Photo Match Must Be A Clear-cut Photo Match!

[3arod13]

I see many post where people are asking if others think it's a match. First, I think if you even have to do that, it's already questionable. Even then, I've see people agree it's a photo match, where I look at it and ask myself, "where is the match." A photo match must be a clear-cut match, in order for you to call it a photo match.

[metsbats]

I agree Tony. IMHO there must be at least several unique markings which will be unique to the item which can be matched. There will be cases where you have extra marks say on a bat due to subsequent use (ex. the Conforto 1st home run bat). I think getting several opinions is generally a good idea even when you are sure since some times as owners of the item we may start to see things we want to see to make it match. But to your point there have been cases where we just don't see clear matches hence the question "where is the match?"

[3arod13]

I agree Tony. IMHO there must be at least several unique markings which will be unique to the item which can be matched. There will be cases where you have extra marks say on a bat due to subsequent use (ex. the Conforto 1st home run bat). I think getting several opinions is generally a good idea even when you are sure since some times as owners of the item we may start to see things we want to see to make it match. But to your point there have been cases where we just don't see clear matches hence the question "where is the match?"

David, I agree! Believe me, when I photo match my stuff, I want to see what I want to see. I think we all do!