REA - Pittsburgh Federal League Jersey

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Does anyone recall the Pittsburgh Jersey on Ebay a few weeks ago? I believe this forum collectively deduced that it was not actually a Federal League Jersey.

Well, check Lot # 1349 of the REA Auction.... there it is! Dave Bushing bought it, and Mears has deemed it as an authentic 1913 Pittsburgh Federal League Jersey.

REA has listed its estimate as "Open", with a starting bid of $1,000. Any estimates as to how much this one will now go for? What an absolute steal! I imagine the ebay seller will be quite depressed if/when he sees the final hammer price of this piece...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Can you link to the auction? There has to be some photographic proof of that uniform before MEARS would deem it an actual Fed League uniform doesn't there? I sure never found a photo match....The Hall of Fame's uniform database doesn't match up either.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=11105

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe K.

I would assume/hope there is some photo match that is the basis of the authentication. Aside from the missing tag and two missing buttons, MEARS would have rated this an A10 (I am not terribly familar with their rating, but I believe that means its the real deal with absolute certainty). There is no provenance, so without a photo match I am not sure what the basis of the authentication would be, and how the conclusion is drawn. I'd love to see a photo, maybe MEARS can respond to his thread and post one. What a wonderful find if truly a 1913 Pitt Fed League jersey, but without a photo I wouldn't touch it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Okay...so where is the photo of the 1913 Pittsburgh Stogies team?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Heh. Great minds think alike eh Joe?

[Archive]

Posted By: Brock G.

Where are the pants?
The original ebay auction had the jersey and pants.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

If there is photographic evidence, I'm stunned that it would not be included in the auction description.

Yet another example of why I'm glad I don't collect game-used equipment/uniforms.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike H

Wow...that auction is a complete snore. Oh sure, there are a few eye poppers, but overall very unexciting. No great trophies or pennants. Mostly cards, autographs, and non-sports. Where has all the great memorabilia gone?

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

A grainy photograph has been added

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe K.

I confirmed with Troy Kinunen(MEARS)earlier today that this was the image that was used in their imagery analysis and the basis for their authentication, although Troy said his copy is a "little clearer". Troy provided me a copy of the analysis write up with his comments as well, but I don't think it would be proper to post it here without Troy's consent. If you would like to see the analysis write up I am sure Troy would send you a copy of the evaluation if asked.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Can anyone tell me who the "Bill" is in that picture? And is that a "J" on the sweater?

These are the teams that were in the 1913 Federal League
Chicago Chifeds
Cleveland Green Sox
Covington Blue Sox
Indianapolis Hoosiers
Kansas City Packers
Pittsburgh Stogies
St. Louis Terriers

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

It may be Bill Mckechnie and the J is probably an I for Indianapolis.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe K.

The man on the right is manager Bill Phillips of Indianapolis.

[Archive]

Posted By: paulstratton

Why did I say Mckechnie? Must have T207's on my brain or something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Well, McKechnie did play in the Federal League.

[Archive]

Posted By: Pat Nester

The picture above that was posted is on page 5 of Marc Okkonen's book The Federal League of 1914-1915. The picture is likely from a newspaper as many pictures in the book are from newspapers. A little more research might be able to make a clearer identification of the jersey. Between the research archives at the Baseball Hall of Fame (photographs, programs, Reach and Spalding guides,uniform catalgos, etc.), similar resources at the Pittsburgh Regional History Center and looking through 1913 Pittsburgh newspapers one might be able to find a more definitive picture of a 1913 Pittsburgh Federal League player.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Mike:

In response to your question... "Where has all the memorabilia gone?"... I spoke with Rob Lifson the day before the auction went online.

He simply said that all of the great figurals REA had in previous years came primarily from one major consignor. Must have been quite a collection! Rob said that REA has developed a reputation as a great source for figurals/statues/trophies, etc. But REA's offerings are competely contingent on getting the great consignments.

Rob admitted that this particular auction was very lean on figurals/memorabilia, and said he was at the whim of consignors to provide this type of material. A lot of the great pieces are apparently entrenched in the display rooms of advanced collectors who are not (yet) letting them go.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick

I like Troy and Dave, but THAT is the photo they used as a basis for authenticating that jersey? Is that serious? I have a tremendous amount of respect for REA and obviously he felt good enough to let it in the auction. However, is it just me, or is this "proof" very thin at best. In a day and age in which collectors want to know a complete history of an item (from the time it came off the players back until now) the fact that they will probably sell this for 10K+ based off an 95 yr old, small, fuzzy BW photo... is amazing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I agree with you, Nick...

I would sure hope that Mears had more proof or available exemplars than just that horrible fuzzy picture from the side view. Seems like awfully sparse provenance, if that's all there is!

[Archive]

Posted By: Brock G.

I would definetely want to see a better photo than that before spending the kind of money that jersey will likely fetch. I agree that the people at REA and Mears must truly believe this to be a Federal League jersey but their just has to be better proof than that photo. I dont think that picture does anything but raise more questions about the authenticity of that jersey.

edited to add: They make a Pittsburgh Stogies retro style T-shirt that has the same style "P" logo that the jersey has. Makes me think there is a better picture of a Pittsburgh Fed.Lg jersey out there.
http://www.distantreplays.com/distant/product.asp?s_id=0&dept_id=3093&pf_id=10028741&ad_id=Shareasale&key_id=STOGIES1-T&

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

You got to figure the Pittsburgh Historical Society has some pics. Deacon Phillippe was managing the team - he was a household name in Pitt. I would bet the Hall of Fame has pics as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe K.

This is the only photo that Mears has. I have confirmed with Troy and Rob L. that this is the only image found, although I understand MEARS is looking for extra pictures in response to the feedback on this evaluation. I share the concerns expressed in this thread, and Rob L. and I have exchanged some lengthly messages on the topic - I would hope additional evidence/images can be found.

[Archive]

Posted By: MikeB

This jersey sold in the auction for $10,000. MEARS paid
approximately $800 on ebay. Bushing said he offered the
person on ebay $10,000 to sell it diectly, but the seller
would not end the auction. Curious about the ending price?
Do people often buy their own items, and just pay the 20%
if they feel the price is not what it should be?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Not sure that's what happened here, but there is probably nothing preventing a person from having a friend bid on an item to try and get it back if it's going too low.

This jersey IMO still needs better photo proof than what was offered.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick G

Given the "proof" this jersey comes with, i doubt MEARS bought it back for 10k... Dan does bring up an interesting point though...

Many MAJOR auction houses have no problem with you bidding on your own stuff, yet when you think of someone doing it on .. ebay.... its a repulsive thought... why is that

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

So Bushing but the jersey on ebay for $800 and MEARS -- the company he was associated with -- blessed it as authentic?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Yep.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Lifson

Actually there is something that stands in the way of shill bidding by a consignor on his lots by a friend. We are on the lookout for this. It is illegal, it is not fair to bidders, and we don’t allow it. Consignors also must sign a contract specifically stating that they understand this - that they are not allowed to bid on their own items both because this is against REA’s rules as a condition of consignment and because it is against the law. Software systems are in place at REA to track unusual bidding activity, especially shill bidding. We can’t read minds and sometimes we get false alarms but our systems are in place to help track statistically unusual bidding patterns that identify various potential bidding issue problems including potential shill bidding situations. Many bidders have had their accounts automatically shut off because of this. We appreciate any attention this issue gets. We’ve lost some pretty big consignments because we won’t let bidders bid on their own items, or work with them to allow a friend to do so. We’re always amazed when a consignor tells us this but at least they are up front. This is the world we live in. With reference to the Pittsburgh Federals jersey, the bidders on this item were a virtual who’s who of the most sophisticated vintage jersey collectors in the world. The fact that Dave Bushing (in my opinion too aggressively, but hindsight is always 20-20) offered the seller $10,000 for it, and the seller turned him down, and Dave then won it at auction for less than $1000, and then sold it at REA for a hammer $10,000, is a coincidence. In fact, with the buyers premium the jersey sold for $11,750, and Dave received less than $10,000 for it due to the seller’s commission. With the logic that if it sold for $10,000 then perhaps it was not a 100% on the up and up legitimate sale, then presumably if it sold for any lesser amount it would also be a potentially suspect sale. I point this out not to discourage any attention to the issue of shill bidding, only to point out what I perceive to be a flaw in logic. We think there is not enough attention to the issue of shill bidding in the auction industry and appreciate it whenever anyone discusses it. Also, REA permanently archives all bidding records for auditing purposes for reference in case there is ever an issue. We have heard that the practice of not keeping records, altering them, or destroying them, has been a standard practice of some auction companies. At REA, the bidding records are always permanently archived specifically to allow verification and auditing if desired. This information is very complete, including the exact time to the second that a bid is placed and from what IP address if placed by Internet.

With reference to the jersey itself and the authentication process, that is something for the MEARS board. They are happy to answer any questions about MEARS authenticated items and provide detailed information. The same can be said about any MEARS-authenticated item. It is true that Dave Bushing owned this item. That’s what the description said. It is true that Dave Bushing contributed to the authentication process of the Pittsburgh Federals jersey. That’s what the description said. It is also true that the MEARS authentication process involves more than Dave Bushing. It was authenticated by MEARS and while Dave is an authenticator for MEARS, he is not the only authenticator (actually, he just resigned as an authenticator, but was at this time). The fact is that if anyone was not comfortable bidding on this jersey because Dave owned it or contributed to the authentication process, they did not have to bid. If they were uncomfortable with the authentication of the jersey, they did not have to bid, and if they were interested in having anyone else examine the jersey, they had that option. There were other jerseys that were actually sent out at the request of bidders for examination, to have further reviewed for authentication, and we would have been happy to cooperate in any reasonable manner with any bidder on this or any other jersey in the auction. If an interested bidder wanted any other authenticator to see the jersey – whether it was Lou Lampson, or the PSA-overseen jersey authentication process cited by a competitor about which we have no knowledge, or any other reasonable request for cooperation, we would have been extremely happy to cooperate. I’m not sure what else we could have done to provide bidders with more information. We told them in the description that the jersey was found on eBay by Dave Bushing, that Dave Bushing won it, and that Dave Bushing put it in the REA auction. I happen to know that Dave Bushing personally went to the public library in Pittsburgh to search the 1913 Pittsburgh newspaper microfilms just to try to find a perfect picture. He found only one new photo and though it too was far from perfect, it also was supportive. I know that it would be ideal to have a perfect photo but the fact is that for many early jersey styles this is not so easy. It is the case that that photos were not the sole basis of the MEARS authentication process for this jersey, though it is easy to say (and everyone would agree) that if one had a perfect picture of a 1913 Federal League player showing all details of his uniform, that picture would be extremely valuable to the authentication process. With many early uniforms, there are no ideal pictures available. The 1913 Federal League had six teams. I don’t think we have perfect pictures of any of their uniforms. MEARS has identified this as a 1913 Pittsburgh Federals jersey. One of the great things about MEARS is that their authentications are accompanied by a money-back guarantee. They stand behind their authentication work. If they make an error, which is rare but they are human, they take the item back and pay up. They are extremely accessible. They have a website and are always available to discuss their authentication process for any item on the MEARS website. I’m not sure what more anyone could want. If the issue is that anyone thinks that no one should be able to purchase an item and at the same time have any role in authenticating it even with full disclosure, my response is that anyone thinking this has the right to not bid on the item. We have provided full disclosure. It’s easy to not bid on these items. I respect the right of any collector to collect however they want, but it would not be fair to force other collectors to collect the way someone else prescribes if they feel differently. Also, if a person cannot buy an item, disclose ownership, provide a detailed authentication report on the item, let alone the much greater support provided by MEARS, and provide a money-back guarantee regarding authenticity – if this is deemed to be improper – would it not be the case that purchases of any non-third-party authenticated collectible of any kind by dealers who identify, personally grade, and sell these items (whether they are baseball cards or anything else) would also be deemed improper? If the answer is yes, then that cuts a pretty big swatch across the collectibles field. I don’t really think that is what is being suggested, but I’m just taking what are issues with the authentication of items by authenticators, and throwing out some thoughts to be responsive. Personally, with reference to authenticators authenticating items they own and are selling, I think the problem is with the non-disclosure and non-accountability of dealer-authenticated items. As always, when serious questions about how business is conducted in this field, one thing leads to another and many different topics come up. I’m glad to see the Federal League jersey has been a catalyst for the discussion of so many important hobby issues.


Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I think in order to be a collector of memorabilia such as game used jerseys or bats one has to accept a bit of "leap of faith". Unless you got an item personally from a player right from his hands at the time of the event there is always going to be some leap of faith. With this jersey I think without a good photo match you've got a bigger leap of faith. Is that why the jersey sold for a lower than expected price? Probably a bit, but I think also since it's attributed to 1913 (Federal League was considered a minor league in 1913) it's not as special as if it were a 1914 or 1915 jersey in the minds of most collectors.

As far as owning an item and also being in on authenticating the item I don't have too much of a problem with that as long as you've garnered solid evidence. After all I did some research on a $10 postcard and sold it for $400 as a result of my research.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brock G.

The original seller would NOT take $10,000???

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

So Bushing basically just prints his own money by authenticating his own items.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Looks to me like the dark strip, running down the front of the uniform, goes all the way down the front of the uniform in the newspaper photo, whereas, it stops well short in the auctioned uniform.

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=11105

Rob M.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I applaud Rob for handling this jersey the right way, and I agree that if after full disclosure anyone is uncomfortable bidding he is free not to do so.

But I still feel that an authenticator really should get out of the business of buying and selling (or as Bushing did, get out of the business of authenticating). I don't think it is right to buy a jersey, authenticate it, and consign it to a major auction house. There are many situations where the authenticity of an item is not a slam dunk, and where there may be some mitigating factors for and against it being genuine. In a situation like that it might get a free pass, because of the financial incentive to do so.

In a perfect world an authenticator would resign from buying and selling the items he examines. I would be fine if a uniform and bat authenticator bought and sold baseball cards that were authenticated by a company with whom he is not associated. Disclosure is great, and Rob is always meticulous in that department, but this is still not an ideal situation.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joseph

There's actually a very good piece in the May 16 SCD that has Bushing kvetching to Chris Nerat about his departure from the field of authentication. Sadly, the expletives have been deleted.

Here's two things Bushing told Nerat:

"...There isn't enough money in the world for me to authenticate anything again."

Later in the piece:

"...I'm not making any money doing it (authenticating). So why bother doing it? I hate it, I literally hate it..."


Sounds like money was a factor in the decision.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Yeah, sounds like an awful financial decision Bushing was forced to make. Printing money in his basement by "authenticating" a jersey that he paid nothing for and then selling it for 5 figures has always been a sure way to the poorhouse. He can cry all he wants but the fact is he's a walking, talking conflict of interest for years now. Trust me, in the real world it is much harder to earn a living by actually working instead of simply authenticating a rock and turning it into gold. What a freaking joke. No wonder he never had time to finish that Master's Degree--he was too busy in the library doing "research" on how to stuff his pockets!

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick G

The issue i had with this piece was how they went about authenticating it, not with Dave or REA.

(To Jeff)...I dont know if you know Dave, but he is one THE MOST stand up guys in the entire business. Im sure there was a ton of time that went into looking for more pictures, etc of the jersey.

However at the end of that day.. If you dont have any.. you have to say.. YES this is good, or no its not. It IS a big leap of faith for someone spending 5 figures on an item. I DO wonder... If someone else (say.. me) sent this jersey to MEARS would they have given it a cert based on just that 1 photo. Though i will say, the "buy back" guarantee does speak volumes into how much they believe in themselves.

Sadly, Robert is right. There are very few auction houses in which things are done on the 100% up and up. Its part of a much larger discussion as to why this hobby gets nothing but negative press it seems.

On the subject of authenticating and buying.. Dave very easily could have had a friend buy the jersey on ebay.... Mears does the cert.. and the friend consigns it.. So you have to give them credit (REA also)for being honest

The authentication business is simply no win. People expect you to be right 100% of the time. When you do made an error (no matter how rare) people grill you and never let you live it down. Like Dave said, its also not very lucrative.

Again my only reservation is that they could say w 100% certainty thats what that jersey is, based on the information they have. Besides that... I have the utmost respect for Robert Edwards and Dave Bushing. THe hobby could use more like both of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Lifson

Hi Barry! Question: How is what Dave Bushing did any different than what you did when you bought the 1871 Boston CDVs on eBay and then put them in your auction. I’m not saying that you should not have done this – you should have – but how was this different?

In both cases the purchase was made on eBay. In the case of the jersey, Dave Bushing provided complete disclosure and it was consigned to an auction (REA) where his ownership and role in contributing to the authentication process was clearly stated in the description both at his insistence and per REA policies. When you sold the CDVs, you were both the auctioneer and the owner and the authenticator, and there was no disclosure in the description. Now I agree that it is the case that probably everybody that had a serious interest in that lot was aware that you owned it, you discussed it and even posted about this on the Net54 board, so I am not saying that you did anything you should not have, I’m just trying to make a point using this as an example. I could have chosen a million other examples but I thought this was a good one. There are many similarities. The CDVs were not authenticated by a third party - they were authenticated by you. It is possible that someone could have had an interest in buying the CDVs who did not read your Net54 posts about them and they would not have been aware of the ownership (and implicit authentication) disclosure from the printed or online catalog. So isn’t it the case that Dave Bushing, on his jersey purchase and auction sale, provided much more transparency than the CDV purchase and sale? And he also provided a written research report and a money-back guarantee. (Note: I could have presented this type of situation as an analogy with any non-third-party authenticated cards bought on eBay and sold by any dealer privately or at auction.)

Now I know it might be tempting to say that the CDVs were “slam dunks” as far as authenticating, and so it is different, and I agree that you are one of the great scholars of nineteenth-century baseball photography. But the fact is that CDVs and other early baseball photography really aren’t slam dunks for being properly described. There are all kinds of problems that come up. And they come up all the time. A couple of auctions ago, Barry, you had a “Goodwin Old Judge proof” of the type that I am certain does not date from the 1880s, but instead dates from post-1900. There is more information to be learned about these photos – who made them, when, and why. They are very interesting, and collectors like them, but exactly what they are has yet to be determined with certainty. After I called you to give you the heads up, you pulled that photo from the auction. I just had a 1904 Horner cabinet of “McGinnity” in the spring REA auction. It was lot #184. Here is the link:

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9940
It turns out that this photo was not McGinnity after all –it was Sammy Strang. I missed it. I made an error. And this cabinet photo actually WAS authenticated by a third-party – PSA/DNA! Granted, McGinnity and Strang bear a strong resemblance. Between their resemblance and the PSA/DNA authentication letter, I let my guard down and didn’t realize the error until the auction had started. We pulled the lot. “The Old Man” card (Lot #12:http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/bidplace.aspx?itemid=9768 was originally identified by you as a card of Bernie Hennigan, years ago when you cataloged this card for another auction. I understood your reasoning, thought you were 100% right, and repeated the very same errors you did in presenting the card in the spring auction. I even wrote an article on the card! We were both wrong, and research by Brian and Michael Wentz of BMW Sportscards was able to identify this card correctly for us and for the entire collecting world as Dave Birdsall. There are lots of other examples. It’s hard to get everything perfect.

The point is I don’t see any difference between Dave Bushing buying a jersey, authenticating it, providing his research in a written form, providing a money-back guarantee, and providing full disclosure in all respects, than with a dealer buying a card or a CDV or some other collectible and then grading, authenticating, and presumably guaranteeing its authenticity when selling it. The way I see it, Dave is doing more than others. I think he is an easy target here in part because he IS providing full disclosure. If he wasn’t, no one would even know what was his and it would be a non-issue, just like it is for all the others that do not provide disclosure. Most authenticators, dealers, and auction houses do not provide any disclosure at all regarding conflicts of interest - as far as authenticators go I think we’re talking about a universe of one – MEARS - so those that do provide disclosure, ironically, appear to be a lightening rod for criticism, while those that do not provide disclosure get a pass (and while it is not a third-party authentication service, the Game-Used Universe auction authentication process also provides this type of ideal disclosure).

The fact is that all dealers in all areas provide grading and authentication and presumably a money-back guarantee. I can’t believe that anyone would think that this should be OK for all types of collectibles (cards, coins, paintings, books, autographs, pinbacks, comics, etc) except jerseys and bats (or items handled by Dave Bushing), let alone when Dave is holding himself up to a higher, more rigid, and more formal standard than dealers in all other areas that I have seen. If one wants to take exception with the MEARS opinion or the authentication process on any given item, that’s fine, I’m all for it and so are they, there is even a forum for that. It would seem reasonable to see what they have based their opinions on and read their report on the item first.

If it is deemed inappropriate for someone to buy and sell any type of collectible solely because they are providing (implicitly or explicitly) authentication services on an item that is owned, and do so with full disclosure, then I have to ask why? And I also have to ask what are the logical implications? Would not all collectible dealerships of all kinds – except those dealing exclusively in third-party-authenticated items (like PSA-authenticated Horner photos or PSA-graded T206 Nodgrass cards) be put out of business overnight? To me, that sounds very Un-American! I really don’t think anyone is suggesting that but these are some of my thoughts regarding these important topics that I thought might be valuable to share.

Sincerely,

Robert Lifson

Robert Edward Auctions, LLC

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Gotta say, it sure is nice having Rob L. come on here to give his very well thought out explanations. That's part of why his auctions are the best of the biggies.

Just my 1/2 cent on the subject - In this case I think there is a bigger burden of proof in the validation of the jersey, whereas, I think the CDV's pretty much described themselves. Much is known already about CDV's and the subject players. No one, arguably, seems to even be certain what a 1913 Pittsburg "Federals" jersey looks like.

Rob M.


grammar edit

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Hi Rob- all good points, but I will disagree with them a bit. First off, I never even considered that any part of my description of the 1871 Boston piece fell under the blanket of authentication. All I did was identify the 11 players pictured, information that is available to anyone who has a book with photographs of the players on that team. In fact, I did a better job with them than SGC, if I may pat myself on the back. I rightly categorized them as CdV proofs, since they were not finished products as the photos were affixed to a very thin layer of cardboard. SGC mistakenly identified them as CdV's, and in my opinion they did not properly label the holders. That may come back to haunt them one day, but I digress.

I think Rob M. hit the nail on the head, that the burden of proof varies from piece to piece. Areas such as autographs and game used equipment can be extremely problematical, and I'm sure there have been countless situations where one authenticator calls a jersey unquestionably game used and another says it isn't. I'm sure that happens on a regular basis. Regarding the 1871 Boston display, is there any other valid opinion regarding who is pictured in the eleven photographs, and the fact that they are CdV's, albeit incomplete ones? Is there a possibility that another historian might think those are actually the Unions of Morrisania, and the photo of Harry Wright is in fact a fake? I just don't see any gray area in that department.

Regarding the Old Judge proof I had I fell asleep at the wheel. I knew when I catalogued it it didn't look right but I went ahead and included it in my auction. After you called me it was yanked immediately. But I was not the owner of it, and I don't feel it was quite the same process of authentication, but admit I can't exactly explain why. I will say I take 100% responsibility for the error.

Regarding the Hannegan CdV, I believe that falls under the category of photo identification. I think we are in full agreement that it is a CdV, and there is a strong resemblance to Hannegan, both in the facial features and with regard to the Leslie's woodcut. But when you (through Mike Wentz) pointed out that Birdsall had the nickname "the old man", something I was not aware of, I agreed my identification was erroneous. Frankly, the difference in value between a Hannegan CdV and a Birdsall is minimal; the difference in value between a real uniform and a fake one is everything and nothing.

Again, let me stress that I am not questioning the authenticity of the Federal League uniform, as I don't have a clue; and I repeat that REA Auctions did everything they were supposed to regarding the presentation. I just think authenticators should stick to authenticating, to remove even the slightest possibility of conflict of interest. In the case of Dave Bushing, who I suspect loves buying and selling but hates authenticating, I feel he is doing the right thing.

To repeat, the autograph and game used equipment market is rife with questionable pieces reaching the marketplace. The CdV market to date has not experienced the same difficulties.

[Archive]

Posted By: Nick G

I think the issue with this jersey in particular is that it appears to take the "innocent until proven guilty" approach. I imagine that might be done with all pieces, which is fine for a 1958 Hank Aaron jersey. There are other exemplars out there of others players, etc to make a judgment on it.

However when you have nothing else to work with (besides an awful side shot photo), im not sure that is enough to put a stamp of approval on it.

If the discussion is simply about authenticating and selling... I see no problem with it but i do wonder (in the case of this particular jersey) would they have given it a COA. I believe that just because you cant find a photo that says that ISNT a 1913 Federals jerseys, that doesn't mean that it IS.

There have been many times i have sent an item to Jimmy Spence (and PSA/DNA i beleive) which was a VERY obscure autograph (usually non sports) and they simply return it without a COA because they have nothing to go by, no comparison. As frustrating as it is in that case, at least I feel good in having them pass on something then not be 100% sure of.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Some great points made by Nick, Dan et al...

Simply because there is no contradictory evidence, the authentication of this particular piece seems like a huge "Leap of Faith". Especially on something with no available exemplars for comparison. Furthermore, it certainly must bother a lot of people to see this jersey go for $800 on Ebay, and $10,000 in REA.

I know that (emotionally) I felt this way, just as I did about the Ornate Pins recently featured in Heritage. Regarding those Pins, I believe that someone paid a few dollars for each at an Arkansas flea market, and they all eventually sold for 5 figures.

But those Pins were authentic, and I actually think the odds are very good for this jersey to be authentic as well. The photo (while severely flawed) does help to legitimize the piece. For the "all or nothing" nature that a Mears LOA provides the value of the piece, I just think most people want more iron-clad evidence.

Perhaps eventually, we'll see letters deeming such pieces as "Likely Authentic". I know that when it comes to Caps and Warm-up Jackets, Mears uses the terminology "attributed to" a particular player. This is largely because Caps and Jackets typically have uniform numbers written on, instead of standardized tagging. The "attributed to" wording seems to carry a bit less weight than their LOAs for Bats and Uniforms. The LOA for the Federal League Jersey in question seemed very difinitive.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Well in the case of this jersey I think it just came on the market too quickly....this really should have been researched more before it was auctioned off. It's hard for me to believe that there doesn't exist better pictures somewhere in Pittsburgh or at the Hall of Fame for the 1913 Pittsburgh Federals. The famed Deacon Phillippe managed the team for crying out loud.

Someone took the leap of faith in the hopes of finding more evidence that this jersey is legit....or perhaps with a month to try and find evidence the winner of the auction found it and got a steal? Or maybe the winner already had said evidence and kept it to them self?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

"them self"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Barry, my spellchecker apparently doesn't think "Themself" is a word.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

My spellcheck is my Webster's Dictionary. It's always right next to the computer (and I use it!)

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

I always have to laugh knowing Barry is out there with his English Grammar book. In my post earlier in this thread I had to jump back in and make a quick edit before he could see it. In my haste to edit, I then noticed that I wrote "grammer edit" and had to go back in and put "grammar edit". Geez, nothing like having to edit your edit!

Rob M.

Oops, their eye go agian. I had too make anothr dam edit.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Rob- It's just my training. I taught college English for three years. But that was thirty years ago, and I forget a lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Barry -

Oh, I certainly remember that you taught English and it's good for us. Keeps us on our tows (pun intended)!

Rob M.