MEARS Inconsistent grading of 1938 Gehrig Jersey

[diamondicons]

Don’t know how many of you periodically visit MEARS website, but Dave Grob has a piece currently posted that references Robert Edwards upcoming Auction…specifically, a 1938 Lou Gehrig Game Used jersey. If you are a member of their site, you also have access to their bulletin board. Posted on the board is an interesting dialogue exchange between Rob Lifson and Dave Grob. What I found intriguing is the below comment sent by Rob to Dave addressing the grades assigned to the jersey. Exact verbiage… “As it was, the authentication process of this jersey - as all three MEARS authenticators who were involved with it had different interpretations of the jersey and provided a different grade (A5, A7, and A9), was unprecedented and very confusing to us, creating a host of issues with the consignor, and creating uncertainty for us as to how to best address the conflicting MEARS opinions.” … WOW! What does this say about MEARS’ grading process. 3 authenticators, assessing a very significant piece and provide a wide range of grades. I would expect that if a methodical process is used, the grades should be relatively close. What does this say not only about MEARS grading process, but anyone else that is involved with assigning a grade based on an authenticator’s interpretation of the item. One day, you could send in an item that is assigned a grade of 5. Next day, item could receive a 9. By the way, they settled on an average grade and the Gehrig received an A7.

[Birdbats]

That's just an indication of how arbitrary the grading process is. Whether something shows "moderate use" (+2 points) or "heavy use" (+3 points) is completely subjective. Grading, as conducted currently, is worthless to me because it tries to combine authenticity with condition. For example, authenticators will deduct points for a crack in a bat; but with Mark McGwire, for example, an uncracked bat is less likely to be authentic. What's important is whether a piece is authentic. If the grading scale equated to likelihood of authenticity (10 is certain, 5 is maybe, 1 is no way), then it might have value. But, as long as points are deducted for condition... and as long as subjective opinions are part of the grade (light/moderate/heavy wear), it's not surprising that three experts could look at the same item and come up with very different grades.

[CampWest]

That's just an indication of how arbitrary the grading process is. Whether something shows "moderate use" (+2 points) or "heavy use" (+3 points) is completely subjective. Grading, as conducted currently, is worthless to me because it tries to combine authenticity with condition. For example, authenticators will deduct points for a crack in a bat; but with Mark McGwire, for example, an uncracked bat is less likely to be authentic. What's important is whether a piece is authentic. If the grading scale equated to likelihood of authenticity (10 is certain, 5 is maybe, 1 is no way), then it might have value. But, as long as points are deducted for condition... and as long as subjective opinions are part of the grade (light/moderate/heavy wear), it's not surprising that three experts could look at the same item and come up with very different grades.


+1.

Plus there should be some adjustment on light --> heavy scale for different player specific characteristics. On a jersey, a pitcher's jersey will show way less wear than a Shortstop's jersey. Light pine tar for George Brett may be heavy pine tar for Albert Pujols.

To your point on broken bats, that is about my biggest peave. My hoarding player - Billy Butler - has very few uncracked bats on the market. Excluding Mother's Day bats, I've seen just a handful uncracked if that many, most of which look to have been minimally used if at all. So, deducting points, for using until it breaks seems counter-productive to me. I'm personally very skeptical of uncracked Bretts, Butlers, etc.

I would think a dual score would be better. Just like cards get 4 categories to build the composite, I could see game used having at least a couple scores. Use grade, Authenticity grade, Condition grade, primarily.

[RaiderNationPDX]

Don’t know how many of you periodically visit MEARS website, but Dave Grob has a piece currently posted that references Robert Edwards upcoming Auction…specifically, a 1938 Lou Gehrig Game Used jersey. If you are a member of their site, you also have access to their bulletin board. Posted on the board is an interesting dialogue exchange between Rob Lifson and Dave Grob. What I found intriguing is the below comment sent by Rob to Dave addressing the grades assigned to the jersey. Exact verbiage… “As it was, the authentication process of this jersey - as all three MEARS authenticators who were involved with it had different interpretations of the jersey and provided a different grade (A5, A7, and A9), was unprecedented and very confusing to us, creating a host of issues with the consignor, and creating uncertainty for us as to how to best address the conflicting MEARS opinions.” … WOW! What does this say about MEARS’ grading process. 3 authenticators, assessing a very significant piece and provide a wide range of grades. I would expect that if a methodical process is used, the grades should be relatively close. What does this say not only about MEARS grading process, but anyone else that is involved with assigning a grade based on an authenticator’s interpretation of the item. One day, you could send in an item that is assigned a grade of 5. Next day, item could receive a 9. By the way, they settled on an average grade and the Gehrig received an A7.

As an allegory, I work in quality control for an art glass manufacturer; the glass is hand-cast and as a result will pick up imperfections which we grade for. While we have very defined standards and each sheet goes through a methodical inspection, each item - be it a sheet of glass or a jersey - is unique and may be graded differently by a different person (or the same person on a different day). Particularly when there are numerous considerations that factor into grading, even knowledgeable, experienced people may differ on a final grade. Unfortunate, certainly, but something like this is inherently dealing in shades of grey.