before i respond to dave bushing's post at the mears site (bulletin board) regarding what i've said here, i want to reiterate/quote the very valid concerns rudy (kngjammy24) has raised, the purpose of his/this thread...
Originally posted by kingjammy24
dave bushing: "I would challenge Robert to do a graph of properly advetised and sold MEARS A5 jerseys and given this discussion is really about understanding the A5 grade, I am not quite sure why Lou Lampson graded Labron James jerseys, those graded game used by him and advertised as such are part of the A5 discussion."
first, it's impossible to compile a list that shows "properly advertised... mears a5 jerseys" because auction houses sell them as "game used" or "game worn", simple as that. and in the rare instance "game used" isn't included in the lot title (hunt auction, randy johnson for example), there's little doubt the item is being presented as a gamer once the lot description is read. second, the reason i brought up the other lebron jerseys (jerseys mears had nothing to do with) was to illustrate the ocean of lebron jerseys of this type that are in circulation, that have been sold at auction - something which i would think mears would take into consideration when grading lebron shirts.
dave bushing: "Is it then the A5 grade that is confusing or the easily misued GAME WORN / GAME USED phrase that auction houses apply to their title when in fact, this claim was never used or applied by MEARS. Sounds to me like a truth in advertising... Oh, and now MEARS is responsible if an auction house or dealer disregards our grade and labels a shirt something we never said it was or as Robert suggests, they are so confused as to why we called it an A5 that they simply title the piece game worn/used because we confused them. Auction houses that for four years after crafting the A5 language simply don't understand and when you don't understand it and it has a MEARS loa, then simply put game used in the title."
21 of the 22 shirts that i previously listed with an a5 mears grade were sold as "game used" by auction houses - the single shirt that wasn't strongly implied as much in the lot description. forum members, upper deck, collectors, etc. have all said that the a5 grade is very misleading, very confusing. but dave feels the a5 grade is crystal clear and that auction houses are obviously falsely advertising. maybe dave's right. but if he is it brings up an interesting question: why would mears continue to allow auction houses to sell a5 items (backed with a mears letter) as "game used"? i mean it's not as if this is a recent development, it's been going on for years. why not a cease and desist? especially considering the grief (and arguably damage) it causes mears?
dave bushing: "If MEARS does a letter that says "cannot authenticate, index bat, store model, A1, Pro Cut, or Piece of crap" , just claim you don't understand, it is all too confusing, and label it game worn/used. If you are wrong and called to the carpet, simply blame MEARS complicated grading system."
so dave's argument is if mears wrote letters stating items could not be authenticated, were a store models and/or were a pieces of crap it would cause the same confusion as a mears' a5 grade and that mears would still be called to the carpet. o.k.
dave bushing: "Funny but the grade is attacked yet questioning the procedure behind all of the game worn or game used (non MEARS A5) labeled jerseys remains unsung. No outrage, no demand as to what legitimized these jerseys as to why they command so much more money than REA's A5, no demand to see who owned them, who consigned them, where they were obtained, is there provenance to warrent the title game worn/used, what size exemplars did they use, NOTHING. I could buy MEARS being constantly under the microscope of Robert and Rudy with the coinsidental thread started on the night MEARS auction opened, it just amazes me that this microscope becomes a blindfold for others. Fair and balanced as Fox news says."
this strikes me as rather paranoid on so many levels. first, i for one had no idea this thread was started on the same night as a mears' auction - however it does seem to me that most discussions at guf are started once an auction is about to begin, ask grey flannel. second, 99.9% of this board's discussions focus on exactly what dave claims is "unsung" and plenty of outrage is always expressed. further, i would say mears makes up such a minute portion of the board's discussions that i don't know how dave's comments could be taken as other than paranoid. rather than pretend that this board, or rudy and i for that matter, spend most of its time attacking mears i would think mears would seize on this opportunity to carefully and specifically address these very valid concerns.
dave bushing: "Heck, MEARS is making a ton of cashola grading these shirts, never mind that the cost of a post 87 is the same whether it is a A5 or an A10."
interesting comment - i wonder if more a5 items exist or more a10 items?
dave bushing: "Why would MEARS give up grading A5's as is suggested by Robert & Rudy when it is a virtual cash cow, so much so that Mrs Robert may become our stiffest competition."
dave misunderstood. the mrs. wouldn't be mears' stiffest competition, she would be mears' partner - couldn't make it work without the a5 letter. as far as why mears should give up a5 grading is concerned, i think it's a good idea for many reasons but i'll just name a few: first, mears is an authentication service which, and i may be wrong here, seems to imply that mears authenticates game used, game worn or team issued items. not pro cuts, not exact replicas. but items they believe were sent to a team or given to a player for game use. second, i consider any grading system that allows for an authentic item sent to a team or given to a player for game use to be graded the same an item that never saw a team's locker room to be very broken.
dave bushing: "It is so much harder to only grade, authenticate, and offer a money back guarentee on mistakes for your own items rather than having the easy high paying job of offering this service to others and maybe having to give back thousands of dollars for a piece you did for $50 bucks. Yep, I agree, shouldn't grade or authenticate A5's or A7's or A10's or million dollar Babe Ruth jerseys. Hate to get one of those wrong, hard enough to have to buy back a $260 Portland Beavers jersey. Sure would hate to be a dealer or auction house that authenticates and/or grades only their own merchandise and let the chat rooms decide on everything else. What is even better is that maybe MEARS can start authenticating Ruth, Gehrig and Cobb jerseys on line without having to deal with all that pesky shipping."
sorry, but i just don't follow what dave's trying to say here. but given that guarantee and giving back money was mentioned, there's something that i've wanted to mention for quite some time: mears' money back guarantee. while i think this is a great policy, i don't see how exactly it differs from most other auction house policies. as i understand it, mears' policy begins and ends with whether or not they agree with an unhappy customer's (and/or a third party's) assessment of the item. in short, mears' policy is far from a "no questions asked, money back guarantee" - if you can prove to mears that they were wrong in their evaluation, and (this is important) they accept your position, then i'm sure a refund would be forthcoming. but if mears doesn't agree with your assessment or that of a third party, you're out of luck. so why is that different than what most auction houses offer? it's been my experience that auction houses will provide a refund if you can prove an item wasn't as advertised, despite their "all sales final" disclaimers.
dave bushing: "Why the need to refine verbage of a misunderstood grade can be argued, it is still a MEARS policy that is not forced on anyone, if you don't like it or understand it or disagree with it, that is fine, you don't have to..."
alas, the 'ol "if you don't like it, don't buy it, move on" spiel. frankly, i'm cool with that. but such sentiments don't preclude collectors from voicing their concerns. and my concern is that attempting to grade game used items, team issued items or any items that were sent to a team for game use is wrought with problems and an absurd model. the trading card template simply does not work with garments/equipment.
here's a perfect example. a collector is currently going back and forth with mears over a john elway jersey gamer. patrick from endzone sports wrote a letter attesting to its authenticty, imo a better endorsement does not exist. it was then given to mears who graded it an a8 because handwarmers were added. the collector publicly praised mears for the a8 thinking, combined with patrick's letter, he was in for a nice payday. and why wouldn't he? but rob lifson decided to run the jersey without "game used" in the lot title, pretty much how rea runs a5 shirts. and the jersey ended up selling for a small fraction of what one might expect from an elway gamer. while troy said he couldn't speak for rea, he responded to the collector's understandable dismay as follows:
"The staff at REA was not comfortable calling the Elway game worn based on the undocumented addition of the Elway handwarmer. Rob Lifson has a long history of added caution when listing items..."
the problem is rea didn't exercise "added caution" with the following a8, from dave's and troy's personal collection/inventory - it was listed with "game used" clearly included in the lot title despite a roughly similar situation as with the elway jersey. the elway is a 1992 jersey with handwarmers added the following year. the kluszewski is a 1959 jersey with a nameplate added the following year. the addition of handwarmers to a qb's jersey was typical and from all appearances was team done. the addition of nameplates was typical and from all appearances was team done.
even this a6 was listed with "game used" clearly included in the lot title:
and, of course there was the jim brown jersey, owned by dave bushing, which was awarded an a10 despite not being in what most football fans and football jersey collectors would consider typical jim brown condition. in fact one could argue that is didn't even meet mears' criteria for an a10 given the requirements specifically state: "Each piece is also evaluated on the degree of evident use and wear, which must be consistent with that of the player, sport, position..." closeup game photos of jim brown make the perfect a10 grade even more difficult to understand given the light-weight auction shirt featured no team repairs and only "moderate" use:
for the record, i'm not accusing mears of anything here, and certainly not rea - i'm just pointing out how ridiculous a grading system is when applied it to these sort of items, game items. take the jim brown jersey - how could any authentic jim brown gamer possibly be graded higher or lower than another? it's an authentic gamer. period. its rarity alone makes it extraordinarily valuable. how would one possibly grade the following items? you couldn't. any attempt would be absurd. yet some would try, as with trading cards:
and, finally, so dave doesn't lose any sleep over the amount of time spent "attacking" mears at this forum, here's a nice visual that i would say is pretty accurate:
...
Leave a comment: