MLB Authentication, WHY BOTHER?

[AWA85]

Well it is that time again where the Cincinnati Redsfest has come and gone and many of the game used jerseys, bats, helmets and hats are showing up in fan's collections. I was amazed that the hundreds of items all held the mlb authentication hologram, and like many other Reds collectors were pumped to see some of these great items listed in the MLB database. Well a few weeks went by and still no entries were listed for the items sold at Redsfest.

After contacting somebody at MLB, I was told all but a few items would be entered today. As hours slipped by I began punching in a few numbers to items I have seen. Much to my surprise the MLB authenticator put in extremely poor quality work once again. Majority of items are listed as nothing more then TEAM ISSUED. Bravo MLB and your employed staff.... items with pine tar covering the brim of hats, wash tags that are barely readable, and pants that Kyle Hess wouldn't touch all are listed as TEAM ISSUED.

I am sure the authenticator could not verify that each item was worn since they did not see the items come off the player or field but if they are going to the trouble of issuing a hologram as TEAM ISSUED, why bother?!?! Every collector that I have spoken to is furious about this, as the items lose personal value and financial value instantly. Why even bother having MLB issue holograms if this is the quality of work that is put in by the authenticator.

I really am starting to believe that the regional authenticator or MLB staff member in the Cincinnati area, just does not "get it". For years, Reds items have been coming up as ISSUED or listed that an item is only signed when it has clearly been worn to death and comes straight from the team. This isn't rocket science, and I am not saying every item should be listed as game used but this laziness and incorrectness ruined a lot of items for the collectors.

Guess, the Cincinnati area is not as lucky as some of the other regions who authenticate the exact pitch location and outcome of the play. For now I am going to wonder why my Nick Masset hat has sweat stains, a number written inside, and the inside band cut out as a customization and my latest Stubbs jersey has a property and wash tag that can barely be read remains to be listed as ISSUED.

If you can't put full effort in, why bother trying.

[Chris78]

The 2009 Phillies jerseys at their annual Holiday sale this year had the MLB authentication sticker on them as well. All of the jerseys said team-issued as well. I could tell that some of them were game used.

The only thing I see that is positive about the sticker is that you know that it came from the team.

Chris

[CampWest]

Without really strict standards the authentication would not mean anything either. Some times their process and due diligence requires that they cannot call something game used even though all evidence points to such. The alternative, as you seem to be proposing, is loosening "GAME USED" standard and applying subjective rationale to items. Frankly, I've seen some items that are completely trashed that never saw a game (such as BP only bats).

While it sucks that sometimes things are not fully authenticated on MLB database, I prefer that their standards remain high and tight. I like that more than somebody applying their own bias and subjectivity to the process. A sterile, unbiased, objective basis is the ideal standard.

[rdeversole]

Yeah it's QUITE a mess. I would say this episode will hurt collectors opinion of MLB authentication, which is a real shame. I just checked everything I have and EVERYTHING on ebay from other sellers and dealers. I've had only 4 items combined pop up in the database as game used, all game used in the NLDS.

When I heard of how bad it was going and started to check, you could say I was worried. I purchased a 2010 Votto jersey for a decent amount of money and was imagining this bungling of authentication might really hit me. I checked that last out of my items and luckily I didn't get screwed on that one.



So what happens now? The Reds advertised these as game used and they look game used and it's obvious that the added MLB authentication might make somebody more at ease to purchase an item, so this seems somewhat unethical even if it was completely unintentional. Something has to happen. Even though I wouldn't want to return anything, I think they should allow returns (not sure if the did already) and attempt to correct some of the mistakes. Although, I have no idea how they could pull that off.

[sox83cubs84]

To me, if a third-party authenticator like MEARS can correctly describe an item that didn't come directly off the player's back as "game used", then MLB should be able to do it, as well...at least on well-worn items such as what previous posts have described.

Dave Miedema

[mbrieve]

Without really strict standards the authentication would not mean anything either. Some times their process and due diligence requires that they cannot call something game used even though all evidence points to such. The alternative, as you seem to be proposing, is loosening "GAME USED" standard and applying subjective rationale to items. Frankly, I've seen some items that are completely trashed that never saw a game (such as BP only bats).

While it sucks that sometimes things are not fully authenticated on MLB database, I prefer that their standards remain high and tight. I like that more than somebody applying their own bias and subjectivity to the process. A sterile, unbiased, objective basis is the ideal standard.

Co-sign

[CampWest]

Are those third party authenticators 100% accurate?
Absolutely not. Greater than 95% accurate? probably.

I've seen Mears authenticate a 86-89 George Brett Bat as GAME USED 8, with a #9 on the knob. George Brett never wore the #9.

MEARS' reply, "Huh, we totally didn't see that."

So, again, rather than relying on the potentially biased opinion of one authenticator -- who may have personal profit at stake or other factors compromising their integrity -- I prefer the unbiased, objective, high standards of MLB Authenticated game used. The only thing they call game used is stuff thats taken directly off the field. Thats as iron clad as you can get next to a definitive photo match. If they didnt take it off the field they don't call it GAME USED.

Had MEARS done their job accurately it was a $200-250 Brett bat used by Jamie Quirk, instead they issued a bad authentication and listed in their own auction a $2500 George Brett bat (GU8).

MLB could just assign GAME USED on a loose standard, but then they lose that high standard that makes them so much better than an after-market authenticator... See this is what's wrong in the world, everybody wants to lower their standards to a "good enough / passes the smell test". MLB admits their is GU stuff thats listed as issued and I praise them for sticking to their standards, even when I have items I know were game used listed as issued.

Sometimes high standards omit some things unfairly, but that standard prevents items from getting into the group that don't belong in the group.

I guarantee you would be much more upset about false "Game used" categorizations... This is one case where you can't have it both ways. You can't loosen standards and expect a perfect result.

[Texstros]

In my opinion - very well said!!

Are those third party authenticators 100% accurate?
Absolutely not. Greater than 95% accurate? probably.

I've seen Mears authenticate a 86-89 George Brett Bat as GAME USED 8, with a #9 on the knob. George Brett never wore the #9.

MEARS' reply, "Huh, we totally didn't see that."

So, again, rather than relying on the potentially biased opinion of one authenticator -- who may have personal profit at stake or other factors compromising their integrity -- I prefer the unbiased, objective, high standards of MLB Authenticated game used. The only thing they call game used is stuff thats taken directly off the field. Thats as iron clad as you can get next to a definitive photo match. If they didnt take it off the field they don't call it GAME USED.

Had MEARS done their job accurately it was a $200-250 Brett bat used by Jamie Quirk, instead they issued a bad authentication and listed in their own auction a $2500 George Brett bat (GU8).

MLB could just assign GAME USED on a loose standard, but then they lose that high standard that makes them so much better than an after-market authenticator... See this is what's wrong in the world, everybody wants to lower their standards to a "good enough / passes the smell test". MLB admits their is GU stuff thats listed as issued and I praise them for sticking to their standards, even when I have items I know were game used listed as issued.

Sometimes high standards omit some things unfairly, but that standard prevents items from getting into the group that don't belong in the group.

I guarantee you would be much more upset about false "Game used" categorizations... This is one case where you can't have it both ways. You can't loosen standards and expect a perfect result.

[jbsportstuff]

The problem here is that someone didn't do their job. It's either on the Reds or it's on MLB as to when these items were authenticated. If the Reds knew that MLB was to ONLY authenticate stuff that they take "off the field" then they should have had a rep there doing their job at the end of the season KNOWING that they were going to sell this stuff at Redsfest.

If MLB ONLY authenticates stuff that is taken directly off the field, then the Reds screwed this one up BIG TIME. However, I cannot buy that MLB only authenticates stuff that is directly taken off the field. Why you ask??? Because there is an Edison Volquez currently on EBAY that is MLB certified GAME USED NLCS that is a HOME jersey. Sorry...but Edison only pitched in game ONE where the game was AT Philly. So this jersey could have not been game used in the NLCS.

[schubert1970]

I belive the Giants have done the same thing with Team Issued being the primary tagging.

This is my own opinion....I've been so skeptical about game used stuff, that if I can't photo match it, I won't purchse it. I don't care who authenticated it, photo matching is the only thing that gives me a piece of mind.

my .02