Heritage auction - claimed Mathewson Jersey

[bmarlowe1]

Below is just my opinion with respect to a 1904 Conlon photo claimed to depict the same jersey that is currently up for auction at Heritage: http://tinyurl.com/gm3yekv

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/matty%20jersey%20auction1_zps0vyljipd.png (http://s581.photobucket.com/user/bmarlowe1/media/matty%20jersey%20auction1_zps0vyljipd.png.html)

[slidekellyslide]

Clearly not the same jersey.

[gnaz01]

Clearly not the same jersey.

I had my doubts when I saw it as well, this just confirms it.

[RichardSimon]

With a bid of $120,000 Heritage wants more than intelligent analysis to take it down. It would cost them a chunk of change to do the right thing.

[perezfan]

Just to play "Devil's Advocate"....

Is it possible the jersey could've shrunk via multiple washings and drying, after the photo of Matty was taken? Also it looks like the sleeves are not fully elongated in the modern photo. I see some bunching up that (if pulled or straightened) should elongate the sleeves.

That said, it does seem quite a stretch, given the circumstantial evidence they present. How can they attribute this jersey specifically to Matty (vs. some other random Giants player?) Apparently there is no name embroidered in the tail, or other positive identifier. Unless I missed some key piece of evidence in Heritage's description, the attribution to Matty is weak at best.

[D. Bergin]

Excerpted from the letter written when the jersey was sold to one of the hobby's leading collectors:

"In the early 1900's Christy Mathewson used to return to Factoryville in the off season and bring to the children his old uniforms and equipment. Christy gave to my husband a New York Giants uniform on one of his first return trips. My husband kept this uniform as well as other equipment in our attic, where it has been for the last 90 years."




Mr. Halper I presume????? :rolleyes:

[yanks12025]

Just to play "Devil's Advocate"....

Is it possible the jersey could've shrunk via multiple washings and drying, after the photo of Matty was taken? Also it looks like the sleeves are not fully elongated in the modern photo. I see some bunching up that (if pulled or straightened) should elongate the sleeves.

That said, it does seem quite a stretch, given the circumstantial evidence they present. How can they attribute this jersey specifically to Matty (vs. some other random Giants player?) Apparently there is no name embroidered in the tail, or other positive identifier. Unless I missed some key piece of evidence in Heritage's description, the attribution to Matty is weak at best.

Sleeve could have been trimmed down years after game use.. But who knows

[bmarlowe1]

Just to play "Devil's Advocate"....

Is it possible the jersey could've shrunk via multiple washings and drying, after the photo of Matty was taken? Also it looks like the sleeves are not fully elongated in the modern photo. I see some bunching up that (if pulled or straightened) should elongate the sleeves.

That said, it does seem quite a stretch, given the circumstantial evidence they present. How can they attribute this jersey specifically to Matty (vs. some other random Giants player?) Apparently there is no name embroidered in the tail, or other positive identifier. Unless I missed some key piece of evidence in Heritage's description, the attribution to Matty is weak at best.

The sleeve in he modern photo appears to be nearly fully elongated along the bottom seam - that is all that matters as that is all that is being compared in the two photos. The bunching at the top of the sleeve has no effect on that.

As for shrinkage - how would you explain the large increase in width of the auction jersey compared to the one in the Conlon photo?

[perezfan]

The jersey is going to measure wider when laid flat, vs. around a human body or mannequin. The depth of a body or mannequin will cause the width (on a one dimensional surface like a photo) to appear shorter.

I doubt that accounts for the full difference in this case, but could conceivable explain such a discrepancy.

As for the sleeves, I don't think they were shortened. The end-of-sleeve button holes appear to be perfectly placed as original, and HA would've (should've) had to disclose that. So I'm also in the camp that this is not the same jersey as pictured.

[Shoeless Moe]

so what would a 1900's Giants Jersey, player unknown, be valued at?

Obviously not 120,000+, but any guesstimates?

[btcarfagno]

so what would a 1900's Giants Jersey, player unknown, be valued at?

Obviously not 120,000+, but any guesstimates?

Wild guess would be $30,000-50,000. Just a guess though.

Tom C

[ruth-gehrig]

Attached are the MEARS letters I asked Heritage for. It amazes me that many auction houses fail to post the letters that back up the claims. Read into that or what the letters say, or don't say, what you want :rolleyes:

[bmarlowe1]

perezfan:The jersey is going to measure wider when laid flat, vs. around a human body or mannequin. The depth of a body or mannequin will cause the width (on a one dimensional surface like a photo) to appear shorter

I agree with that and essentially said so in my write-up. I would add that the auction jersey doesn't appear to be laid all that flat.

As for the LOA - it ignores the sleeve length issue.

Also - in the photo included with the LOA - I don't see any hint of where the sleeve extension buttons to the sleeve - maybe the photo is just too blurry, but it just looks like a long sleeve jersey.

[ruth-gehrig]

The letter does mention "customized sleeves" whatever that means.

[bmarlowe1]

In the LOA photo, if it depicts the same jersey that is currently being sold, you should be able to see a very distinct demarcation where the sleeve extension attaches to the short sleeve. I don't see that on the jersey depicted in the LOA. See below (red arrows) for example:

http://i581.photobucket.com/albums/ss259/bmarlowe1/matty%20jersey%20auction%20sleeve%20extension_zpsg uvy89jy.png (http://s581.photobucket.com/user/bmarlowe1/media/matty%20jersey%20auction%20sleeve%20extension_zpsg uvy89jy.png.html)

[bmarlowe1]

In comparing the lettering of the auction jersey to that seen in the Conlon Matty photo, the LOA says, "...the placement of the "Y" and the "O" are the same..." It doesn't seem to be that unique an attribute.

The same could be said for the jersey being worn by Dan McGann below (from a 1904 team photo). Especially note the placement of "Y" with respect to the buttons. It appears to be virtually the same for the auction jersey, the Matty Conlon photo, and for McGann (though his jersey is long sleeve). Actually the same could be said for many of the players in the 1904 team photo.

[MVSNYC]

Great research. i want it to be Matty's, but without pinstripes or a stitched-in name, it is very tuff to say 100%. could be any Giants' player's jersey, no?

[prewarsports]

Don't rule out the fact that it is not a "Giants" jersey at all. NYU used the same jerseys as the Giants at this same time period. I owned a cabinet photo at one time and their jerseys were exactly the same as the Giants major League uniforms. I'm not saying it is, but just because it has "New York" in the same style the Giants wore does not make it a Giants jersey either.

[bmarlowe1]

What a tangled web...

[perezfan]

In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo.... They have some s'plainin' to do!

[ajjohnsonsoxfan]

wow those don't look anything alike

[bravos4evr]

you know what bugs me about the authentication letter? it basically says "well, the person who owned it says they knew Mathewson and it kinda looks pretty close and we can't find anything that proves them wrong so....yeah I guess???"

It very may well be a CM game worn jersey, but ,for the kind of $$$$ something like that will bring, I think i'd want a little more confidence from the authenticators than that.

[BrockJacob]

This jersey is pictured on p.95 in Smithsonian Baseball and is credited to the Nick Depace collection. No mention of it being a Mathewson jersey is made and is only used to show the ghost imaging of the letters.

[ruth-gehrig]

This jersey is pictured on p.95 in Smithsonian Baseball and is credited to the Nick Depace collection. No mention of it being a Mathewson jersey is made and is only used to show the ghost imaging of the letters.

Very very interesting

[MVSNYC]

Jersey jumped to $300K.

[bmarlowe1]

I'm seeing that they very recently set a reserve amount at 250k - I don't see a 300k bid. Can you provide a link?

[MVSNYC]

Ah, I might be misreading their website, it's confusing as it's listed as $298K (w/ buyer's premium) under the "current bid" column on my watchlist. Their site has always had rather confusing interface.

[Lordstan]

Hmm

[bmarlowe1]

So the owner of the jersey in 2005 (pub. date of Smithsonian Baseball), Dr. Nick Depace knew apparently nothing about this being "Matty's jersey." That is odd.

I am guessing that Heritage just upped the reserve to 250k expecting that no one will bid, then they can just withdraw the jersey without admitting this is screwed up. Just a guess.

[MGHPro]

Didn't the jersey sell through rea or mastro years ago - I believe it was sold as a matty jersey back then and sold for under 20k if i remember correctly .
Matt

[thecatspajamas]

Isn't it Heritage's normal policy to not reveal the reserve amount until later in the auction, or am I getting them mixed up with another AH?

[bmarlowe1]

Didn't the jersey sell through rea or mastro years ago - I believe it was sold as a matty jersey back then and sold for under 20k if i remember correctly .
Matt

Yes - REA had it up in 2000. However they did not make the photo match claim. They made other arguments that seem reasonable. I'll let experts in jerseys and provenance be the judge on that.