1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

[3arod13]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

I seriously doubt that the inscription was added at a "later date". Why would someone do that???? My guess is that he switched markers after the signature, or he turned/rotated the marker after the signature.

My thoughts exactly. Or, when he wrote the large signature, it came out not as dark. But when writing smaller print, it came out darker.

I can assure you, Juan made the inscription.

Regards, Tony

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

I seriously doubt that the inscription was added at a "later date". Why would someone do that???? My guess is that he switched markers after the signature, or he turned/rotated the marker after the signature.

Fair enough, BULBUS.

But then how do you explain the LOA from Bob Case who clearly states Juan signed his name below the "A S of T E X A S", but makes no mention of the inscription which is clearly done in a different black sharpie point?

This is the only point regarding this jersey which, in my mind, is a question worth seeking an answer to.

On getty images, there is one solid picture from 1992 (that was used for a Sports Illustrated) that shows Juan leaning over a stretching Jose Canseco, with Rafael Palmiero in the background also stretching, and it shows the letters on Juan's back.

I have looked at it over and over and over again, and have tried to line up the letters in spacial correlation to the numbers (19) on his back....and I just can't conclude if the arch in the name, and the spacing between the letters is a match. It appears to be close enough for argument of a style match, but the letters appear to have a bit more "space" between them at the top. That could be explained away by the fact he's leaning forward, thereby placing a bit of expansion on the jersey.

In any case, short of a picture match, my point in bringing this up is this:
I would want some kind of authentication in writing from Juan Gonzalez that that jersey is in fact his #43 worn-while-hitting-career-homerun #43 before I would buy it (assuming of course I was a Juan-Gone fan).

There are just too many "bad" items out there falling into the laps of collectors who then.....start the musical chairs 'flipping' of an item that no one can really verify is authentic.

That said, I am in NO WAY insinuating that Tony has participated or believes in this speculative assumption, or the guy who is selling it has either. It's just "food for thought". I like rock-solid provenance. If someone could prove that inscription is authentic beyond the educated and attempted 'guessing' that accompanies it.....it is well worth the buy-it-now asking price.

Steve

[skipcarayislegend]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

I seriously doubt that the inscription was added at a "later date". Why would someone do that???? My guess is that he switched markers after the signature, or he turned/rotated the marker after the signature.

IMO, the Gonzalez inscription was definitely added later. I've seen it done more than a few times myself. In fact, I watched Bruce Sutter add an HOF inscription last weekend to a ball he had already signed. Over the years I've helped out at different signings around here and have seen people have stats and "game used" descriptions added to items that were already signed. You just gotta be sure that the pen is exactly the same as the one that was used originally or it won't look right. Case in point, the Gonzalez shirt.

I kinda hate to admit this, but I made this same mistake myself. I guy I know is friends with one of the Braves. I happen to have this player's rookie helmet. A couple years ago, this guy took the helmet to the player's house and got it autographed. After it was signed we were talking about how cool it would've been if the player had inscribed it "rookie gamer" or something like that. So, my buddy took the helmet back and the next time he met up with this player, he got him to add the rookie inscription. Unfortunately, the autograph is in blue Sharpie and the inscription is in black Sharpie. I doubt I'll ever remove the inscription, but it does look a little strange.

[BULBUS]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

Ok, maybe I shouldnt have said that I seriously doubt it, but like I said, it is possible that Juan switched markers after the signature came out on the light side, or, he used one of those angled felt tip markers (thus the wide strokes which you dont get with a sharpie) and when he signed his name, the flat part made contact in a few spots (which always comes out lighter) and then used the point on the smaller inscription. Just my 2 cents, thats all.

-Chris

[3arod13]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

As I said, Juan did make the inscription. But I do believe Bob Case would have included that in his letter. He only states Juan signed it after the game under the AS in TEXAS. That's a pretty descriptive statement, so I think he would have included the entire inscription, if made then.

Another thought. Yes Juan won the HR title. But would he really make an inscription that soon following the last game of the season?

Juan won the HR title in the last game of the season with 43. McGwire finished second with 42. Hard to believe Juan would make that inscription following the last game of the season (that soon), without knowing what McGwire did.

Thoughts?

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

As I said, Juan did make the inscription. But I do believe Bob Case would have included that in his letter. He only states Juan signed it after the game under the AS in TEXAS. That's a pretty descriptive statement, so I think he would have included the entire inscription, if made then.

Another thought. Yes Juan won the HR title. But would he really make an inscription that soon following the last game of the season?

Juan won the HR title in the last game of the season with 43. McGwire finished second with 42. Hard to believe Juan would make that inscription following the last game of the season (that soon), without knowing what McGwire did.

Thoughts?

Exactly, Tony.

That's why it would be a sweet thing to have a statement from, actually, anybody who was responsible for the inscription being added.

Again, I have no knowledge that the inscription is genuine or not, or that Juan wasn't the guy who placed it there. I am simply bringing up the fact that the placement of it appears to be out of the realm of any letter of authentication as to when it was placed on the jersey.

That's why I asked if you had even had the opportunity to ask Juan himself, Tony. It could possibly remove all doubt. And from my experience, when all doubt is removed, the jersey gains a tremendous amount of interest from collectors, otherwise not realized. It could be the difference between getting an offer of $500 vs a bidding duel between two collectors reaching $2,500 (just an arbitrary example).

Tony, your reasoning is quite legit. I haven't gone back to the 1992 schedule of games, but it makes sence...Oakland, a West coast team, may have had the last game of the season on the same day, at home, probably a night game....so it's very likely that Juan wouldn't have been able to place that inscription on the jersey until well after the game he had already played because of time zone issues.....unless of course the game was against the A's and he already knew McGwire didn't hit one.

Even if we look that fact up....it doesn't answer the question.

But here's one that may lead to the answer.....

Want to ask Bob Case, who was apparently one of the two given the jersey at the end of the game and had Juan signed it? It would have had to either been one of at least two scenarios:

A) The jersey would have at some point left his possession to accomplish this task. Not knowing the history behind the ownership of the jersey, it's impossible to know without a letter from Bob Case explaining the event;

B) He would have been the one to present it to Juan and have asked him to inscribe it.

Absent of those two scenarios, what else could have been the possible action to have placed Juan at the jersey, pen in hand? Keep in mind, if it wasn't Bob or the other gentlemen (name escapes me for the moment) that claim to have been the recipients of this jersey in the locker room....why would Juan place that inscription on the jersey if it hadn't come from Bob Case, because he would know that Bob was given THAT jersey?

I suppose the answer could be....If the owner who attained it from Bob Case originally asked Juan at a signing to "add" the inscription at some point, and he had the accompanying letters to prove it was the same jersey, then that is possible. But why wouldn't the occasion have been documented, by taking a picture, a signing ticket stub, etc.?

Somewhere, along the time line, the jersey lost it's luster because it doesn't have that piece of proof going with it.....

[Lokee]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

you are correct and that is what stopped me from hitting buy it now. I had that tiny doubt, that unexplained happening. Nice jersey though.

[3arod13]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

you are correct and that is what stopped me from hitting buy it now. I had that tiny doubt, that unexplained happening. Nice jersey though.

Someone bought it for $600. Who?

[bigtruck260]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

Someone bought it for $600. Who?

Not bad. Apparently there was a little luster left.

Tony and Steve, I am going out on a limb and just saying that as a collector...the jersey is still a great item. The inscription is probably real and done later - but other than being a little odd looking, still makes for a cool piece.

I have seen jerseys sell with far less provenance for much more on guys with half the talent of Juan Gone. $600 is a good price, but kind of a steal too...

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

Tony,

I understand that this is a little like asking a lady her age.......


......but did the guy you sold it to cover what he paid for it?

I'm really curious.......you don't need to divulge the amount, just a simple yes or no will do me.

Thanks,

Steve

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

Not bad. Apparently there was a little luster left.

Tony and Steve, I am going out on a limb and just saying that as a collector...the jersey is still a great item. The inscription is probably real and done later - but other than being a little odd looking, still makes for a cool piece.

I have seen jerseys sell with far less provenance for much more on guys with half the talent of Juan Gone. $600 is a good price, but kind of a steal too...

Dave,

I totally agree. For a Juan-Gone fan, that's a great piece for that price.

It's just...........well, you know. We don't need to rehash it.

Proof coming with that inscription......It's a $2,500+ jersey.

[3arod13]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

Tony,

I understand that this is a little like asking a lady her age.......


......but did the guy you sold it to cover what he paid for it?

I'm really curious.......you don't need to divulge the amount, just a simple yes or no will do me.

Thanks,

Steve

Unfortunately, no. When I sold it, Juan Gone was still playing, and there was much more interest in his stuff then.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1992 Juan Gonzalez Gamer

Unfortunately, no. When I sold it, Juan Gone was still playing, and there was much more interest in his stuff then.

Tony,

And there is the rub....

For an item of such fine quality, and a grouping of letters for authenticity, why not go to a major auction house and sell it where it's sure to get another bid or two or....who knows?

But he chooses to let it go for a loss on fleabay? Hmmm...

What are we missing on this fine piece? Is it just the steroid implications that's hurting it's value? Or is the inscription provenance (lack thereof)just taking away the luster from the guys who would really pay for this type of item?


Or.... did the seller get ahold of Juan and find out some bad news?