Game used when player doesn't play.

[gingi79]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

If it is a player's final season where game used jerseys are sold at a premium, would you consider a game worn instead if you can get it at a lower price? I'm not sure if Mariano Rivera can be used as an example, but let's say last year, he wore a jersey but didn't pitch in the game that the jersey was authenticated. If it was sold in the secondary market for less than the game used jerseys, would it still be a solid investment?

This is a great question. Mo played a ton of dominant seasons, for the Yanks, wearing a number retired by MLB 15 years before he stopped wearing it, as a player few could argue was the best ever at his position. If any player makes the HOF as a Relief/Closer it's Rivera. Having a jersey he wore but didn't pitch in with MLB Authentication, to me at least, is worth much less than one worn during a game but much more than one from Spring Training let alone a Team Issued/ Game Issued version.

On the other hand, your average relief pitcher or bench player or even DH not named David Ortiz, wearing the jersey to watch the game from the bench or the relief pen doesn't carry any additional value in my mind.

One other caveat, if I attend the game, talk to the player and get a ball from him during warm ups and he never plays in the game? It becomes one of the most desirable game used jerseys in my collection.

[jake33]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

What is interesting to me is that at least 1 MLB will deem an item as "Game Issued" if the player suited up for the game, didn't play but was part of the 40-man roster.

It will be authenticated the same date as the specific game the player wore it in, but will be listed as issued.

A rep froman MLB team, said they will list an item as game issued, because the player isn't on the 25-man roster.

That same jersey is more than "issued" but it isn't game "used".

It isn't from one of those MLB authentications after the fact either. I went through the MLB database for a specific game and all the non roster players were deemed as game issued, but the team rep DID in fact confirm they were worn and the back up jersey from that specific game, so that can also make an issue.

[pungent]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

If it is a player's final season where game used jerseys are sold at a premium, would you consider a game worn instead if you can get it at a lower price? I'm not sure if Mariano Rivera can be used as an example, but let's say last year, he wore a jersey but didn't pitch in the game that the jersey was authenticated. If it was sold in the secondary market for less than the game used jerseys, would it still be a solid investment?

[roar84]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

I really think this is a great thread and got me thinking about a Miguel Cabrera jersey I have from 2011. It is mlb authenticated as "team issued" at the end of the season but it is evident that it was worn by staining on the front near the collar. In addition, it has Jim Schmakel's initials on the tag with the letter G which designates it as a game jersey. Since it was evident that the jersey was worn, but I did not take the time to try an photomatch it, I had Cabrera autograph it and put "game worn." What are some thoughts if it is evident that the jersey was used and, as in the case with the Tigers, they initial the tag?

[rufusandherschel]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

However, I can't see MLB, for instance, changing their authentication categories . . . "

Good point! MLB's authentication categories/classification system is/are part of the problem and confusion.

[icollectDCsports]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

I think it's too late and too nuanced for most folks to distinguish between "game used" and "game worn," which have been applied interchangeably for a quite a while. To me, the word "game" shouldn't apply if the item was never used (in the case of equipment) or worn (in the case of uniform items) on the playing field during competition. A good example is a uniform item issued for use for in one game, such as a throwback jersey. If a starting pitcher didn't appear in the game, no "game" use or wear. Same for a position player who didn't get in the game. Perhaps "bench worn" or "bench used" would be more appropriate.

But what about a uniform item worn by a manager? Although he may in some games stay in the bench area for the entire game, I'd call it "game used" or "game worn" because it was worn by one actively participating in the game according to his role.

I do think all of this is worth discussing. However, I can't see MLB, for instance, changing their authentication categories based on these distinctions. Too much work.

[Rob L]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

I collect Troy Percival items so he obviously was in the bullpen alot. I do have a "GU" uniform from a TBTC game. He was eligible to play but didn't get in. I have pictures of him wearing the uniform (made a great photomatch) and it is dirty. I would think, in terms of relief pitchers, that if they are eligible on the roster but don't get in, it is still game used IMHO.

[rufusandherschel]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

In addition (and next to impossible I'm sure) it would be nice to see the forum take the lead in trying to establish a standard glossary of terms used throughout the hobby like this 'game used vs game worn' one that comes up or at least terminology/definitions that are accepted here on the forum would be a good start. Maybe there could be a summit held at the National to discuss this issue since that seems to be the one time that most of the bigwigs and auction houses in the hobby are all in one place.

Great idea/excellent start! Input, concurrence and agreement of the auction houses would seem to be essential. Possibly Chris and Forum moderators could get the 'ball rolling".

[Dewey2007]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

Although the terms in the hobby are interchangeable like others I consider a jersey "game used" when it was used in an actual game. If the guy sat on the bench then it is "game worn".

When I first joined the forum I suggested to the moderators at the time that they start a Sticky or Exceptionally Educational Thread of hobby related terms that collectors, especially new ones, could refer to. Never got a response but I think it would still be a good thing to try and do.

In addition (and next to impossible I'm sure) it would be nice to see the forum take the lead in trying to establish a standard glossary of terms used throughout the hobby like this 'game used vs game worn' one that comes up or at least terminology/definitions that are accepted here on the forum would be a good start. Maybe there could be a summit held at the National to discuss this issue since that seems to be the one time that most of the bigwigs and auction houses in the hobby are all in one place.

[Lunytune2]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

That is why there has to be an industry standard. I have bought a jersey as game used according to the MLB Authentication when I know for a fact that the player did not see any game action. The standards has to start from the MLB, NHL or the NFL to make it all work out. Unless they take the lead it will be extremely hard for it to work.

This is why the buyer needs to do there homework before buying !

[HawaiiSportsNut]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

How about when MLB Authenticated describes a jersey as game used while it was only game worn?

That is why there has to be an industry standard. I have bought a jersey as game used according to the MLB Authentication when I know for a fact that the player did not see any game action. The standards has to start from the MLB, NHL or the NFL to make it all work out. Unless they take the lead it will be extremely hard for it to work.

[mbenga28]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

It would be so much easier if there was an industry standard for game memorabilia. But while a team or reputable sellers may follow the standards there will be many sellers that would write the description just to make the sale.

As a standard I personally would like to see something along these lines,

Game Used: Worn by players during game action.

Game Worn: Worn by players during warm up or while on the bench.

Game/Team Issued: Issued by the team for the intent of game action but never worn by the player at any point.

How about when MLB Authenticated describes a jersey as game used while it was only game worn?

[HawaiiSportsNut]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

It would be so much easier if there was an industry standard for game memorabilia. But while a team or reputable sellers may follow the standards there will be many sellers that would write the description just to make the sale.

As a standard I personally would like to see something along these lines,

Game Used: Worn by players during game action.

Game Worn: Worn by players during warm up or while on the bench.

Game/Team Issued: Issued by the team for the intent of game action but never worn by the player at any point.

[mbenga28]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

Are game worn and game used two different terms as Lunytune2 mentioned? That could create confusion when a team LOA says game used when it was just game worn by a player.

[Lunytune2]

Re: Game used when player doesn't play.

It is game worn .. just not game used ... some people collect for the player , some for significance . I have a Tony Sanchez wildcard game jersey that he did not play in ... but it was his and he did wear it during that game. And like others said , he probably wore it in another game before that.