Defunkd

[tendodojoman]

I can't seem to find another one like it, and nothing on the brand. There are similar ones on eBay but they all say England or something else under the graphic, and I can't find anything on this oddball brand. Any help?

[jimmyj]

May the Schwartz be with you! Sorry had to! First Im seeing it but looks legit.

[jimmyj]

hold the phone...I posted the tag on instagram and supermama is going to chime in..

[mrs_stout]

I would RUN from anything with this tag. Backstory:

I buy liquidation lots and periodically I search for vintage. Finally a few lots came up by Schwartz and I bought a lot of 40 t-shirts, supposedly sitting in boxes for years, deadstock.

Um - NO.

There were all brand new with some of the worst printing I've ever seen, all the with same tag as above. Notice how the tag is stitched in OVER the seam? The tags are added after market and the original tags are removed. If you lift that one, you might even be able to see remnants of the original tags.

Anyway, I file a dispute and this guy from the company calls me about 6 times trying to convince me that these are vintage t-shirts. They had Schwartz tags sewn in over the seams and the originals removed, except they forgot to remove a few. Vintage t-shirts don't have Gildan-Made-in-Honduras tags. I'll post photos of the stuff I got (and returned) below.

[mrs_stout]

Print quality

Schwartz tag sewn in over original label

See where original tag was removed

[mrs_stout]

Also noteworthy is that ALL the t-shirt I received were single-color prints.

And last, below are photos of another shirt where remnants of the original tag are clear and you can see on the back where the Schwartz tag was stitched in.

Schwartz tag

Remnants of original tag

Stitching where Schwartz tag was sewn in

[tendodojoman]

Wow thanks for the heads up, that is some shady crap.

[Antero]

great post

[jimmyj]

Sorry based on info in this thread I cant give it my vintage blessing. Not original.

[Antero]

Thank you Jimmy! So, the schwartz brand, was never a brand of t shirts? Bucause the tags on this one are really really old. I own a vintage shop for almost 6 years now, so I can tell when a tag is old. The quality of the screenprint is good too, the fabric feels super soft and old. So, now I'm very confused.

[jimmyj]

Investigating more - when I search eBay for "Schwartz, Vintage T-Shirt" checking the "search description" option:

http://www.ebay.com/dsc/i.html?_from=R4 ... ge+t-shirt

A ton of modern day results are returned. One color prints. If you dig more into the listings some say brand: schwartz, delta, Gildan. "Scwartz a new your based punk and rock and roll t-shirt manufacturer"

I think they are a relatively recent repro outfit - that at some point tried to repackage the tees with more convincing vintage labels obviously sewn in. I know what you mean - the tag does look old - the one you posted is a type of material that will look old and wrinkled after a single wash. And the double tag issue - that doesn't convince me these tees are 70s or 80s.

Hey, I was duped by the photo - if you read my first comment in this thread about it.

But I've been picking through vintage tees for over a decade now, and this post was the first I'd seen the brand - which sets of alarm bells.

[htdvintage]

I think we need to revisit this thread. There's a lot of this stuff on the market and someone, somewhere has to have something beyond speculation. I didn't see a picture of a Gildan Honduras tag in any of the previously posted pictures, so as far as I'm concerned, they could have been from the late 90's (or just as easily from 2014, but the point is, who knows?). If Honduras was an assumption, and the hang-up is sewing new tags over removed manufacurers tags (Disney and many others have done it, so not concerning to me), then what do we do with pieces like this, that were clearly manufactured with the I Schwartz tag? There's also a Cramps dress listed with two colors on the print, and a Siouxsie shirt with a much better quality print, that the seller says they're the original owner of, and bought in the 90's.

My assumption is that someone made a go of this for a hot second, wasn't doing well, and implemented a slew of cost saving measures, sacrificing quality. Either way, I think this was essentially a bootleg business from the get-go. It's pretty obvious none of these pieces were licensed. I just don't like to form too strong of a opinion based on best guesses though. There could be something more to this. I'll see if the Brooklyn homie knows anything. Not sure if he's old enough to have been buying in the 90's, but he's a knowledgeable picker and archivist, so seems like a good place to start if this was, in fact, ever a NYC based company. Will report back if I uncover anything else.

[jimmyj]

Thanks for adding. Someone contacted me about this tag recently and I dove into it again. I reconnected with Supermama and asked about the tag, she confirmed there was a double Gildan there.

As far as when Gildan's from Honduras came to be - I couldn't find any examples from the 1990s, could you? From my quick research - I found the first example from the early 00s, I think it was 2003. If that's the case and that's when it started, they are now vintage and I am old.

No argument here as to it being a bootleg from the get-go.

And yes, they are terrible quality, one-color prints.

On a Reddit thread, there's a claim that it's 80s, and I'm not buying that. Gut says this was a response to the vintage t-shirt craze in the early 00s.

But I'd love to get the full scoop on it! So let me know if you find anything.

But I don't think they will ever have much value - so I don't lose sleep over this one, ha.

I'll do a post on Instagram about it this week too, see if we can get to the bottom of it.

[htdvintage]

As far as when Gildan's from Honduras came to be - I couldn't find any examples from the 1990s, could you? From my quick research - I found the first example from the early 00s, I think it was 2003. If that's the case and that's when it started, they are now vintage and I am old.

Same here, lol. I believe they started knitting in Honduras in 2002, so '02-03 would be the earliest Made In Honduras tags. Gildan had been sewing there since 1997 though, hence the "Assembled In Honduras of Canadian Components" double tags from that era.

I guess in the previous post, my point was just that since I didn't see the tags pictured, I thought it was possible the cut tags could be from as early as then and not necessarily a decade later.

Turns out my NY contact grew up in Florida and is now living there again. I don't know why I assumed he was from Brooklyn, but with it being hipster central nowadays, I'm sure a good amount of people are transplants. I'll still keep digging though, and ask around. Not gonna lose any sleep either way, but unsolved mysteries bug the hell out of me

[jimmyj]

I hadn't considered the Assembled in tag - do you have an image of that one? I didn't find that one when poking around I've always been Gildan-resistant ha

[htdvintage]

I hadn't considered the Assembled in tag - do you have an image of that one? I didn't find that one when poking around I've always been Gildan-resistant ha

I don't, but Reddit does! Gildan bought a sewing facility there in 1997, 4 years before opening the full knitting factory, so I'm guessing that's where these came from.

[jimmyj]

So the plot thickens once again. Thanks to supermama. She found this, where I Schwartz, among others, were sued for copyright infringement.

According to the Complaint, defendants Ninna, Heyclick, Hollywood, and I Schwartz are corporations that have transacted business in the Eastern District of New York and have engaged in the business of distributing the Bootleg Merchandise. ( Id. ¶ 4). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants Peter Michailow and David Michailow operate I Schwartz, located at 32 33rd Street in Brooklyn.

In March 2004, plaintiffs commenced an action in federal district court for the Central District of California (the "California action") against several parties who were selling counterfeit merchandise. ( Id. ¶ 2); Bravado Int'l Group Merch. Servs. v. Nettillect Inc., No. 2:04 CV 2116 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 29, 2004). Based on information developed during the course of that case, plaintiffs learned that I Schwartz, Peter Michailow and David Michailow were the suppliers of certain of the infringing items; accordingly, they were thereafter added as defendants to the California action. (Feinswog 7/31 Decl. ¶ 2). On August 11, 2005, the court in the California action entered a judgment against I Schwartz and Peter and David Michailow in the amount of $255,186.57.

In addition, plaintiffs further assert that because the defendants have defaulted, they have admitted the allegations in the Complaint that the defendants are fraudulent assignees or alter egos of I Schwartz and they are therefore jointly liable for the judgment previously entered in the California action in the amount of $255,186.57.

Heyclick is "Pete M," which plaintiffs believe is Peter Michailow. ( Id. ¶¶ 8, 9, 10, 11). Yaakov Michailov is listed as the owner of the Mosh-pitt.com website and as Hollywood's agent for service of process. ( Id. ¶¶ 12, 14). Hollywood's website — Rocktshirtspunk.com — advertises and sells infringing items, as does the Cmegamall.com website, which falsely represents that all the merchandise they sell is licensed.

All the details are here: https://casetext.com/case/bravado-intl- ... rv-v-ninna

Everything here points to a 2000+ internet-era op. The three URLS above were indexed between 2004 and 2006.

But on IG one gentleman says it reaches back to the 90s, via catalog distribution.

[htdvintage]

This is perfect! Thank you to everyone involved who helped get to the bottom of this! I only have the one piece to move (the Pixies skirt) but will avoid the bigger platforms and can now be transparent about it, as well as point other sellers with this tag to where they can become better informed about it.

Fortunately we shouldn't have another thread created or revived about these lame, pre-dropshipping era bootleggers. I still report these types of printers whenever I see them across selling platforms, but the reports are largely ignored. Depop even just replied with one asking for more information from ME, indicating that unless I'm the trademark holder, it's unlikely anything will be done. I don't know how far plausible deniability reaches in these cases, but it seems like a fine line between that and negligence.

This is the "we don't really care" reply I got from Depop on the last report of a dropshipper selling unauthorized, unlicensed band tees:

This particular seller is pretty ballsy too... It's not just merch for indie or defunct bands. They're selling bootlegs of bands like Metallica, U2 and Pearl Jam. Hopefully this stuff starts disappearing, because all the major platforms are littered with it. From what I've seen, Mercari and Etsy seem to be the worst. For the most part they're relatively basic and unique designs (not unlike what "I Schwartz did) and not replicas of official merch, but it's still unsettling and not okay.