I tell someone the jersey they have is bad and or fake, I give exact reason, fake wear, fake repairs, number change, nameplate change, and wrong players name on real jersey are really the most popular ones.
What I don’t say is I have never seen that before, I can’t find them wearing that, I have never seen that on a player’s jersey before, I have never seen that kind of wear on a player’s jersey before and so on with the catch phrase I have never being in the reason why it’s bad. I don’t use those terms without something that are is tangible evidence. To say something is bad you need hard evidence and not just your two cents.
Another one I don’t say without tangible evidence is I don’t like it, or I have never seen that, is not a reason a jersey is bad. We don’t have pictures of every shift a player has taken, or of every jersey a player wears or every piece of equipment or stick he uses. I have not seen every jersey a particular player ever had, so I don’t just say these things as the ultimate reason why the jersey is bad.
It comes down to the opinions of some so-called experts that are using hearsay evidence when not back with tangible evidence. In a court of law that is not admissible so why do we allow it here, we should not.
I do use, to the best of my ability when saying something is good, because that is the truth. I use tangible evidence that I know to be real game worn jerseys and compare that to the jersey I am authenticating. I can back that up with the 40 years of doing this and the fact I have seen of thousands of real game worn jerseys. I can tell you from looking at the jersey all the correct things that I know to be true that make the jersey game worn. So, when I say to the best of my knowledge it is not just my knowledge but physical evidence that I have used and known to be true about game worn jerseys. It’s also to the best of my knowledge at that moment.
You must be careful with the intangible statements by themselves, they become wife’s tales, and I too have been caught by one. I was told that every Lindros jersey ever worn by him on the ice had signatures on the inside. Well, I was shown one that was photo matched and not signed. The good thing is that I never just based the signature on saying it was good or bad, because normally there are always more things from column A that made the jersey bad and not just the missing signature. Also, the signature being there would then have many other things right with the jersey.
So, if someone is an expert they should be saying the jersey is real because of 1, 3, 4 and 5. Or the jersey is bad because of 6. 7 and 7. NOT the jersey is bad because I have, I can’t find, or I have never seen. I don’t like it by itself is not a reason something is bad, don’t fall down that rabbit hole.
When someone uses intangible statements only and comes to me with just that, I ask for proof, physical evidence why it is not good. But those inexperienced experts that can’t give me physical proof of why the jersey is bad, are just barking up the wrong tree. They are allowed to give their opinions, but their opinion not based on facts is useless in my eyes.
Physical evidence as to why it’s real is comparing wear to real jerseys, or comparing inside wear to real jerseys, comparing numbers, stitching, fight strap, team stamps, trainers writing, patches, nameplates to name a few of the things that I show or can show you. These things are also used in my authentication process as well.
One of the last things I use in my authentication process is a LOA or where it came from. Once I have established it is game worn, then I look at those items. So, not only do I have physical evidence, we might have those things as well, that are also weighed in, in the authentication process.
My last thing to do is then try and photo match the jersey, you should never try to photo match a jersey that you are not sure it is game worn. Trying to photo match a fake jersey makes me laugh just typing it.