The Jim Brown Jersey

[aeneas01]

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.

i guess i didn't make myself clear - can you tell i know squat about shirts? what i was getting was... let's say that on the way to the locker room, immediately following a super bowl win, mean joe greene tosses his shirt to a kid in exchange for a coke. it's later discovered that the shirt exhibits more than a few repairs which only adds to the mystique of mjg and the battles he had raged in this garment. would a collector really care if 6 of the 7 repairs were the result of camp or practice? as if there would be any real way of knowing? i wouldn't think so.

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...

i hear ya - just what the hobby needs is another term tossed around! but 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? perhaps it was purchased for his game use and he decided he just didn't like it, decided that he preferred the stouter jersey, and chose to wear the thing only during photo shoots because it was lightweight, breathed well and would be perfect for long photo sessions. if the jersey can't be linked to a style he was known to have worn in a game, the rest becomes academic i would think. 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.

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?

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.

gotcha and thanks for clearing this up - needless to say, in this case mears could clearly not be expected to mention their past ownership in this jersey in their "our items at auction" section.


...

[kingjammy24]

"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]

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]

oops..forgot the link:

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

rudy.

[aeneas01]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.