1965 Sandy Koufax Game Used and Autographed Jersey (Many new photos)
 

I was wondering what wisdom and insight the gentlemen over here might be able to provide?

This jersey was passed down to a local doctor after his father passed. No other information as to provenance can be provided.

Any information you may assist with is greatly appreciated.

S

https://i.imgur.com/u6iadpo.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/wwLCy5z.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tA3hibL.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/CBoJR71.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/GRogF27.jpg

wow...looks promising to me

Wow.

That's a beauty! This page has pics of the Dodgers tail tags of the era (and many others). It may be helpful.

Sorry, but IMHO, looks off to me in a number of ways. But I have seen Koufax jerseys sold by auction houses that I didn't think were real, so who knows. Maybe Dave G will chime in.

Rick

I see numerous problems with this jersey...

1. Numbers and script "Dodgers" have unexplained and significant fraying. Looks like perhaps they were removed from another jersey and applied to this one.

2. The Jersey itself appears wrong for the 1965 Dodgers. Check out the attached SCP link, which shows a 1965 Koufax Flannel with good provenance...

https://catalog.scpauctions.com/1965...-LOT27629.aspx

The SCP jersey has "RAGLAN" (or diagonally cut) sleeves. The OP's jersey has a straight-cut sleeve. Big difference... and highly unlikely that the team would use both styles during the same season.

3. Also check out the embroidered script "Koufax 65" just below the Spalding Tag. The cursive script style is much different on the SCP Jersey than on the OP's jersey.

4. The positioning of the number 32 on the back is significantly higher on the SCP jersey, than on the OP's jersey.

So it looks to me as if someone may have taken a vintage/original Spalding Home Flannel, and added the Dodgers logo and number "32" to the front and back. Considering what Koufax Flannels sell for, it would be quite a lucrative endeavor for the "restorer".

In the spirit of giving the "benefit of the doubt", I suppose there's an off- chance that the Dodgers wore different jerseys for their 1965 Spring Training (and that this could be one of those). But that possibility seems a bit remote.

I know Dave G. gets paid to give his opinion, but as Rick stated above... it would be great if he could chime in with a few quick thoughts.

Heritage also featured a 1965 Koufax Home Flannel. But this one was made by Tim McAuliffe (not Spalding). It also has the correct Raglan (Diagonal) Sleeves, as appears to be the case for all mid '60s Dodgers Flannels...

The Heritage Jersey realized a similarly enormous price, so make of it what you will....

https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...a/7105-82121.s


To the OP...
Given the obvious concerns with this jersey, I would recommend the following. Unbutton it, and hold it up to a bright light. Look at the number 32 on the back (from the inside) with the bright light directly behind the jersey. Do you see any evidence of prior stitching or embroidery? If so, then you've got your answer. If not, then perhaps consider sending it to either Dave Grob or Mears for further authentication. Hope this is helpful, and best of luck!

Mark, in addition to all the points you specified, in general, the overall wear pattern just doesn't look consistent for a game used jersey, especially a pitcher. There doesn't appear to be wear in the neck, the wear on the numbers and the puckering in the jersey seems wrong, and the Koufax name sewn in looks almost new while the laundry tag is very worn. I agree with you that it looks like something put together to resemble a Koufax jersey If the poster holds it up to the light, they may be able to see stitch marks from where other lettering or numbers were once on the jersey.

Rick

Great minds think alike! I edited my post about prior stitch marks as you were writing the same thing. And excellent points about the inconsistent wear patterns. Especially with regard to the Spalding tag and the embroidered name right below it.

I just followed the link to your collection, Rick.....WOW!!! :eek:

Thanks Rob, can't be easy for a Giants fan to review.

Rick

I second that...

And it's quite easy for a Dodgers fan to review...

Koufax Jersey
 

I will chime in, but because of my contractual obligations, I am sure you will find this post disappointing as it is void of an opinion.

The sleeve style has already been mentioned as Raglan as opposed to “set-in”. This is always something to confirm with contemporary images. In most cases it is consistent across team orders, but there are exceptions (look at Gehrig in the late 1930s as compared to team mates). The next thing to look at and conform is the tagged size vs the actual size. To do this, you really should be working with period on hand products by the SAME manufacturer (yes, there are differences as these were what is known as “made to order uniforms). Next would be to take a look at the fabric quality; this is assessed by comparative analysis looking at the weave (digital microscope is ideal for this). Since this is a Dodger’s jerseys, the lettering and numbering is affixed (or should be) with a “in-line” or straight stitch. This should allow for the back of athletic felt used for these applications to be examined. Then there is the tagging, also worth looking at with both a digital microscope and UV lighting.

A nice problem free all, original Koufax jersey is a six figure uniform all day long…

Dave Grob
davegrob1@aol.com

I received the jersey in hand today. I am attaching for photos for your perusal. It looks like someone sweat a lot in this jersey! The owner found it in his fathers estate and has had it in his closet for the last 22 years. Any further wisdom or insight would be greatly appreciated.

Kindly,

Sean

https://i.imgur.com/BVYRYIN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/j0G4zSN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VtHpkx5.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/D0lz4vb.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/p9LiSKM.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nHGEqR5.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/PZuJWYq.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/BKylTZE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/TDE1tlN.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kX3HOFc.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ZxebB44.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/NI3cMMm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/as5uJwi.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VAal8J3.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ITYQANl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/nCTlwdr.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jcGae2e.jpg

Not to be cruel but do you really think any major league team ever let a player take the field with lettering that looked like that?

I think it is spectacular!

But I am no authentication expert; and I do not apparently have the "eye" for what Scott is referring to.

I hope it is the real deal though, because it is gorgeous!

Looks like the Spalding label has 2 sets of holes in the picture. If so, it was repurposed from another jersey.

Rick

Which is how I feel about the number, the "Dodgers" etc. it's a franken-jersey. I don't think there's any realistic chance it was worn by Koufax.

Rick, thank you for your observation. Do you have any other comments as to the other areas of the jersey?

Sean

There are no additional stitch marks anywhere else on the jersey to support that. I'd really appreciate if you would refrain from commenting anymore on this thread, I believe your comments today have been overwhelmingly negative and do not add anything constructive to the conversation.

Sean

Well, that's interesting.

As someone who has a total of two uniform parts, a jersey and a warmup jacket, and hasn't gotten into the details..

Nothing but questions!
I went looking for other game used jerseys from 65, and was puzzled.
The home jerseys were made by two companies? Both Spalding and McAuliffe?
And the road jerseys by Rawlings?
Is that normal?

To me it's weird that the Spalding label has extra holes, while it doesn't look like any of the other parts do. Looking at a different Spalding jersey it looks like the stitches were on an angle, which would make two rows of holes. But the stitching here is finer and straighter..
https://sports.ha.com/itm/baseball-c...a/7075-81716.s
But of all the bits to repurpose, the Spalding label wouldn't be my first choice.

What I was actually looking for was the Dodgers lettering. Now there's a thing that looks like a problem. I can see maybe a bunch of fraying after it left the team. I didn't see any that looked bad at all in any pics I found. However, the g-e transition is really heavy, and I also couldn't find any pics of a dodgers jersey that had that same heavy handed transition.

The button placement is also different than others.

If it was my money I think I'd say no, but I could be wrong.

Size tag also looks like it has open stitching, and I have never seen Koufax pictured with set-in sleeves versus raglan.

So, I have also checked my database, and it appears that this very jersey received a UTA from MEARS for a variety of reasons a couple of years ago. Or it has an identical twin. Are you aware of this?

Rick

Rick,

Thank you for your comments. Based on how the transaction is happening, I do not believe this would be the same jersey you are referencing (owner responsible for all authentication fees even if fail). I would find it hard to believe if the owner knew it was bad he would be willing to enter in to that arrangement. If you would like to email me pictures I would keep them confidential and do my best to compare.

Does UTA mean unable to authenticate?

Sean

Steve,

Thanks for your comments. I missed the Spalding label having two sets of holes top and bottom. Thank you for that. Also the G-E, I checked the MLB site referenced earlier and couldn't find one that heavy.

To everyone,

If this is not a game used jersey (I am sure hoping it is), where would it fall into price and description range? An autographed jersey or something else? I obviously do not want the owner to have to pay authentication fees if it can be declared 100% NG prior to sending them off.

Sean

Sean, the jersey I am referring to received the Unable to Authenticate in July 2016. Was it possible that the father sent it to Mears back then, and the son doesn't know about it? You didn't mention when the son inherited it.

Rick

.

sending an e-mail to you.

Rick

Thanks Rick.

If you want honest (and free) opinions, why silence people who express valid concerns about it? Do you want to learn the truth, or just hear good news?

Hey Mark,

As you can see by my replies to people who are constructive, I am open to feedback. That's why I posted. What I am not open to is someone who is having a bad day flinging insults because they feel like it. I have communicated with several people via email and I am sure they would verify I have been happily open to their healthily communicated constructive opinions.

Regards,

Sean

Grey Flannel says it's a display jersey and has it at auction now:

https://www.greyflannelauctions.com/...-LOT46052.aspx

Responding to an older post in this thread.
Completely disagree.
Yes his comments do add something to the conversation just not what you want to hear. If you don't like them then don't ask on the forum. I think his comments are on point and constructive.

.,