Vintage T-Shirt Forum & Community Authentication Appraisals

I thought this shirt was supposed to be 94-95, this has to be fake right?

I once saw the exact same item with the same tag—lacking any copyright notice—and it turned out to be authentic. Same like this

Lucasxavier wrote: ↑Sun Nov 01, 2026 1:48 pm I once saw the exact same item with the same tag—lacking any copyright notice—and it turned out to be authentic. Same like this

but why would a 94-95 print be a 97 blank? doesn't make any sense unless its a reprint

that's tag is from mid 90s, This might be an indicator that it’s a reprint, given the absence of a copyright notice. However, judging by the material and the screen print, it appears to be authentic.

Lucasxavier wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2026 4:34 am that's tag is from mid 90s, This might be an indicator that it’s a reprint, given the absence of a copyright notice. However, judging by the material and the screen print, it appears to be authentic.

The earliest verified presence of the Fruit of the Loom "HEAVY cotton" neck tag on event-dated and copyright-verified garments is 1996. Prior to 1996, Fruit of the Loom used its standard white woven tag (100% cotton), the "Best" tag (50/50 blend), and the "Lofteez" tag (introduced around 1993–1994 as their initial heavyweight open-end cotton answer to the Hanes Beefy-T).

monster_cookie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2026 3:07 pm I thought this shirt was supposed to be 94-95, this has to be fake right?

can you provide the origin post of these images?

sonicxvintage wrote: ↑Wed Nov 04, 2026 5:11 am

monster_cookie wrote: ↑Sat Oct 31, 2026 3:07 pm I thought this shirt was supposed to be 94-95, this has to be fake right?

can you provide the origin post of these images?

It's from someone's Instagram