Lebron jersey - A5

[UDAbasketball]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

The jerseys we have in house were procurred directly from the Cavs and LeBron. The pro cuts are currently in the warehouse but I will work to get one shipped to me so I can post photos of real game used jerseys and pro cuts. All of our pro cuts come directly from the manufacturer. The size on all of the game used jerseys in house is 48 +4 (they are all from this year). Once again, this does not mean LeBron has not worn a different size jersey in the past. I think the photos posted earlier in this string prove that he has in fact switched sizes during his career. On the UDA side we will not be cutting these jerseys up but instead we will have LeBron sign them at the next session and will sell them as whole jerseys.

[jondris]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

yes - to the tune of $53,400 ($2,400 average per shirt). from that list, vintage alone accounts for close to half of the lebron jerseys moved during that period, almost twice what the other auctions moved combined. i guess if you want a lebron shirt, vintage is the place for you!

interestingly the same auction house, lelands, managed to fetch the two highest prices (by far) $11,300 and $9,800. heck, even one of their "low" sales ($3,600) was well above the sample average....

man, that sure is a lot of lebron shirts.
.....

One can also come to the conclusion that Vintage does not get top dollar and is that cause most collectors know that its not real or is their another reason

[kingjammy24]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

All of our pro cuts come directly from the manufacturer.

what size are your lebron procuts?

thanks again,

rudy.

[sportscrazy13]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

On the UDA side we will not be cutting these jerseys up but instead we will have LeBron sign them at the next session and will sell them as whole jerseys.

Could you contact me at gashlockusmc@yahoo.com

I have a few questions about the LeBron gamers and purchase of one if possible.

[aeneas01]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

before i respond to dave bushing's post at the mears site (bulletin board) regarding what i've said here, i want to reiterate/quote the very valid concerns rudy (kngjammy24) has raised, the purpose of his/this thread...

mears A5 states that the jersey size must be correct... saying it might possibly be correct isn't the same thing is it being correct... when troy said that one of the criteria for the A5 is that mears "makes sure that the size was issued to the player", this is simply not true. mears does not make sure the size was issued to the player. they say they do, but they don't. how did mears make sure a 52+4 was issued to james? they didn't... this has nothing to do with opinions. it has to do with doing what you say and saying what you do. if a man says he'll do a certain task and you pay him to do that task then shouldn't he do it? mears says they do things that they simply do not do. this is not my opinion, it's fact... various items evaluated by mears were said to have been stylematched. they were not. in the least. this is not a case of not liking their opinion. it's a case of paying mears to do a job that they say they did but really didn't.

dave bushing: "I would challenge Robert to do a graph of properly advetised and sold MEARS A5 jerseys and given this discussion is really about understanding the A5 grade, I am not quite sure why Lou Lampson graded Labron James jerseys, those graded game used by him and advertised as such are part of the A5 discussion."

first, it's impossible to compile a list that shows "properly advertised... mears a5 jerseys" because auction houses sell them as "game used" or "game worn", simple as that. and in the rare instance "game used" isn't included in the lot title (hunt auction, randy johnson for example), there's little doubt the item is being presented as a gamer once the lot description is read. second, the reason i brought up the other lebron jerseys (jerseys mears had nothing to do with) was to illustrate the ocean of lebron jerseys of this type that are in circulation, that have been sold at auction - something which i would think mears would take into consideration when grading lebron shirts.

dave bushing: "Is it then the A5 grade that is confusing or the easily misued GAME WORN / GAME USED phrase that auction houses apply to their title when in fact, this claim was never used or applied by MEARS. Sounds to me like a truth in advertising... Oh, and now MEARS is responsible if an auction house or dealer disregards our grade and labels a shirt something we never said it was or as Robert suggests, they are so confused as to why we called it an A5 that they simply title the piece game worn/used because we confused them. Auction houses that for four years after crafting the A5 language simply don't understand and when you don't understand it and it has a MEARS loa, then simply put game used in the title."

21 of the 22 shirts that i previously listed with an a5 mears grade were sold as "game used" by auction houses - the single shirt that wasn't strongly implied as much in the lot description. forum members, upper deck, collectors, etc. have all said that the a5 grade is very misleading, very confusing. but dave feels the a5 grade is crystal clear and that auction houses are obviously falsely advertising. maybe dave's right. but if he is it brings up an interesting question: why would mears continue to allow auction houses to sell a5 items (backed with a mears letter) as "game used"? i mean it's not as if this is a recent development, it's been going on for years. why not a cease and desist? especially considering the grief (and arguably damage) it causes mears?

dave bushing: "If MEARS does a letter that says "cannot authenticate, index bat, store model, A1, Pro Cut, or Piece of crap" , just claim you don't understand, it is all too confusing, and label it game worn/used. If you are wrong and called to the carpet, simply blame MEARS complicated grading system."

so dave's argument is if mears wrote letters stating items could not be authenticated, were a store models and/or were a pieces of crap it would cause the same confusion as a mears' a5 grade and that mears would still be called to the carpet. o.k.

dave bushing: "Funny but the grade is attacked yet questioning the procedure behind all of the game worn or game used (non MEARS A5) labeled jerseys remains unsung. No outrage, no demand as to what legitimized these jerseys as to why they command so much more money than REA's A5, no demand to see who owned them, who consigned them, where they were obtained, is there provenance to warrent the title game worn/used, what size exemplars did they use, NOTHING. I could buy MEARS being constantly under the microscope of Robert and Rudy with the coinsidental thread started on the night MEARS auction opened, it just amazes me that this microscope becomes a blindfold for others. Fair and balanced as Fox news says."

this strikes me as rather paranoid on so many levels. first, i for one had no idea this thread was started on the same night as a mears' auction - however it does seem to me that most discussions at guf are started once an auction is about to begin, ask grey flannel. second, 99.9% of this board's discussions focus on exactly what dave claims is "unsung" and plenty of outrage is always expressed. further, i would say mears makes up such a minute portion of the board's discussions that i don't know how dave's comments could be taken as other than paranoid. rather than pretend that this board, or rudy and i for that matter, spend most of its time attacking mears i would think mears would seize on this opportunity to carefully and specifically address these very valid concerns.

dave bushing: "Heck, MEARS is making a ton of cashola grading these shirts, never mind that the cost of a post 87 is the same whether it is a A5 or an A10."

interesting comment - i wonder if more a5 items exist or more a10 items?

dave bushing: "Why would MEARS give up grading A5's as is suggested by Robert & Rudy when it is a virtual cash cow, so much so that Mrs Robert may become our stiffest competition."

dave misunderstood. the mrs. wouldn't be mears' stiffest competition, she would be mears' partner - couldn't make it work without the a5 letter. as far as why mears should give up a5 grading is concerned, i think it's a good idea for many reasons but i'll just name a few: first, mears is an authentication service which, and i may be wrong here, seems to imply that mears authenticates game used, game worn or team issued items. not pro cuts, not exact replicas. but items they believe were sent to a team or given to a player for game use. second, i consider any grading system that allows for an authentic item sent to a team or given to a player for game use to be graded the same an item that never saw a team's locker room to be very broken.

dave bushing: "It is so much harder to only grade, authenticate, and offer a money back guarentee on mistakes for your own items rather than having the easy high paying job of offering this service to others and maybe having to give back thousands of dollars for a piece you did for $50 bucks. Yep, I agree, shouldn't grade or authenticate A5's or A7's or A10's or million dollar Babe Ruth jerseys. Hate to get one of those wrong, hard enough to have to buy back a $260 Portland Beavers jersey. Sure would hate to be a dealer or auction house that authenticates and/or grades only their own merchandise and let the chat rooms decide on everything else. What is even better is that maybe MEARS can start authenticating Ruth, Gehrig and Cobb jerseys on line without having to deal with all that pesky shipping."

sorry, but i just don't follow what dave's trying to say here. but given that guarantee and giving back money was mentioned, there's something that i've wanted to mention for quite some time: mears' money back guarantee. while i think this is a great policy, i don't see how exactly it differs from most other auction house policies. as i understand it, mears' policy begins and ends with whether or not they agree with an unhappy customer's (and/or a third party's) assessment of the item. in short, mears' policy is far from a "no questions asked, money back guarantee" - if you can prove to mears that they were wrong in their evaluation, and (this is important) they accept your position, then i'm sure a refund would be forthcoming. but if mears doesn't agree with your assessment or that of a third party, you're out of luck. so why is that different than what most auction houses offer? it's been my experience that auction houses will provide a refund if you can prove an item wasn't as advertised, despite their "all sales final" disclaimers.

dave bushing: "Why the need to refine verbage of a misunderstood grade can be argued, it is still a MEARS policy that is not forced on anyone, if you don't like it or understand it or disagree with it, that is fine, you don't have to..."

alas, the 'ol "if you don't like it, don't buy it, move on" spiel. frankly, i'm cool with that. but such sentiments don't preclude collectors from voicing their concerns. and my concern is that attempting to grade game used items, team issued items or any items that were sent to a team for game use is wrought with problems and an absurd model. the trading card template simply does not work with garments/equipment.

here's a perfect example. a collector is currently going back and forth with mears over a john elway jersey gamer. patrick from endzone sports wrote a letter attesting to its authenticty, imo a better endorsement does not exist. it was then given to mears who graded it an a8 because handwarmers were added. the collector publicly praised mears for the a8 thinking, combined with patrick's letter, he was in for a nice payday. and why wouldn't he? but rob lifson decided to run the jersey without "game used" in the lot title, pretty much how rea runs a5 shirts. and the jersey ended up selling for a small fraction of what one might expect from an elway gamer. while troy said he couldn't speak for rea, he responded to the collector's understandable dismay as follows:

"The staff at REA was not comfortable calling the Elway game worn based on the undocumented addition of the Elway handwarmer. Rob Lifson has a long history of added caution when listing items..."

the problem is rea didn't exercise "added caution" with the following a8, from dave's and troy's personal collection/inventory - it was listed with "game used" clearly included in the lot title despite a roughly similar situation as with the elway jersey. the elway is a 1992 jersey with handwarmers added the following year. the kluszewski is a 1959 jersey with a nameplate added the following year. the addition of handwarmers to a qb's jersey was typical and from all appearances was team done. the addition of nameplates was typical and from all appearances was team done.



even this a6 was listed with "game used" clearly included in the lot title:



and, of course there was the jim brown jersey, owned by dave bushing, which was awarded an a10 despite not being in what most football fans and football jersey collectors would consider typical jim brown condition. in fact one could argue that is didn't even meet mears' criteria for an a10 given the requirements specifically state: "Each piece is also evaluated on the degree of evident use and wear, which must be consistent with that of the player, sport, position..." closeup game photos of jim brown make the perfect a10 grade even more difficult to understand given the light-weight auction shirt featured no team repairs and only "moderate" use:



for the record, i'm not accusing mears of anything here, and certainly not rea - i'm just pointing out how ridiculous a grading system is when applied it to these sort of items, game items. take the jim brown jersey - how could any authentic jim brown gamer possibly be graded higher or lower than another? it's an authentic gamer. period. its rarity alone makes it extraordinarily valuable. how would one possibly grade the following items? you couldn't. any attempt would be absurd. yet some would try, as with trading cards:




and, finally, so dave doesn't lose any sleep over the amount of time spent "attacking" mears at this forum, here's a nice visual that i would say is pretty accurate:



...

[kingjammy24]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

here's an interesting one: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1412.html

it's a 1988 molitor jersey graded A8 and "..consigned to this auction directly from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticators David Bushing and/or Troy Kinunen". A5 + 3 points for "matching the characteristics of known Molitor game jerseys". ordinarily, "The highest grade a post-1987 jersey can obtain without team or player documentation, or verifiable provenance, or a combination of known distinct player specific traits is an A5."

so in this case, the molitor jersey apparently has some "known player characteristics" which warrant the 3 pt bump. what are the characteristics? the jersey doesn't seem to have any unique customizations. the only thing i can see is the statement on the LOO that "All known Molitor jerseys from this era are size 42".
correct size qualifies for a 3 pt bump over and above the A5 which troy said has to be of the correct size anyway? wait a minute here. the A5 definition requires a jersey to be the correct size. if it weren't, it wouldn't even get an A5. that is, correct size is already built in to the A5.

typically, the 3 pts awarded for "known player characteristics" would be for:

"Up to 3 points awarded for the following (post-1987 only):

• Customized sleeves
• Tailoring of side panels
• Shortened tails
• Added crotch pieces
• Team repairs
• Extra length
• Other team customizations"

those are all unique customizations, the molitor jersey has none of them, and i don't see "correct size" being listed as an option.

secondly, if any post-1987 A5 jersey can have 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size then why didn't MEARS add 3 pts to all of the 50+2 A5 lebron jerseys they've evaluated?

as dave bushing said: "Given that 33 of the A5 jerseys were size 50 and 7 were size 52 which if I do my math right is just over 75% of those examined were true to documented game worn sizes". so a bushing & kinunen-owned molitor A5 gets 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size yet 33 lebron A5 jerseys which are a photo-verified correct size 50 remain A5s and do not become A8s like troy and dave's molitor?

and again, this seems to yet another bushing & kinunen-owned jersey with a "..large circular stain (eight inches in diameter) that is visible on both the front and back" that has had 0 points removed, going against their own grading policy that specifies:

"½ to 5 points subtracted for the following (determined solely by authenticator):

• Fading or staining (minor to abused)"

i guess the authenticator didn't feel like removing even 1/2 pt for a "large, 8" stain visible on both front and back" on his own jersey.

given that the A5 already has the correct size built into it and the jersey had a large stain, it seems to me that it should've been graded A3-A4. i'm not sure an A3 '88 molitor would've sold for over $3800 though.

the best part? the stylematch of course! mears' strong point. according to the LOA, this 1988 molitor jersey has been stylematched to corbis image # U840524B. what is that image? it's a picture of rollie fingers taken in 1984. how's that for a stylematch? a 1988 jersey is verified to be the proper style from a 1984 photo. brilliant. apparently MEARS couldn't find any photos of the 1988 milwaukee brewers. especially fitting considering MEARS is located in milwaukee.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

robert,

here's an A6, titled "game used", with a completely restored team name and back number:

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2008/1354.html

there are multiple sub-A9 items that REA has run with "game used/worn" titles.

anyway, re: david archibald's elway jersey issues with MEARS/REA:

i don't know what rob lifson said. i do know that rob always tries to err on the side of caution. i think he genuinely wants his bidders to know all sides to all of the lots he offers regardless of the impact on hammer price. i also know that rob isn't a game-used guy. his interests lie in vintage baseball cards and ephemera. so when MEARS says that rob wasn't comfortable running a '92 elway because of handwarmers, you can be fairly certain it's not rob who came to that conclusion on his own. rob could've only come to it via input and "advice" from MEARS. it was MEARS who was uncomfortable with it and rob likely ran with their "insight" because he depends on their expertise in game-used items.

rob was comfortable running a completely restored 1936 yankees shirt as "game used" but not a '92 elway because of handwarmers? like rob is a vintage yankee flannels expert who also dabbles in 90s era elway gamers? come on. it's a little disingenious for troy to say that "The staff at REA was not comfortable calling the Elway game worn based on the undocumented addition of the Elway handwarmer". the REA staff likely had no opinion on the handwarmer and probably weren't comfortable calling it "game worn" entirely based what MEARS told them.

that said, i would like to see the scoggins letter on the piece to see if patrick somehow explained the handwarmer. i'm curious why REA didn't run the ESC letter.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

so that MEARS doesn't feel as if it's being unfairly singled out, here's a nice one:

http://www.vintageauthentics.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=105276039&prmenbr=57735959&aunbr=105622749

54+4! lou gives it a 9.5 on the lampson-o-meter.

rudy.

[aeneas01]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

the best part? the stylematch of course! mears' strong point. according to the LOA, this 1988 molitor jersey has been stylematched to corbis image # U840524B. what is that image? it's a picture of rollie fingers taken in 1984. how's that for a stylematch? a 1988 jersey is verified to be the proper style from a 1984 photo. brilliant. apparently MEARS couldn't find any photos of the 1988 milwaukee brewers. especially fitting considering MEARS is located in milwaukee.

amazing. you would think that if mears was unable to find a decent shot of molitor to use for their stylematch (which is indeed rather scary), they would have at least picked a photo of a brewers player sporting the same style of jersey as offered in the auction, a post-1985/6 jersey with the "rawlings" logo embroidered on the right sleeve.

in fact the 1984 photo of rollie fingers that mears decided to use for their "stylematch" is quite different than the shirt sold in the rea auction given that brewers shirts from that era appeared to be made of a different fabric, didn't have the rawlings logo on the sleeve, the tip of the "v" collar was reinforced with a horizontal stitch and the center pinstripe aligned perfectly with the tip of the collar's "v" - none of which is consistent with the auction shirt. btw, as a guy that doesn't collect jerseys, i found it interesting/impressive that so much attention to detail was paid to assembling pre-1987 brewers shirts given that photo after photo shows the center pinstripe aligned perfectly with the collar's "v" - just couldn't be a coincidence, could it?

from left to right: the sans rawlings logo corbis image of fingers (1984) mears used, a corbis image of molitor from roughly the same era (i guess mears didn't come across this shot or they didn't want to use it because there's no number on the shirt), the pre-1986/7 reinforced collar and perfectly aligned center pinstripe and, to the right of the red line, two shots of the auction jersey (btw, what's up with the "fringe" around the auction collar?)

here's an interesting one: http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...2008/1412.html

it's a 1988 molitor jersey graded A8 and "..consigned to this auction directly from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticators David Bushing and/or Troy Kinunen". A5 + 3 points for "matching the characteristics of known Molitor game jerseys". ordinarily, "The highest grade a post-1987 jersey can obtain without team or player documentation, or verifiable provenance, or a combination of known distinct player specific traits is an A5."

so in this case, the molitor jersey apparently has some "known player characteristics" which warrant the 3 pt bump. what are the characteristics? the jersey doesn't seem to have any unique customizations. the only thing i can see is the statement on the LOO that "All known Molitor jerseys from this era are size 42".
correct size qualifies for a 3 pt bump over and above the A5 which troy said has to be of the correct size anyway? wait a minute here. the A5 definition requires a jersey to be the correct size. if it weren't, it wouldn't even get an A5. that is, correct size is already built in to the A5.

typically, the 3 pts awarded for "known player characteristics" would be for:

"Up to 3 points awarded for the following (post-1987 only):

• Customized sleeves
• Tailoring of side panels
• Shortened tails
• Added crotch pieces
• Team repairs
• Extra length
• Other team customizations"

those are all unique customizations, the molitor jersey has none of them, and i don't see "correct size" being listed as an option.

secondly, if any post-1987 A5 jersey can have 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size then why didn't MEARS add 3 pts to all of the 50+2 A5 lebron jerseys they've evaluated?

as dave bushing said: "Given that 33 of the A5 jerseys were size 50 and 7 were size 52 which if I do my math right is just over 75% of those examined were true to documented game worn sizes". so a bushing & kinunen-owned molitor A5 gets 3 pts added to it simply for being the correct size yet 33 lebron A5 jerseys which are a photo-verified correct size 50 remain A5s and do not become A8s like troy and dave's molitor?

and again, this seems to yet another bushing & kinunen-owned jersey with a "..large circular stain (eight inches in diameter) that is visible on both the front and back" that has had 0 points removed, going against their own grading policy that specifies:

"½ to 5 points subtracted for the following (determined solely by authenticator):

• Fading or staining (minor to abused)"

i guess the authenticator didn't feel like removing even 1/2 pt for a "large, 8" stain visible on both front and back" on his own jersey.

given that the A5 already has the correct size built into it and the jersey had a large stain, it seems to me that it should've been graded A3-A4. i'm not sure an A3 '88 molitor would've sold for over $3800 though.

you know rudy, i really hope that forum members and forum visitors give this portion of your post a careful read given that it clearly illustrates the truly subjective nature (and ultimately inherently flawed nature) of mears' grading system.

btw what's also interesting about the molitor a8 grade is that it shows that a post-87 item can achieve this grade via one of two avenues: the item can start as an a5 (no provenance) and can be awarded additional points or it can start as an a10 (with provenance) and be deducted points (elway jersey). this of course creates a situation where an item with zero provenance can trump a shirt with "rock solid" provenance (an a5 awarded 3 points earns an a8 , while an a10 that's deducted 3 points earns an a7 - sign me up for this!).

...

[kingjammy24]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

..in fact the 1984 photo of rollie fingers that mears decided to use for their "stylematch" is quite different than the shirt sold in the rea auction...

the 1988 REA shirt was made by rawlings. the shirt in the 1984 "stylematch" was made by sand-knit. doesn't everyone stylematch rawlings shirts from pics of sandknit jerseys four years prior?

it just seems like every other MEARS "stylematch" shows that MEARS spent zero time and effort finding an actual stylematch. it's disturbing on many levels. mainly because a proper stylematch builds the foundation for any sort of authentication. it's also disturbing because dave grob has railed numerous times against others doing sloppy photomatching yet his own firm leads the league in sloppy stylematching.

rudy.

[aeneas01]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

the 1988 REA shirt was made by rawlings. the shirt in the 1984 "stylematch" was made by sand-knit. doesn't everyone stylematch rawlings shirts from pics of sandknit jerseys four years prior?

it just seems like every other MEARS "stylematch" shows that MEARS spent zero time and effort finding an actual stylematch. it's disturbing on many levels. mainly because a proper stylematch builds the foundation for any sort of authentication. it's also disturbing because dave grob has railed numerous times against others doing sloppy photomatching yet his own firm leads the league in sloppy stylematching.

yet, ironically, dave grob has written many interesting pieces regarding the importance of "imagery analysis" - one has to wonder what relevance a reference to a jersey manufactured by a different company, 4 years removed from the shirt in question, has to do with the imagery analysis process.

if i were a paid authenticator hired to offer my opinion on a terry bradshaw clear shell gamer up for auction (right photo), would it be understandable/acceptable if i referenced the photo on the left as an example of a stylematch - a photo of an entirely different player, wearing and entirely different helmet model, from an entirely different season? isn't this exactly what mears did in this case, or am i missing something?



given the many mears "stylematch" snafus that have been discussed (and i can only wonder what would be revealed if mears opened up their letters with stylematch references to public scrutiny), i think it's fair to ask mears exactly what there is about these photo references they find relevant to the authentication process. or is this just a matter of sloppy work, perhaps untrained personnel, or a recurring disregard for details with the assumption that the fine print (read photo references) will go unnoticed?

i'm reminded of a barry bonds "stylematch" where mears referenced a photo showing bonds wearing a completely different jersey - different manufacturer, different shoulder/sleeve seams (the photo showed set-in sleeves while the auction jersey was a butterfly seam). i mention this in light of a dave grob article on "iimagery analysis" that i came across - in part:

"For set-in sleeves, pay attention to how the jersey in the picture is constructed. By this I mean that is the front half of the jersey fabric sewn over the rear half or is the rear half sewn over the front half. This subtle detail can provide insights as to who manufactured the jersey... you may be dealing with a salesman sample from another manufacturer as these are frequently made up for a teams star player of the day."

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=2061&highlight=%22imagery+analysis%22

wow.

regarding a5 shirts and post-'87 shirts - as i mentioned in a previous post, a collector submitted an elway gamer to mears which mears considered an a10 due to provenance and other attributes, but graded it an a8 due to two points being deducted for post game use alterations. the collector was subsequently upset that rea didn't list the shirt with "game used" in the title as he he felt this negatively impacted the final (very low) hammer price. taking a look at rea auctions for this year and all of 2008, i discovered that rea has never listed a post-'87 shirt with a grade below a10 as "game used" - apparently rea reserves the "game used" title for only post-'87 a10 shirts. something to consider when thinking about listing a sub a10 jersey with rea i would imagine - and something i would think rea would want to make clear to their consignors (assuming they already don't).

dave bushing recently wrote:

"If MEARS does a letter that says "cannot authenticate, index bat, store model, A1, Pro Cut, or Piece of crap" , just claim you don't understand, it is all too confusing, and label it game worn/used. If you are wrong and called to the carpet, simply blame MEARS complicated grading system."

as i mentioned before, i don't think there would be anything confusing about this sort of approach nor do i think mears would be "called to the carpet". but i do believe mears could expect the following type of results if they chose to describe some of their a5's more accurately as they did in this case:



btw i still can't wrap my head around this a5 thing - a shirt like the one above that clearly never saw barkley's back in a game, is graded the same as post-'87 authentic gamer without provenance. mama mia!

but, hey, as bushing says:

"I think the end goal for everyone is to make sure that someone buying an A5 knows that at best , he has a perfect game style shirt with no verifiable provenance and at worst, they have a shirt that matches all of the proper tagging as found on a verified gamer but might not have a verified size or some of the special customizations that might be found on a verified gamer but that they in no way can consider an A5 a documented game worn jersey."

actually that last part should read "...but that they in no way can consider an a5 a documented game worn or game issued jersey"...

...

[kingjammy24]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=651

"Lot #1412 In the REA Auction by Dave Grob
Below is the text of an e-mail sent to both Troy Kinunen and Rob Lifson earlier this week.

Gentlemen,

In my opinion, this jersey was not graded in accordance with our criteria and policies for post 1987 period stars or Hall of Famers. There are no customizations that are readily apparent on the jersey. In 1988, Rawlings did in fact record customizations with supplemental tagging for both body taper and length issues. As you can see from the image attached, this includes products provided to the Milwaukee Brewers.

The winning bidder needs to be contacted and informed of this and that unless I can be shown some compelling and objective reason why the jersey should warrant a grade other than A5, the letter currently written on the jersey is to be rescinded and the jersey is to be recorded as an A5 in the MEARS data base.

If the intent is to award +3 points based on "player characteristics," then those must be things that can be directly attributed to Paul Molitor in an objective and defendable manner. As such they are not things like general use and wear unless they are manifest on the jersey in a manner or pattern that is distinctive to Molitor.

Please know I will be making this e-mail and the images provided public. My intent is not to embarrass anyone, but I need to make sure this issue is not perceived as being ignored. Additionally, this is intended to provide public clarification as to how the grading criteria is to be addressed and implemented in the future.

I look forward to your cooperation in this matter. I will publish this note and images on Wednesday the 3rd of June in the MEARS Current News Section.

v/r

Dave"

i'd argue the piece should be an A4. A5 - 1 pt for the stain.

rudy.

[sportscentury]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

Reid- Thanks for the suggestion about sending the jersey to MeiGray to see if they can photomatch it. I might just do that.

.

Reed, would you please send me scans of your KG? I'm trying to build a KG photo-library. I used to have tons of early KG scans but they were lost when my old computer died. Thank you. rgf2@hotmail.com

[Texans]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

so that MEARS doesn't feel as if it's being unfairly singled out, here's a nice one:

http://www.vintageauthentics.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=105276039&prmenbr=57735959&aunbr=105622749

54+4! lou gives it a 9.5 on the lampson-o-meter.

rudy.

Wow a Lebron All Star Game Used Jersey for $1700. Thats a great deal. lol


Jojo

[sportscentury]

Re: Lebron jersey - A5

Wow a Lebron All Star Game Used Jersey for $1700. Thats a great deal. lol


Jojo

The real one is a $15,000-20,000 jersey. Not as bad as their recent Drexler debacle, though, which had tags that read "Game Issued" and "Not Good." It really doesn't get funnier than that!