Ridiculous Reggie jersey on eBay

[JMEnglish27]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/191407958820?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2661&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

First off, it's in no way a "game" jersey because the A's never, not for a second, wore that.

[perezfan]

The listing is misleading, and a tad sleazy, IMO. It does not actually state "game used" or "game worn" anywhere in the listing... just "Game Jersey". The seller (who deals heavily in Game-used items, and has done so for years) should know this is misleading. How can you even call it a Game Jersey?

Obviously, the A's never wore that style, but a novice collector might be misled. The only thing referenced is the Autograph authentication.... nothing attesting to Game-use. But to use phrases like "Game Jersey" and "Unaltered" is really misleading.

The Buy it Now price is another obvious tip-off that Reggie never wore it. But why on earth would a simple autographed Jersey be priced that high?

[ooo-ribay]

My opinion of Zane just dropped a couple of notches. :(

[Misha]

I wrote to them twice in the past month since that showed up, and both times they said it was a prototype lol!

[JMEnglish27]

I wrote to them twice in the past month since that showed up, and both times they said it was a prototype lol!

While that might be true, you'd think if this were on the up-and-up, that they'd mention that tidbit in the auction listing. If true, it's THE significant reasoning for the rarity of the jersey that they're asserting.

[rjackson44]

Not mine lol

[Dave Grob]

This is not my jersey, I have never owned it, and have never seen it in person. That being said, I think the notion of a “prototype” is plausible. When things like this are proffered, they should however come with some information that supports the position. For this particular jersey, it could be noted that in an article in the 11 March, 1972 (p46) edition of The Sporting News, A’s owner Charlie Finely comments that Reggie Jackson was consulted on the new knit uniforms being developed for the A’s. Finely goes as far as stating that Jackson tried on various uniforms in his (Finley’s) Chicago office and one of Jackson’s complaints was that the names were too small. So would a Jackson jersey be a candidate as a prototype? I don’t suspect Reggie would have relished trying on something that had another player’s name and number or void of his own.

It should also be noted that when the A’s moved to Oakland in 1968, they featured uniforms with a similar applique of “OAKLAND” across the front. This was to be another “first year effort”, so why not consider a modification of a previous design or some combination? The 1972 Cubs road jerseys also featured the front player number on the center of the pullover jersey. If you research the Atlanta Braves efforts to settle on their knit uniforms, they went through over a dozen various designs and color scheme to come up with they ended wearing in 1972.

I have no public opinion on this particular uniform, but only offer that contextual information should always be part of the discussion of prototypes.

Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

[Scott Garner]

Did Reggie ever wear a size 42 shirt?
That seems small to me as Reggie was pretty broad through the shoulders.
I would think that he would wear a 44 or 46 at least based on seeing him in person during his playing career..

Just curious...

[ooo-ribay]

Did Reggie ever wear a size 42 shirt?
That seems small to me as Reggie was pretty broad through the shoulders.
I would think that he would wear a 44 or 46 at least based on seeing him in person during his playing career..

Just curious...

Chicks dug the tight, V neck, pullover polyester jersey!

[JMEnglish27]

This is not my jersey, I have never owned it, and have never seen it in person. That being said, I think the notion of a “prototype” is plausible. When things like this are proffered, they should however come with some information that supports the position. For this particular jersey, it could be noted that in an article in the 11 March, 1972 (p46) edition of The Sporting News, A’s owner Charlie Finely comments that Reggie Jackson was consulted on the new knit uniforms being developed for the A’s. Finely goes as far as stating that Jackson tried on various uniforms in his (Finley’s) Chicago office and one of Jackson’s complaints was that the names were too small. So would a Jackson jersey be a candidate as a prototype? I don’t suspect Reggie would have relished trying on something that had another player’s name and number or void of his own.

It should also be noted that when the A’s moved to Oakland in 1968, they featured uniforms with a similar applique of “OAKLAND” across the front. This was to be another “first year effort”, so why not consider a modification of a previous design or some combination? The 1972 Cubs road jerseys also featured the front player number on the center of the pullover jersey. If you research the Atlanta Braves efforts to settle on their knit uniforms, they went through over a dozen various designs and color scheme to come up with they ended wearing in 1972.

I have no public opinion on this particular uniform, but only offer that contextual information should always be part of the discussion of prototypes.

Dave Grob
Dave Grob1@aol.com

Agree with everything you said, but what seems implausible to me would be the name and number plastered on a prototype. Maybe, I guess, to show how they'd look.

42 does seem small for him too. But having seen those McAuliffe tags, the placement and look seems to be genuine...thus why I brought it here. There's a lot at play with this piece and I wish the listor had some actual facts to help illustrate in the auction what this is that we're looking at.

[steve B]

The one salesmans sample I had from another team had pretty good looking tags and a players name and number.

I suppose if the company was trying to sell new jersey designs they'd have fairly accurate samples.

Which would of course require some sort of proof aside from "it's a prototype"

Steve B