Mlb.com Authentication Issues And Concerns

[3arod13]

I searched GUU trying to find all threads where people had issues or concerns when trying to verify their item on MLB.COM, and also about their authentication process. Curious as to what types issues people have had, and has anyone contacted them via their email (authentication@website.mlb.com) and got a response and/or satisfaction?

One I have is what others discussed, "Team Issue." Viewed a session with 32 items, with 28 GAME USED and 3 TEAM ISSUE. Not sure if that just means the item was authenticated as a piece of memorabilia issued by the team, but not used, or not. Definately confusing.

[PwKw13]

I once questioned a bat from 2009 that was listed in the database as a "Todd Helton Game Used Baseball Bat". I had checked MLB.TV, and it didn't look like Helton used the bat in the game that was referenced (It actually looked like Clint Barmes used it). MLB Authentication responded, "We have talked with the authenticator and they have confirmed that the only info they have was that the bat was a Todd Helton model bat. They had no list of who used it."

[TwinLakesPark]

Are we researching the same series, NY vs Tampa 4/6/12 ?

When looking at an entire series, you will usually see the pitchers jerseys who did not participate in the game as "Team Issued", even though they were worn that game and possibly previous games. I have an authenticated pitcher jersey that is "Team Issued", however I have photo matched it to games earlier in that year and to games the previous year (it was set tagged from the previous year), so it is obvious to me there is a historical flaw in the authentication.

The Tampa series from 4/6/12 (EK009947 - EK009982) has 7 noticeable flaws. Opening day was 4/6/12, with two additional games in the series (7th and 8th). Of all the players jerseys that are authenticated as "Game Used", 7 of them did not play in the game on the 6th. So why would these jerseys be labeled as "Game Used" when they should have been "Team Issued"?

You could make the argument that maybe the authentication was made after the second or third game, but recorded with the incorrect date, but that would leave a discrepancy in 2 remaining players, whereas they did not pitch in any of the 3 games in the home series, yet they are still marked as "Game Used".

I thought I had a good understanding of Team Issued versus Game Used, but researching this series has thrown me for a loop.

[MarlinsFan1993]

I think I can help out with this since it is an issue I have seen quite a bit with my Marlins gamers. Quite a few of my jerseys (at least 4 or 5) are listed in the database as either "autographed" jersey (from more recent years) or "signed" jersey. Upon inspection it is easy to see that they are incorrectly listed. The first thing is the fact that the Marlins employ a team strip tag. All of these jerseys have a strip tag so automatically they become at the very least team issued. Upon further inspection they all have varying degrees of usage (loose threads, faded/crumpled wash tags, etc.) I have even heard of some jerseys being dirty and still earning a non-game used designation.

The reason being (whether for the good of the hobby or not) that MLB authenticators will only ever designate an item as GU if it is seen being removed directly from the field and witnessed by the authenticator. My Marlin gamers that are found in the database as auto or signed is because these jerseys were pulled from the locker room towards the end of the season (usually during the final week) and were signed by the players in the presence of an authenticator who could only vouch for the signature but obviously not which game they were previously used in. A prime example is the 2012 Hanley Ramirez helmet I recently obtained. Even though it is filled with pine tar and obvious use it shows in the database as being team issued. The reason being that Hanley's last game for the Marlins was on 07/24/12 and the helmet was authenticated the following day after Hanley was already in route to St. Louis to join the Dodgers. Thankfully in the additional notes area, the team equipment manager asserts that not only it is indeed game used but was in fact the only helmet Hanley used throughout the 2012 season while with the Marlins.

One thing I have done in the past (only works for items purchased directly from the team) is have the either the Marlins equipment manager or community foundation write me up a letter verifying that the item is indeed game used despite its designation in the MLB database.

[3arod13]

I went through their database, typing in random numbers, to see what many other descriptions say. Even this one is odd. To list this bat as a TEAM ISSUED BROKEN BAT, tells me the bat is a TEAM ISSUED bat, but is also used. But is it Game Used? BP used? Was is used by the Jeff Mathis himself.

I saw other descriptions that were more specific in what innings used, hits, etc.

I think if MLB really designed this program to protect the fans and collectors, they would definately ensure the descriptions are more detailed and accurate.

[3arod13]

Unbelieveable! They sure don't do a good job. This is for a GAME-USED LOCKER NAME PLACE for PITCHER - MARK TEIXEIRA! Really! If they make mistakes like this, I could just imagine how much often this occurs.

If any others find ones like this, please let me know.

[rdeversole]

I went through their database, typing in random numbers, to see what many other descriptions say. Even this one is odd. To list this bat as a TEAM ISSUED BROKEN BAT, tells me the bat is a TEAM ISSUED bat, but is also used. But is it Game Used? BP used? Was is used by the Jeff Mathis himself.

I saw other descriptions that were more specific in what innings used, hits, etc.

I think if MLB really designed this program to protect the fans and collectors, they would definately ensure the descriptions are more detailed and accurate.

I don't see a problem with this entry. The lack of specific information and the fact it says issued would lead me to believe it was authenticated after the fact, therefore would not be deemed as used by MLB per their guidelines. This could mean that it was broken in BP or the game and tagged sometime later in or after the game.

[3arod13]

I don't see a problem with this entry. The lack of specific information and the fact it says issued would lead me to believe it was authenticated after the fact, therefore would not be deemed as used by MLB per their guidelines. This could mean that it was broken in BP or the game and tagged sometime later in or after the game.

Even with what you've said, I still have a problem with that. Too many questions.

[rdeversole]

Understandable. It could be vastly improved.

[TwinLakesPark]

I wanted to follow up on my post as I just received some clarification from the authentic's manager with the team.


MLB will list a jersey as game worn as long as the player is on the active roster during the game in which the jersey is collected. The player does not have to appear in the game.

Team issued jerseys are when the authenticator does not see the player in uniform or the player is not active on the roster.

This settles my research of the series from 4/6/12, but it does not explain why then one of my jerseys from another series in marked as Team Issued when the player was on the active roster.

Interesting stuff.

[yanks12025]

I bought a Pedoria bat that was listed as issued on mlb but it showed use. After watching the video, turned out to be used by someone else that game.

[esigs]

Unbelieveable! They sure don't do a good job. This is for a GAME-USED LOCKER NAME PLACE for PITCHER - MARK TEIXEIRA! Really! If they make mistakes like this, I could just imagine how much often this occurs.

If any others find ones like this, please let me know.

Here is another example. The Session Name (ATL AT PHI) and Session Date (July 07, 2012) are incorrect as evidenced by the date listed under Additional Description (9-7-12), which was a game between ATL AT NYM. This error appears on all jerseys on a batch from EK234807 thru EK234827. Furthermore, the next one is EK234828, which is for ATL AT NYM on 9-8-12 (the next game).

[dplettn]

I’m all for being transparent and open. Lets be fair though and have the respect to provide some context with these complaints. In designing the parameters for MLB’s program, there were justified choices of rigorous standards for authentication parameters. Those choices make it difficult to authenticate many items for their full relevance (a jersey being used, a bat being used by a certain player, etc). I think it is appropriate that as any of us collectors gain wisdom as to what the relevant parameters are, we be candid about what we are really critiquing. I'm reading here issues and concerns (“complaints”) which seem to obscure a candid acknowledgement the poster understands why their item could not be authenticated with even more relevance. Quite bluntly, the so-called complaints all boil down to three ways that certain opinionated collectors applying their personal judgment on the program or its authenticators:

1) the authenticator didn’t authenticate an item to greater relevance because it wasn’t justified or wasn’t known to be justified to observe/take notes/track more (what days or innings a jersey/base/helmet etc was used). Basically, the authenticator wasn't present and/or observing a jersey coming off of a players back, what hits a ball was in play for, the bat being broken, etc. This is not only a resource consideration, but its a delicate balance because obviously the game and game day experience is more important than what gets authenticated. Do folks want every bat and ball to have a bar code that an authenticator scans before each of its uses? I don't think so.

2) clerical errors/imperfections or other human errors which are generally easily amended. These obviously are not created by any ill-intentioned financial motive and are corrected when collectors have the sense to contact MLB authentications. I find it surprising many in our hobby would rather post something negative here than lend their notice toward bettering the integrity/full accuracy of the database with regard to such human errors.

3) absence of subjective assessments in authentication database entries (ie: the record for a jersey which may only be authenticated as “issued” doesn’t contain notes that it showed use at the time of authentication). Personally, I can see reasons for and reasons against. At the end of the day, its evident that the program is designed for the authenticator to simply observe... not to apply relevant judgment or opinion, whether arbitrary or not.

MLB is the only sports league I follow which has created rigorous standards that meaningfully protect those who collect its memorabilia. Its hologram and the details in each authentication are highly relevant to the novice collector/fan, and to us. When observed in detail and understood, an MLB authentication provides extensive protection from fraud. So let’s keep in mind that the “complaints” levied should be read in context. At the end of the day, we on this board are a rather unique group. The broad protection for the masses is (as it should be) more relevant than any of our more tedious aspirations.

If folks think they have complaints that speak to the integrity of the parameters themselves rather than occasional human error on the part of the authenticator, please post the actual authentication id so that folks’ stated perspective on what is perceived untrue can be fairly compared to what is actually stated in the database.

My Compliments to Michael Posner and the folks both with MLB and its Teams which have constructed a tremendous program making it possible for our culture to attain items safely which help us to further our passion for the game. The program also serves to further a rich history for baseball, both at the macro (items with significant team/player relevance) or and micro (family experiences) levels. It serves heritage. It serves grass roots. Other professional sports leagues would be wise to imitate MLB Authentications.


Buying Joey Votto items. I am buying (preferred) and when required by the other party will secondarily consider trading for game used Joey Votto items (balls that are Votto hits or Votto HRs, game used bats, etc). If you have such items I’d appreciate to hear from you, even if you are not intending to sell. I am pretty private and don’t post much of my stuff so if you’d like to know what items you might entice from me for a Votto item I’d love you’ll need to start the dialogue.

My e-mail is plettner at fuse.net. If you (like myself) collect or want to collect Joey Votto items or other Reds items, please know you can buy direct from the Reds through Jon Cline of Reds Authentics. You can contact him at jcline@reds.com (jcline@reds.com) Reds Authentics’ proceeds go toward the Reds Community Fund. It’s not only direct from the source, its a great cause.

[Dach0sen0ne]

I’m all for being transparent and open. Lets be fair though and have the respect to provide some context with these complaints. In designing the parameters for MLB’s program, there were justified choices of rigorous standards for authentication parameters. Those choices make it difficult to authenticate many items for their full relevance (a jersey being used, a bat being used by a certain player, etc). I think it is appropriate that as any of us collectors gain wisdom as to what the relevant parameters are, we be candid about what we are really critiquing. I'm reading here issues and concerns (“complaints”) which seem to obscure a candid acknowledgement the poster understands why their item could not be authenticated with even more relevance. Quite bluntly, the so-called complaints all boil down to three ways that certain opinionated collectors applying their personal judgment on the program or its authenticators:

1) the authenticator didn’t authenticate an item to greater relevance because it wasn’t justified or wasn’t known to be justified to observe/take notes/track more (what days or innings a jersey/base/helmet etc was used). Basically, the authenticator wasn't present and/or observing a jersey coming off of a players back, what hits a ball was in play for, the bat being broken, etc. This is not only a resource consideration, but its a delicate balance because obviously the game and game day experience is more important than what gets authenticated. Do folks want every bat and ball to have a bar code that an authenticator scans before each of its uses? I don't think so.

2) clerical errors/imperfections or other human errors which are generally easily amended. These obviously are not created by any ill-intentioned financial motive and are corrected when collectors have the sense to contact MLB authentications. I find it surprising many in our hobby would rather post something negative here than lend their notice toward bettering the integrity/full accuracy of the database with regard to such human errors.

3) absence of subjective assessments in authentication database entries (ie: the record for a jersey which may only be authenticated as “issued” doesn’t contain notes that it showed use at the time of authentication). Personally, I can see reasons for and reasons against. At the end of the day, its evident that the program is designed for the authenticator to simply observe... not to apply relevant judgment or opinion, whether arbitrary or not.

MLB is the only sports league I follow which has created rigorous standards that meaningfully protect those who collect its memorabilia. Its hologram and the details in each authentication are highly relevant to the novice collector/fan, and to us. When observed in detail and understood, an MLB authentication provides extensive protection from fraud. So let’s keep in mind that the “complaints” levied should be read in context. At the end of the day, we on this board are a rather unique group. The broad protection for the masses is (as it should be) more relevant than any of our more tedious aspirations.

If folks think they have complaints that speak to the integrity of the parameters themselves rather than occasional human error on the part of the authenticator, please post the actual authentication id so that folks’ stated perspective on what is perceived untrue can be fairly compared to what is actually stated in the database.

My Compliments to Michael Posner and the folks both with MLB and its Teams which have constructed a tremendous program making it possible for our culture to attain items safely which help us to further our passion for the game. The program also serves to further a rich history for baseball, both at the macro (items with significant team/player relevance) or and micro (family experiences) levels. It serves heritage. It serves grass roots. Other professional sports leagues would be wise to imitate MLB Authentications.




I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for reading my mind! haha

[marino13]

Personally, MLB has corrected a couple "incorrect" additional information.

It is easier for the office to correct if you include a screen-capture of the "final result" along with "what it should have been".


The fastest time I got back was about 24 hours while others take days if not weeks.


Another thing that I have learned, there are TWO different email addresses that you may send to have information corrected. One is generic which is always flooded with request and the other --- I guest you must know an authenticator yourself. :D

[3arod13]

First, thanks for all the comments. Much appreciated.

Here is the email I received from MLB Authenticators: Tony, these batting gloves were authenticated as Team Issued. The Team Issued designation means that the batting gloves were not witnessed by the authenticator as being used in the game.

[3arod13]

First, thanks for all the comments. Much appreciated.

Here is the email I received from MLB Authenticators: Tony, these batting gloves were authenticated as Team Issued. The Team Issued designation means that the batting gloves were not witnessed by the authenticator as being used in the game.



If this explanation is provided somewhere, then please let me know where. However, I couldn't find it. With that said, if this information is available to a person, at the time they are considering purchasing an item, then that would be much more helpful in their decision to purchase. Remember, not everyone is as savvy as many here.

[marino13]

First, thanks for all the comments. Much appreciated.

Here is the email I received from MLB Authenticators: Tony, these batting gloves were authenticated as Team Issued. The Team Issued designation means that the batting gloves were not witnessed by the authenticator as being used in the game.




This is one guideline that MLB is very strict on.

Unless the player(s) removed their jersey as soon as they step in the dugout and handed it over to the authenticator - it will get a "team issued" tag no matter how dirty or rip or pine tarred the jersey is shown.


Sometimes, authenticator is allowed to be in the clubhouse when the jerseys were removed --- but they are NOT allow in YANKEES clubhouse (I learned this first hand) which is the main reason why a lot of YANKEES stuff are designated as "team issued". On some occasions, Yankees related items do get the "game used" tag.

[3arod13]

This is one guideline that MLB is very strict on.

Unless the player(s) removed their jersey as soon as they step in the dugout and handed it over to the authenticator - it will get a "team issued" tag no matter how dirty or rip or pine tarred the jersey is shown.


Sometimes, authenticator is allowed to be in the clubhouse when the jerseys were removed --- but they are NOT allow in YANKEES clubhouse (I learned this first hand) which is the main reason why a lot of YANKEES stuff are designated as "team issued". On some occasions, Yankees related items do get the "game used" tag.

Great info! Thanks for sharing that!

[esigs]

Unbelieveable! They sure don't do a good job. This is for a GAME-USED LOCKER NAME PLACE for PITCHER - MARK TEIXEIRA! Really! If they make mistakes like this, I could just imagine how much often this occurs.

If any others find ones like this, please let me know.

Here's one I just saw today. Bryce Harper pitching to Joe Saunders!

[3arod13]

I get mistake happen like this, but there are so many of them. If attention to detail isn't there on items like these (which some consider minor), then what other areas are mistakes happening? To me, these are mistakes that can't be downplayed or overlooked.

[Klattsy]

I posted some issues (3 items) with WBC i had in another thread, I emailed them and linked the play by play from ESPN website and it was changed overnight.

Mark.

[esigs]

Here is another example. The Session Name (ATL AT PHI) and Session Date (July 07, 2012) are incorrect as evidenced by the date listed under Additional Description (9-7-12), which was a game between ATL AT NYM. This error appears on all jerseys on a batch from EK234807 thru EK234827. Furthermore, the next one is EK234828, which is for ATL AT NYM on 9-8-12 (the next game).

I emailed MLB authentication and got a response in less than 3 hours informing my hologram was corrected. Unfortunately, they corrected one number before mine...:(

I replied tonight asking for my hologram number, and hopefully they will fix it. :D Interestingly, I also gave them the range for the entire batch that is wrong, but they only corrected one of them.

[David Murphy collector]

My most recent issue is a 2011 David Murphy game used jersey. It is authenticated to ALCS games 4 and 5 and ALDS game 4, but the inside laundry tag is marked for not only those 3 games but also for WS game 6. It was purchased from the MLB auction this way. I have written both the Rangers and the MLB authentications to ask them about the issue. Does anyone on here know when the rags are marked for post season worn jerseys? If they are marked after each game played then I have a WS gamer! I'd like to ahead some light on this if anyone could help.
The first authentication issue I had was with Texas Rangers jerseys on the MLB auction that say "game used", but when they are pulled up in the data base, they show up as "autographed jersey". I've seen that several times and even bid on one once. I contacted the rangers and they assured me that it was game used and that the MLB authentication shows up as game used in the site. It clearly did not so I contacted MLB and they said the same thing. A few days went by and I check it again and they had changed it to "game used".

[sportsnbikes]

And then you have this example of one with lots of information

[helf35]

I have an alexei ramirez bat that says it was used by alex rios on August 14 2013. The only photos I have seen from him that game he is using an all black bat and this one I have is 2 toned. Alexei didn't play this game but on the next night he did and I found this photo that matches up. It looks like a bat piece flying through the air about the size I am missing on my bat. Also my bat looks barely used like the pick.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Hanley-Ramirez-AUTO-Game-Used-Spikes-Cleats-Just-Memorabilia-COA-/350832596770?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51af409722

[helf35]

Sorry here is the correct link and the broken photo

http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/alexei-ramirez-of-the-chicago-white-sox-bats-during-mlb-news-photo/150505560

[CPuente57]

I have a Cal Ripken ceremony worn jersey that he signed and wore during the Orioles 25th Anniversary celebration that was an MLB Authenticated but just under the autograph jersey section. I have the Team LOA and a photomatch of Cal wearing the jersey and it got changed very fast. They added worn by Cal Ripken during the Orioles 25th Anniversary Celebration on an additional information line.