This is a fake cap, ain't it? [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

View Full Version : This is a fake cap, ain't it?

Archive

09-01-2007, 11:35 AM

Posted By: Aaron M.Would love for this cap to be real, but it's a reproduction from Cooperstown Ballcap Co, right? <a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=290154733796&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=019" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=290154733796&ssPageName=STRK:MEWA:IT&ih=019</a> <a href="http://www.ballcap.com/" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.ballcap.com/</a>

Archive

09-01-2007, 01:05 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaYou know, looking at the other stuff this guy is selling and some of the stuff he's sold in the past he doesn't look like he's in the business of selling junk repro stuff as real...but I'm no expert on uniforms and caps. It would be nice to see what one of those repro caps looks like...they only show a "cartoonish" version on their website. And thanks for the link to the website - they offer two different Lincoln caps that I may be interested in. edited for my usual poor grammar

Archive

09-01-2007, 01:10 PM

Posted By: paulstrattonI had one of these Cooperstown repro versions about 10 years ago. It was different if I remember...it didn't have a short bill like this one does and it was made of "stiffer" material. Did old caps have mesh inserts in them though?

Archive

09-01-2007, 01:38 PM

Posted By: davidcyclebackThe same longwave blacklight you use on baseball cards is useful in identifying modern repro baseball caps. This is as much modern thread, tags and cloth fluoresces brightly under blacklight. Post WWII Manufacturers add the same type of brightly fluorescing chemicals to thread as they do card stock. In my experience with modern dark cloth caps, most of the cap will not fluoresce, but one or more small areas will usually give it away. This can include a brightly fluorescing tag or emblem or inside stitching. This also illustrates that modern alterations to old jerseys can often be identified with blacklight. On a vintage 1930 jersey, a modern patch can fluoresce. Even with a vintage 1930 patch recently sewn onto a vintage 1930 jersey, the new thread can give it away. <a href="http://www.cycleback.com/blacklight.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.cycleback.com/blacklight.html</a>

Archive

09-01-2007, 02:19 PM

Posted By: E, DanielSt Johns Baseball Team circa 1900 <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1188591503.JPG">

Archive

09-01-2007, 02:46 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Hey, E, can you show the inside of the cap as well?

Archive

09-01-2007, 11:29 PM

Posted By: E, Danieland umm, first name is Daniel <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. Daniel Enright <img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1188624551.JPG">

Archive

09-04-2007, 06:46 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.I shied away from the cap in part because the inside looked like a cap manufactured post 1960 rather than turn-of-the-century, but Troy Kinnunen of MEARS was the winning bidder and I doubt he spends over $1,000 on the cap if he doesn't think he can authenticate it and re-sell for much more. It will be interesting to see if Troy does indeed autheticate and re-sell the cap and if the auction house that sells it will disclose the fact that the consignor/authenticator has a conflict of interest.

Archive

09-04-2007, 08:19 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaInteresting. That's Dave Bushing's ebay ID. Maybe he and Troy share that one?

Archive

09-05-2007, 11:47 AM

Posted By: Aaron M.I'm pretty sure it's Troy's ID. In any case, it was MEARS buying.

Archive

09-05-2007, 12:56 PM

Posted By: Joseph JesselliOf course an authentic cap from the first year of The American League would be a steal at the hammer price here. MEARS can't lose by outbidding the world for dubious items. They risk nothing. Since they are the number one authenticators of sports equipment, they are the ones who decide whether something is real or not. So they either win, or they get their money back. Nice, huh?

Archive

09-05-2007, 01:19 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Exactly -- that's what makes MEARS conflict of interest so insipid. They are the ones deciding if something is authentic or not. So all they have to do is stamp their own LOA on this baby and they can probably triple their money (at least). Who is to challenge them? Especially if the conflict of interest is undisclosed as is the case when MEARS sells its own items on Mastro? Imagine if PSA did this with cards? There would be a huge outcry over it. PSA could simply ask itself, is a questionable card trimmed? Maybe, maybe not, but if we say it's not and encapsulate it, then we make a huge profit. That's exactly what the MEARS guys are able to do, and as a collector you basically have to trust that they were honest in their assessment despite their conflict of interest which means they have hundreds or thousands (or more) of dollars at stake on seeing an item in a light that is favorable to themselves.

Archive

09-05-2007, 01:25 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaIt's Bushing's ID...he just bought something from me on ebay last week. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I know he has another ID that he sells with though. As for them self-authenticating it's sort of a catch-22. I don't think there is enough material out there for them to make money just authenticating so they have to also buy/sell. Otherwise I suppose they'd have to get a second job....and besides who are they going to send an item to? Lou Lampson! I don't spend big money on game used items so I really have no dog in that fight, but is there another company out there as trusted as MEARS?

Archive

09-05-2007, 01:35 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.I don't think it's a catch-22 at all. When I discussed this issue with the MEARS guys (Troy and Dave) a couple years ago they used the same excuse -- they didn't make enough money authenticating to give up being dealers. If that's the case, then they should give up authenticating or find another means of employment to supplement their authenticating. Doing both selling and authenticating is a blatant conflict of interest, chips away at their own credibility, and is too big of a temptation for MEARS to do "shady" things.

Archive

09-05-2007, 01:37 PM

Posted By: davidcycleIt's Troy's id. Bushing buys and sells under dbushing1, which obviously isn't covert. I've bought from Bushing before on eBay and was satisfied with his service (nothing he sold me came with a MEARS or SCD LOA).

Archive

09-05-2007, 01:41 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaTroy may use that ebay ID, but I'm telling you guys Dave Bushing bought something from me on ebay LAST WEEK using that same ebay ID. The ID is registered to Dave Bushing. And as far as I can tell the hobby doesn't seem to care about the conflict of interest here.

Archive

09-05-2007, 01:56 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Perhaps Bushing has been using Troy's ID because his own ID isn't so "covert"? I don't think it's accurate to say the hobby doesn't care. I think the issue of undisclosed conflict of interest is serious enough that MEARS has finally decided to do something about it and only authenticate items for auction houses that allow them to disclose their conflict of interest. (Which is obviously a step in the right direction, even if it's two years overdue.) As to the issue of the conflict of interest itself, I think it's more to do with so many collectors simply being unaware that the conflict of interest exists in the first place and that MEARS sells their own items. If there were more collector awareness, then I think there would be more of an outcry. But MEARS doesn't broadcast the idea that they are out their buying, authenticating and selling. I mean how many of us knew that was Troy's E-Bay user ID?

Archive

09-05-2007, 02:18 PM

Posted By: Joseph JesselliI think it's bad practice for someone to sell something he or she authenticates his or herself. I think it's outrageous not to disclose that fact.

Archive

09-05-2007, 02:38 PM

Posted By: Troy R. KinunenJust wanted to clarify some issues with respect to the cap that I bid on. 1. With respect to my user I.D. I am thebionicbigfoot. It is my personal email address and the only one I bid on. Dave Bushing does not have access to my bidding I.D. and he does his own bidding under dbushing1. We do both tend to bid on similar items, especially in the game used category. But if you check my completed history, you will see that I bid on a myriad of subject matter. 2. With respects to "undisclosed conflict of interest", this is not the case with MEARS or our authenticators. Since October 20th, 2005, we have voluntarily disclosed which items we own that we have also provided an opinion on when consigning an item to an auction house. These items were posted on the section prominently displayed as "our items at auction". This feature was free to any interested party and we did not make this a portion of our members section. Although some may feel this is still a "conflict of interest", it cannot be categorized as an "undisclosed conflict of interest." 3. With respect to Aaron's statement, "If there were more collector awareness, then I think there would be more of an outcry. But MEARS doesn't broadcast the idea that they are out their buying, authenticating and selling." For the calendar year 2007, MEARS only consigned 5 items to auction. All 5 were posted publicly on our website. Also, all 5 items were auctioned early in the year and consigned during the end of 2006. As of January 1st, 2007, MEARS launched a site titled: Bushing & Kinunen MEARS For Sale. The section was listed prominetely at the bottom of our website. Within the text of each item for sale, there is a title bar which reads, "Ownership: Bushing & Kinunen". This is the second bit of information found with each lot description. I think that by titling the section of the for sale site as "Bushing & Kinunen MEARS for Sale" we have done about as much broadcasting of our for sale site as possible while telling everybody who owned the items. The section itself is highlited in red and found at the bottom of our webpage. In addition, when an item sells, it is archived in a section titled "Archives" . This section is found on the bottom left margin of our for sale site. Each and every item is archived permanently for all interested parties to view. You do not have to be a member to see what we have sold, who owned it, and what we said about each sold item. The reason for doing so it to allow collectors to use this feature as a research tool for comparing their own items, and to make us accountable for what we said about an item while selling it. Collectors do not have to agree with our policy of authenticating and buying and selling of sports memorabilia. But, with a MEARS items for sale, you will know exactly who owned it and how it was described and graded. If you like the item, please make your purchase. If you do not like the policy, you cannot say that you did not know it was owned by Bushing or Kinunen. With respects to the cap I bid on, here is my post dated September 3rd, 2007 which can be found on our website. Here is the link. <a href="http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1188883384/rare+original+1901+Detroit+Tigers+baseball+cap+woo l" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1188883384/rare+original+1901+Detroit+Tigers+baseball+cap+woo l</a> I will not be responding directly to any additional questions on this site, but will answer any and all questions posted on the MEARS bulletin board. As per our bulletin board policy, you must include a valid email address and both first and last name. Sincerley, Troy R. Kinunen MEARS troy@mearsonline.com

Archive

09-05-2007, 02:53 PM

Posted By: Joseph JesselliSo...voila! The answer was the original post. So readers of this forum didn't have to make a foolish mistake like lesser-informed bidders.

Archive

09-05-2007, 02:55 PM

Posted By: Aaron M."2. With respects to "undisclosed conflict of interest", this is not the case with MEARS or our authenticators. Since October 20th, 2005, we have voluntarily disclosed which items we own that we have also provided an opinion on when consigning an item to an auction house. These items were posted on the section prominently displayed as "our items at auction". This feature was free to any interested party and we did not make this a portion of our members section. Although some may feel this is still a "conflict of interest", it cannot be categorized as an "undisclosed conflict of interest." Sorry, Troy but it absolutely 100% is an undisclosed conflict of interest. If the prospective buyer isn't informed of the conflict anywhere in the auction itself (catalog, item description, etc.) and the buyer has to go check another web-site which he may not even know exists (similarly there is no mention of the MEARS wesbite in the auction), then it's an undisclosed conflict of interest. \ This kind of self-serving spin does little to enhance collector trust that MEARS is aware of a problem and is doing something about it. You'd have been better off stating that while this practice has occurred in the past and we have tried to overcome auction house disclosure restrictions by prominently noting our items on our own web-site, as an additional step and to ensure that no potential bidder is left uninformed, we have decide to no longer consign to auction houses that do not disclose in an item's description if MEARS both owns and authenticated the particular item. That's more accurate, but also paints you in a positive light. Maybe you should hire a PR guy. "I think that by titling the section of the for sale site as "Bushing & Kinunen MEARS for Sale" we have done about as much broadcasting of our for sale site as possible while telling everybody who owned the items." Again, this assumes the buyer actually knows about your web-site and that MEARS sells direct. If the buyer is already at your web-site, then of course he knows about MEARS practice of authenticating its own items. But if the buyer doesn't know that MEARS does this and doesn't know about the MEARS web-site, then he's in the dark about the whole issue. "But, with a MEARS items for sale, you will know exactly who owned it and how it was described and graded." Uh, OK, then why create the new policy of only authenticating for auctions that actually do disclose your conflict of interest? So far REA is the only house that has signed up. That implies that if any other auction house carried your items, it did so without disclosing your conflict of interest. "If you like the item, please make your purchase. If you do not like the policy, you cannot say that you did not know it was owned by Bushing or Kinunen." Again, that's true if someone is buying from your web-site. Not if they are buying one of your consignments to an auction house (unless it's REA).

Archive

09-05-2007, 02:59 PM

Posted By: Dan BrettaTroy, I certainly wouldn't use ballcap.com as an identification guide since the two Lincoln minor league caps they have listed are NOT the correct style for either one. They're both cool, but I'm thinking they just guessed on the color of the Chiefs cap and decided to put an antelope on the hat for the 1911 team when their hats had no design at all on them that year.

Archive

09-05-2007, 03:02 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Hey, Joe, I spotted it as a fake, and Troy didn't. What does that tell you?? Maybe I should start authenticating. Yeah, that's the ticket...<img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Archive

09-05-2007, 03:06 PM

Posted By: Aaron M.Oh, and Dan the Tigers cap style in question actually dates to 1910 era, so the seller got it wrong as he obviously just referenced the incorrect dating from the Ballcap Co. website. Man, I just saved Troy $1,000 by linking the Ballcap Co. website. Do I get a commission? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>