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

[indyred]

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



Rock solid match, jersey picture of Portis on JO Site

[mvandor]

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

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

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]

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

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

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.

[ndevlin]

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

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.

All of which should have been decided and done before these auctions even started.

[skipcarayislegend]

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

I agree that it's confusing as to why a seller would NOT include photomatch proof if it exists. In fact, I would prefer to see multiple game images over multiple item details if conclusive in-action images are that abundant. If GUU or Lelands or MEARS shows me the photomatch but tells me it's tagged properly and carries an LOA from Steiner, MLB or whomever, I'll believe you. We're not talking about AMI or Coach's Corner here.

I'm reiterating, but it almost seems as if LOAs and provenance and tagging carry more weight than a conclusive photomatch. I really doubt that's case with GUU but you sometimes have to wonder. IMO, JOsports would rather see its brand promoted over indisputable evidence of game use. Not a knock on JOS, but why else treat game photos as if they're less valuable than a piece of paper with a logo on it? It reminds me a little of when I see a g/u Yankees jersey up for auction and it's accompanied by letters from both Steiner and Lou Lampson. Only one of them really matters.

[otismalibu]

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

IMO, JOsports would rather see its brand promoted over indisputable evidence of game use.

I think most memorabilia sellers would want their brand to be so well respected, that it's as good as a photo match in the eyes of the buyers.

Ya can't photo match every piece, but you can write a letter on every one.

[bigtruck260]

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

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

It sure does. Jarrod's responses in some cases were childish. Rudy is a wealth of knowledge and gave some pretty detailed responses. As a collector and person who spends money on auctions like this one - it's his right to scrutinize things that don't seem to connect - after all, the whole purpose of this forum is to educate...

[aeneas01]

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

All of which should have been decided and done before these auctions even started.

if you read my last post i think you'll find that it was...

...

[kingjammy24]

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

"If GUU or Lelands or MEARS shows me the photomatch but tells me it's tagged properly and carries an LOA from Steiner, MLB or whomever, I'll believe you."

if it were 100% photomatched but it wasn't tagged properly, would you even care? i wouldn't.

collectors are mainly interested in tagging, fonts, size, provenance, etc only because they're using these things to ascertain whether the item was likely to have been game-used. however if you have a photomatch then you've conclusively proven game-use. as long as the jersey is all-original, then none of the other stuff matters. the photo likely even provides the date and location of use. the photomatch is the holy grail for everyone; consigners, bidders, and auction houses. to have one and deliberately choose not to show makes absolutely no sense.

it is not a limitation of the auction software when someone chooses to display a JO tag or a patch or an LOA over a photomatch. let's take the toughest of the photomatched lots; the clinton portis uniform. a tough one because it's not just 1 jersey. you've got the pants and the cleats as well and only 8 slots. here's what took up 3 slots:



pants shown closed, pants shown open. ?!? and the patch which was already shown in another pic. all of those were chosen over showing this:




here's what robert is essentially saying; he has irrefutable proof that the drew brees jersey was worn in a specific game. however, rather than show you that proof, he'd rather show you these:



why? because there are plenty of photomatch pics out there (you just need to find them). as if there aren't even more pics of brees wearing a "C" patch? the worst is the Romo. robert stated that the reason they didn't include the photomatch pics is because of photo limits imposed by the software. here is the Romo listing:



each lot gets 8 image slots. 2 of the Romo slots are empty. rather than show you the photomatch for the jersey, robert would rather just show nothing. in every instance, including the complete portis uniform, there was room for the photomatches. instead things like patches, LOAs, JO Sports tags, and even nothing/empty space was thought to be more important to consigners and bidders than irrefutable photo evidence of game-use. its unfortunate to see GUU go this route; to prioritize the marketing of JO Sports over showing matches on jerseys billed as being matched. on 5 jerseys billed as being photomatched, not a single photomatch was shown. conversely, there are 19 jerseys from JO Sports in this auction and in every single one, the JO Sports tags were shown.

rudy.

[TriplexXxSports]

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

on 5 jerseys billed as being photomatched, not a single photomatch was shown. conversely, there are 19 jerseys from JO Sports in this auction and in every single one, the JO Sports tags were shown.

rudy.

Rudy, I couldn't agree with you more. I am an interested collector that would like to hear some answers.

[gingi79]

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

Not bidding on them anyway but a Buyers Premium was described in prior auctions for covering things like listing times and RESEARCH. If you are charging a fee (which is stupid anyway in my opinion) for such services and not showing the research, isn't that contradictory?

I am not saying these items aren't photomatched by how can you charge a fee for the research that shows a photomatch and then expect us to do the research?

[earlywynnfan]

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

I agree with Matt and that porn guy, XXX.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[mvandor]

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

Things feel a bit different from the auction house side than it did a few months back when you were just a consumer like the rest of us, huh Robert?

Just teasin' a bit amigo...