Photo-Matching

[benjulmag]

Why should photo-matching be regarded as anything other than a negative test, as opposed to a purportedly conclusive means of authentication? A negative test tells what something is not; it does not tell what something is. So, say, if an AH was selling a game-used Mickey Mantle jersey with the name "Mantle" showing on the back, one would know the item couldn't be real because Yankee game jerseys do not show player names.

If a skilled forger is planning to make a fake jersey that he/she hopes to sell for a 7-figure sum, I would think that forger would have studied every known image of the player in the jersey and mimicked to the tiniest detail every observable feature. That forger would also have expertise in all other details of that particular jersey and made certain to match those features as well. He/she would be certain to make the jersey out of the correct materials and be careful not to have any of it contain chemical/physical properties not commercially available at the time of claimed manufacture. And the forger might even have the item displayed in a prominent sports museum to give an air of provenance and authenticity. I would think most museums would love to have a jersey of a popular superstar and therefore be very accepting of the provenance offered by the lender.

And what about the ever-so-convincing story accompanying the item that explained how the person came into possession? Has there ever been an instance of an AH actually hiring a detective agency to corroborate the details of the story?

Some years ago an AH auctioned never-before-seen photographs of Lou Gehrig Day in 1939. The shots were taken by some fan in the stands and showed perspectives I had never before seen published. How many people know that the number 4 on Gehrig's jersey was not on the uniform he wore that day? In that era, outworn player jerseys would remain in the possession of the club and be used for minor league wear, after having the original numbers removed. Given that reality, how can any (Yankee) jersey have the original number? That alone would indicate to me that such a game-used jersey showing the original number, without some very compelling explanation of how it remained affixed to the jersey, is almost certainly a fake.

So what do people think? The market for game-used jerseys of superstars has never been hotter, and all I seem to see as corroboration for most of them is that ever present phrase "positive photo-matching" on occasion accompanied on by some uninvestigated story told by some respectable-appearing individual explaining how he/she came into possession. To me it would require quite a leap of faith to pay the millions required to win the item.

[MVSNYC]

Hi Corey, thanks for your post...not sure if this helps answer any questions your asking, but...All I can add to the conversation, is that pinstriped uniforms are unique, and no two are alike (like fingerprints). Here's some images of my Derek Jeter Game Worn uniform he wore during two games in his final season, 2014.

[benjulmag]

Thanks for the response. You may be correct that jerseys are like fingerprints in that they are unique assuming they are manufactured in ordinary due course. By that I mean that when a jersey is manufactured, the manufacturer is not trying to mimic any prior manufactured jersey. But that is not what a forger does. That person does try to exactly replicate a previously made jersey.

Take fingerprints. Yes, everybody's real fingerprints are unique. But suppose I wanted to frame somebody for a crime, and I knew the fingerprints of the person I wanted to frame. Suppose too I had the ability to create finger coverings I could put on that would generate identical fingerprints to this person. In such instance the fingerprints I would leave at the scene by having worn these finger coverings would appear to be those of this other person.

That is how a forger operates with respect to jerseys. He uses known images of the player wearing the jersey to create a replica so precise that one cannot discern the difference with the unaided eye.

So with your Jeter jersey, I am not saying it is not genuine. I would regard photo-matching as step one. If the jerseys did not match, you could stop there and know you had a fake. That is why I use the phrase "negative testing" to describe photo-matching. But having passed step one IMO more is still needed to establish its genuineness.

[mrreality68]

wow never knew so much was involved and never realized (or took for granted) the length forgers would go to make it match as much as those details they try to do

[benjulmag]

Jeff,

The ability to sell a fake for millions of dollars gives skilled forgers all the incentive they need.

[Jim65]

If you're talking about taking a common game used jersey and turning it into a HOF worn, a forger would have to take a jersey completely apart to make seams match, remove all set strips, numbers, lettering, embroidered player names, etc. It would be extremely difficult to do without leaving evidence like extra needle holes, differing colors on jersey, different threads and stitches, etc.

To me, its possible but there would always be some evidence there if you look hard enough.

I definitely agree with your point about negative test. I've seen way too many people call a loose thread a photo match. People look for 1 similarity rather than looking for a difference.