Fred Lynn Red Sox Jersey - Thoughts?

[Moustache Gang]

Forum Members.

I cannot tell as Lelands did not take a photo of the tagging in the top of the shirt, but they have a 1978 Mike Torrez, McAuliffe grey knit on their website. It is very hard to tell, but if you blow it up it appears to look like a non-blue border tag. Would most of us call Torrez a common player or maybe I do not know my Red Sox players??

Sorry all I collect are A's McAuliffe jerseys, but I would not put Torrez in the same category with Lynn, Rice, Yaz and Fisk.

Mark

[kingjammy24]

b. as only taking a portion of the sample or eliminating the stars serves no purpose.

greatly reducing the chance of fakes seems to be pretty important purpose if the point is to arrive at an accurate conclusion.

if we tossed in all the HOFers, like you suggest, then how would you deal with the substantial risk of fakes contaminating the results? let me guess, you'd just weed the fakes out right? good luck. of course not a single one would slip by you. i can't think of a single individual with a perfect track record but then i guess we've never seen you in action. myself, i think a few might get past me which is why i wouldn't want to chance it. even if 1 or 2 got past me, the results would be skewed and the experiment trashed. i agree that your system would work if some perfect genius manages to catch every single one of the fakes. nice odds. mears tossed some HOFers into the mix in their analysis. this being the same firm that A10'd several horrific bonds shirts so i'm definitely sure that they'd be able to catch each and every fake yaz, fisk, and reggie that came their way right?

and then when your results come out how do you address all the folks like me saying that it's possible that some fake HOFers slipped by you and skewed the results? "oh no, i caught them all. trust me".

or you could just entirely avoid that risk and use only commons. if you evaluated some gallegos, honeycutts, blankenships, bordicks, howitts, and lansfords, i'd say you'd have a very good idea of how the 1990 A's tagged their non-spare shirts. if you tossed in a mcgwire your accuracy wouldn't increase. all you'd do is run the risk of screwing the whole thing up because a fake got past you. plus, those results wouldn't be questioned by others as they would if HOFers had been used.

ultimately, i realize that having this discussion with a guy currently trying to sell a borderless fred lynn is like trying to explain how tasty a pulled pork sandwich is to a pig. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it". a man with skin in the game usually isn't the most objective in the room. on that note, if mears, hypothetically speaking, comes to the eventual conclusion that borderless tags were for retail shirts, what are they going to do about all of the borderless jerseys they've already authenticated? announce a big buyback program? and on that note, how is mears only now investigating this issue after they've already authenticated many mcauliffe shirts? they don't know if mcauliffe made retail shirts and, if they did, how to tell them apart but they went ahead and declared themselves fit to authenticate mcauliffe shirts? isn't that the sort of basic info you learn before you start printing out the LOAs? how's it work at mears..authenticate the shirt first and then learn the difference between pro and retail?

i don't know which way the pendulum is going to swing here. i just hope that whatever conclusion is reached is the right one. i just wanted to put forth the idea that excluding star HOFers would be a wise thing to do in terms of reaching an accurate conclusion. if people can round up a whole slew of common gamers with borderless tags then i think it'd carry a ton of weight. personally, as a collector, i wouldn't put much stock into tag, font, or stitching analysis that focused heavily on HOF jerseys.

rudy.

[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.