Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJJ
I agree that photo matching can be reasonably definitive - however, it is not always definitive - and at times I have seen individuals stating a definitive photo match, when such match is not definitive - even putting the jersey next to the photo and saying it is definitive when it is not.
And we all know people can move insignias and buttons around on a jersey to make jerseys resemble those in pictures.
I was not an interested party to the Ruth jersey that sold, and have no knowledge as to the extent of photo matching. I also have no knowledge as to that jersey's provenance.
I can tell you in the art world, that few would buy a Renoir for about $5 million dollars, if the work had no published provenance prior to 2004 or whatever recent date. Every piece has some provenance, even if just discovered for 'what it is'. In our business, we ought to be publishing provenance with pieces more often - to the same extent as art. Particularly the big pieces.
And as with art, there will be some 'Private Collection, New York, NY, 1955-1998' listings to allow for some anonymity, but we ought to be providing a clear public record and we ought to start doing it now for future generations.
|
+1
It was embarrassing that Grob had to admit that Mears could not account for the whereabouts of the jersey prior to 2004. Francesa was asking pretty reasonable and simple questions and it was painful at points listening to the answers. Just incredible. Where did this thing come from? Maybe the guys at Leland's know but why not just disclose it?
If this is real, it's worthy of Cooperstown, the National Archives, and the Smithsonian. Would any of those places accept it based solely on a Mears report?