Re: Authentcity Question For CollegeJersey.com
gamehawk,
I do agree with you on Lampson and we both have the same view. I personally won't touch anything that he's signed off on for a variety of reasons.
That said, I am insulted that you would suggest that I couldn't provide an unbiased opinion based on who it came from. I have done business with Scott and collegejersey.com on numerous occasions and have yet to find an issue at all, but by no means am I strictly beholden to him/them. They don't employ me or pay me, so there's no company line to toe. I collect college jerseys and have four years (this coming season will be #5) of equipment room experience, and not one of those years was I employed by an authenticator or dealer or private collector.
I think it's a bit unfair to take this particular discussion and try to put Scott and CJ.com into the same realm as Grey Flannel, Lou Lampson, and others who are more than a bit shady. I have yet to see someone be able to make an accusation regarding the actual AUTHENTICITY (not semantics) of a CJ.com item that has been able to stick. I can't look at a single case and say "Boy, those guys exploit their name to really rail collectors over the table" like can be done with "the others". So to treat this like it's a huge watershed when it's a semantics issue is absurd.
But, as I suggested, start digging through hours of film and see if there's a better explanation for this. It's entirely possible that Elliott had a particular kind of jersey the first two games (that he didn't play in) and a different one later on in the season. This is actually somewhat common; I saw a Peerless Price jersey once that was used in an uncommonly cold game that was unlike every other jersey I'd seen from that year except one from a backup lineman. I've also seen a few that are of a lighter material being used for one game due to particular conditions. There was one NHL player who had to have his jersey first specially treated to prevent aggravating a skin condition. I once coached a guy (football) who wore a jersey that ended up completely destroyed and couldn't even be worn in a playoff game. We had his backup jersey, so he wore that....he then got injured on the opening kickoff and was done for the day. That ended up being a loss and the final game of the year. Guess what? Game worn.
So it's entirely possible that Elliott wore a jersey those first two games while not playing (which, according to the CJ.com glossary, is still game-used) and switched to a different one for one reason or another for the last games where he did play. As easy as it is to be cynical in this hobby, I'd prefer to look to there being a perfectly reasonable explanation in a case involving someone who has built a positive reputation in a short period of time.
As an aside, Mike Grueber has been collecting longer than a few people on here have been alive and literally is an encyclopedia of sport knowledge both major and obscure. He's one of the few guys whose word I would put absolute faith in.
gamehawk,
I do agree with you on Lampson and we both have the same view. I personally won't touch anything that he's signed off on for a variety of reasons.
That said, I am insulted that you would suggest that I couldn't provide an unbiased opinion based on who it came from. I have done business with Scott and collegejersey.com on numerous occasions and have yet to find an issue at all, but by no means am I strictly beholden to him/them. They don't employ me or pay me, so there's no company line to toe. I collect college jerseys and have four years (this coming season will be #5) of equipment room experience, and not one of those years was I employed by an authenticator or dealer or private collector.
I think it's a bit unfair to take this particular discussion and try to put Scott and CJ.com into the same realm as Grey Flannel, Lou Lampson, and others who are more than a bit shady. I have yet to see someone be able to make an accusation regarding the actual AUTHENTICITY (not semantics) of a CJ.com item that has been able to stick. I can't look at a single case and say "Boy, those guys exploit their name to really rail collectors over the table" like can be done with "the others". So to treat this like it's a huge watershed when it's a semantics issue is absurd.
But, as I suggested, start digging through hours of film and see if there's a better explanation for this. It's entirely possible that Elliott had a particular kind of jersey the first two games (that he didn't play in) and a different one later on in the season. This is actually somewhat common; I saw a Peerless Price jersey once that was used in an uncommonly cold game that was unlike every other jersey I'd seen from that year except one from a backup lineman. I've also seen a few that are of a lighter material being used for one game due to particular conditions. There was one NHL player who had to have his jersey first specially treated to prevent aggravating a skin condition. I once coached a guy (football) who wore a jersey that ended up completely destroyed and couldn't even be worn in a playoff game. We had his backup jersey, so he wore that....he then got injured on the opening kickoff and was done for the day. That ended up being a loss and the final game of the year. Guess what? Game worn.
So it's entirely possible that Elliott wore a jersey those first two games while not playing (which, according to the CJ.com glossary, is still game-used) and switched to a different one for one reason or another for the last games where he did play. As easy as it is to be cynical in this hobby, I'd prefer to look to there being a perfectly reasonable explanation in a case involving someone who has built a positive reputation in a short period of time.
As an aside, Mike Grueber has been collecting longer than a few people on here have been alive and literally is an encyclopedia of sport knowledge both major and obscure. He's one of the few guys whose word I would put absolute faith in.
Comment