The Jim Brown Jersey

[kingjammy24]

troy states that they have photo evidence that other players and other NFL teams wore this lighter material but i'm not sure how relevant that is to the core issue of whether brown himself wore it. as i understand it, the issue is not whether durene was ever worn in the NFL or whether other players wore it but rather whether brown wore it, in a game, during the specified time-frame.

in '93 the sf giants jerseys were supplied by russell. barry bonds chose not to wear the supplied shirts that the rest of the team wore and opted to wear rawlings. it's also very possible that some russell shirts were still made up for bonds. it's also possible that bonds posed for a few photo shoots in russell shirts. there could be various hypothesis why one might not wear actual game-shirts for photo shoots. it's not so much, as troy said, that a special shirt was made up solely and explicitly for the photo shoots but rather that a player has chosen not to actually use a shirt, in a game, that was legitimately issued to him for those purposes. i've never been able to locate a photo from '93 showing bonds wearing a russell shirt. saying that he probably did because other MLB teams were wearing them and other giants were wearing them has little bearing on what bonds actually wore in games. while i clearly don't believe that an item can only be legit if there are photos of it in use, i also think that until an item can be stylematched, there's always going to be a reasonable amount of doubt. would i purchase a '93 bonds russell shirt? not until i found 1 in-action photo of him wearing one. until i did, the leap would be too great.

anyway, one of the other issues in this entire discussion has been the accuracy or appropriateness of the A10 grade. i think it's worthwhile to look at how MEARS defines the A10. from their site:

"A10 Manufactures characteristics of the jersey have been compared to known authentic examples and exactly match tagging, lettering, numbering, size, patches and/or memorial bands, materials, style, buttons, zipper, etc. Each piece is also evaluated on the degree of evident use and wear, which must be consistent with that of the player, sport, position, field of play, and duration of use. No negative traits can be found to receive this grade. The jersey must be complete, unaltered, all original, and show optimal wear while remaining in the same condition as last worn by player."

and for good measure, the A9:

"A9 The examined jersey must have the same traits as the A10 with respect to overall characteristics and wear. The jersey is awarded the A9 grade when it exhibits a minor flaw that does not warrant more than a full point deduction. No reasonable doubt can exist as to whether or not the player wore the jersey during the proposed time frame in order to receive this grade."

the original REA description stated that "it would be hard to imagine a finer example". as well, as was stated earlier in this thread, an A10 conveys the notion of a perfect, textbook piece which, as REA stated, could not be improved upon. well from what i gather it would be very easy to imagine a better brown jersey; one of a style that could be found in actual in-game photos and one with heavy use that would be consistent with brown's position and style of play.

as for the MEARS A10/A9 descriptions: an A10, according to MEARS, must show "optimal wear". not good, not decent or satisfactory but optimal, which means most desireable. troy can discern the use for himself but he can't redefine the definition of the word "optimal" for his own purposes. is a jim brown shirt showing light wear optimal? i think that question is hits to the core of this grade. is a lightly-used brown shirt optimal, or most desireable? this would necessarily mean that a lightly-used brown shirt is preferable over a heavily used brown shirt. hard to imagine. if MEARS next came into possession of a heavily-used brown shirt showing tears and scrapes, they would necessarily have to grade that jersey lower because in their definition of the A10 applied to the brown shirt, light use on a brown jersey is optimal and therefore heavy use would not be. you can't have it both ways and say both light use and heavy use are optimal.

it must also be "consistent with the player, position, sports, field of play, etc." from some of the comments i've heard regarding brown's extremely physical style, it seems that some view the wear as not being consistent. sort of like a lightly-worn rickey henderson or lenny dykstra jersey. is it possible? sure. is it "optimal"? hardly. how on earth is it optimal? light use would be optimal for a player who saw 5 games at DH but it'd hardly be optimal for a player famous for their extremely hard style of play. if anything, it's the opposite of optimal. even under MEARS' own definition of the A10, the jersey seems to fall short because the wear isn't optimal and it apparently must be so to earn the A10. it seems more suited to an A9 with the light wear and reasonable doubt pertaining to the material being the "flaws".

rudy.

[G1X]

Hi Robert,

First, thanks for placing this discussion into a separate thread. There are not a whole lot of discussions that are strictly about football jerseys, especially the pre-2000 era, so this is very refreshing from that standpoint. Hopefully, it will stay on the course of being educational.

To clarify about practice use, some teams were known to take their jerseys from previous seasons and use them in practice and training camp. To my knowledge, teams did not use the current season's jerseys in both practice and games, so if a player tossed his jersey into the stands after the season finale, the wear and repairs were most likely from that season (or previous seasons if the jersey had been recycled).

A few quick documentations of teams that reused durene jerseys in practice or camp at some point are the early 1970s Cowboys, the mid-1960s Jets, and the Detroit Lions. The Cowboys' use of old game jerseys in practice is well-documented in the 1973 book "The Gladiators". The Cowboys apparently stripped the plates off the back before reusing them in camp (assuming that there were plates on the back to begin with as NFC teams didn't begin using name-on-back until 1970). In Joe Namath's book "Namath" that was published in 2006, the Jets can be seen in two photos on page 155 in what appears to be training camp practice from the mid-1960s where they are wearing game jerseys. However, turn the page, and it looks like they are wearing solid color sweatshirts in a camp practice. When I made a bulk buy from the Lions in 1999, their equipment manager (who had been working for the team since the early 1970s) said that they didn't start using separate practice jerseys until sometime in the 1980s. I have always made the assumption that there aren't a whole lot of older jerseys to be found simply because teams reused them in practice until they wore out.

As for your question about telling the difference between "practice" repairs and "game" repairs, there should be no difference assuming that the same person made the repairs. That is the problem in my viewpoint. For example, I have a nice Dave Edwards Dallas Cowboys durene jersey from the early 1970s with a ton of repairs. The jersey was most likely game used as there are obvious signs that a nameplate was on the back. With the nameplate having been removed, I am convinced that the jersey was reused in practice based on the photos in "The Galdiators". So the question that always crosses my mind is whether most of the abuse came from practice wear or game wear. If the jersey was worn for one season but used everyday in camp for six weeks, I have to ask myself that question. Worse, the jersey may have never been put into game action (served as a spare or emergency jersey) and only saw practice action.

To take this a little further and make all durene collectors a little more uncomfortable , let's use two Washington Redskins who went on to the Hall of Fame as an example. In 1964, the 'Skins draft included both Charley Taylor and Paul Krausse. The 'Skins used the same style of burgundy jerseys for most of the 1960s. For this discussion, let's assume that the 'Skins resued previous seasons' jerseys in practice and training camp. The often unanswerable questions are these:

1. Did the wear and repairs on the #42 and #22 jerseys come from Taylor and Krausse in game action?
2. Did the wear and repairs come only from practice and camp after the jerseys - used in previous seasons - had been relegated to practice use?
3. How do we really know that Krausse and Taylor ever wore these jerseys?

The last question is the most intriguing when collecting older durene jerseys, especially regarding NFL teams prior to the nameplate era. If a team used the same jersey style (including number font) and manufacturer over the course of several seasons, it can be near impossible to pinpoint the exact season. This can be problematic if you run across a #22 or #42 'Skins jersey as these jerseys may not have been worn by Krausse and Taylor, but rather by LeRoy Jackson and Bill Anderson who wore #22 and #42 respectively in both 1962 and 1963. Trying to find proof-positive photo evidence from that era can be difficult at best.

I won't even get into the discussion of college and high school teams that wore the same style as NFL teams. Was that red jersey with white numbers worn by the Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals, University of Alabama, or Annandale High School? I once saw an old University of Iowa durene jersey that I would have bet the farm was a Steelers jersey. Glad I didn't place that bet!

When looking at any older football jersey style that seems atypical (such as the Jim Brown jersey in question), finding a photo of the paticular player in that style can be near impossible. For me to feel somewhat comfortable in that regard, I need to find at least one Browns player wearing that particular style of durene in a game action photo from that era. That might not answer the question about the paticular player being researched, but at least it would answer the question as to whether the team actually wore that style in game action.

In almost every team bulk buy I have made from a team or league, there are inevitably items that are different than the rest. I have refused to list items for sale simply because I cannot match them or explain them. But just because I can't positively match them doesn't mean that they aren't just as real as the rest (which they are).

I hope this information is helpful.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

[genius]

I saw that Iowa durene, was a dead-ringer for a Steelers 50's durene. Only giveaway was the Sand Knit tag which if I remember correctly was from an Iowa or Nebraska distributor. I would buy that though if someone on here has it!

I posted these photos in another thread but the below jersey which I thought might have been a New York Titans jersey turned out to be University of Pittsburgh 1965. Found a photo match. I've wondered though whether this set of jerseys came from the Titans/Jets as the jerseys are identical. Would be interesting to prove that some jerseys actually did go from pro to college to H/S. Sorry for the o/t.

[G1X]

Hi genius,

That's a sharp looking jersey! The New York Titans 1961 and 1962 jerseys were slightly different than your Pitt Panthers jersey. Here are the main differences:

1. The shoulder inserts on the Titans' jerseys were the "reverse" of your Pitt jersey. The Titans had a single gold stripe in the middle bordered on each side by white stripes.
2. The Titans had a cuff at the end of the sleeves that had white and gold striping.
3. The Titans jerseys were a darker blue with old-gold numbers and stripes. Your Pitt jersey appears lighter with yellow-gold numbers and stripes (but that might be due to the lighting/flash of your photo).

At the bottom is a 1962 Fleer card with a good view of the Titans jerseys (and the grandstands of the old Polo Grounds). There are a number of Titans in the '62 set. The Titans wore this style in 1961 and 1962. In their inaugural season in 1960, the blue jerseys had no shoulder inserts or stripes. When they changed their name in 1963 to the Jets, they changed their color scheme to green and white.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net
Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

[kingjammy24]

well i've just watched a pretty incredible video courtesy of doug allen and mastro: http://live.mastroauctions.com/index...e&CurrentRow=1

the pertinent part is where doug allen says:

"..what's great is the provenance not only is that you can photomatch (unintelligible) pictures of jim brown wearing this particular uniform but on top of that its signed by him and it says 'game used' in his hand so what better way to say that 'i wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform' than a player effectively giving his own stamp of approval on the provenance by signing it and signing it as 'game used'."

unbelievably, despite having the jersey in hand, doug somehow turns a vague "game jersey" inscription into a (more lucrative) "game used" inscription. in fact, the jersey does not say "game used" and there is a world of difference between a "game jersey" inscription that brown signed 40 yrs after he last saw this shirt and a "game used" inscription that would be his "stamp of approval" that the shirt really is game used. the NFL fan shop sells what it calls "game jerseys". god only knows what brown meant by "game jersey". perhaps he meant "game style jersey". leave it to doug to twist it into "game used" and practically say that brown endorsed the jersey as one he wore. nowhere on the shirt did brown write anything close to "i wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform" in the bizarre way that doug interprets brown's vague inscription. twist it and twist it and maybe it'll be what you want it to be i guess.

while i personally don't trust doug with much, i'd at least trusted that he was able to read and apparently that was overly ambitious on my end. however, good news all around because according to what doug said, he's photomatched this particular jersey. apparently he's done even better than MEARS who simply managed to stylematch it to some promo photos. i look forward to seeing the photomatch.

doug also says that "this uniform doesn't have significant game use but it's picture-perfect in every other attribute." once again, the A10 grade requires "optimal wear".

rudy.

[both-teams-played-hard]

I personally don't like autographed jerseys. I mean, if Brown actually wore the jersey in a game...what good is an autograph? How about a close-up photo-match of a stain, loose thread or repair mark? I think the autograph is nothing more than graffiti. He wore it right? Jim Brown is not an authenticator or jersey expert. But then again, who actually is?

[G1X]

While the debate rages on about the MEARS A10 grading of the Jim Brown jersey, there is an important point being overlooked. I learned as a dealer a very long time ago that even though most football jersey collectors prefer jerseys that show good game use, there are some who just don't care. And there are even a few collectors who actually prefer jerseys with little or no wear.

So while folks continue to debate the game-use on this jersey, the person who ends up winning it might not even care about the amount of wear to begin with.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

[kingjammy24]

How about a close-up photo-match of a stain, loose thread or repair mark?

warren h.: not to fear, as doug allen explicitly stated, he has photomatched this particular shirt. not sure when doug will present his photomatch but i eagerly await it.

mark h: for MEARS' and mastro's sake, let's hope mastro finds one of those football buyers who prefers light-to-no use on a $70k shirt!

rudy.

[G1X]

After reading Troy Kinunen's response posted by Rudy in post #13 where Troy continues to refer to the Jim Brown jersey as a "tear-away", I feel that it is terribly important to repeat a posting I made in another thread and was quoted in the opening post of this thread.

In my humble opinion, and with all due respect to Troy, labeling the Jim Brown jersey as a tear-away jersey has created a bit of confusion and understandable questioning from some GUU members. Although I have not seen the jersey in person, judging from the photos (and information provided by Troy on the MEARS website), it appears to be simply a case where a lighter weight durene was used in manufacturing and not an actual tear-away material. (The above observation is not intended to be interpreted as any type of validation or dismissal of MEARS grading of this jersey.)

For a little background on tear-away jerseys, this style came into prominence around 1970 when college teams such as Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama started running the wishbone. It didn't take much to destroy a tear-away jersey. Living in Alabama at the time, I was never surprised to see the QB or running backs make several changes during a game. The equipment staff would have extra jerseys tucked in their belts so that they could make quick changes on the sidelines. (The lineman and defensive players normally did not wear tear-aways.)

If the Jim Brown jersey was a true tear-away, Troy's "tugging match" would have turned a very valuable jersey into a couple of strips of cloth!

By all accounts, unless there is something here that I am completely missing or hasn't been disclosed about the jersey, it is not a true "tear-away" jersey. Anyone who is interested in seeing the results of grabbing and pulling on a tear-away jersey, go to Getty Image photos #81394908 and #81340849. Those of you who were around in the early 1970s when tear-away jerseys were legal will probably recall that it did not take much to destroy one of those jerseys.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

[Moustache Gang]

Posters,

I emailed Doug Allen at Mastro over the weekend and asked him to send me his photo match of the Jim Brown jersey that he mentions during his interview of the Jim Brown auction video which can be seen on their website. Actually, Doug responded within an hour of my email and stated he would send the photo to me today. Doug emailed me with the photo at around 11 am est.

Doug did make it clear that this is a "style match" and not an actual photo match of the jersey up for auction. Just want to make sure that everyone is clear on this matter.

Sincerely,

Mark

[FONT='Calibri','sans-serif'] [/FONT]