1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

[gnishiyama]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Thanks Dave,

From a long-time veteran as yourself, your opinion
means a lot to me.

Thanks again
Goh

[sox83cubs84]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Looks OK to me.

Dave Miedema

[gnishiyama]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Sorry for reviving a new thread but I want to present some information
and see what you guys think. I am the current owner of the Hideo Nomo
jersey that was discussed in this thread. I was hesitant to say anything
because I didn't have any facts then to back up what I am now claiming,
but now I feel I do.

I think my 1997 Nomo jersey is good. I received a 1998 Nomo jersey
signed and inscribed to Curt Schilling from his personal collection
so I finally feel like I have solid exemplar to compare to.

The 1997 jersey is on the right that has the Japanese signature on the left
and the English Right side.

First, my 1997 and 1998 jersey are EXACTLY the same size to the T. Mind
you this jersey is a 50+2 that is not available to the public. Many times
on fake, doctored jerseys the actual size of the jersey and the tagging
won't match up as with many of the fake Ichiro and Nomo jerseys
that I have seen. (At least in my market)

Second, the lettering size and spacing of the #16 on the front and back
are almost EXACTLY the same. About 1/10" off on the back
at most. Someone would have to have an authentic gamer, took
the measurements and applied precisely to a blank to achieve this.
Also the vertical height between top of the "M" of NOMO and
bottom of the "6" on the back is exactly the same. I took pictures of the
measurements but I'm not going to share since this info may help the
counterfeiters. The NOMO placement on the back is slightly lower on the
'98 but I have seen this many times with same year, same player, MLB
Authenticated jerseys.

Third, the Nomo auto is authentic on the 1997. Not too many people
know this but Nomo hardly ever signs, much less a jersey with his
full "Hideo Nomo" signature and adding his Japanese signature. He traded
his game equipment to trade for items for his own personal collection.
Its circumstantial but for Nomo items it weighs pretty heavy as
his signature on game items is considered an "endorsement"
to the item's authenticity. Although I got it PSA/DNA authenticated
to add potential resale value I consider myself an expert on Nomo
autographs and hence one of the reasons why I took a chance with
the jersey to begin with.

As for this comment from Suicide:

also on the Nomo jersey.......there is just something bothering me on the angle of the second "d" of the Dodgers script. It should be a tad bit more verticle in it's positioning....it appears to be stitched on a hair too high, and tilted a hair too much to the right......IMO.

In Laymens terms, the verticle bar of that "d" is too far away from the button it passes. I have seen thousands of pictures over the years of these jerseys, and dozens of gamers in person....none of the real ones appear "off" like this one. Is there a chance it could be.....sure.....but then I'd refer you to Rudy's comments below which are a lot more scientific than mine.

This did concern me at first, however even with the small sampling of Nomo
Dodgers on Getty I still found him wearing one where the second "G"
seemed a bit off, albeit a photo shoot jersey but I am pretty certain they
wore game-issue jerseys as they do now. At least to me this eliminated
that concern. Not so sure what you meant by the spacing of the last "O"
in NOMO.

Now with Dave's comment:

While not pertinent to this auction, another thing to note regarding Russell Dodgers jerseys...Their affiliate in Vero Beach wore very similar jerseys in this time span. There are a number of them on eBay at this time, properly represented by the seller. Of course, that doesn't mean that a buyer won't try to "turn" it into a major league Dodger and resell it. Other than patches, the Vero Beach versions are tagged on the front left tail. Every verifiable L.A. Dodgers gamer from Russell I have seen has the tagging inside the back tail, centered. Also, Russell did not have the Dodgers as a customer during their whole stint supplying the MLB. Only 1995-99 are Russell years for the Dodgers (MLB version).

I don't believe this to be true. There is a well-known Nomo jersey
in Japan that is photo-matched to Nomo holding it up and it is tagged
on the inner front left tail. ( I have attached pics)

Now as far as I am concerned the only thing I find inconsistent
is the 1992 tagging on a 1997 jersey. The 1998 jersey tags matches
to the era. I have seen so many inconsistencies in my days handling
Russell jerseys that to me seeing a 1992 tagging on a 1997 jersey
alone is not a definitive red flag.

Lastly, 1997 jersey does show good use. Could someone have taken
a blank, matched up to precise manufacturer and team specs to the tee,
worn it and then turned it around and got it signed? I also
would like to add that compared to retail Dodgers Russells from the
same era, the material of the "DODGERS" logo and the thread color
used to stitch the twill on the game jerseys is significantly different so
this cannot be from a retail blank. I have also inspected for the smallest
signs of any alterations or lettering/numbering removals.

So my question to the members is, with all the evidence presented
do you think the 1997 is a legit gamer? Even though this is part of
my collection, If I were to I now feel comfortable selling it as an authentic,
1997 Hideo Nomo game used Dodgers jersey.

Sorry for the long post. Any comments would be appreciated.
If this 2 year old thread gets no play, I understand..

Thanks,
Goh Nishiyama
gnishiyama@gmail.com

[wolfpac]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Thank you very much, rudy and suicide squeeze! Your comments are highly informative and persuasive.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

......also on the Nomo jersey.......there is just something bothering me on the angle of the second "d" of the Dodgers script. It should be a tad bit more verticle in it's positioning....it appears to be stitched on a hair too high, and tilted a hair too much to the right......IMO.

In Laymens terms, the verticle bar of that "d" is too far away from the button it passes. I have seen thousands of pictures over the years of these jerseys, and dozens of gamers in person....none of the real ones appear "off" like this one. Is there a chance it could be.....sure.....but then I'd refer you to Rudy's comments below which are a lot more scientific than mine.

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

i want to reiterate that, in general, a carryover of an older jersey being used years beyond its production date is an odd thing.

that's not what's happening in this case though. with these dodgers shirts, the mfr tags don't jive with the year tags. as dave said, both of these tags are applied by russell at the factory. in 1992 and 1993, russell wasn't supplying the dodgers. i believe russell began supplying the dodgers in 1994. so russell couldn't have used old unsold 1992/93 dodgers shirts in 1997. in light of that, what these dodger shirts (the murray and the nomo) are saying is that when russell went to produce them in 1997, they used 5 yr old mfr tags. i can see them using the previous years leftovers but that would simply mean using tags from 1996 and in 1996 the russell tags were identical to what was used in 1997. even if they used tags that were 2 yrs old, that would mean using tags from 1995. the tags seen on these dodgers shirts from 1992/1993. i can't see russell using tags from 1992/93 during production in 1997 mainly because i don't think they would've had 5 yr old tags lying around the factory.

rudy.

(with pointed ears)......"Logical"

I hesitated to comment on the Nomo jersey, because it is actually fairly darn close to accurate in placement and lettering style, spacing and such. The labeling.....well that's a major issue that I don't know can be overcome. But one tiny observation, and I know many can say that this is silly.....but trust me, it's not. The last "O" on N O M O on the back of the jersey is too tight in spacing at the bottom. These things just don't happen on MLB game worn jerseys, especially when there are only 4 letters being placed on it. They take pride and quality control the manufacturing of these jerseys.

Of course, once in a blue moon they make errors, like our thread on the "Na ionals" jerseys.....but the placement of the letters that WERE there were perfect.

[kingjammy24]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

i want to reiterate that, in general, a carryover of an older jersey being used years beyond its production date is an odd thing.

arg..i meant it's NOT an odd thing.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Here is the latest 1997 jersey with a 1992 tag. What is your opinion?

i want to reiterate that, in general, a carryover of an older jersey being used years beyond its production date is an odd thing.

that's not what's happening in this case though. with these dodgers shirts, the mfr tags don't jive with the year tags. as dave said, both of these tags are applied by russell at the factory. in 1992 and 1993, russell wasn't supplying the dodgers. i believe russell began supplying the dodgers in 1994. so russell couldn't have used old unsold 1992/93 dodgers shirts in 1997. in light of that, what these dodger shirts (the murray and the nomo) are saying is that when russell went to produce them in 1997, they used 5 yr old mfr tags. i can see them using the previous years leftovers but that would simply mean using tags from 1996 and in 1996 the russell tags were identical to what was used in 1997. even if they used tags that were 2 yrs old, that would mean using tags from 1995. the tags seen on these dodgers shirts from 1992/1993. i can't see russell using tags from 1992/93 during production in 1997 mainly because i don't think they would've had 5 yr old tags lying around the factory.

rudy.

[wolfpac]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Thank you so much everybody for sharing your thoughts.

Here is the latest 1997 jersey with a 1992 tag. What is your opinion?

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

In my opinion....


Both of the Dodger 1997 jerseys shown here, the Murray and the Piazza, are bad. Here are my observations, over and above the important labeling "issues" already discussed:

-The second "d" of Dodgers on the Murray jersey is crooked. Not MLB quality. The script looks suspect to in regards to quality.

-The script on the Piazza jersey is jagged and poorly cut. NOt MLB quality.

-The red numbers on both jerseys are thicker and tigher in the gaps than what is found on MLB professional worn game jerseys.


Getting back to my original post, the positioning of the red numbers on the front of the first Piazza jersey spoken of here.....is all wrong. They are positioned too low, and appear to be undersized.

This hobby is so riddled with garbage.....it's sad. It's nice to have a site to come to to air it all out.

[sox83cubs84]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

As far as tag carryovers for Russell go, they're not as uncommon as one might think. Just saw, with the alert from a MEARS online reader, a Red Sox road gamer of a common year tagged and worn in 2000. It had a 1992 Russell tag. I would thing tagging is done at Russell, not by individual teams. The thing is, Russell seems to have more than a few 3, 4, and more year style carryovers on the tags. Earlier manufacturers such as Wilson and Rawlings had these situations appear far less frequently, and then would rarely be more than a 1-year carryover. The big thing, as Rudy has pointed out several times, is that the tag design can not appear BEFORE its time, i.e., a 1995-99 Russell tag on a 1992 or 1993 jersey.

Dave M.
Chicago area

[kingjammy24]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Sometimes I see 1997 jerseys with the 1992 Russell tag on auctions. Does it mean those jerseys are fake in most cases? Or is it not so unusual to carry over jerseys over 5 years?

some could be fake. some could be legit. i don't think a 5-yr carryover is common but it wouldn't be impossible. relatively speaking, i'd classify it as unusual.

a carryover refers to a carryover by the team, not the manufacturer; that a jersey was ordered and received by the team and used years afterward.
the thing i don't like about the AMI eddie murray jersey shown in this thread is that it's a 1992 style russell tag with a 1997 strip tag. that would mean that russell, not the dodgers, either put a 5 yr old mfr tag on a shirt made in 1997 or took a shirt made in 1992 and slapped a 1997 strip tag on it. not likely in my view. a typical carryover would see a 1992 russell tag with any accompanying 1992 strip tags which was then used by the team in 1997, like the AMI piazza shown in the thread.

rudy.

[wolfpac]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Sometimes I see 1997 jerseys with the 1992 Russell tag on auctions. Does it mean those jerseys are fake in most cases? Or is it not so unusual to carry over jerseys over 5 years?

[suicide_squeeze]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Thank you so much for your super quick response, dodgersfan!

I'd like to know if a year tag has been sawn or not. While the Piazza jersey on Lelands shows no year tag, the description of the Cedeno jersey says "1997 tag sewn on shirt tail."

Please do not base ANYTHING on the Piazza jersey shown in the old Lelands auction in 2005.

It is a bad jersey. Not real....NOT game worn.

[dodgersfan]

Re: 1997 Dodgers Home Jersey Question

Yamils,te yego la camisa?



Gracias,

Rudy

Here are 2 pictures of Dodgers jerseys from 1997.