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

[ndevlin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

I agree with Matt and that porn guy, XXX.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[mvandor]

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...