Fred Lynn Red Sox Jersey - Thoughts?

[kingjammy24]

some more from lelands. borderless and bordered:

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=611&lot=696

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=509&lot=224

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=412&lot=549

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=712&lot=153

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=707&lot=123

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=611&lot=640

rudy.

[1986&2004Bosox]

Rudy that's like saying lets evaluate an artist but lets not use their best painting.

Your argument is insane, ask an individual involved in the field of stat's you cant do what you are saying you have to use all known examples.

If you are an authenticator you have to be able to stand behind your work HOF or common player. Why not throw out all the Ruth and Cobb bats when evaluating H&B's?

Stop taking pot shots about me, you no nothing about me.

I have simply pointed out that Mr.Lewis has no evidence, experts have concluded that borderless jerseys are gamers and Mr. Medina himself wrote a letter on a 77 Yaz borderless home jersey that Jim Carvello posted for sale on the board, now Dave M has done a 180.

Finally read the damn post Rudy I said if I was proven wrong I would try and help people with borderless get a refund. This is not about me being right it is about proof and so far not one damn bit of evidence has surrfaced to back Mr.Lewis position.

This has nothing to do with skin in the game as you put it, it has to do with people being able to prove their statements by more than word of mouth or my personal favorite

" you were not around back then but trust me they did it"

well I wasn't around for alot of things but most events have facts to back their happening.

Also you hit the nail on the head if MEARS has already authenticated borderless as gamers the standard has been set.

I would love to hear about the A10 items that have been proven to be wrong do you have examples?

[kingjammy24]

really. this is it. it's gone from amusing to painfully ludicrous.

"Rudy that's like saying lets evaluate an artist but lets not use their best painting."

so in this apples-to-oranges comparison, you've already made the assumption that the best painting you have on hand is legit. do you comprehend that ascertaining legitimacy of "known samples" was my sticking point? you've just blown right by that and assumed that you'll be able to suss out every single bogus yaz and jackson and that the "best painting" is legit. IF all HOFer jerseys are legit, then obviously use them. big IF.

"Your argument is insane, ask an individual involved in the field of stat's you cant do what you are saying you have to use all known examples."

the problem you're having is with the idea of "known examples". again, seeing 50 yaz jerseys doesn't make them all "known examples" because you don't know which ones are legit. only legit shirts are "known examples" and my entire point is how to do you make sure you're only dealing with legit jerseys?

anyway, brush up on the statistical idea of representative samples. when a survey says "45% of americans prefer apples to oranges" they haven't actually interviewed every single known american to be able to make that claim.

"Why not throw out all the Ruth and Cobb bats when evaluating H&B's?"

the lack of common sense and apple-to-oranges comparisons are tiresome. bats are substantially harder to fake than jerseys so it's unnecessary to toss out superstars because the odds are pretty slim of a forger having their own lathe, cords of ash, and fake LVS branding iron. many on the other hand have sewing machines. retail bats are harder to doctor into "gamers" than retail jerseys are.

"experts have concluded that borderless jerseys are gamers"

experts? you mean mears? the same firm that in the past week announced they're going to begin to investigate the notion of retail mcauliffes? or lelands? if you believe lelands knows the answer to this whole border vs non-bordered issue then email them and get the answers. what are we waiting on lon for if lelands has it? in the same way you're demanding proof of lon, demand proof of lelands.

"..if MEARS has already authenticated borderless as gamers the standard has been set"

only for those gullible enough to think MEARS sets any standards.

"I would love to hear about the A10 items that have been proven to be wrong do you have examples?"

here you go old-timer. enjoy your standard-setters. maybe mears will add those bonds shirts to their database of how 2001 giants gamers should be tagged? gotta include the "best painting"!: http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_f...ad.php?t=21500

you know how i know you don't have anywhere close to 20 yrs? because you have no clue who dave miedema is and keep calling him "mr. medina", you think henderson's guide is a "database", that MEARS sets standards, and that auction houses are experts. fortunately for me, that concludes my final response to you. i should've listened to lon and given up 10 posts ago. my apologies to the other members.

rudy.

[1986&2004Bosox]

Rudy my good christ you just dont get it. An authenticator's job is to figure out which jersey is legit and which is fake. You take ALL EXAMPLES of the Yaz, Jackson, Williams, The Mick, Joe D etc and then you compare them to each other and them against other examples of the team they played on from the same time frame. You don't eliminate the stars and hall of fame players to get your baseline you use all examples.

A know example does not mean a legitimate jersey a know example could be a known fake, you look at the good and the bad to make the correct assesment.

Rudy if auction houses, MEARS, and Henderson's are not valid resources in your mind that what do you suggest we as collectors use to evaluate a jersey? Do your howmework on your own I agree, however if MEARS, Hendersons, and auctions are not tools for research than what would you use?

A person's statement Mr. Lewis that borderless were sold to the public and that's that, when the person has not provided proof to back their statement.

Then another respected hobby veteran Dave M, say's that the blue border which was previously said to be a sign of a true gamer could be found in retails as well, and that the borderless could also just be a tag variation.

Come on Rudy the point of this post is to prove that no individual involved in the discussion has proof to back their theory just lots of he said she said.

Your right with LS holding auctions and Hunt selling old bat dies and examples of 125's that had inch markings that have been sanded off, bats are much harder to fake.

People are going to fake items no question about that. That has never been the point oif this topic. It has been to provide proof that borderless shirts are retails which has not been done.

Rudy you are made because you don't agree with me. Fine, however I have gone out of my way to say prove me wrong and Lon has not been able to.

Futhermore I provided an example of a 1977 borderless Yaz with Dave M letter gor sale on this board by Jim C link is in this thread, and asked Dave M why his position has now changed no response.

On the stats front we are not asking for a personal preference, we are looking hard data of known jerseys good or bad to determin what to look for when grading a shirt.

You have your position and stance which is fine but you refuse to look at the facts, and the fact is that you can not state borderless jersey are retail jerseys based upon the information that is out there.

[otismalibu]

I ain't no paid authenticator, but if I was trying to determine the general characteristics of a certain team's jerseys (from say a sample of 10 jerseys), I'd probably opt to exclude the superstar jerseys.

Why increase the odds of adding fakes to your sample?

Get a couple fakes in your "this is what an ABC jersey should probably look like" and you may find subsequent comparisons reeking of Lampsonian taint.

[lon lewis]

I had hoped to avoid this thread until I had all of the jerseys and invoices that I requested photo'd and posted that were aquired by individuals in the 70's and 80's directly from McAuliffe/Stall and Dean. It seems that Bosox for whatever reason has completely mis-stated and in some cases, outright lied about what I said in my little 3 line post almost 2 weeks ago. If you were to look at what I said, the words fake, retail, retail tags, borderless tags are retail jerseys, and all of the other crap attributed to me DO NOT appear. It also seems that according to Bosox, I'm supposed to turn over to MEARS all of the order sheets in my possesion. Just who the hell do you think you are to tell me what to do with my personal property? How do you know what I have or haven't already given to Dave Grob? It also seems Bosox feels that the McAuliffe records should be as readily available as the H&B records. Here's a news flash: H&B is still in business- McAuliffe for all practical purposes on the other hand, ceased in the '90's. So Bosox, here's an idea.If you want their records, got ahold of Marty and the Doc dust off the Delorean set the flux capacitor for 1985 drive to Brockton Mass and see what you can come up with. It seems by your posts that you're one of those "collectors" who has to have their work done for them all wrapped up in a nice shiny bow. How about maybe you get off of your lazy ass and do something on your own instead of criticizing what others come up with. I live 3000 miles from the former McAuliffe location and I came up with my stuff, you supposedly live in the Boston area which is a 30 minute drive from there and you're clueless as to what went on back in the day. Either get your own info (pro or con on this issue) or stop with the snarky comments to those who have a contrary view to yours. I haven't posted anything that you call "proof" as yet mainly because I have to get the jerseys and invoices sent to me ( I can't just crap this stuff) not because I'm afraid of your challenge or can't get it. When what I have requested from the individuals arrives and is photo'd, believe me it'll be on here. You now have 2 choices the first is you can let this go for now and see what develops or the second choice is you can continue with the assinine tirades. Since I know what's coming in the near future I'd suggest you let it go. Finally, did you really think that I could take the position I did without knowing AT LEAST 1 person who did this? And did you really think that I couldn't come up with more jerseys than would be in your worst nightmare? I really don't expect you to buy into what I'll be posting because you'll whine if I put up 10 Lynn jerseys in his size that I should have put up 20 and that the invoices aren't filled out TO YOUR LIKING. But for the others on here it should prove useful. Until the day that all of this is ready I'm done with this thread unless you want to attribute more of your b.s. to me.

[kingjammy24]

tossing in HOFers only works if you'll spot every fake. as the 2001 A10 Bonds and tons of auction house errors show, you won't. noone has a 100% success rate. in the face of that empirical evidence then it'd be prudent to mitigate risk by excluding HOFers.

anyway, for those interested in this thread, i've re-read some of lon's comments and it's occurred to me that they seem to have been grossly misinterpreted. lon never stated or implied that all borderless tags were retail shirts. contrary to how eric has grossly twisted it all, it's not a black and white issue of border vs no-border. i don't want to put words in lon's mouth but from what i can see lon simply stated that:

a) stall & dean sold mcauliffe shirts to the public

b) these shirts would be tagged similarly to their pro counterparts

c) in the 80s retail shirts contained borderless tags

from i gather then, it'd be entirely possible to have a solid, legit '77 gamer with a borderless tag. (lon never said if it didn't have a border it was necessarily a retail shirt) it'd also be possible to have a retail shirt from '77 with a borderless tag. so how would you tell the difference? size. wear/use. hopefully i haven't misinterpreted anything but that's what i've read. this whole thing devolved into a "border=good, borderless=bad" pile of garbage.

eric, before you hit "reply" and start squawking about "proof! proof! where be the proof!" calm yourself. lon stated he's in the process of gathering proof and it'll likely take him around 30 days.

rudy.

[lon lewis]

Rudy, Unlike someone else,You haven't mis-interperted anything, that's pretty much it. If you were to see what I'm looking at right now here in this room, what I've said would be very apparent.

[Rob L]

rudy that is crazzy, to eliminate a segment of the jerseys because it was a star player? Who's to say that stars did not get different tagging from commons? There are examples of miss tagged years in all sports, missing patches on jerseys. Stars who wore shirt's that were 2 plus years old, recycled jerseys. A jersey should be evaluated on it's own merrits not someone conteniton about tag borders or eliminate the superstatrs. So in your theory how would you evaluate a jersey of a superstar. What would be your base point?

Of course it would be best to eliminate the superstars. Although the following thread relates to 1980s Goodman jerseys, it would likely apply to all brands that sold retail. From thread #14 of the following link:


http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_f...jackson+jersey



Interesting discussion here on the Reggie Jackson Angels jersey. A few notes:

a. At the time indicated, 1993, Dick Dobbins told me that only a small percentage of the jerseys had original names on the back. I had him send me a list where he put a star next to the ones with the original names on back. I helped Dick identify a lot of the jerseys by providing weekly rosters so he could get the names restored on the backs. I also purchased a quantity of the jerseys from Dick, both with the original name panel and with restoration.
b. I have seen many of the Angels jerseys with restored names on back that came from Dick. The restoration work is very well done, about as good as it gets in my opinion. However, I would not use the term "perfect" to describe them. If they are held up to the light, there is always some place where the old stitching pattern can be seen from where the original name panels were removed from the backs. Over the years, I have asked approximately 10 people who have sold these restored jerseys at auction if they are restored. Not one has correctly told me that the jerseys were restored, even after I asked them to hold it up to the light and to check. All had restoration when I received them.
c. I put about six Wilson home Reggie Jackson jerseys on to the market back in the early to mid 1980's. Most were size 48, but I clearly recall size 46 also on a couple. The one I kept for myself was a size 47. The "47" is embroidered over a Wilson tag with a blank space for the size. I also had one Goodman & Sons road jersey, and it was size 48. I don't ever recall seeing an Angels size 44 for Reggie.
d. General word of caution I do not recall ever seeing discussed on this forum. Back in the mid 1980's, with 1985 and 1986 being the primary time I remember, there was a dealer out here in California that obviously had some kind of connection with Goodman & Sons. At the conventions or baseball card shows, they would set up large selections of Goodman & Sons jerseys from at least the Angels and Astros, although I recall there were other teams (perhaps Mets) where I had no interest. Of course, it was always the star jerseys over and over again. I cannot tell you how many road Goodman & Sons Angels of Jackson, Carew, Lynn, John, Sutton, DeCinces, Grich, Downing and the like that I saw at those shows. Unfortunately, there were also a lot of Nolan Ryan Astros. Goodman & Sons shirts had no special tagging, so there was no way to tell these shirts apart from what was actually used. To this day, there is no way to tell them apart. Many of you have probably noted a large number of road Angels of the stars over the years in the market in comparison to the home Angels. Also, a lot of Nolan Ryan Goodman & Sons jerseys from the Astros. I watched at these shows when one shirt was sold, and within minutes an identical one would be back out on sale. These included jerseys with the special patches like 1985 Angels and I believe 1986 Astros. One time I was even standing around looking at some of the jerseys at a show, and two of the Angels Stadium clubhouse employees walked up behind me. I knew who they were, but they did not know me. One said to the other that there was no way the Angels jerseys could be real. The other replied that if they were real, that neither of them would have jobs there any longer! I thought that was pretty funny. Bottom line, to this day, I will not touch any of the road Goodman & Sons Angels star jerseys from 1982-1986, and certainly not any of the Ryan Astros shirts from this general time period.

[aeneas01]

i don't want to put words in lon's mouth but from what i can see lon simply stated that:

a) stall & dean sold mcauliffe shirts to the public

b) these shirts would be tagged similarly to their pro counterparts

c) in the 80s retail shirts contained borderless tags

lon also stated the following...

1. "during the '70's and 80's anyone could obtain from McAuliffe/Stahl and Dean completely tagged jerseys of any of the teams that were produced..."

2. "after the '70's, those jerseys would as a general rule contain the borderless mfr tag..."

if this is the case wouldn't properly tagged jerseys WITH blue borders have been available to the public during the mid '70s to late '70s given that's the type of tag mcauliffe was producing at the time? and if this is the case, doesn't that muddy the water even more as far as retail purchased vs game issued jerseys from that period are concerned?

btw i think this is a very interesting discussion. but i don't understand how anyone could possibly not grasp the notion of setting aside jerseys worn by big name players (read: jerseys that undoubtedly sold in much greater numbers at the retail level, jerseys that would fetch the most at auction today) for the sake of this particular analysis. the painting and stats analogies are absurd and have nothing to do with this sort of approach.

....