Quote:
Originally Posted by 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 |
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.