The Jim Brown Jersey

[both-teams-played-hard]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

I personally don't like autographed jerseys. I mean, if Brown actually wore the jersey in a game...what good is an autograph? How about a close-up photo-match of a stain, loose thread or repair mark? I think the autograph is nothing more than graffiti. He wore it right? Jim Brown is not an authenticator or jersey expert. But then again, who actually is?

[kingjammy24]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

well i've just watched a pretty incredible video courtesy of doug allen and mastro: http://live.mastroauctions.com/index...e&CurrentRow=1

the pertinent part is where doug allen says:

"..what's great is the provenance not only is that you can photomatch (unintelligible) pictures of jim brown wearing this particular uniform but on top of that its signed by him and it says 'game used' in his hand so what better way to say that 'i wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform' than a player effectively giving his own stamp of approval on the provenance by signing it and signing it as 'game used'."

unbelievably, despite having the jersey in hand, doug somehow turns a vague "game jersey" inscription into a (more lucrative) "game used" inscription. in fact, the jersey does not say "game used" and there is a world of difference between a "game jersey" inscription that brown signed 40 yrs after he last saw this shirt and a "game used" inscription that would be his "stamp of approval" that the shirt really is game used. the NFL fan shop sells what it calls "game jerseys". god only knows what brown meant by "game jersey". perhaps he meant "game style jersey". leave it to doug to twist it into "game used" and practically say that brown endorsed the jersey as one he wore. nowhere on the shirt did brown write anything close to "i wore this uniform and it's a game used uniform" in the bizarre way that doug interprets brown's vague inscription. twist it and twist it and maybe it'll be what you want it to be i guess.

while i personally don't trust doug with much, i'd at least trusted that he was able to read and apparently that was overly ambitious on my end. however, good news all around because according to what doug said, he's photomatched this particular jersey. apparently he's done even better than MEARS who simply managed to stylematch it to some promo photos. i look forward to seeing the photomatch.

doug also says that "this uniform doesn't have significant game use but it's picture-perfect in every other attribute." once again, the A10 grade requires "optimal wear".

rudy.

[G1X]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

Hi genius,

That's a sharp looking jersey! The New York Titans 1961 and 1962 jerseys were slightly different than your Pitt Panthers jersey. Here are the main differences:

1. The shoulder inserts on the Titans' jerseys were the "reverse" of your Pitt jersey. The Titans had a single gold stripe in the middle bordered on each side by white stripes.
2. The Titans had a cuff at the end of the sleeves that had white and gold striping.
3. The Titans jerseys were a darker blue with old-gold numbers and stripes. Your Pitt jersey appears lighter with yellow-gold numbers and stripes (but that might be due to the lighting/flash of your photo).

At the bottom is a 1962 Fleer card with a good view of the Titans jerseys (and the grandstands of the old Polo Grounds). There are a number of Titans in the '62 set. The Titans wore this style in 1961 and 1962. In their inaugural season in 1960, the blue jerseys had no shoulder inserts or stripes. When they changed their name in 1963 to the Jets, they changed their color scheme to green and white.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net
Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

[genius]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

I saw that Iowa durene, was a dead-ringer for a Steelers 50's durene. Only giveaway was the Sand Knit tag which if I remember correctly was from an Iowa or Nebraska distributor. I would buy that though if someone on here has it!

I posted these photos in another thread but the below jersey which I thought might have been a New York Titans jersey turned out to be University of Pittsburgh 1965. Found a photo match. I've wondered though whether this set of jerseys came from the Titans/Jets as the jerseys are identical. Would be interesting to prove that some jerseys actually did go from pro to college to H/S. Sorry for the o/t.

[G1X]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

Hi Robert,

First, thanks for placing this discussion into a separate thread. There are not a whole lot of discussions that are strictly about football jerseys, especially the pre-2000 era, so this is very refreshing from that standpoint. Hopefully, it will stay on the course of being educational.

To clarify about practice use, some teams were known to take their jerseys from previous seasons and use them in practice and training camp. To my knowledge, teams did not use the current season's jerseys in both practice and games, so if a player tossed his jersey into the stands after the season finale, the wear and repairs were most likely from that season (or previous seasons if the jersey had been recycled).

A few quick documentations of teams that reused durene jerseys in practice or camp at some point are the early 1970s Cowboys, the mid-1960s Jets, and the Detroit Lions. The Cowboys' use of old game jerseys in practice is well-documented in the 1973 book "The Gladiators". The Cowboys apparently stripped the plates off the back before reusing them in camp (assuming that there were plates on the back to begin with as NFC teams didn't begin using name-on-back until 1970). In Joe Namath's book "Namath" that was published in 2006, the Jets can be seen in two photos on page 155 in what appears to be training camp practice from the mid-1960s where they are wearing game jerseys. However, turn the page, and it looks like they are wearing solid color sweatshirts in a camp practice. When I made a bulk buy from the Lions in 1999, their equipment manager (who had been working for the team since the early 1970s) said that they didn't start using separate practice jerseys until sometime in the 1980s. I have always made the assumption that there aren't a whole lot of older jerseys to be found simply because teams reused them in practice until they wore out.

As for your question about telling the difference between "practice" repairs and "game" repairs, there should be no difference assuming that the same person made the repairs. That is the problem in my viewpoint. For example, I have a nice Dave Edwards Dallas Cowboys durene jersey from the early 1970s with a ton of repairs. The jersey was most likely game used as there are obvious signs that a nameplate was on the back. With the nameplate having been removed, I am convinced that the jersey was reused in practice based on the photos in "The Galdiators". So the question that always crosses my mind is whether most of the abuse came from practice wear or game wear. If the jersey was worn for one season but used everyday in camp for six weeks, I have to ask myself that question. Worse, the jersey may have never been put into game action (served as a spare or emergency jersey) and only saw practice action.

To take this a little further and make all durene collectors a little more uncomfortable , let's use two Washington Redskins who went on to the Hall of Fame as an example. In 1964, the 'Skins draft included both Charley Taylor and Paul Krausse. The 'Skins used the same style of burgundy jerseys for most of the 1960s. For this discussion, let's assume that the 'Skins resued previous seasons' jerseys in practice and training camp. The often unanswerable questions are these:

1. Did the wear and repairs on the #42 and #22 jerseys come from Taylor and Krausse in game action?
2. Did the wear and repairs come only from practice and camp after the jerseys - used in previous seasons - had been relegated to practice use?
3. How do we really know that Krausse and Taylor ever wore these jerseys?

The last question is the most intriguing when collecting older durene jerseys, especially regarding NFL teams prior to the nameplate era. If a team used the same jersey style (including number font) and manufacturer over the course of several seasons, it can be near impossible to pinpoint the exact season. This can be problematic if you run across a #22 or #42 'Skins jersey as these jerseys may not have been worn by Krausse and Taylor, but rather by LeRoy Jackson and Bill Anderson who wore #22 and #42 respectively in both 1962 and 1963. Trying to find proof-positive photo evidence from that era can be difficult at best.

I won't even get into the discussion of college and high school teams that wore the same style as NFL teams. Was that red jersey with white numbers worn by the Chicago/St. Louis Cardinals, University of Alabama, or Annandale High School? I once saw an old University of Iowa durene jersey that I would have bet the farm was a Steelers jersey. Glad I didn't place that bet!

When looking at any older football jersey style that seems atypical (such as the Jim Brown jersey in question), finding a photo of the paticular player in that style can be near impossible. For me to feel somewhat comfortable in that regard, I need to find at least one Browns player wearing that particular style of durene in a game action photo from that era. That might not answer the question about the paticular player being researched, but at least it would answer the question as to whether the team actually wore that style in game action.

In almost every team bulk buy I have made from a team or league, there are inevitably items that are different than the rest. I have refused to list items for sale simply because I cannot match them or explain them. But just because I can't positively match them doesn't mean that they aren't just as real as the rest (which they are).

I hope this information is helpful.

Mark Hayne
Gridiron Exchange
gixc@verizon.net

Always looking for Atlanta Falcons and WFL jerseys

[kingjammy24]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

troy states that they have photo evidence that other players and other NFL teams wore this lighter material but i'm not sure how relevant that is to the core issue of whether brown himself wore it. as i understand it, the issue is not whether durene was ever worn in the NFL or whether other players wore it but rather whether brown wore it, in a game, during the specified time-frame.

in '93 the sf giants jerseys were supplied by russell. barry bonds chose not to wear the supplied shirts that the rest of the team wore and opted to wear rawlings. it's also very possible that some russell shirts were still made up for bonds. it's also possible that bonds posed for a few photo shoots in russell shirts. there could be various hypothesis why one might not wear actual game-shirts for photo shoots. it's not so much, as troy said, that a special shirt was made up solely and explicitly for the photo shoots but rather that a player has chosen not to actually use a shirt, in a game, that was legitimately issued to him for those purposes. i've never been able to locate a photo from '93 showing bonds wearing a russell shirt. saying that he probably did because other MLB teams were wearing them and other giants were wearing them has little bearing on what bonds actually wore in games. while i clearly don't believe that an item can only be legit if there are photos of it in use, i also think that until an item can be stylematched, there's always going to be a reasonable amount of doubt. would i purchase a '93 bonds russell shirt? not until i found 1 in-action photo of him wearing one. until i did, the leap would be too great.

anyway, one of the other issues in this entire discussion has been the accuracy or appropriateness of the A10 grade. i think it's worthwhile to look at how MEARS defines the A10. from their site:

"A10 Manufactures characteristics of the jersey have been compared to known authentic examples and exactly match tagging, lettering, numbering, size, patches and/or memorial bands, materials, style, buttons, zipper, etc. Each piece is also evaluated on the degree of evident use and wear, which must be consistent with that of the player, sport, position, field of play, and duration of use. No negative traits can be found to receive this grade. The jersey must be complete, unaltered, all original, and show optimal wear while remaining in the same condition as last worn by player."

and for good measure, the A9:

"A9 The examined jersey must have the same traits as the A10 with respect to overall characteristics and wear. The jersey is awarded the A9 grade when it exhibits a minor flaw that does not warrant more than a full point deduction. No reasonable doubt can exist as to whether or not the player wore the jersey during the proposed time frame in order to receive this grade."

the original REA description stated that "it would be hard to imagine a finer example". as well, as was stated earlier in this thread, an A10 conveys the notion of a perfect, textbook piece which, as REA stated, could not be improved upon. well from what i gather it would be very easy to imagine a better brown jersey; one of a style that could be found in actual in-game photos and one with heavy use that would be consistent with brown's position and style of play.

as for the MEARS A10/A9 descriptions: an A10, according to MEARS, must show "optimal wear". not good, not decent or satisfactory but optimal, which means most desireable. troy can discern the use for himself but he can't redefine the definition of the word "optimal" for his own purposes. is a jim brown shirt showing light wear optimal? i think that question is hits to the core of this grade. is a lightly-used brown shirt optimal, or most desireable? this would necessarily mean that a lightly-used brown shirt is preferable over a heavily used brown shirt. hard to imagine. if MEARS next came into possession of a heavily-used brown shirt showing tears and scrapes, they would necessarily have to grade that jersey lower because in their definition of the A10 applied to the brown shirt, light use on a brown jersey is optimal and therefore heavy use would not be. you can't have it both ways and say both light use and heavy use are optimal.

it must also be "consistent with the player, position, sports, field of play, etc." from some of the comments i've heard regarding brown's extremely physical style, it seems that some view the wear as not being consistent. sort of like a lightly-worn rickey henderson or lenny dykstra jersey. is it possible? sure. is it "optimal"? hardly. how on earth is it optimal? light use would be optimal for a player who saw 5 games at DH but it'd hardly be optimal for a player famous for their extremely hard style of play. if anything, it's the opposite of optimal. even under MEARS' own definition of the A10, the jersey seems to fall short because the wear isn't optimal and it apparently must be so to earn the A10. it seems more suited to an A9 with the light wear and reasonable doubt pertaining to the material being the "flaws".

rudy.

[commando]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

While I can appreciate the difficulty involved in finding detailed video/photos of Brown wearing this style jersey, I personally think a grade of A10 is not appropriate.

There's no need for a long-winded explanation. The bottom line should be that the grade of A10 is INDISPUTABLE because of IRONCLAD evidence. If someone would care to point out the indisputable evidence I am missing here, I'd like to hear it.

The gentleman who discovered the Willie Mays minor league jersey a few years ago was very fortunate to find a clear photo of Mays wearing the shirt. A detailed analysis was able to match both perfectly -- and that, my friends, is what I would call an A10 jersey.

[3arod13]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

I will also add that when an authenticator does give their opinion on a game used item, and they are later shown they were wrong, it helps to accept it vice continue to stand behind their opinion (this is not directed specifically at MEARS). This also includes auction houses.

Much more respect would be gained by the gamue used community.

[3arod13]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

I think anytime someone is giving their opinion, vice facts, there are always going to be questions and/or controversy.

I do agree that personal attacks can be eliminated when trying to ask questions and/or make points.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Regards, Tony

[trsent]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

Oh, I understand, the attacks against MEARS are for education purposes. No one here is auctually interested in buying the Jim Brown jersey in the discussion. When the jersey first sold at REA, were there this many questions about it?

I hope everyone remembers that MEARS gives an opinon of the game uses of a jersey (bat, etc) and they assign that item a number grade. In their opinon, they offer such grades and then answer questions of those who are looking for free education about the business of authenticating jerseys, etc.

Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

[aeneas01]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

wow, i wish i would have read troy's message before i posted... his thorough response requires more time than i have at the moment but i'm looking forward to asking him a few more questions. but my gobble day has officially begun and i'm off to spend time with my family! have a safe and great thanksgiving gents!

....

[aeneas01]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

depends on the collector i suppose but i'd wager most would prefer the repairs to be from regular season games if they had their choice. beyond that, would they regard the MJG SB jersey lower simply because it had practice repairs? probably not, no.

likely not. hence mark's comment about collectors believing their practice repairs to be (more important) game repairs. that said, i don't know anything about football shirts and perhaps there is some very subtle info regarding practice vs game repairs. theoretically speaking, perhaps the crew patched things a certain way, perhaps cheaper or faster, during practices. perhaps they weren't sure who'd be cut so the jerseys weren't as crucial as game jerseys. perhaps certain materials came into play for practice repairs vs game repairs. a pretty interesting topic to delve into.

again, i just can't imagine how anyone could possibly be able to tell the difference between "practice" repairs and "game" repairs - that's why i posed the question as to why anyone could possibly care. i wonder if helmet collectors out there can tell the difference between "practice" gouges and "game" gouges! btw how did we ever get on the topic of "practice" jerseys? i mean i'm not a jersey collector but i always thought that teams didn't practice in their game jerseys - was this not the case in the jim brown era? when i was a kid i went to a few new york giants practices in the mid 70s and those guys wore "property of" shirts over their pads. i'm fairly ceratin today's players don't wear game jerseys in practice/camp either. so how do game jerseys get damaged during practices?

if a jersey can't be style-matched, then it's got some serious issues that no story or provenance can compensate for.

i would definitely think that if a jersey could not be conclusively style-matched to a game photo then it would be tough to state with any sort of authority that it was indeed worn in a game by x player, regardless of the circumstantial evidence. for example there is a great shot of herschel walker on the cover of sports illustrated in the process of putting a rawlings rts helmet on his head - he can also be seen in other promo shots donning the same lid. it's clearly a cowboys gamer and the model of rawlings was a pro style used by other players around the league. would this be enough information to conclude that herschel walker wore this helmet during a game? there are many photos of walker during a game where it is impossible to tell exactly what model of helmet he is wearing - does this mean he could have easily been wearing the rawlings in these shots? or does one have to put greater weight on the conclusive photos that show, again and again, that walker wore an air helmet when he played with the cowboys, not a rawlings?

anyhoo, not to get off the real topic. the issue, as i understand it, is that the photos used in the MEARS analysis of the JB shirt were all entirely promo photos and not of JB in-action. certainly a serious issue when it comes to evaluating a shirt of which one has absolutely no previous exemplars. in the same way that MEARS noted on tony's Arod LOA that no photos could be shown with Arod using a rawlings bat because it was relevant info, did they note on their own JB LOA that the photos they used were all promo/photo-shoot photos?

i think it's been determined that a game photo conclusively showing jim brown wearing this style of jersey has not been produced. as such, one does have to wonder why mention of this is not made in the loa and why it apparently had no impact on the final grade. more importantly i think this perfectly illustrates the precarious path encountered when an auction house / dealer attempts to grade their own items without bias.

...

[kingjammy24]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

oops..forgot the link:

http://www.mearsonline.com/news/newsDetail.asp?id=569

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

super..a reply from troy. always nice to have an engaging discussion. (even if none of us are actually buying the JB jersey and only seeking to converse for the sake of discourse and to add to our knowledge). troy's article in it's entirety:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Brown Jersey: Personal Preference vs. MEARS Grading Standards
With the continued discussion regarding the Jim Brown jersey, I was asked several questions about our evaluation of the jersey. Since I chose to include photos with my response, I decided to create a short news item. The issue boils down to personal preferences vs. established MEARS grading standards.

Question: Why wasn't the Hall of Fame contacted regarding this jersey.

Answer Troy: Over a decade ago I conducted a research trip to the Football Hall of Fame. I purchased numerous Hall of Fame photos from their archive department. At that time, I photographed numerous jerseys, including the Jim Brown that was on display. At that time I took available tag shots, close-ups of font, and close-ups of team repairs. From my photo references, I could clearly see the Jim Brown jersey was made from durene. Since the questioned jersey was "tear away", I did not see any merit to questioning the Hall about this particular jersey.

In the past, I have worked with the Baseball Hall of Fame on numerous occasions, in addition to numerous professional sports team. MEARS does attempt to exhaust all avenues when examining a jersey, as we did on the Jim Brown jersey. I just didn't see a potential benefit of seeking their advice for this item. It was like comparing apples(durene) to oranges (tear away).

Question: Could this jersey be a practice or photo shoot jersey.

Answer Troy: Highly Unlikely. I have included several photographs of Jim Brown wearing a practice jersey. Judging by the numerous different styles, it illustrated the Browns employed the practice of wearing specific practice only jerseys throughout the course of several seasons. This is illustrated by the different designs found on the practice jerseys themselves, each dating the practice jersey to a different year. It was in my professional opinion the examined Jim Brown jersey was not a practice jersey, since the photo evidence clearly supported the fact that distinct and different jerseys were worn during practice.

Regarding photo shoot, there is no empirical evidence to support the fact that Jim Brown was issued a different jersey (made from the same materials as used by the Chicago Bears and worn by Gale Sayers) for photoshoots. I find it highly unlikely that if a request was made to photograph Jim Brown, that a new, special jersey would have been made for him to wear. Also, judging several photos that I referenced, the shots appeared to have been taken at different dates. Thus, implying this was a jersey worn more than on just one occasion, which was not consistent with one photo shoot session. There is nothing to support this point.

Question: Did you find a photo of Jim Brown wearing this tear away style jersey in a game.

Answer Troy: Our attempts were inconclusive. There are several clear photos of Jim Brown wearing Durene materials. Less than a dozen, but they do exist. It is challenging to find available footage to be used for photo matching. We referenced all of the available images, and consulted with dozens of period printed publications. Any pub collector will know that most images, especially action shots, were quite grainy as they appeared in these 1960s periodicals. We did examine scores of images that were photographed too far away to determine the actual materials of the jersey. What our imagery analysis did conclude that the numeral font, sleeve length, and collar design were consistent with the photos, we just could not get enough close up images of the materials. So, did we base our final opinion without a “photo match” to Jim Brown? The answer was no. In addition to the several images of Jim Brown wearing this tear away style material, we have found photographs of other teams (BEARS) and other examples of actual tear away jerseys that were worn by other teams and players. I am sure that the other football jersey collectors out there could provide additional teams and players that wore tear away style jerseys from the 1960s. There is empirical evidence to support the fact that tear away jerseys were worn in the NFL. The fact that other NFL player and teams were documented as wearing tear away materials, this Jim Brown, coupled with the photographs of Jim Brown wearing tear away materials, were the basis of our opinion.

Question: The jersey did not have any team repairs, how could it get an A10 grade:

Answer Troy: With respects to game wear and grading, the following information is listed in the jersey grading criteria section of the website and has been used by the MEARS evaluators during the process of assigning grades:

Degree of wear: With respect to grading, degree is independently measured by the staff of MEARS. Game wear is measured from light to heavy. Per the MEARS grading standards, the range of game wear may be determined from light to heavy, while still having the maximum points awarded to the jersey. A jersey may exhibit a light range of overall wear, but still be awarded the highest grade per the scale.

I think the issue is personal preferences vs. MEARS grading standards. Collectors have the right to collect what they want. If your personal preferences are the jersey has to have photo matched team repairs and NFL documentation, that is fine and acceptable, as your very own personal preferences. You may only collect jerseys that match your self-defined criteria. You are not required to buy anything that you are not comfortable with.

MEARS grading standards are the guidelines that we have created. When MEARS evaluates an item, the process (worksheet) and final results (LOO) capture our thoughts and methodology. This work and information is provided to the buyer. He has the ability now to follow the MEARS logic trail, and see if he agrees or disagrees. In the case of the Jim Brown, the winning bidder and several underbidders were in agreement with the MEARS opinion. They purchased the jersey knowing that the photo references we provided were not game action shots. They purchased the jersey knowing there were no visible team repairs. They purchased the jersey knowing the exact degree of use. The MEARS letter satisfied their personal preferences. Obviously with the continued debate, we did not meet others idea of game use or personal preferences.

If an item is found not to have been evaluated properly, the buyer is protected by the MEARS Buyers Protection policy, the only program like it of its kind. This is not the case of the Jim Brown jersey; it is simply a matter of different personal preferences.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS

--------------------------------------------------------------------

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: The Jim Brown Jersey

"would a collector really care if 6 of the 7 repairs were the result of camp or practice?"

depends on the collector i suppose but i'd wager most would prefer the repairs to be from regular season games if they had their choice. beyond that, would they regard the MJG SB jersey lower simply because it had practice repairs? probably not, no.

"as if there would be any real way of knowing? i wouldn't think so."

likely not. hence mark's comment about collectors believing their practice repairs to be (more important) game repairs. that said, i don't know anything about football shirts and perhaps there is some very subtle info regarding practice vs game repairs. theoretically speaking, perhaps the crew patched things a certain way, perhaps cheaper or faster, during practices. perhaps they weren't sure who'd be cut so the jerseys weren't as crucial as game jerseys. perhaps certain materials came into play for practice repairs vs game repairs. a pretty interesting topic to delve into.

"let's say that this type of jersey can't be style-matched to a game image as can the hall of fame jerseys. if this is the case, does the story behind the shirt really matter?"

if a jersey can't be style-matched, then it's got some serious issues that no story or provenance can compensate for.

"you could claim that it was a "game issued" shirt - but i don't know how you could prove this anymore than you could prove it wasn't a salesman sample."

i'd think it's similar to helmets in that genuinely game-issued shirts are no different than game-used shirts except for that the latter shows wear. the salesman's samples often wouldn't have the player-unique customizations. i'd think a JB game-issue would be different than a 1962 browns salesman's sample. if JB took absolutely no unique customizations and simply used a stock shirt, then yes it likely would be hard to differentiate the two.

"actually this sort of reminds me of those rams jerseys that surfaced for one year in the early 70s - blue jerseys with yellow numbers outlined in white which the rams had never worn before. all of the rams players posed individually in these jerseys for program photos etc. and they may have used them for one preseason game that year. whatever the case, these jerseys were never worn during the regular season nor were they ever heard from again. yet finding photos of rams posing in them is very easy. given their lack of use, could any of these shirts ever be held up as a quintessential example of a rams game used jersey? further, would it be fair to represent one as a game used jersey which, for example, merlin olsen wore during his most productive, pro bowl seasons?"

yes, good example. this hobby is filled with real life examples of items being made up for some sort of possible player use but never ended up being adopted. one that comes to my immediate mind were some black alternate Orioles shirts in 1995. Russell had made them up, complete with tagging and everything, with sleeve and neck piping. as the story goes, the team owner hated them and refused to use them and they were never actually worn. eventually, some (Ripken's of course) were later sold as game-used. and of course the infamous Orioles/Ripken throwback that landed GFC in the People's Court. a jersey genuinely issued to Ripken but not worn as the game was cancelled. and the even more infamous Ripken St. Pats jersey. never worn but Lampson swears he has photos or some such that he's never offered up. i imagine he keeps them beside his embalmed chupacabra and his grainy 8mm film showing moses parting the red sea.

anyhoo, not to get off the real topic. the issue, as i understand it, is that the photos used in the MEARS analysis of the JB shirt were all entirely promo photos and not of JB in-action. certainly a serious issue when it comes to evaluating a shirt of which one has absolutely no previous exemplars. in the same way that MEARS noted on tony's Arod LOA that no photos could be shown with Arod using a rawlings bat because it was relevant info, did they note on their own JB LOA that the photos they used were all promo/photo-shoot photos?

rudy.