GUU: Romo/Portis/Bruce/Johnson/Ringo jerseys

[kingjammy24]

jarrod, one would never guess that you once worked for AMI.

"It's NOT MT JOB either"

when you consigned your items, did you tell chris that they were photomatched? its apparent you didn't give him the photomatches so i suppose the issue here is that GUU listed items as "PHOTOMATCHED" for which it had no actual photomatches at the time. disconcerting to say the least. i don't think chris or robert have any issues with posting photomatch photos; afterall, they did it for the boggs helmet they're currently selling.

"I dont have to supply any photos to the auction."

that's true. in which case, chris can remove "PHOTOMATCHED" title from your consignments.

"No where state "KINGJAMMY request if you state an item as photomatched then you must supply the photo""

right. if you state an item is photomatched, then it's not necessary to actually show the match. brilliant.

sort of like your $20k sanchez titled "PHOTOMATCHED" and there was no photomatch shown:

http://www.josportsco.com/view_produ...ProductID=2245

"I am going through all of my lots I consigned to find photomatches"

wait a minute. you're just doing that now? after the lots were already listed as having been "photomatched"?

chris, robert..really? list an item as "PHOTOMATCHED" and then after-the-fact hope to find a photomatch? when jarrod consigned his items how did you guys determine they were photomatched if, at the time, he hadn't provided you with photos?

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

"Wow, is this a confusing thread or what?"

mike, not really. in a nutshell, jarrod consigned jerseys to the auction. GUU listed them as "photomatched" even though at the time such matches apparently did not exist. (jarrod is in the process of finding them as we speak.)

what he's posting are simply the photos without any solid indication as to what the specific matches are. if you have a match, supply the photo. no photo, no match. common sense right? not for jarrod who is apparently under the impression that his items can be sold as "photomatched" but he is under no obligation to provide any photos.

jarrod, here's what a photomatch looks like: http://www.guuauctions.com/site/bid/...etauctionid=12

rob steinmetz apparently had the sense to know that if his helmet were called a photomatch, he'd have to provide the proof.

"If I was interested, I would definetly need to see the photo matched pictures."

you and every other sane collector. we're amateurs though. jarrod's the pro in all of this. really, i'm not being facetious. you and i are simply hobbyists. jarrod actually does this for a living.

"Why say the jerseys are photo matched without actually supplying the hard evidence? It just doesn't make sense."

no it doesn't make sense. although to jarrod it seems to make sense. in his words "I dont have to supply any photos to the auction. If they are photomatched then they are photomatched."

"I have to believe GUU has the photos and I look forward to seeing them"

if the matches were already done, jarrod would have them. he's looking for them and the ones he's posted so far are just the raw photos. on one of them he instructed me to "zoom in".

rudy.

[josports]

jarrod, one would never guess that you once worked for AMI.

"It's NOT MT JOB either"

Personal attacks now...typical from you.

The work was done pre auction and I was under the impression the auction staff was going to post the photos of the photo ID matches that were supplied. The auction staff is working on getting the matches up on the lots. Thanks for all your efforts and concerns and comments. Keep up the good work KING!! You are the man.

[5kRunner]

Could it be possible that GUU can't use Getty Images because they don't own the rights to them?

Just a question.

[kingjammy24]

Could it be possible that GUU can't use Getty Images because they don't own the rights to them?

Just a question.

Although I'm no attorney, it seems to me that in editing the photos to show the photomatches, GUU's use might fall into the category of Fair Use which stipulates that copyrighted works may be used, without permission, for the purposes of criticism, commentary, and/or parody. if you're discussing a jersey and use a getty photo to illustrate what you're talking about, i believe that constitutes Fair Use.

a long time ago, people here discussed Historic Auction's listings and used their photos. In reply, Historic said it wanted all of its auction photos removed from any GUU threads. the GUU discussions were completely in the realm of criticism and commentary. while i argued it constituted Fair Use, chris cavalier played it safe and removed them.

there's plenty of information available on Fair Use but here's a quick primer:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...pter9/9-a.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

rudy.

[indyred]

Rock solid match, jersey picture of Portis on JO Site

[mvandor]

Certainly, GUU is still feeling its way through the beginning stages of being an auction house. However, the criticism seems fair, if GUU is going to post that kind of a reference, they should - if they really want to exceed past industry norms as stated - post the supposed photomatches in support. And these standards should be equally exacting for their business partners as well as Joe Consignor.

BTW, disappointed JO didn't exercise more professional restraint in response. As a business partner, that reflects on GUU.

[aeneas01]

re: the Romo/Portis/Bruce/Johnson/Ringo jerseys in the current GUU auction. All of these jerseys are listed as being "PHOTOMATCHED".

1) what is the point of listing an item as "PHOTOMATCHED" and not providing the actual photomatch? if someone went to all the trouble of photomatching those jerseys, then why not post the photomatches so bidders can evaluate them and adjust their bids accordingly?

it was a decision based on the limitations of the new auction software (only allows 8 photos per lot) and the the consignor's input. i understood the consignor as wanting to use the limited number of image spaces to showcase the details of his lots (closeups, game wear, etc.) given how easy it was for any interested party to confirm that these lots were indeed photomatched (based on the provided game dates). after i confirmed these items could be easily photomatched, using the image reference numbers he supplied as well as the abundance of other online images available that qualified as photomatches, i agreed.

2) the jim ringo description and accompanying photos are confusing. the auction lists it as being "PHOTOMATCHED". again where is the photomatch? the description then reads "The jersey has been style matched to his 1958 Topps football card (#103)." is the jersey photomatched or stylematched?

we had originally planned to list this incredible jersey as photomatched based on consistent shoulder area repairs that can be seen in two vintage ringo topps cards (compared to the original cards, the lot scans understate how visible these repairs are to this area) but after much deliberation felt that the reference images just weren't sufficiently conclusive. as such we went with stylematched, which i believe it certainly is, but i dropped the ball on the lot title although i did amend the lot description. this has since been corrected.

secondly, it'd be unfair to slam MEARS for their sloppy stylematching and then claim that this photo is a stylematch: you can't even discern the fonts, the number of sleeve stripes or their thickness. ie: the very elements that define the "style" of a jersey. the GUU jersey has 3 sleeve stripes. the topps photo appears to show 2. i think this is most likely a case of the sleeves being folded and obscured in the topps photo but my point is that you can't tell conclusively. in the topps photo is he wearing a jersey with 3 sleeve stripes in a thin-thick-thin order as seen on the GUU jersey? are the fonts a match? if you can't tell from the photo, then the photo is not even a stylematch.

with all due respect, i really have to disagree here. we are not pointing to phantom stylematched photos that don't exist, or referencing specific getty images to support a claim that, if checked out, would prove to support no such thing. as i mentioned earlier, the software allows for only 8 images. conversely, there is an ocean of images available online that support this style of jersey worn by the packers during the era in question. that supports the colors, the three sleeve stripes, the font style, etc...

regarding the sleeve stripes you mentioned as an example - yes, only two stripes are visible in the photo supplied, a thin stripe and a wide stripe. yet i believe there's enough photo evidence in circulation to conclude, to support, conclusively, that the third stripe is hidden given ringo's "hiking" position in the photo. just as i believe there's enough photo evidence in circulation to conclude, to support, conclusively, that there's a number on the back of ringo's jersey in that picture as well.

Could it be possible that GUU can't use Getty Images because they don't own the rights to them? Just a question.

i agree with rudy. in fact i've actually called getty and wire image to ask about this very topic, auction houses (and ebayers) using their photos as reference material - they seemed as if they could care less...

mike, not really. in a nutshell, jarrod consigned jerseys to the auction. GUU listed them as "photomatched" even though at the time such matches apparently did not exist. (jarrod is in the process of finding them as we speak.)....

chris, robert..really? list an item as "PHOTOMATCHED" and then after-the-fact hope to find a photomatch? when jarrod consigned his items how did you guys determine they were photomatched if, at the time, he hadn't provided you with photos?

please refer to my first response.

...

[kingjammy24]

"it was a decision based on the limitations of the new auction software (only allows 8 photos per lot)"

the end game in this hobby, for every collector, is whether or not their piece is really game-used. there is nothing that settles the score in that regard as well as a photomatch. if you have a solid photomatch, then discussions of tagging, fonts, etc., are all superfluous. it is difficult to understand why then, if a consigner had a photomatched piece, that proof of the photomatch would not take priority over everything else. if an auction house told me it could only send me 1 photo and that photo could be of the tagging, front of the jersey, back of the jersey, LOA, or a photomatch guess which photo i, and every other collector, would take?

take the larry johnson jersey. there is 1 photo devoted entirely and only to the patch. the patch is already seen in the front shot of the jersey! is there any potential bidder that would rather see a closeup of the patch than an actual photomatch? what about the romo. you devote one photo to simply showing the steiner letter. again, if you have a photomatch, the steiner letter is irrelevant! there is noone who would take provenance over a photomatch. let's keep going to see how intelligent these decisions were. the bruce jersey; you devote 1 photo just to showing the JOSports tag. again, a photomatch is more important than provenance. provenance and ID tags and patches do not prove game-use. a photomatch does. it trumps everything.

"given how easy it was for any interested party to confirm that these lots were indeed photomatched (based on the provided game dates). after i confirmed these items could be easily photomatched, using the image reference numbers he supplied as well as the abundance of other online images available, i agreed."

you'll sell a lot as "PHOTOMATCHED", not provide the match, and instead tell bidders that the pics are out there and they can match it themselves? if you are selling an item as "photomatched" and collecting the respective premiums, then the onus is upon you to do the work. sell what you say you're selling. if you say you're selling a photomatch, then sell a damn photomatch and not an excuse as to why don't have one.

secondly, even if you did require bidders to do their own photomatching (even though they're paying for a photomatched piece), you didn't even include the image locations and specific image numbers! the assumption being that every bidder must necessarily be familiar with the image sources out there and how to photomatch? so they buy a piece listed as "PHOTOMATCHED" and then are required to go out, hunt for photos, and match it themselves? point blank, if a bidder bids on and pays for a photomatched piece, then its up to you to provide the photomatch.

"or referencing specific getty images to support a claim that, if checked out, would prove to support no such thing."

you did exactly that only with a 1958 topps card. verbatim, you said "The jersey has been style matched to his 1958 Topps football card". in fact, his 1958 topps card is not a stylematch. this is exactly what mears does when they point to getty photos that do not provide enough information to declare a stylematch.

the auction began on the 22nd. it is now the 26th. none of the jerseys listed as "PHOTOMATCHED" show any photomatches. if you aren't going to do the work, then remove the "PHOTOMATCHED" titles. sell what you say you're selling.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

re: the ringo photomatch

jarrod said: "note the two reapairs extending on the left shoulder from jersey photos and the 58 card. Now you have a better match on the 1959 Topps card. You are good at this...take a 1959 topps card zoom in on the left sleeve numeral "5" at the end of the "5". You can see the end of the 5 has a cut/repair through it same as the jersey... open your eyes they are photomatched it is plain as day"

robert said: "...after much deliberation felt that the reference images just weren't sufficiently conclusive."

and there, in a nutshell, is the problem with not showing the actual match for bidders to see. one man says "open your eyes, they are photomatched it is plain as day" and another says it's not "sufficiently conclusive". when you don't post the actual match for people to make their own determination, how are they supposed to know whether it really is a match? apparently what jarrod feels is "solid" is not solid under robert's standards. everyone has seen sloppy matches on here. when you don't post the match, how are bidders supposed to know if its sloppy or solid?; whether they're getting a "jarrod-quality" match or a "robert quality" match?


rudy.