hello,
The "PSI Montana on Ebay" thread seems to have gone off on a photo-matching tangent so I thought it might be good to start a new thread. Seeing as how there's been some commotion over the use of photos, I thought I'd explain the value I see in them. I see photo analysis as a perfect replacement for having any sort of hobby knowledge. Har har! Seriously though, I think it goes without saying that nobody here is foolish enough to think this is a hobby of nothing more than looking at photos. Obviously it's 'just another step', but I think it's a step with some uniquely valuable advantages.

Firstly, it's more often than not, a detail rich, irrefutable source of authority regarding certain aspects. Unlike people, photos don't lie. It's true they can be misinterpreted but that's 'user error'. If you find a photo of Cal Ripken wearing a St.Pats jersey in a game, then irrefutably it means he wore a St.Pats jersey in a game, end of story. Photos have no profit motive, they can be dated, and they show details too numerous for the human memory to remember over time. I have yet to meet a "professional" authenticator with such a good memory, for example, that they can tell me what bat Joe Carter used in the 1993 All Star Game. This is a hobby of subtle details. Photos make discovering some of these details possible without having to rely on a person's "credibility", motives, or memory.

The other valuable advantage is their ability, with the right software, to physically 'measure' and compare elements that are too fine to accurately see with an unaided view. Forgeries are becoming increasingly refined and regardless of one's "industry cred", it's impossible to memorize the subleties of every single font and be able to spot them perfectly without a visual aid. It's impossible to look at a 1991 Ruben Sierra jersey on Ebay, for example, and be able to tell if the fonts are perfect without a mechanism to compare the details and ratios to a legitimate version.

At any rate, I'm unsure about the difference between an "amateur authenticator" and a "professional authenticator". I do know far more damage is caused by self-professed "professionals" who consistently (and admittedly) fail to do the necessary research before collecting the profits for their $2000 jerseys than by "amateurs" who post too many pics on a forum.

Patrick: This is one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read on this board: "..pointing out inconsistancies in someone's item--which you have no interest in owning--by using barely relevant exemplar photos which prove nothing, qualifies as "bashing".."
Is there any relevance whatsoever between a person's lack of interest in owning a jersey and their pointing out inconsistancies in it?
Are you at all aware that 99% of the comments regarding inconsistances here are from helpful, insightful forum members who themselves "have no interesting in owning" the jersey being discussed?
Also, the "junior authenticator" in me was unaware that 20 photos from the mid-late 80's of joe montana are "barely relevant" to a "late 80's joe montana" jersey. (Wilson or Russell, the "1"'s in all of the getty photos are consistant with each other.)

While it's wonderfully ideal to only make authentication determinations with first-hand inspections, it's pretty unrealistic unless you plan on either:
a) purchasing all of your jerseys from a guy 2 blocks away or
b) travelling to every seller, regardless of distance or cost
Reality forces us "photo-matching junior authenticators" to make determinations while sitting at a computer. I can see it now:
Airfare to go see a jersey in NY: $300
Hotel for 1 day: $200
Rental car: $30
Realizing the $250 jersey you spent over $500 to go and see
turned out to be a fake: Priceless

bashful,

Rudy.