Jackie Robinson: The chicken or the egg?
 

In a matter of weeks, a 1947 Jackie Robinson home jersey (Heritage) and Robinson’s contracts (1945 & 1947) (Goldin Auctions) will come to market. The 1947 Robinson home jersey as a pre-auction estimate of $2M+ while the contracts are said to have an insured value in excess of $30M. There obviously is a great delta in perceived value between these two lots. In the end, any number of factors will decide the final prices on each, so the question I will pose is which is the more significant and why?

For me, although I am strongly wedded to uniforms, I believe the uniform is the more significant of the two. I base this on the premise that the jersey has created the value for the contracts. What would the value or significance of the contracts be today if Jackie Robinson had been a flop in uniform in 1947? What if in 1947 Robinson had been a marginal player in uniform or been unable to restrain himself in uniform? Would he even have been back with Brooklyn or in the majors in 1948 to sign yet another contract?

The fact of the matter is the Jackie Robinson legacy and value is one based on performance and conduct, not on permissions. Some might proffer that these are unparalleled sports memorabilia offerings…uniform vs contracts, but are they? Recently the transfer documents (permissions) for Babe Ruth’s move from the Boston Red Sox to New York Yankees sold for $2.3M (Lelands), yet the road jersey he wore in his first season in New York sold for $4.4M. Once again, what is the value and significance of the transfer documents if Ruth had gone to New York and been a bust instead of the Bam?

The above Ruth example was not provided as a gauge of relative value (a Ruth jersey vs a Robinson jersey; Ruth agreements vs Robinson agreements), but rather as probably the most recent and near peer example of my “permissions vs performance” construct.

Dave Grob

I think that for some, the historical significance of the contract (the fact that in some ways it was the step that broke the color barrier) might increase its significance as compared to a jersey for Robinson's rookie season which is incredible, but does not have allure as a singular item.

I am also not sure it is fair to compare him to Ruth since I am pretty certain that the number of jerseys a player wore throughout a season was much higher when Robinson played than when Ruth did (I can't say this for sure, but I know that back in the 20's and 30's they went through very few uniforms... it would seem reasonable that by the late 40's they were using far more.)

If I could have one......jersey.


He wore it game after game, through the taunts, on the field, stole bases, stole home, got pats on the back, sweat, bled, gave his all, played BASEBALL! Made History!

Contract....."sign here", done. Put it in the file cabinet.



NO BRAINER!

Jackie Robinson
 

Jeff,

Just so we are clear, I was not comparing a Ruth jersey to a Robinson jersey, hence my language of "The above Ruth example was not provided as a gauge of relative value (a Ruth jersey vs a Robinson jersey; Ruth agreements vs Robinson agreements), but rather as probably the most recent and near peer example of my “permissions vs performance” construct".

Dave Grob

Dave,

I definitely hear that and didn't intend to imply otherwise. I was just saying that if we use the Ruth as a starting point for consideration, I would think a Jackie contract carries more allure as a historical item, while a Jackie jersey a bit less due to their likely being more in existence.

That said, for me personally, I think I'd probably prefer the jersey.

Jackie Robinson
 

The photo of Robinson and Rickey is truly iconic.

1) How do folks feel about the $30 million insurance appraisal?

2) Does anyone want to make an argument for preferring to own the contract instead of the jersey?

I would rather have a jersey

+1 for me too, I would much rather have the Jersey - however if I knew I could get $30M selling the contract vs $2M for the jersey, I'll take the 30 mil.

The contract is important for the impact it had on baseball. It is what broke the color barrier and its significance far exceeds that of the player himself. The jersey's importance is tied to the caliber of the player. If I was a Jackie Robinson collector my money would go to the jersey all day, every day. I'm not, so my preference would be for the more significant hobby-related item.

I would prefer the contract. I also think it's sad that either of these American Treasures could wind up in a private collection. The contract belongs in the National Civil Rights Museum and the Jersey in the Smithsonian. Such precious artifacts should belong to us all as citizens.

Jackie Robinson
 

Chris,

Interesting and defendable position that the significance of the contract as an act, trancends the signifcance of the player (any player). Not to put words in your mouth (or strokes on your key board), but that is what I took from your post.

Dave Grob

+1 on the jersey.
BTW, I think someone is smoking hemp re: the $30M contract appraisal :eek:
Awesome item, but $30M?

I'm a collector and I proudly display as much as I have space for - That said, a 1947 Jackie Robinson jersey displays a whole helluva lot cooler than a contract.

I'm a jersey guy. Much better appeal when framed and displayed than a contract. Also if I remember correctly there are up to 3 copies of a players contract. He gets one, the club gets one and they file one with the league.

Jackie Robinson
 

Yes, it's hard to think of two items which should belong in a museum more than this jersey and contract.

It's hard to think of anything else in the hobby which holds such historic importance. Nothing comes to my mind.

The Jersey he played his first game in? Absolutely the Jersey. Otherwise, the contracts all day every day. A rookie Jersey can only be tied to "probably". He probably wore this when he experienced that. Not trying to dismiss the significance of a Jackie Robinson rookie year Jersey by any means. It is a transcendent item.

However.

Without Jackie signing those contracts none of it happens. Without what happened between Rickey and Robinson in that office on the day that it was signed, none of it happens. They may not look as nice on display. But for a decent percentage of our population, those two signed contracts mean more than a signed copy of the Declaration of Independence.

Tom C

Jackie Robinson
 

Tom,

Thanks for the post on the question. As I read your response, for you the argument for the signifcane of the contracts is based on sequence or the necessary enabling actions that made the wearing of the jersey even possible.

Dave Grob

As a collector of game used stuff, I would take the Jersey. But if I were the curator of a museum, I would certainly prefer the contract. As has been said, signing it changed the country.

Hi Dave,

You said it more eloquently than me--that's what I get for typing while balancing a fussy baby--but definitely what I meant. Either way, it will be cool to see the results.

Chris

Plus you can wear the jersey when playing softball with your friends or to a Party:eek:

True, but you can take notes in the margins of the contract. :eek:

In this case, yes.

1932 Bill Dickey. Contract or Jersey? Jersey.

1947 Ted Williams. Contract or Jersey? Jersey.

1955 Roberto Clemente. Contract or Jersey? Jersey.

THESE Robinson contracts or THAT Robinson jersey? To me it's not close.

Tom C

Jackie Jersey or Contract
 

In almost every case I'd choose the GU jersey, but with Robinson signing and breaking the color barrier, in this case, and changing baseball and bringing a change to civil rights, I'd have to go with the contract. Man, every baseball fan has seen the pictures of Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson signing the contract and the smiles on their faces. Both very, very cool, but the contract would be my pick.

Had to remind me of that scene from Seinfeld where Steinbrenner wears Gehrig's pants around the office.

I agree a 100%. The contract, and it's significance, far outweighs the Jersey in this case.

I am a card guy but is it at all remarkable to those of you who deal/collect memorabilia that all of this rookie era Roby memorabilia came to auction at the same time? Goldin with the contracts, Lelands with the cap, Heritage with the jersey and Hunt has a rookie era glove. All of these items had to have been consigned at the same time to the various houses based on the auction endings. Though outside this timeline, last year Heritage had the 1947 bat as well that sold in late 2016. Hate to be a skeptic...

Thanks,
Greg