First, let me start out by saying that I have not seen this shirt. Until such a time as I do, I do not have an opinion on it. I do however have a an opinion on some of the processes and informtion that is being provided.
Much has been posted here about photo matching and imagery analysis..this has also come up within the context of this jersey. The idea that a trace made from a photo enlargement is conclusive, should be viewed with some caution. This only shows that at a certain point of enlargement, there is a consistancey with the lettering. This does not allow for any other realitive comparision to anything else on the jersey.
Before you can begin to do any form of comparision, you must be able to ascertain certain things about the uniform in the picture. For instance, what is the size of the letters, sleeve length, distance between buttons, and the number "3" on the back. This is not the same as they look like they are aligned the same, but what is the actual size. This is possible to do if you begin with an object of known size that can be referenced and you would need to state what that object(s) is for each photograph used. This would have to be done BEFORE any form of comparision can be made. Remember the claim is that it is not like the jersey he wore in those photographs, but rather IS the jersey he wore in those photographs.
The other thing to consider, and I have no idea who this bit of information is attributed to form the ESPN article that:
"Furthermore, it is believed that the players had only one set each of home and road uniforms."
If this was truely the case, how do you account for uniforms from this period and before showing up with annotations such as "1", "2" or "3" when these annotations do not have anything to do with player number.
