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.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm talking about something completely different, at least in the instance of the really skilled forger. He/she would make the fake from scratch, not using some common game used jersey but creating something 100% new, being certain to use fabrics and materials commercially available at the purported time of manufacture. He/she will have as much expertise in game-worn HOF jerseys as the most experienced authenticators, and will be certain to have every known feature be a perfect (at least to the unaided eye) match. That IMO is how skilled some forgers are. And with a potential jackpot in the millions waiting at the other end if they pull it off, they are fully incentivized to spend the time and money to do it.

And how many times have we heard used the phrase "evidence of game use? How hard is it once the replica is made to have someone wear it for a while until it shows the appearance of having been used?

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'm talking about something completely different, at least in the instance of the really skilled forger. He/she would make the fake from scratch, not using some common game used jersey but creating something 100% new, being certain to use fabrics and materials commercially available at the purported time of manufacture. He/she will have as much expertise in game-worn HOF jerseys as the most experienced authenticators, and will be certain to have every known feature be a perfect (at least to the unaided eye) match. That IMO is how skilled some forgers are. And with a potential jackpot in the millions waiting at the other end if they pull it off, they are fully incentivized to spend the time and money to do it.

And how many times have we heard used the phrase "evidence of game use? How hard is it once the replica is made to have someone wear it for a while until it shows the appearance of having been used?

Has there been an incident like this? Or is it that they are out there privately in collections? Sort of like fine art forgeries?

I mean, in theory, someone could create more Dead Sea Scrolls, or original print of The Declaration of Independence. How about just making a 52 Mantle that passes muster?

I once had (my only GU uni ever) a Dykstra Phillies home uni that was matched definitively to a game by the staining, so it can be a positive ID also.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Deertick

Has there been an incident like this? Or is it that they are out there privately in collections? Sort of like fine art forgeries?

I mean, in theory, someone could create more Dead Sea Scrolls, or original print of The Declaration of Independence. How about just making a 52 Mantle that passes muster?

I once had (my only GU uni ever) a Dykstra Phillies home uni that was matched definitively to a game by the staining, so it can be a positive ID also.

Yes, there have been incidents like this, and yes, given the amount of money involved, it is as sophisticated as fine art forgeries.

In regard to your Dykstra uniform, the matching of the stain is not a positive ID. It is no different than matching pinstripes. Again, I'm not saying the uniform is not authentic. But other than the photo-matching, do you have other corroboration that the uniform is real and was game used?

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

I'm talking about something completely different, at least in the instance of the really skilled forger. He/she would make the fake from scratch, not using some common game used jersey but creating something 100% new, being certain to use fabrics and materials commercially available at the purported time of manufacture. He/she will have as much expertise in game-worn HOF jerseys as the most experienced authenticators, and will be certain to have every known feature be a perfect (at least to the unaided eye) match. That IMO is how skilled some forgers are. And with a potential jackpot in the millions waiting at the other end if they pull it off, they are fully incentivized to spend the time and money to do it.

Not nearly as easy to do as you suggest, for vintage flannels. Where do you find supplies of 80 year old flannel and thread? For jerseys with patches, how would someone make one of those, using period materials, and have it match exemplars down to the smallest detail? Then there are all the other various taggings: manufacturer, year/set tag, size, name embroidered in collar or tail, etc.

Fading is also an indicator, especially on grey (road) jerseys. Looking at the back of a shirt, there will not be any fading behind the numbers on back, but should be some fading everywhere else. That indicates the numbers have been on the shirt a long time while the shirt was in use in sunlight.

Different teams used different types of stitching. For example, 1960's Dodgers used a straight line stitch. Other teams used a shark tooth stitch, some wider, narrower, or tighter. Often, patches were stitched differently than the team logo or numbers.

If you look at the analysis a top-line jersey authenticator does, like Dave Grob, you'll be amazed how many specific details he examines against known, catalogued exemplars. Then there is the light table evaluation to see if there are any stitch patterns that might indicate, for example, a number change. There is the black light examination, to determine whether a name in collar tag, or sleeve patch, has been there all these many years, or was recently attached.

Could it be done? Sure. Art forgers have been copying the masters for centuries. Successfully forge a Rembrandt and you've made multiple millions. But unless the jersey was worth huge dollars, the attempt would not likely be worth it, and even then, I'd bet on the skilled authenticator to be able to raise red flags if a supposed vintage jersey wasn't authentic.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Not nearly as easy to do as you suggest, for vintage flannels. Where do you find supplies of 80 year old flannel and thread?

I never said it was easy to do. I said only that for a HOF vintage jersey worth millions, there are those out there with the expertise and financial incentive to make replicas that cannot be shown to be fake by the unaided eye. Supplies of 80-year-old thread and flannel are out there. And, no disrespect intended, but I do not believe any expert is infallible. I vividly remember the Halper sale and in the worst way wanting to find one 19th jersey I was comfortable was real. I remember talking to a very renowned authenticator about a particular jersey, which this person assured me it was authentic. I asked him pointed questions about aspects of it that did not seem to me to add up. The end response was, "I just know it is real." Turns out it wasn't.

My expertise is not in game-used jerseys but in other areas of memorabilia. And I have been beat. To this day I marvel at the skill and knowledge required to make the replicas and wonder who had the skill/knowledge to do it.

BTW, doesn't it strike one as strange that the vintage jerseys that show up just happen to be of HOFers? And how many confirmed exemplars are there of such jerseys?

My bottom line -- photo-matching in and of itself is not enough to conclude a multi-million dollar HOF game-used jersey is genuine.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

My bottom line -- photo-matching in and of itself is not enough to conclude a multi-million dollar HOF game-used jersey is genuine.

I agree with this.

Because of the difficulty I don't think it is a practical problem for shirts valued at less than, say, $100,000, to pick a more or less random number. If such a shirt was independently deemed genuine by a qualified pro (in my book, that means one specific authenticator,) then photo matching can be one more element added in favor of it being genuine.

But on one of those mega expensive shirts, I do see your point. Especially jerseys without pinstripes. For example, a loose thread, stain, tear, or other imperfection visible in a vintage photo could be produced on a fake easily enough.

I was thinking about Halper too, when I made my previous post. Interesting you also mention him. Specifically, I always wondered about his claim to have jerseys of all the HOFers. Take Waddell... how could the shirt Barry claimed to have been Rube's have possibly been confirmed?

More modern flannels have (usually) several specific taggings, and always an identifying uniform number on back. There are plenty of exemplars. It's a much easier world to navigate.

A shirt from, say, 1906, with no number and virtually no tagging, not to mention few, or maybe no, team/season exemplars to compare....... Yes, I can see serious problems there and agree, a photo match wouldn't do much to convince me if that's all there was.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Yes, there have been incidents like this, and yes, given the amount of money involved, it is as sophisticated as fine art forgeries.

In regard to your Dykstra uniform, the matching of the stain is not a positive ID. It is no different than matching pinstripes. Again, I'm not saying the uniform is not authentic. But other than the photo-matching, do you have other corroboration that the uniform is real and was game used?

Yes, it was acquired from an equipment manager shortly after a homestand. From what I remember, he said uniforms get washed, then inspected and ones that need repair or more attention are set aside. They either didn't attempt or were unsuccessful in cleaning. I got lucky that he was visible in a picture of a postgame celebration with the distinctive stain on his chest.

So, it wasn't used for identification IF it was GU, just that it was for one specific game.