Do you consider Mitchell and Ness Jerseys Authentic?

[Bouj]

It might help to think of it the way the NBA does: they have another designation above authentic that is called Game-Issued Pro-Cut. It's above the Authentic and it is THE absolute closest you can get to an NBA game jersey in retail.

Knowing that M&N is not always exact, they should still be considered as a separate category from Authentic. Authentic should be considered whatever is sold as "field wear" by the league at the time. As in, 2011 NFL jerseys that are Authentic are only made by Reebok. 2012 NFL jerseys that are "Authentic" are only made by Nike.

In baseball, the Authentics for sale at MLB.com are nearly identical to team-issued jerseys (there may be some idividual exceptions regarding tailoring from player to player and the team tagging isn't there), so that's as authentic as can be at retail.

[Discogod]

I consider my M&N jerseys "historical reproductions", and as such they occupy a seperate section in my jersey collection, away from both replicas and authentics.

Anal? You bet.

[OnWis97]

I consider my M&N jerseys "historical reproductions", and as such they occupy a seperate section in my jersey collection, away from both replicas and authentics.

Anal? You bet.

Agree...to whatever extent it's important, I'd say "no."

PS...This one looks like it belongs on the China counterfeit thread: Boomer

[BlueSky]

the term "Authentic", i think is going away because the fake jerseys use it

Perhaps...but it should go away because it's an inaccurate term used strictly for marketing purposes. Sorry, Gothamite, it has to be done:

===

au·then·tic 

adjective

1. not false or copied; genuine; real: an authentic antique.

===

By definition then, the only real "authentic" jerseys are game jerseys, which are not available to the public. And in some cases, that's a good thing:

Everyone reading this would do themselves a favor to start seeing marketing for what it is: an attempt to part you and your money by whatever means necessary. Some marketers are more ethical than others, but that's like saying some condors are prettier than others. It may be true, but for all practical purposes the distinction is meaningless.

[Gothamite]

True enough, although that condor on the bottom is a nice little piece of feather (you have my number, baby).

The only league that could really make an argument for selling "authentics" is MLB. Those are very, very close to the on-field product. The NFL is getting farther away with the skin-tight jerseys, and last time I checked the NBA wasn't even close with theirs.

I don't know enough about the NHL to rank them here.

[CON40]

I've always considered them high quality replica jerseys... in the late '80s, they actually manufactured with bolts of wool that were authentic to the era. That stock ran out within a few years and M&N replaced it with modern fabric that is a blend of wool and polyester.

Also, the jerseys are often adorned with large patches (Cooperstown Collection, etc) that really position the jerseys as fashion made to be worn not tucked. No authentic jersey would be constructed with that type of distinction for how the public should wear it.

[gdu]

It might help to think of it the way the NBA does: they have another designation above authentic that is called Game-Issued Pro-Cut. It's above the Authentic and it is THE absolute closest you can get to an NBA game jersey in retail.

Knowing that M&N is not always exact, they should still be considered as a separate category from Authentic. Authentic should be considered whatever is sold as "field wear" by the league at the time. As in, 2011 NFL jerseys that are Authentic are only made by Reebok. 2012 NFL jerseys that are "Authentic" are only made by Nike.

In baseball, the Authentics for sale at MLB.com are nearly identical to team-issued jerseys (there may be some idividual exceptions regarding tailoring from player to player and the team tagging isn't there), so that's as authentic as can be at retail.

I'm not a big baseball uniform guy, but I doubt MLB.com sells "Authentics" with chainstitching.

[ohryan]

Some of the Mitchell and Ness stuff just looks sloppy and inaccurate to me. For instance this 1994 Chiefs Marcus Allen jersey. I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember the Chiefs not having sleeve stripes, and this jersey has none.

I don't want to turn this into a Chinese counterfeit debate, but to me some of these M&N jerseys look just as bad - if not worse than some of those jerseys. The only difference I see is that M&N charges $300 and the counterfeits are much cheaper.

For my money, I want accuracy. I'd be willing to pay almost 10x more than a counterfeit for "the real deal," but there is absolutely no way I'd pay that much for something as bad looking as this M&N jersey. I don't consider that to be "Authentic" in any sense of the word.

M&N 1994 Marcus Allen

[OnWis97]

Some of the Mitchell and Ness stuff just looks sloppy and inaccurate to me. For instance this 1994 Chiefs Marcus Allen jersey. I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember the Chiefs not having sleeve stripes, and this jersey has none.

I don't want to turn this into a Chinese counterfeit debate, but to me some of these M&N jerseys look just as bad - if not worse than some of those jerseys. The only difference I see is that M&N charges $300 and the counterfeits are much cheaper.

For my money, I want accuracy. I'd be willing to pay almost 10x more than a counterfeit for "the real deal," but there is absolutely no way I'd pay that much for something as bad looking as this M&N jersey. I don't consider that to be "Authentic" in any sense of the word.

M&N 1994 Marcus Allen

I am sure someone knows, but maybe the 1994 is from an accurate 75th Anniversary jersey? Either way, you point stands as with my above example of the Boomer Esiason jersey, on which the last name and sleeve stripes look very "China Counterfeit" to me: My link

I guess we've learned that we all have our own interpretation of the word "authentic." M and N, no matter how accurate, is not authentic within my definition. Mine allows for the authentics sold to the public that are the same materials, etc. as on the field. But others are more strict than I (only "on-field") while some are less strict (M and S "counts"). It's probably not important.

For ebay sellers, it often is reduced to "officially licensed" (or even counterfeit).

[phutmasterflex]

I consider my M&N jerseys "historical reproductions", and as such they occupy a seperate section in my jersey collection, away from both replicas and authentics.

Anal? You bet.

Agree...to whatever extent it's important, I'd say "no."

PS...This one looks like it belongs on the China counterfeit thread: Boomer

True, but the numbers at that time were screen printed, so at least M&N made the effort to make it look accurate

[Bouj]

It might help to think of it the way the NBA does: they have another designation above authentic that is called Game-Issued Pro-Cut. It's above the Authentic and it is THE absolute closest you can get to an NBA game jersey in retail.

Knowing that M&N is not always exact, they should still be considered as a separate category from Authentic. Authentic should be considered whatever is sold as "field wear" by the league at the time. As in, 2011 NFL jerseys that are Authentic are only made by Reebok. 2012 NFL jerseys that are "Authentic" are only made by Nike.

In baseball, the Authentics for sale at MLB.com are nearly identical to team-issued jerseys (there may be some idividual exceptions regarding tailoring from player to player and the team tagging isn't there), so that's as authentic as can be at retail.

I'm not a big baseball uniform guy, but I doubt MLB.com sells "Authentics" with chainstitching.

They do. The Cards, Astros, and Phils are all chain-stitched and sold for retail that way. I've gotten an Astros jersey from them, and I've been to the "Garage Sale" that was held at Minute Maid Park where they were unloading team gear. It's the same jersey except for the tagging.

[JohnnySeoul]

Some of the Mitchell and Ness stuff just looks sloppy and inaccurate to me. For instance this 1994 Chiefs Marcus Allen jersey. I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember the Chiefs not having sleeve stripes, and this jersey has none.

In 1994, the Cheifs played at least one game (against the LA Rams) where both teams wore throwbacks. The 1994 M&N Chiefs jerseys are the throwback version.

[andrewharrington]

True enough, although that condor on the bottom is a nice little piece of feather (you have my number, baby).

The only league that could really make an argument for selling "authentics" is MLB. Those are very, very close to the on-field product. The NFL is getting farther away with the skin-tight jerseys, and last time I checked the NBA wasn't even close with theirs.

I don't know enough about the NHL to rank them here.

The NBA authentics are almost identical to the on-court models, or at least the new Rev30 versions are. I think the only major difference is that they're cut to the size of a normal person as opposed to an NBA sized person.

[Gothamite]

But do the new retail NBA "authentics" have the same detachable numbers that the on-court jerseys do?

[Sodboy13]

I don't know enough about the NHL to rank them here.

As far as I know, there was zero difference between NHL retail authentics and game jerseys up until the Edge rollout. Since Edge occurred, I know there have been a few fabric swaps in the on-ice jerseys, and I don't know if those have been applied to the retail models.

Oh, and if you buy an NHL or MLB retail authentic, and your team uses chainstitching on the ice/field, you'll have chainstitching on your jersey, too.

[The Fonz]

i have never bought a mitchell and ness football jersey, but the mitchell and ness baseball jerseys look pretty damn accurate....specifically the mets 86 ones.

[Bouj]

i have never bought a mitchell and ness football jersey, but the mitchell and ness baseball jerseys look pretty damn accurate....specifically the mets 86 ones.

M&N reproduced the late 80's red Falcons jersey (Deion) and it had the screened numbers on them. If not for the M&N tag, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference from authentics of that era (I have an authentic 1993 black Falcons Russell Athletic jersey and it's nearly identical in construction).

[spyboy1]

I consider my M&N jerseys "historical reproductions", and as such they occupy a seperate section in my jersey collection, away from both replicas and authentics.

Anal? You bet.

Since I've never seen an on ice NHL jersey have a Mitchell and Ness logo on the bottom of the back, no, they are not authentic. I agree with the term "historical reproductions" to describe them and generally only buy them them when they are the best available option, which is pre-1972 baseball jerseys.

That said, they make so many glaring errors it's maddening, especially in the case of when all photos of a scarce jersey should contain the same details, making one wonder how they ever managed to get it wrong in the first place.

[PhantomDreamer]

A Mitchell and Ness "1990" Ted Williams Boston Red Sox BP v-neck pullover jersey. Now, that is certainly nicer looking than anything Williams wore during his career and better than anything the Red Sox have worn in a generation, but Williams obviously didn't wear anything like this. He turned 72 in 1990 and last played in 1960. Would you consider this "authentic"?

[wonderbread]

Mitchell and ness is not authentic, they remake retro stuff, and everything you said is a matter of opinion. this looks like a softball top not a baseball jersey, stop forcing us to look at this crap by posting it.