MEARS' Evaluations Continue to Baffle...

[aeneas01]

R.E.A. does run post 1987 as game used, here's an example. there are "other" catagories they could be listed under.

we're talking about rea not using the term "game used" in the lot description title when listing post-'87, sub a10 shirts. your mcgwire example further illustrates the point given that rea described it as a "1997 Mark McGwire Oakland A's Home Jersey", not a "1997 Mark McGwire Game Used Oakland A's Home Jersey".

troy kinunen tried to claim that this was a "professional choice" exercised by rea. then troy admitted that rea was actually bound by a contractual agreement to word items (including lot titles) according to how mears described the items in their evaluations. so, apparently, it's mears that doesn't allow rea to describe post-'87, sub a10 shirts as "game used" in the lot title.

yet mears does it all of the time at their site, in their auction section and their items for sale section. why would mears feel that it was ok to describe post-'87, sub a10 shirts as "game used" in their lot titles but not ok for rea to do the same? especially when it comes to a5 type shirts? mears' policy guy, dave grob, thinks it's bush and has asked mears to quit - yet mears continues to do so.

some, perhaps even mears, would argue that excluding the term "game-used" in a lot description title is no big deal - well in the case of rea's last auction, a consignor's elway gamer (jersey) would not have shown up if a prospective buyer searched lot titles using term "game-used" - but mears' marino gamer would have.

i think it's pretty clear that having the term "game used" or "game worn" in the lot description title is advantageous to the consignor - tough to argue otherwise imo. in fact i think it's pretty clear that mears (and troy) understand that it's advantageous as well given mears listed a couple of a5 shirts without the term in one of their auctions (the shirts didn't sell), and then relisted them again in their next auction using the term "game used".

...

[aeneas01]

btw, in response to the discussion going on at the "lebron jersey-a5" thread, troy kinunen promised the following:

"I plan on writing an article about the purpose and the benefits of the A5 grade, as although not a perfect system, when proper understood, it offers the collective collecting community very important data that it can use to make informed collecting decisions."

that was close to two weeks ago and nothing yet. but when he does get around to it hopefully he will also address a) why mears continues to describe a5 style shirts for sale at their site as "game used" despite grob's valid concerns, b) why rea isn't allowed to describe shirts in the same manner (is it indeed due to a contractual agreement?) and c) why mears feels it's ok to edit an a5's lot title to include the term "game used" when it doesn't sell the first time around without this term included in the lot title.

...

[joelsabi]

btw, in response to the discussion going on at the "lebron jersey-a5" thread, troy kinunen promised the following:

[SIZE=2]"I plan on writing an article about the purpose and the benefits of the A5 grade, as although not a perfect system, when proper understood, it offers the collective collecting community very important data that it can use to make informed collecting decisions."

has this article been written yet on the A5 grade?