Got to Love "Photo Matching"
 

https://www.ebay.com/itm/1961-World-...kAAOSwivJZ4RA5

Jersey has been "photo matched" to 1961, but they missed the fact that supplemental tagging for the year in chain stitch embroidery in the front left tail is for "69" and someone has cut away most of the "year/set" flag tag for 1969 as well.

Buy hey, they pinstripes line up.

Dave Grob

The right number is in the wrong spot too.

Photo Matching
 

I really didn’t bother to look at the work in any detail. The concept of “photo matching”, while it sounds good, can be a dangerous proposition for the buyer in regards to how it (the actual work) is currently being done in this industry (especially for older uniforms). More and more people and organizations are offering these services, but with often, very little being objectively offered to substantiate the claim other than very isolated consistencies between a uniform and a photograph. In any number of instances, the person will simply say they compared the jersey in question with images of other jerseys from the same year, but they never mention or account for how many jerseys that was (and how they came to determining the sample/population size) nor do they show how and why the other jerseys have been excluded.

Dave Grob

Agree. It's frustrating. Definitely have seen eBay listings use the term "photo matched" incorrectly. There may be times when a seller may not know what it means and confuses it with what folks sometimes call a "style match." And there are also times when the item and photo wouldn't even qualify as a true style match. Of course, there are also sellers who know what it means, and hope that a buyer doesn't so that the buyer is fooled into believing the use of the term means the item is what the seller represents it to be.

And the pinstripes don't even match.

I've written a to be published university textbook on the methods of art and artifacts authentication, which includes advanced scientific tests such as carbon dating, spectroscopy and thermoluminescence. One thing pointed out repeatedly throughout the book is you never come to a final conclusion via just one test. Even when the test is done correctly and is accurate and is the most advanced test available, it is just a test of one quality or aspect and has to be supplemented with other information and logic. This is why art historians work with scientists, and neither on their own, when authenticating a famous artwork. Both perspectives are needed.

An example is with a questioned Rembrandt painting. That radiometric dating shows the paint is the right age, that is important information for authentication but doesn't prove it was by Rembrandt. It could have been by another artist of the time, including his students who regularly copied his paintings as part of their studies. You need an art historian and other techniques to show it was made by Rembrandt.

I think I can honestly say that in 25+ years of collecting, I have probably seen 1 total item listed as “photo matched” that actually provided reasonably solid pictures/proof. Everything else has seemed to be “look, the jersey in the picture is made of cloth too!”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've seen the term "photo-matched" used pretty loosely with game bats. Instead of showing the scrapes and marks in detail to prove it is the exact bat from a certain game, they just show a picture of the player using a similar bat. See, he uses this type of bat!

Yep -- that's what many folks would call a style match instead of a real photo match. And I've seen some amazing and conclusive actual photo matches of bats using high res photos showing details of the wood grain and other markings. It's a cool thing to see.

Nice catch!

For the record, #22 for the Yankees in 1969 was Jack Aker