Do Pre-War Collectors buy Modern Cards Featurin Game Used Items of Pre-War Players
 

I was wondering how many of us pre-war collectors collect modern items with pre-war items ( such as a piece of Ruth or Cobb uniform or bat items ) etc. I do, I think it's neat to have a part of Cobb's uniform or a piece of his bat etc. I can't afford the whole uniform or bat. See attached.

Some people will ramble on about it defacing history, etc. I'd rather have a collector have a swatch than some museum or a multi-gazallionaire have the whole piece. That's just my opinion though.

Edited to add: The biggest issue with some of these pieces is that there is no way to verify authenticity.

One man’s saw dust is another man’s Honus Bat.

I have bought them to used the inserted item in my own custom cards. I wait till I find a damaged card to get them cheap since I am tearing it apart anyway. If anybody has a cheap Ted Williams jersey card I am your huckleberry.:)

I don't like them when it's a retired player. Especially long retired.

I don't generally like cutting up anything, but I can see a few things that I'd make an exception for. Like if the jersey was too far gone for much else. Or the bat was a partial bat, like the ones I saw years ago where someone had an in with a team to get broken bats, sliced them in half the long way and added pegs to make bat hangers and coat hooks. Basically if it's already wrecked.
(current players, no problem. They can literally use a bat for one pitch, send it back to the dugout for another and it's game used)

Here's an item that would be borderline. A braves warmup jacket, bought from a local auction. I never looked at it in preview, it was just hanging up behind one of the tables like it was someones jacket. Announced as Ernie Lombardis and coming from a family that was friends with him. I can't even find pics of the warmup jackets to know it's a real team used one, but it's very well made, and reversible the white side is leather, and pretty torn up in the shoulder area where a name would have been.

http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=3251http://www.net54baseball.com/picture...pictureid=3252

It went cheap even if it's from one of the bench guys, and if it's not game used I could fix it and wear it.

Would it be a huge loss if a card company cut it up? Maybe not, even though I cant find anything similar. Is it really cool as-is yeah, I'd rather have the whole thing.

I don't really go out of my way to get those cards, but if I end up with one it's in the collection.

It would be pretty easy to list how something like a Babe Ruth bat was acquired for the cards that feature pieces of it. There are only so many that come to market at any one time. Why not reveal the source of the card?

Yeah! Museums are the worst! :rolleyes:

I do not personally but do understand the appeal. The only one I would really consider would be a Ruth cut auto.

I generally agree with James on this with the exception being extremely important pieces of history being destroyed. There are several Ruth bats or things like that so I guess I am somewhat okay with that but a few years back they destroyed George’s Vezina’s Goalie pads (I believe the only existing set).

Jerseys of today’s players and even those dating back a bit I have no issue with whatsoever. Also if the jersey being cut was damaged then absolutely go ahead and trim away. I see the enjoyment that people get from having the relics, I sometimes catch my son getting our modern cards out and just touching the little relics. He loves Ken Griffey Jr and can’t get over that he is touching a piece of his jersey, hat, batting glove or bat!

I agree, when I show off some of my older cards , my non-collector friends and relatives are not impressed, but when they can actually touch Ty Cobb's pants or part of Babe Ruth's actual uniform, then they get excited. A couple of them have started to collect. That's great !

You do know that the overwhelming majority of memorabilia given to museums never sees the light of day, right?

Boy did I learn that one the hard way. They can also sell it or anything they want with it. I learned this the hard way after a museum begged me for some items. Also the one item in the collection the curator said they really liked magically disappeared.:mad:

I think they can be mesmerizing...I regularly look at this one and am transported to another time.
I feel lucky to own it and not at all bashful to say so.

https://i917.photobucket.com/albums/...psjy3t5blu.jpg

Warning grouchy old man rant!

I think there is a special place in baseball hell for whoever cut up a Babe Ruth bat or uniform into a million pieces.

Zero interest. Would guess 95% of them are bogus. Human nature being what it is, I'm sure numerous Babe Ruth jersey and pants swatches were located in a nearby Goodwill store.

If you are trying to find the corner of the hobby most likely rife with fraud you've no doubt found it. And there's ample competition.

Zero provenance to any of this crap. Could be anything. Piece of a Babe Ruth bat? Yeah sure it is.

And I don't want a miniscule slice of wood even it it was was they are saying it is.

Yep. Love them. Have several. I wouldn't break the bank on one..I think the most I paid was $100 or so for a Babe Ruth pants card numbered 150 of 150.

Not quite sure what the distress is about? I mean, if were talking about more than one existing of anything of course.....

You want that bat whole so you can swing it one day? Think you'll get the chance? Or so that you can own it one day in your man-cave privacy...are you one of the very few who have the pockets to do so?
Or maybe it's so that you or others can visit it at a museum in the unlikely event it becomes owned by one? Because, you know, museums never sell off their stuff privately when they don't have the money because of low patronage...

What's all the wa wa-ing for?
Nothing else in life gets parsed in time for others to enjoy?
Autographs in books or other never get separated so that they can be framed alone for an owner to enjoy?
Sheets or folios from ancient Bibles haven't been unbound and given as gifts to other clergy members or sold to collectors to enjoy?
Audubon plates of birds aren't removed from original massive collations to be framed and hung on walls to be enjoyed by the many?
Massive 12 chair dining sets aren't broken up among family members so that more can enjoy their grace?
Cars aren't cannibalized so that 'original' parts can be put frankenstein style into other survivors to keep that new amalgam on the road?
How come sports cards that are never originally meant to be inked over but that collectors get signed haven't been 'ruined' and desecrated?
That can't be undone either.

Mate, it's only 'stuff'. Things that break down molecule by molecule over time just like our own bodies and should be enjoyed by as many people as possible. These memorabilia cards haven't been destroyed, or removed from existence the pieces used to create them, but have simply transformed their form so that many more people can be connected to them.
And often, in my opinion, the resultant cards become works of art that are every bit as special to behold:
https://i917.photobucket.com/albums/...pskgcgyo1q.jpg


Or maybe you just wanna sit around in you lounge room in a mothball smelling jersey Earl Averill wore just for kicks?

Other than cutting something up for no reason, the problem with these cards is that you might just have swatches of someone's little league jersey. There is no provenance given for any of the material on the cards that the companies insert into products as chase cards, thereby selling the product on the pretense that a person has the opportunity to own a piece of......something.

In my opinion, if you're going to use the memorabilia as a pretense for selling merchandise, there should be some kind of history associated with what you're selling. Why can't consumers know where the material they're purchasing came from?

The companies mostly document the process closely.
If you want to search them out when the product is announced or being released, they will list the item of memorabilia and where and when they attained it eg. Auction or private purchase with photographs of that specific piece.
They take pictures of the item in their ownership and in preparation of 'dissection'.
They don't hide from the fact the item is rare, expensive, and therefore has assumed value for collectors to chase. It's not so much they make their money back from the sale of the memorabilia card itself (though they do over many subsequent releases in updated designed cards as you can squeeze ALOT of small numbered runs out of a bat or jersey) but because it encourages collectors to buy packs/boxes/crates of the stuff in search of these special pieces. In this way, the hype for the memorabilia cards funds the production and sale of the singles that cost nix to create and disseminate but brings good dollars in return.
And without this advent, I have a strong feeling collecting would never have had the resurgence it's experienced with new generations and with luck their subsequent interest in the older gear we enjoy.

The fear so many have about provenance is simply an excuse based on snobbery and the search for that excuse to smear the activity.
Collectors who don't like it - much like they don't like kids playing on their lawn - love to create the fearmongering to explain why they don't think it should be happening.
Others moan about slabbing as unholy.

It's all good in my opinion, it's a fun interesting hobby and should take whatever form it needs to maintain relevancy to ongoing collector interest.

Can you post a link to the disclosures you're talking about? I have never seen them before. Also, I totally disagree with your assessment of modern collecting. These memorabilia cards hold almost no value 99% of the time. In fact, most people who buy boxes of modern cards where either an autograph OR a relic is guaranteed in the box are pretty bummed to get the relic as opposed to the autograph, which is what collectors actually chase.

This is where I am at. No veracity other than words printed on the back of a card.

On occasion. Depends on the item and the design, mostly. I find a lot of them to be ugly. I also tend to buy these for modern players, usually with autographs. I like having a signed item with a jersey or bat swatch from a player as my item for a HOF collection:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...e/Halladay.jpg

I also bought this one:

http://photos.imageevent.com/exhibit...ruce%20Lee.JPG

From a robe Bruce Lee wore on the set of Enter The Dragon. I am never going to be able to afford a Lee autograph or owned item so this is the closest I will get to something personal of Bruce Lee.

Firstly, most 'collectors' aren't looking for what they can sell the card for.
That's the 'investors'. Or card shops whether brick or online looking to flip stuff.
Collectors are the kids and adults who love to put together stuff they enjoy looking at and discussing with eachother and friends. Waaaay more collectors than investors, but most people seem to focus on the flippers.

Here's one link talking about a very direct link taken by Leaf in a partnership with the Ruth Estate directly to bring product to market.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...oxes-for-sale/

Another refers to Shoeless Joe bat used in 2001 UD product....I'd need to look further to try to find better info..
https://www.sportscollectorsdigest.c...f-joe-jackson/

If you're interested, contact UD, Topps and Leaf directly if you'd like further info...

Yup, same problem I run in to with Stickley furniture, Lalique perfume bottles, first edition books with so called first page publishing dates, corvette stingrays with matching number chasis/engine numbers (I mean, HTF would I know if someone hadn't ground down a plate and substituted with fakery?), the food at French Laundry 'supposedly' cooked by some well known chef, yada yada.

I mean, if you don't want to believe shit, you just don't want to believe.

Taking a Babe Ruth jersey and cutting it into 500 pieces isn't destroying?

Seriously?

I was pretty full in my description of why I didn't think it was destroyed.
So, tell me how it is?
What purpose are you keeping it in it's un-separated state for, that you are losing?

The jersey still exists, it's atoms haven't been d-nucleii'd, you can still see it, it just resides in hundreds of cards.
Now, if you're telling me the Jersey needs to come out on Yankee throwback night to be worn before adoring crowds, then yes that opportunity is destroyed.

But how else?

Oh I believe, I believe there is a likelihood that a lot of it is sh*t as you say. The same as with your other examples I assume.

I could be very wrong and I really hope I am.

And that's totally fair enough and a valid way of viewing things that purport to be something.
But it makes you a terrible candidate to be a collector.
And in the end, it's the suspension of belief, the immersion in feeling you are just inches away from greatness - whether of design, or act, or happenstance, and that being so close evokes thoughts that bring you meaning.

I enjoy it, so I collect.
Art, sculpture, sports memorabilia and cards, a few coins that have connection to moments or places, etc.

I don't think it's for everyone, but to diminish or question the voracity of the items without any proof just to naysay.....

Hey, I live in the USA and plenty of people here seem to believe in a 6,000 year old earth and creation, described in a series of books written by different hands at different times as the word of god, and which gives us our reason for being....but sheesh, a card company actually including material they say they're including is a bridge too far.:confused:

The Ruth deal was for his likeness. It does not mention purchasing any items from the family.

The Joe Jackson article simply states that they "procured a bat". From who? From where? It does not say, just as I suspected.

That's kind of the point. Where does the stuff come from and why is so out of the question to tell your consumers how you acquired the materials you're selling to them?

I think it has to do with how people store or display their collection. Personally I would prefer an autograph, or a relic from prior to 2005. The reasoning for this is specifically due to how thick the card is, as I like to put my cards into binders. I know other collectors that do not use binders and store their cards in one-touch holders. And for those types, card thickness is of no concern as long as a holder exists that the card can be put into.

If you could do your argument the solid and contact the companies I mention, ask them if they could supply just a couple examples of how and where they sourced their material, including whether they might share some pictures of the items in question, you might be pleased with the endeavour.

It's been years since I looked, but I can remember at least two big purchases announced and imaged in the media of card companies buying Ruth or Gehrig material for their products. One was for 400K+ if I remember correctly.

I can't see how it's fair to just presumptively make your claim without doing so.

It's not a claim, it's reality. The cards do not tell you where the items come from. They all have a similar statement on the back congratulating the person who pulled the card on their pull. It would take no extra effort to include acquisition information. It's not very realistic to say it's on the consumer to find out where the materials came from when the manufacturer can make the information available on the product. You would expect that information from any other retailer of game used memorabilia, so why not card manufacturers? What's different about them?

Uhh, I think you're now just wanting to argue to be right.
I don't ask Stickley to provide pictures of them assembling my piece of furniture, I trust their label as proof of their sincerity and action.
Same with my Mercedes that I'm trusting is not a re-badged KIA, and my Boar's Head Tavern Ham not being moose meat.
You've decided you're owed some special convincing and proof, and I don't think they owe you anything.
Feel free to not buy the product, but you're accusing them of lying and cheating the public when they visibly state that game used material by the player is being used. That'd be a serious offense in the law courts and they'd be subject to being sued for every dollar ever expended in the pursuit of falsely labelled material. Bring the action yourself and prove it and you'll never have to work again.
Big charge, and you're not willing to email them to set your heart and mind at ease as well as bring an end to your accusations.
Gotta love a message board.

How is asking for the information to be made available on the product an accusation of anything? I think it's more than fair to want to know how the game used materials you're buying in products was sourced. As I said, it is the same information you would ask for from any one single person who sold you an item described as game used. The signed insert cards feature statements about the card being signed in the presence of a representative of the company. The game used materials do not carry the same kind of assurance of authenticity.

Game used cards with their various slivers and swatches are sports memorabilia's time shares.

It isn’t really Chris because time shares don’t break up the property, they just share ownership of it. These cards tear up historic pieces which can never be put back together again. If you like this then you should also love cutting up the constitution into little pieces to be put in cards, or cutting up the Mona Lisa to be in cards. To go further, why not cut up rare cards to be in cards so everyone can own a sliver of a Baltimore News Ruth or a T206 Wagner. I think to own cards like this shows an utter disregard for history and I would never own one.

Because it is understood the signatures of living players did not cost the company too much per auto, that the players make their money by repeating a squiggle 500 times in 75 minutes of visiting time, and collectors can value them accordingly as not inherently rare or valuable. They have social status for their playing era, but you are not buying limited resources.
If UD announced they bought a Mantle jersey for $5K and not the $30K we'd imagine, then each card carrying cloth could surely not be all too valuable....and thus - who will pay the big bucks to purchase those 4 card packs?
Keeping the number and history vague allows collectors to simply imagine a perceived value and spend accordingly, regardless of whether the jersey was only used in a pre-season game rather than when the shot was heard around the world.
Also, by keeping total numbers and availability to themselves we don't know whether it should be considered scarce and highly collectable or just part of a stream of available material.
It's why the modern stuff is fairly valueless outside of low number rookie stuff with it's accompanying patch.

Speaking of, I have only 11 memorabilia cards amongst my collection but I love this one:
https://i917.photobucket.com/albums/...ps8wjjjasl.jpg

Wow. That's super pious. Good for you.
Good thing you don't have time for such stuff, otherwise you could own your own piece of the Kitty Hawk that NASA took up to the moon when they cut up a small piece of it's wings, and subsequently brought back home to earth.

It's not the Mona Lisa, there are many more than one of these jerseys and bats.
It's more like if Rembrandt had painted a dozen exact copies of the Mona Lisa. If an artist then purchased one and made 1,000 pieces of his own artwork incorporating a small section of one of these Mona Lisa's, and this subsequent art was so beautiful to look at while highlighting the very history of painting through the ages in it's canvas...
Yeh, that'd be kinda amazing and for 5K I wouldn't mind owning such a piece.

Ah well, carry on with hmphnessss.

I feel sorry for you, that you are so selfish and self centered that you would rather have a meaningless scrap of a once significant piece of memorabilia than keep the piece together so future generations could enjoy it in its’ original state. Thank goodness there aren’t too many people like you.

I have zero interest in owning a swath of cloth from a uniform or a sliver of wood from a bat. Personally, I think it is a horrible thing for these companies to do. I understand the superficial appeal, and others may feel differently, but it is absolutely not for me.

Ummm...there are a lot of people like him and the pieces being cut up are hardly one of a kind. In fact pre-war collectors are the vast minority.

I would submit that a pair of Babe Ruth pants made into a many dozen of attractive cards for collectors to enjoy is a sum that is greater than the whole. I wouldn't probably want to wear Babe Ruth pants even if I had the opportunity to do so.

Oh boy, can I replace pious with sanctimonious and ass-hole ish from my previous post replying to you?

You feel sorry for me, for enjoying a piece of memorabilia and paper differently to you?
Good lord. How will the world survive.
Fortunately when you and I are both gone future generations will similarly have their chance to decide how to best enjoy this 'stuff', and neither of us will have any say in it.
I wouldn't have it any other way, however I have a feeling you would rather burn everything down than have people decide for themselves they enjoy it differently from you.

I agree. At the end of the day, these are inanimate objects that will outlive us all.

I hate them.

Its not just the destruction of history, though I am generally in the "I'd rather the whole thing be preserved" camp.

For me the things are just tacky anachronisms. I don't feel any history when I look at them because the card they are housed in (which makes up the majority of the item) is a modern, glitzy piece of plastic that screams "modern" at you. The fact that they have a wood chip or tiny shred of clothing that may (or may not for all I know) have at one point been part of something that was used by Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb or somebody just gets totally lost in the shiny glare of the foil embossed plastic they put these things in. When I hold one or look at one, I don't feel like I'm looking at history, I feel like I am looking at something extremely modern (which I am, memorabilia cards obviously didn't exist until 20 years ago).

I contrast that with the feeling I get when I have an old tobacco card in my hand. When I look at one of those, I feel like I am looking at history. This is the actual thing that someone had 100 years ago, in the same form that they had it. It doesn't have foil or faux vintage graphics stamped on it. Its real. I like it.

I should note that I don't feel the same about memorabilia cards of contemporary players. They aren't anachronisms with them - this is how some cards of players in this day and age are made and it feels quite natural. It also helps that you don't have the same preservation issues to worry about since they can easily create game used stuff for them.

100 years from now, these cards aren't going to be appreciated as anything but pieces of early 21st century ephemera, regardless of what era the player depicted actually played in. If I want a piece of Ruth or Cobb history I'll spend money on a period card of them from their playing days. Even though they may never have touched the card in person, it is a way closer connection to the time in which they played than a wood chip in a shiny piece of plastic is.

And because they are organic (paper, cloth, wood) they will eventually decay. Metal artifacts are a little different, but sports - since the days of the gladiator - don't have a lot of game used metal memorabilia, so I think that's out of scope here.

So the question is, how best to enjoy game used items while they do exist? It's obvious some like to own pieces of these artifacts, while others prefer the concept that they are being preserved somewhere, intact.

I fall back on one of my fundamental principles: If you own something, you own it. So if you want to cut it into pieces, it's your right, and whatever anyone else thinks is not at all relevant.

I don't personally search out these types of cards except for the Topps 2002 Mini's such as Honus Wagner and Ty Cobb. The only reason is because I'm a T206 guy and there are I think 6 reprints with the relics from that set. Otherwise, I'm against destroying certain history but the owner of that history has the ability to do whatever they want with it. As bad as it may seem to many, cutting a jersey into 500 pieces may be the only thing stopping this hobby from dying out. New collectors seem to only care about the relics and autographs. It's also the only thing that's keeping Topps and others still in business. Times have changed. Many of us were completely fine with that bonus stick of gum, sticker, or puzzle piece.

Plastic? Screams modern?
https://i917.photobucket.com/albums/...ps1wxk8pzm.jpg

Sorry, but yeah, that screams "modern" at me. Anachronisms that I can't get around:

1) The shiny glare. Old cardboard doesn't reflect light that way.
2) The SP logo looks distinctly modern. It has a slight art deco feel to it, but that style didn't yet exist during Jackson's playing days.
3) The marbled grey background looks like a kitchen countertop in a contemporary suburban home. Its not a motif I think anyone associated with baseball, or even used, in the dead ball era.
4) The term "Legendary Cuts" is obviously modern hobby-speak, as is "Legendary Debut Bat Cards".
5) The "TM" mark is not something you see on the front of old cards.
6) The White Sox logo is contemporary, not the one used in Jackson's time.
7) Hard to tell form the photo, but I'm guessing the wood chip is in fact behind a plastic window?

And of course you also have the fact that the very idea of shredding bats to put wood chips into cards is a modern concept that nobody did back in Jackson's day.

So yeah, I'm sorry but I don't like that card, even though it does have a very nice photo of Jackson on it.