Vintage GU Bats - Undervalued?

[gehrig]

Do you guys think that vintage game used bats are undervalued in the market right now? With the PSA bat population report showing how few high-graded vintage bats are available, I find it crazy how cards with a much higher population are selling for so much more—especially when bats have such a deeper connection/history to the game.

[perezfan]

I think along these lines every day, and not just for game-used bats (although they are a great example...)

So many forms of memorabilia are rarer, closer to the game, and display far better than cards. The price disparity makes no sense to me. How can a jersey worn by Hank Aaron be worth less than his rookie card? There are thousands of his rookie card available, and it's a small piece of cardboard.

The Jersey was worn by Aaron while he competed in actual games. But unlike the mass-produced cardboard rectangle, the Jersey was literally a part of the game. Same holds true for Bats, Caps, Jackets, Helmets and Cleats that sell for a fraction of the Card's worth.

I will never understand it, but am glad the pricing disparity has made it possible to amass a collection of these iconic artifacts. I keep thinking the collecting public will catch on, but lately it seems to be going the other direction!

[perezfan]

Welcome to the forum, BTW.

[71buc]

Shhhhh… I’m working on a lil project and would like to finish it before that news gets out

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by 71buc

shhhhh… i’m working on a lil project and would like to finish it before that news gets out

lol delete this thread!!!

[Topnotchsy]

When you compare the price of cards to basically any other sports collectibles, the pricing does not seem to make any sense.

It could be that over time vintage bats will go up in value, but comparing it to cards may not be a useful way of thinking about it. The number of people who shift from collecting cards to collecting other kinds of memorabilia is not tiny, but it is also not a huge number. And so each has its own, largely independent market with (largely) different populations which drive demand.

I think many memorabilia collectors feel like what they collect is a "better deal" than cards of the same players. I look at my collection and find it hard to believe I can own the original contract that Roy Campanella signed with the Dodgers (as one of the first black players to sign with an AL/NL team) for a tiny fraction of what a high-grade (PSA 9) Campanella rookie card goes for even though there are far more PSA 9's and 10's than there will ever be original copies of the contract. At the same time, the market of people who are looking for the card far surpasses the number of people looking for the contact, even though I would argue that the historical significance of the contract far surpasses the card.

All that said, I think vintage bats are some of the coolest items in the hobby, and could definitely see an increase. I'm just not sure whether comparing them to cards is a way to consider the question.

[ooo-ribay]

….and some little, plastic Boba Fett just went for $200k at Hakes. SMH.

[glchen]

I think the issue with GU bats (and jerseys) is that folks aren't really ever sure that the player really did use that bat unless it is photo matched to an actual game, which barely any of them are. If they are not, then you are just trusting some authenticator which are just checking bat records to see if that player used that weight/length, etc, so who knows if some other player used that player's bat in reality. IMHO, that's what is bringing down prices.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think the issue with GU bats (and jerseys) is that folks aren't really ever sure that the player really did use that bat unless it is photo matched to an actual game, which barely any of them are. If they are not, then you are just trusting some authenticator which are just checking bat records to see if that player used that weight/length, etc, so who knows if some other player used that player's bat in reality. IMHO, that's what is bringing down prices.

You are probably correct: people don't want to be duped about player use. Nonetheless, I think that a player's pro model bats that match order records are very, very collectible and rare. Rarer than almost any card issues. Because I still need 3 or 4 bats that I need before I can consider my collection complete, I will not wish for a price spike.

[71buc]

I think another issue is the size of bats. I have been collecting for many years and only had two bats as I had little display space. Last summer I included both of them as part of a trade for a Clemente bat. Ironically acquiring the Clemente actually increased my desire to build a 1971 Pirate bat run. The price of the remaining players is far less formidable. I figured why not? Well now I am only 7 of 17 bats in toward my goal and I’m already trying to make space for them.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think the issue with GU bats (and jerseys) is that folks aren't really ever sure that the player really did use that bat unless it is photo matched to an actual game, which barely any of them are. If they are not, then you are just trusting some authenticator which are just checking bat records to see if that player used that weight/length, etc, so who knows if some other player used that player's bat in reality. IMHO, that's what is bringing down prices.

That "not being sure" and "trusting some authenticator" doesn't seem to hurt the autograph market.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think the issue with GU bats (and jerseys) is that folks aren't really ever sure that the player really did use that bat unless it is photo matched to an actual game, which barely any of them are. If they are not, then you are just trusting some authenticator which are just checking bat records to see if that player used that weight/length, etc, so who knows if some other player used that player's bat in reality. IMHO, that's what is bringing down prices.

True with bats. I've had a few Twin players tell me they used other guys bats, and I owned a couple examples of clear game use (distinctive, identifiable numbers written on knobs) by players other than the names burned on the barrel.

I know nothing about post 1971 jerseys, when the knit era began, and I suspect there could be many shirts since then that were made to pro specs but not GU.

Flannels are a whole different story. When I have a jersey with appropriate use and even fading, correct and complete tagging which often includes: manufacturer tag, wash instructions tag, size tag, set tag, and stitching that often includes players' name, set number, uniform number, I'm pretty confident.

Then when an expert with a table lamp and black light (like Dave Grob - the best in the business) evaluates and says the stitching is correct, the numbers and logos are original and were not replaced, and the shirt matches known exemplars in every respect, I have certainty.

When numbers or logos are replaced on a flannel jersey, for example a number change, there will be evidence of sun fading, or stitch lines, or uneven puckering of the numbers/logos. The thread might be different, or stitching. In short, there are a couple dozen things that have to be exactly right for a jersey to pass such inspection.

Shirts get reused and sent to the minors for later use, after their primary use in the big leagues is complete, but if a shirt is made for a specific player during a specific year, and he was with the club (not traded before the season began) then it's almost certain the shirt was used by him. His number on it, his name possibly on it, made to his size..... It's not at all similar to a guy borrowing another players bat, liking it, and asking to keep it.

And yes, flannel jerseys are way undervalued. Bats too, especially vintage.

[MVSNYC]

For the sake of this conversation, what year (or decade) are we saying Vintage starts?

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

True with bats. I've had a few Twin players tell me they used other guys bats, and I owned a couple examples of clear game use (distinctive, identifiable numbers written on knobs) by players other than the names burned on the barrel.

I know nothing about post 1971 jerseys, when the knit era began, and I suspect there could be many shirts since then that were made to pro specs but not GU.

Flannels are a whole different story. When I have a jersey with appropriate use and even fading, correct and complete tagging which often includes: manufacturer tag, wash instructions tag, size tag, set tag, and stitching that often includes players' name, set number, uniform number, I'm pretty confident.

Then when an expert with a table lamp and black light (like Dave Grob - the best in the business) evaluates and says the stitching is correct, the numbers and logos are original and were not replaced, and the shirt matches known exemplars in every respect, I have certainty.

When numbers or logos are replaced on a flannel jersey, for example a number change, there will be evidence of sun fading, or stitch lines, or uneven puckering of the numbers/logos. The thread might be different, or stitching. In short, there are a couple dozen things that have to be exactly right for a jersey to pass such inspection.

Shirts get reused and sent to the minors for later use, after their primary use in the big leagues is complete, but if a shirt is made for a specific player during a specific year, and he was with the club (not traded before the season began) then it's almost certain the shirt was used by him. His number on it, his name possibly on it, made to his size..... It's not at all similar to a guy borrowing another players bat, liking it, and asking to keep it.

And yes, flannel jerseys are way undervalued. Bats too, especially vintage.

+1 (on all counts)

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by glchen

I think the issue with GU bats (and jerseys) is that folks aren't really ever sure that the player really did use that bat unless it is photo matched to an actual game, which barely any of them are. If they are not, then you are just trusting some authenticator which are just checking bat records to see if that player used that weight/length, etc, so who knows if some other player used that player's bat in reality. IMHO, that's what is bringing down prices.

You’re correct. For vintage bats, photo matching is difficult because there aren’t many images out there, and if you do find some, they’re black and white, grainy, and not close-up.

There is an awesome 1928 Ty Cobb Game Used Bat currently in Goldin Auctions, with really clear photo match images. Very rare to find images like that from the 20’s.

From my own experience, I have been burned on game used bats with LOA’s from the experts, and including from the player, only to find out after doing some research, the bat wasn’t authentic. It happens more often than many want to believe. I don’t want to have something in my collection to where when I’m looking at it, and I’m thinking to myself, “I wonder if he really used it?” I think this is where it does hold collectors back a bit from paying the big $$$.

Photo matching does make a huge difference. There was an Alex Rodriguez 2007 Game Used Glove that sold in Infinite Auctions for $3,932.50; sold again in Golding Auctions for $4,287.50; then sold again in Goldin Auctions for $17,220, but this time the glove was photo matched.

I believe most game used collectors think the same way.

[bigfanNY]

I have a few 500 HR club bats of Modern players. And even with grading and player letters I too learned some hard lessons along the way. But I learned from my mistakes. Mlb authentication and photo matching are always mean more to me than letters and grades. I have a mlb and photo matched Trout bat that got a grade of 9.5? The half point dose not bother me too much..lol.
I was tempted on a few 1930's bats a number of years ago passed then read about a guy in a barn with a lathe turning vintage Bats including at least one Ruth that got a letter and a grade. Maybe one day I will pull the trigger on a Paul Waner or A Duckey Medwick but Game used has always felt to me like a real battle between collectors and Fraudsters. With the latter winning to often.