Interesting interviews regarding authenticity of the 4.4 mil Babe Ruth jersey

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by GKreindler

He really did, Christopher. They were both so different and had a great dynamic together. At first, when Mike had started things on his own, he was talking about how he would have another co-host at some point, but I guess it never panned out.

He can definitely do the show himself, but sometimes, it can have a harsh edge to it.

And of course, I'm saying this out of love, because I still tune in everyday.

Graig

Boy, Graig,

Wow! "Harsh edge" is a polite way of putting it.

I know Dave Kohler pretty well and I don't think that Mike ever gave him a chance to speak. He was absolutely steam rolled in this so called interview. Kohler tried to let Mike know that he is the auction house, not the authenticator.

The process questions that he asked appropriately should have gone to the authenticator from the beginning, but he was hell bent to get his answers even if the person that he was asking wasn't the right person to ask, IMHO...

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Boy, Graig,

Wow! "Harsh edge" is a polite way of putting it.

I know Dave Kohler pretty well and I don't think that Mike ever gave him a chance to speak. He was absolutely steam rolled in this so called interview. Kohler tried to let Mike know that he is the auction house, not the authenticator.

The process questions that he asked appropriately should have gone to the authenticator from the beginning, but he was hell bent to get his answers even if the person that he was asking wasn't the right person to ask, IMHO...

The auction house should have some idea of the "authentication" process of this jersey, since they're in the business of moving this stuff, but he was definitely steamrolled. The process explained by Grob was so underwhelming and ambiguous that I actually think Kohler did a better job by just hanging up.

[sayhey24]

Pure and simple -- knowledgable collectors will tell you that Leon is correct.

Greg

[Splinte1941]

Travis, you care to weigh in?

[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.

[Splinte1941]

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?

[Bugsy]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

And we all know people can move insignias and buttons around on a jersey to make jerseys resemble those in pictures.

Just a word on this. They actually put the jersey up to a light to see if there any any stitch holes present, which would show if any alterations have taken place.

[BigJJ]

Originally Posted by Bugsy

Just a word on this. They actually put the jersey up to a light to see if there any any stitch holes present, which would show if any alterations have taken place.

Again I have no knowledge regarding the Ruth jersey, its level of photo matching, provenance, etc. I have no reason to believe the jersey is anything other than what was presented.

On a separate note, not certain holes cannot be closed through cleaning and drying, perhaps the hard core jersey guys could chime in.

I just think for items of such import, we ought to have a listed provenance roughly covering the life of the item.

[Bugsy]

It would be incredibly difficult to fake a jersey like this. There are so many things to consider. I took all these into account when purchasing a pre-war jersey. I'm sure there are many things I missed too. One wrong answer to any of these can be a huge red flag.

1) Is the jersey made of the correct material? Different fabric blends and weights can be pinpointed to different time periods.

2) Who was the manufacturer?

3) Does the style of the manufacturer's tagging, wash instructions, etc. match the period the jersey was supposedly used?

4) Is the jersey the correct size for the player?

5) Does the jersey have the correct lettering font on the front?

6) Is the style of the number font correct?

7) Is the lettering the correct color?

8) Is the font placement correct?

9) Is the font material correct?

10) Does the jersey have correct buttons?

11) Does the jersey have the correct number of buttons?

12) Is the button placement correct?

13) Is the pinstriping correct?

14) Are team personalizations correct (chain-stitching, etc.)

15) Does the jersey show any alterations?

16) Does the hem match period specifications?

17) What about the taper?

18) What kind of wear does it show?

19) What about the collar style?

20) What about the armpits? There are different methods of sewing the sleeves to the shirt (and sometimes even different fabrics). Even things like the placement and number of air holes in the arm pits have to be consistent with examples from the manufacturer from that period.

Provenance and photomatching can only strengthen an argument.

The nice thing about Ruth jerseys is that several have survived. It is tougher to make a comparison when something is one of a kind.

Just food for thought.

Chris

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by sayhey24

Pure and simple -- knowledgable collectors will tell you that Leon is correct.

Greg

Greg +1

Jake ,Knowing Josh Evans and Lelands you can bet that he didnt pony up 4.4 million dollars without doing his homework a long time ago on this Jersey!

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Boy, Graig,

Wow! "Harsh edge" is a polite way of putting it.

I know Dave Kohler pretty well and I don't think that Mike ever gave him a chance to speak. He was absolutely steam rolled in this so called interview. Kohler tried to let Mike know that he is the auction house, not the authenticator.

The process questions that he asked appropriately should have gone to the authenticator from the beginning, but he was hell bent to get his answers even if the person that he was asking wasn't the right person to ask, IMHO...

+1

The rude and abraisive Francesa never even allowed Kohler to answer, and cut him off every single time. His questions/accusations should have been directed to Mears (or "Mirrors", as he irritatingly pronounced it) from the beginning. I don't blame Kohler for hanging up, and give him credit for lasting as long as he did...

At least Grob was "permitted" a chance to speak. That conversation at least fit the description of an "interview", as opposed to the "railroading" that Kohler was subjected to. I suppose I'm not a fan of "The Fan" (or at least this overly aggressive interview style). But interesting stuff... thanks for posting the interviews!

[Fuddjcal]

after listing to the interview the Oh...."That's what they do"...."They don't know the process...."ask someone else". "Ask Mears".

Mike did only ask him 1 question. The Auction house "does take it on blind word".

Let's ask "Mirrors". "It's too late to ask".

He never did give an answer. I wouldnt touch an item like that for .10 cents. Enjoy your FAKE 4.4 million dollar jersey!!!!.

That auction house is no better than the ones you find on Auction Zip......"Ask Morales".

hanging up only makes him seem like he knew nothing about the process.. Thank for posting the interview. It definitely does nothing for the authenticity of the item, when the auction house knows NOTHING about the authentication process of a 4.4 million dollar item it is SICKENING! I thought it was a fake when I saw the auction go down and after listening to the boob, I agree with my first thought. PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!