Originally Posted by rlevy
I understand what you are saying, but the system Mears used then, and I believe still uses, graded jerseys strictly on a point system. So a jersey they would determine was game used would start as a 10, with points deducted for things like buttons missing, tears, loose stitching, etc. So this jersey started as a 10, but received 5 points of deductions for items like the loose stitching and buttons replaced. The A5 game issued designation you are referring to was started by Mears to designated jerseys they could tell were game issued, but couldn't determine they were game used, and this mostly was applied to more modern knits. They would automatically get an A5 as the starting grade, with the same type of point deductions if necessary.
When Grob went to SGC, he decided that he would look at a jersey differently, recognizing that these desirable jerseys would in fact show usage and be far from perfect, so he now looks at the overall condition of the jersey as a whole, and recognizes buttons would be replaced, stitching reinforced if necessary, etc. To me, this makes a lot more sense than dinging a jersey that was kept in use by the player and team by making repairs at the time.
The same issues exist in grading game used bats. Do you ding a bat because it was cracked? How about too much use to where it looks abused? How much usage does a bat have to have to be graded a 9 or a 10 versus a 7 or an 8? All Highly subjective. Same with grading jerseys. So Mears developed their point system to try to be more consistent in their grading of jerseys. SGC took a different path, which I personally prefer.
As to Lelands only showing the SGC grade, they only needed one evaluation to make bidders comfortable. And SGC has become the gold standard on high end jerseys. I would question Lelands if they were using an older more favorable opinion without disclosing more recent findings, but that isn't the case here.
And no, I'm not the consignor.
Rick
|