Re: MEARS' Evaluations Continue to Baffle...
the issues surrounding david archibald's elway jersey were an offshoot from the "Lebron - A5" story but it still highlighted serious deficiencies in the MEARS system.
when this recent round of the elway issues began, REA's initial explanation was that they were uncomfortable calling the jersey "game used" because of the handwarmer/crotchpiece issues. (in fact, the jersey does not have a "crotchpiece" as MEARS states but that's another story). i found this confusing because the piece was graded an A8 and it seemed that rob lifson was "overruling" MEARS in a sense. after all, MEARS had simply said that the jersey was worn in '92 and the handwarmer was likely in '93. rob lifson seemed to doubt the entire authenticity of the jersey itself. when troy was first asked about it, he stated that "The staff at REA was not comfortable calling the Elway game worn based on the undocumented addition of the Elway handwarmer". personally, i didn't understand how the staff at REA had the experience and knowledge to make such a call. of course none of this turned out to be the truth. REA and MEARS later revealed that the real reason behind the lack of a "game used" heading was that it went against MEARS policy.
specifically, REA stated "The Elway jersey could not possibly have had the phrase "Game-Used" in the title based on MEARS policy simply because it is a post-1987 jersey that was not accompanied by documented provenance....My understanding is that if I had identified the jersey as "Game-Used" in the title, this would have been contrary to MEARS policies, and they would have actually requested that I remove this attribution from the title... I am cc'ing Troy Kinunen so that he can verify my understanding that the title of this jersey was correct without the phrase "Game-Used" in the title according to MEARS policy, and that REA would have been requested to remove this phrase had it been included, according to MEARS policy, based on the fact that this is a post-1987 without relevant accompanying documented provenance."
ok so apparently a post-1987 jersey without documented provenance cannot be called "game used" as stipulated by MEARS right?
wrong. as robert pointed out, MEARS has no problems calling it's own post-1987 jerseys with no documented provenance "game used", not only in its "for sale" section but also in its auctions. to wit:
1997 Green Bay Packers Doug Evans #33 Home Game Worn Jersey - A5
1998 Carolina Panthers Paul Janus #74 Road Game Worn Jersey - A5
1999 Kansas City Chiefs Wasswa Serwanga #29 Home Game Worn Jersey - A5
i could go on and on. apparently the MEARS policies don't allow for REA to call their post-1987 jerseys with no provenance "game used" but those same MEARS policies don't apply to MEARS' own items. excellent. some say it's "confusing" but i think that'd be a charitable understatement.
i also find it confusing that the MEARS LOO on the elway jersey stated that "..MEARS is confident this jersey was most likely originally worn during the 1992 season..". MEARS says they're confident the jersey was worn but they don't permit REA to call it worn. what?!
as robert mentioned, it's the absolute height of idiocy to be able to go to mearsonline.com, purchase a post-1987 A5 sold as "game worn", submit it to REA and then be told that MEARS' policies do not allow it to be called "game worn". of course they do! only on mearsonline.com though.
i think one of the most troublesome aspects to all of these errors is that they constantly seem to be in MEARS' favor. where are the A4s sold by troy and dave that they later re-graded to A8s? why is it the collector that's regularly receiving the short end of the stick on these "mistakes"?
rudy.
-
Re: MEARS' Evaluations Continue to Baffle...
robert i love your posts and they are very informative.
the sentence you wrote about rea being mears only one and preferred auction house i believe is misleading. i think mears went through and sent letters to every auction house saying that they wanted to be associated with 'transparent' auction houses. listing items as 'auction house' owned. etc... rea was one of the few/only one that agreed with their policy.
personally i understand what mears is trying to do, but the grading system is very confusing. why even grade a procut? also there is an inherent conflict of interest of grading AND selling your items no matter how you do it. either you are the best game used grading company out there or you are the best game used selling company out there.
my other .02 is that i think mears does have the best intentions of any grading company. just need to tighten up the ship a little bit.
take care
johnLeave a comment:
-
MEARS' Evaluations Continue to Baffle...
dave grob recently and publicly informed troy kinunen and rob lifson, in an open letter at the mears site, that a paul molitor jersey hailing "from the personal collection/inventory of world-renowned bat and jersey authenticators david bushing and/or troy kinunen", that was evaluated and graded by mears and sold through rea, was awarded an undeserving a8 based on the very grading criteria set forth by mears. further, dave directed kinunen and lifson to contact the buyer of the $4,000 jersey.
the decision by dave to address this matter was undoubtedly prompted by a post by rudy in another thread (lebron jersey - a5, auction item discussion) in which rudy pointed out very valid issues concerning the grade this jersey received.
while i applaud dave's public addressing of this issue (which can be found at the mears site, current news section), i think those reading the article would be better served if dave made it perfectly clear that a) a collector, not mears, uncovered this issue and b) that such lapses are especially disconcerting when they pertain to items owned and sold by mears personnel, as was the case with the molitor jersey.
on another front, i recently discovered that post-'87, sub a10 jerseys are not listed by rea with the term "game used" in the lot title (at least that's been the case this year and last year) regardless, apparently, of the circumstances surrounding the jersey. i suggested in another thread that perhaps it would be a good idea if rea made this practice clear to consignors.
in fact one recent consignor was very unhappy (and rightfully so imo) that his post-'87 elway jersey was not listed as "game used" by rea despite mears having started it with an a10 base (due to provenance and other attributes) with two points deducted for alterations resulting in an a8. troy kinunen's response to the consignor was:
"Rob Lifson has a long history of added caution when listing items. Many of his bats, (many of which Dave Bushing and/or I have consigned) were listed as Professional Model in the title, without the use of the phrase game used. This is a professional choice of REA auctions, and one that is respected by many members of the auction community."
troy's comments to the consignor clearly imply that it's rea (rob lifson), not mears, that makes these decisions. but after further pressing by the consignor, rob responded with the following:
"I just spoke with both Tom D'Alonzo at REA, who works directly with MEARS for our company, and also with Troy Kinunen. This is what they both had to say: The Elway jersey could not possibly have had the phrase "Game-Used" in the title based on MEARS policy simply because it is a post-1987 jersey that was not accompanied by documented provenance... My understanding is that if I had identified the jersey as "Game-Used" in the title, this would have been contrary to MEARS policies, and they would have actually requested that I remove this attribution from the title...I am cc'ing Troy Kinunen so that he can verify my understanding that the title of this jersey was correct without the phrase "Game-Used" in the title according to MEARS policy, and that REA would have been requested to remove this phrase had it been included, according to MEARS policy, based on the fact that this is a post-1987 without relevant accompanying documented provenance."
so, despite what troy had told the consignor, it turns out that it's actually mears that dictates how rea (lifson) lists items evaluated by mears, not lifson/rea - and in a complete about-face, troy eventually confirms this. in fact troy eventually tells the consignor that rea is actually bound by a contractual agreement to list mears-evaluated items as they appear in mears' loo:
"I have been following this debate and need to interject. Rob's listing of your Elway jersey was in accordance with the language set forth in the contract signed between REA and MEARS. If you note the title of the MEARS letter, the phrase game worn was not included, therefore Rob was contractually committed to follow the title per our LOO."
so what on earth was with all of that "rob lifson, long history, added caution, rea's professional choice" talk troy was telling the consignor?
as i mentioned, rea does not include the term "game used" in the lot titles of the post-'87, sub a10 jerseys they list. and apparently rea is also bound by what mears tells them they can or can't say when it comes to mears-evaluated items. so why doesn't this policy extend to mears' own auctions or mears' "items for sale" section - both are littered with post-'87, sub a10 jerseys with "game used" or "game worn" in the lot title. what would happen, for example, if i was the winner of lot #1109 found in mears' last auction, an item described in the lot title as a "1993 rose miami dolphins game used preseason road jersey (mears a4.5)? could i flip it at rea expecting rea to list it in exactly the same manner? apparently i couldn't!
in fact just about every post-'87, sub a10 jersey sold through mears' auctions and mears' "items for sale" section with "game used" or "game worn" in the lot title could not be sold as such at mears' one and only preferred and recommended auction house - rea. can someone please explain this to me?
apparently dave grob found mears' practice of listing these type of jerseys, especially a5 shirts, with the term "game used" or "game worn" in their lot descriptions to be as confounding as i. in fact dave asked mears to knock it off - in part:
"The issue is, and one I feel does have merit, is how is that then items graded A5 (not pre-1987 items that may have lost points of team name changes etc…) be listed as “game worn jerseys?” If the jersey could in fact be one such offering as an extra or one manufactured for promotional sale or distribution and the use and wear and only noted and not attributed, then describing it in a generic title listing as “game used” is not consistent with the language or logic of the A5 grade. I have made my feelings known to Troy in this matter and have suggested that these items be listed without this language in the title."
browsing through mears' auction archives and items for sale, even recent ones, it's pretty clear that mears has chosen to ignore dave in this matter.
dave grob's "game used" recommendations:
"game used" 4.5 dolphins jersey sold at mears' auction:
mears' items for sale - jerseys:
mears' last auction - jerseys:
...
Leave a comment: