Does a photo-match raise the value of an item?

[richpick]

Does a photo-match raise the value of an item or just guarantee autnenticity?

[PK]

Both. with all the team blanks getting names and numbers and wear put on them in the after market and who knows what else. A photo match make it 100% authentic and therefore increases its value.

Ask youself this question, would you rather have/buy a jersey of (inset player name) you think might be game worn and may or may not have an COA/LOA(which really does not mean it is actually game worn) or a jersey with no LOA/COA but has a 100% photo match to a specific game?

I know which I would choose and would pay a little more for

[RKGIBSON]

If you have od provanance I don't think it adds value, its just nice to have. With no history on a piece the photo prves it was used by who ever. Then I think it is of some value. What is anyones guess.

Roger

[kingjammy24]

if authenticity is guaranteed then wouldn't that naturally raise the value?wouldn't most buyers pay more for an item with guaranteed authenticity as opposed to not-guaranteed?

a photomatch is the ultimate guarantee. it supercedes anything else. of course it raises the value.

provenance doesn't prove anything with absolute certainty. a photomatch does. if i had to choose, i'd rather take a photomatch over player or team provenance. (ideally i'd take both). players forget, get confused, and even stretch the truth. teams make similar mistakes. i've seen numerous players proven wrong in their statements of their items. after a few years, it's difficult for many of them to remember exactly when and where they used a certain item. a photomatch doesn't forget or lie. it's irrefutable proof; the ultimate guarantee. if i was interested in a certain item and it had a solid photomatch, then i would have absolutely no hesitation in purchasing it. if it only had good provenance, then i'd still have to do my due diligence. due to all this, i would pay more for a photomatched item because it removes any possible doubt.

rudy.

[Swoboda4]

Yes it does. My ultimate display would be to have a game used item with a photograph clearly identifying the piece. It would have to be a well used item and have many points of identification. In some ways the photograph is as valuable as the item as it proves what it is. I rather have a undisputed photo than a LOA. Again,the item can't be day 1 new to pull this off. The more use the higher the comfort factor.
We recently had a thread about photo matching-did anyone's item/photo prove outstanding? I don't remember. The closest we came was the Met jerseys sold last month with a members photos from the game but the wear was so slight that the kind of photo match were talking about wasn't in evidence.

[indyred]

a photomatch is the ultimate guarantee. it supercedes anything else. of course it raises the value.
I agree. Doesn't get any better than a rock solid photomatch. I know I'd pay more for an item with it. Some people in here have done an amazing job matching stuff. Just look in that photomatch thread.

[RKGIBSON]

I will be a breif as possible and still try to make my point that good documentation is the best proof in a lot of instances in upgrading the value of a item. I do try to photo match my items and do believe that is a important piece of proof also. I will use 4 jerseys in my collection as examples. 2004 Peyton Manning, 2003 Marshall Faulk, 2003 Tory Holt and a 1978 L.C. Greenwood Pro Bowl jersey. All of these jerseys show normal game used with minor scuff here or there. In photos I cannot tell them from several other jerseys worn that year.

Lets say I have a photo of each, a letter from a authenticator that says that is the jersey. You cannot say it is not and well as confirm it is with certainty by the wear or characteristics of the jersey.
MANNING- The letter state that it was used in the record breaking 2004 season and has a picture with him only in the picture and the jersey looks the same.
FAULK- The letter state that the Marshall Faulk jersey was worn on 11/30/2003 where Faulk scored TD number 125, 126, 127 in which he passed Jim Brown and Walter Peyton for 5th place on the all time TD list. I know what I say, prove it. I go look at photos avaliable. I look at the other Ram home game photos. You cannot tell the size, is it cut off or regular length, ect. With no real identifing marks it is questionable.
HOLT- The letter states that it was used in the 2003 season vs the Steelers with photo match from a NFL insider magazine. I check and it looks like it but I cannot tell it from the Seahawk,49er or Bears game jersey.
LC- A letter stating that it was LC's 78 Pro Bowl jersey and a picture. Pro bowl jerseys are the property of he player at the end of the game. We know they only worn one jersey in the game but you can buy authentic jerseys. We see them all the time.
Think of the value of these jerseys as stated the look at the following and deside if it impacts the value.

These are facts about each jersey:
MANNING Provanace- Letter from Peyback foundation signed by Manning. Autographed by Manning. A paper stating the game it was used in. A certificate with Mannings numbered hologramand his hologram afixed to the inner tag on the jersey.
FAULK Provanace-Purchased directly from NFL auctions, invoice and mail labels saved. WeTrac chip in collar and tag on tail numbered WT268514057. Registered at WeTrac and down load the certificated with games loged a statistics. In fact used in game 12 where he passed Brown & Peyton.
HOLT Provanace-WeTrac chip in collar and tag on tail numbered WT2304092051. Registered at WeTrac down loaded certificate with Games loged and statistics. In fact used in ame 3 vs Seattle, game 7 vs Pittsburg, game 8 vs San Fran. ad game 10 vs Chicago. He gained 566 yrds. and scored 3 TD's.
L.C.- A letter from L.C. stating that this was his jersey that he wore on 1/29/79 and that I, Roger Gibson, purchased it from him, L.C. auographed the jersey and signed the letter and it was notorized.

In each case the photo is nice to have but with or without it, the documentation is what validates them makes them worth more. Without the paperwork I would not own any of these jerseys. What it gets down to is the integrity of the issuer of the documentation, do you believe them or not. Most authenicators LOA's are worthless to me. Team or companys that represent teams or players are what I prefer. Sometime that is not possible or they are not specific enough then I do what I can to justify item to me and I agree a photo is best.

I like documentation. I do know that when I thin my collection and offer them to auction comapnies they will always take the documented jerseys over undocumented.

Roger

[scottanservitz]

Photo matched items in my opinion are worth more than those items authenticated by anyone. Authenticators match to known exemplars and check tagging and such, (sometimes) and say it could be real from what they looked at. A photo matched item shows without a doubt that the item is real. We are talking photo matched and not style matched. The poster with the documentation I think is key to proving authenticity as well. But in my opinion, I would rather let my eyes tell me something is good and not someone's signature on a piece of paper. I have one item that I photo matched. It took me a long time to find the pictures, but in the end I am 100% confident of what the item is and that makes me more comfortable. Besides, it is a heck of a lot of fun researching this stuff.

[sportscentury]

Does a photo-match raise the value of an item or just guarantee autnenticity?

Both. The photomatch raises the value of the item because it provides proof that the item is real. I've seen photomatches double the value of items in the past.

Reid

[kingjammy24]

roger,

your post has me bewildered. in an effort to show that provenance matters more than a photo match, you compare 4 non-photomatches with 4 pieces of strong provenance. if your intent is to show the value of one over the other, why would you use jerseys without photomatches? i'll assume you're aware of the difference between a stylematch and photomatch. (it seems many aren't).

let's take an example. a peyton manning jersey. in one instance, the jersey ONLY has strong provenance - a letter from manning. in the second, it has ONLY a photomatch clearly showing it's the same jersey. your position is that, if forced to choose, you'd rather have the one with the letter?

rudy.

[RKGIBSON]

Rudy,
Sorry you cannot understand what I have said. I am taking the SAME jerseys with strong proof, taking that away, and just put a photo and a independent authenicators LOA in their place. They are the SAME jerseys. Just trying to show the difference in VALUE with the good documentation and without. I thought that was what the question was, how it effects the value.

We just differ in collecting philosophy, which is OK. I respect you veiw.

Roger

[jessicawinters]

Roger, I think you don't fully understand photomatching. When an item is photomatched, the identifying characteristics MUST BE CONCLUSIVE. If you cannot tell from the photos, then it is NOT a photomatch.

Example: If a photo showing a player wearing a jersey with a tear in it, and your jersey has the exact tear, then IT IS A PHOTOMATCH.

With that photo, you now have 100% proof that the jersey was game worn. And that should add a lot of value to your item.

[jake33]

I dumped 90% of my Devil Rays game used jersey to get 7 tampa tarpons throwback jerseys from the MLB auction, reason being is that I have that game the Rays wore the throwback ON DVD and finding the exact game ANY MLB jersey was worn in is next to impossible,

also I feel MLB jerseys have been the easiest to fake and getting the assurance that they were game worn in that very game makes all the difference for me and whenever I need to sell one of the tarpons jerseys that I won, i will throw in the game on dvd for free, i would assume the buyer would view that as a very nice added value...

[RKGIBSON]

I fully understand photo match as I have been doing it for around 15 years. Frankly, I don't think you understand the value of team paperwork. Most of the time I waste hours, trying to photo match, and am successful. Speaking of jerseys, with tears, either unrepaired or repaired you can match those characteristics if you can find the pictures of a certain game, taken from the right angle, at a time after the damage occurs, that great. Its easier today with the web sites posting pictures. As with the 2005 Bush jersey I purchased through USC, USC has a great web site with multiple pictures of each player catagorized by the game. I knew it was real due to the paperwork. I was only able to determine which game jersey it was by the SC position in the neck, and comparing it to the other possibilities. If the photos of the game had not been in such number it would have been almost impossible. There are no tell-tell damage, scrapes, or tears. A item is worth the most when you have both documentation and a photo match. As a collector, documentation of an kind is most important in valiating a item. There are many forms of documentation. A photo is documentation. Team paperwork is documentation. Paperwork is most important to me.

Roger

[ahuff]

I've got to say that photomatching is the most irrefutable evidence out there.

Here is my reasoning. The team letters I have recieved go something like this: "This letter is to verify that this jersey was game worn by Player's Name during the 2005 season - Signed So and So". Of course, it does come on their letter head. However, I have never recieved a letter, from the team, that came with a photo of the jersey in question. A team letter/documentation can easily be switched with a similar jersey. I haven't tried, but it even appears that MLB's new holograms could easily be transferred from one jersey to another without causing damage. (I hope I am wrong though).

An authenticator's letter simply states that the jersey matches known examples. They may even go as far as saying it shows signs of wear, or wash wear. You know what, I've got a magical machine at my house that will put that same wear on any item you send me!" Also, if I get one of the 20,000 Gilbert Arenas jerseys (that will be given away this season) I can send it in, get it authenticated, and rest easy knowing it has been worn in one of his 82 games?

Now, if I get into the mind of a scam artist, I suppose there is a way to alter a team issued jersey to look like a "photo matched" jersey. However, I can't imagine the time necessary to research, tamper with, and repair that would be necessary. If I was a crook, I would pick me up some paper, a pen, and a printer. I then simply type me up some team letters and be off.

All this said, what do you think I'm going to pick - something that can be altered/tampered with or something that shows the player I like in the exact jersey (damaged where the one I am holding in my hand is). I'm taking photomatched any day of the week, and I am certainly willing to pay for it. The other arguments just don't make sense to me.

[jessicawinters]

Roger, in your examples earlier, those were not examples of photomatching. You were saying that each jersey comes a "photo." A photo is worthless unless it shows identifying characteristics on the jerseys.

It is very difficult and time consuming to photomatch an item. So I'm just saying that it's a very special thing. Team documentation can be forged or switched.

If someone ask, how do you know if this jersey was game used? You can say, "oh, I have a letter from the team." That's great. But most people will prefer it if you can say, "I have a photo of him wearing this exact jersey." It's just more special.

[RKGIBSON]

Jessicawinters

If you know the game, from team paperwork, lets say my 2004 Peyton Manning, is any picture from the game a photo match? We know it is that jersey.

Roger

[jessicawinters]

Jessicawinters

If you know the game, from team paperwork, lets say my 2004 Peyton Manning, is any picture from the game a photo match? We know it is that jersey.

Roger


I'm sorry, Roger, you don't understand what photomatching is. That is probably why you don't appreciate more.

[CollectGU]

Although I personally would choose a photo-match. You can't deny that NFL auctions has gotten ridiculous money for their jerseys without photo matching them.

Dave

[ahuff]

So there is no confusion. This is an example of photo matching. Photo matching is much easier with hockey and football jerseys due to the hard hitting and likely repairs/marks. Notice the marks on the left sleeve. This leaves 0% possibility that this jersey is not legitimate.

If I had the choice of a Pens jersey with a team letter or this jersey with no documentation, I will take this jersey any day of the week.

[kingjammy24]

"If you know the game, from team paperwork, lets say my 2004 Peyton Manning, is any picture from the game a photo match? We know it is that jersey."

roger, if the team letter states the jersey was worn on 01/01/2005, then no, any photo from that specific game is not a photo match.

photomatch. some unique, distinctive element MUST match. a rip, stain, pinstripe/number intersections, etc. if no such element conclusively matches, then it's not a photomatch.

you say "We know it is that jersey." roger, teams and players make errors. not often, but they do. the beauty of a photomatch is that it's 100% conclusive. even a team letter that states the date the jersey was used can't be 100% conclusive because of the possibility of that the team mis-documented, mis-labeled, or mis-inventoried the jersey. the person typing the letter could've even made a typo in the date. a team letter is superb provenance but it's not as conclusive and irrefutable the way a photomatch is.

rudy.