", which would make one think that samples would not fit in under the system. Moreover, several mentions are made in the specific A10 criteria to characteristic and optimal use, while for an A9 "[n]o reasonable doubt can exist as to whether or not the player wore the jersey during the proposed time frame".
It seems that with the jersey in question, the A10 grade is being used to say "this jersey is a perfect representation of an authentic and unaltered salesman sample". Using that version of the A10, I'm not sure why a retail jersey, for example, couldn't be given the same grade, as "a perfect representation of an authentic and unaltered retail jersey". It seems to me that if anything, the jersey should just be labeled an "authentic salesman sample", and left ungraded.
Other than the fact that the jersey is graded under the game used grading criteria, I also wonder about the fact that the jersey received a perfect A10. A jersey with this grade must have "[m]anufactures (sic) characteristics of the jersey [that] have been compared to known authentic examples and exactly match tagging, lettering, numbering, size, patches and/or memorial bands, materials, style, buttons, zipper, etc." An A10, in other words, must match examples of comparable documented jerseys. Yet the description of the salesman sample makes it seem as if the jersey's authenticity as a sample was derived precisely from the fact that it did not match documented items. I.e., because the jersey does not match any style that was worn in a game, the idea that the jersey is a salesman sample was hatched in order to explain its existence. However likely that idea is, it still strikes me as a theory--and I don't see why a theorized jersey would receive a perfect grade. While it is possible that other similar examples exist and that this jersey was compared against them, the fact that there is no mention of such exemplars, along with the wording of the description, makes such a scenario seem unlikely.
To recap:
I'm uncomfortable with a non-game used item being graded under the system set up for game used items. I don't have any reason to believe that this jersey is being misrepresented, but giving it a grade seems odd and perhaps ultimately misleading, especially after the jersey--and the grade--leaves Mears. Furthermore, I don't see why this jersey was given a perfect grade, when its existence seems to be explained only by conjecture.
This may be a somewhat controversial time to post this thread, considering today's post about Mears Online Auctions. The timing is coincidental, however. I'm not trying to fan the flames, but rather just see what others' opinions are about the grading of the salesman sample jersey.