Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>I know many of you have stated your opinion on cutting up vintage uniforms, bats, pants, etc to add to new baseball card sets. While it's been out of hand for quite a few years, there's a new trend that bothers me a bit.<br /><br />Cut signatures and autographed checks have become very popular as of late. However, I've seen something that's a little disturbing, in my opinion. I have no problem with someone using a cut signature, a check or document to slab, mat and frame with a pic, or make a display. However, some dealers are not only selling the autograph, but cutting other pieces of text or numbers and selling them in the same fashion. The "pay to" line on a check, the date line, etc.. I guess if there's a demand for it, then there's money to be had. But, I find it a bit sleazy. How much money can you suck out of one check or document?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>DJ</b><p>As a person who purchased over 50 of Ty Cobb's check stubs (I suppose Ty writing "gas bill $9.65" is rather obscure), something in Ty's writing itself perhaps allows that person to get "something" handwritten by a legend without forking over a large sum of money for a signature. As long as the piece is honest and not a forgery, why not milk it and give a collector a chance to own a very small piece of history that may mean something to that person. After all, some people find a one inch swatch of a jersey to their liking or a piece of baseball bat. <br /><br />My lawyer friend was excited one day to own "two words" that George Washington wrote. It was nicely displayed, he felt it was $225 well worth it (more than $100 per word and one word was quite short....twelve total letters around $18 a letter)to him....not to me.<br /><br />DJ

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p>I think your right 100%, these companies have buctchered the hobby with these stupid cards. i have some examples of rediculous cards, they have come out with!!!!!!!<br /><br />Missing the C in "Cy", stupidness!!<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136592554.JPG"> <br /><br /><br />Look at the Mantle, looks like alot of his name is missing!!!<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136592594.JPG"> <br /><br /><br />This is stupid, barley a H and missing the R!!!<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136592633.JPG"> <br /><br /><br />I have found also the companies havent issued as many of the autograph cards as 2 or 3 years ago. guess there running out of Walter Johnson checks!!!!

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p>cards have autographs from beautiful peices, these companies buy jerseys and checks just to cut them up. why dont they insert a winning ticket saying you won a signed check buy johnson or a signed ball buy ty cobb, and have the person with the card pay for the shipping? i think that would be alot better then these crappy examples of history. <br /><br />next its going to be the toilet paper they used before a world series lol<br /><br />my opinion anyways

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Chris Mc</b><p>How do you market band aids if your Johnson and Johnson? You put Nemo or Barbie on it and some shine. It's nothing more than one uping in the card market. "I have a limited edition", "I have a refractor", "well I have cut pants", "cut sig", etc.............What's next, D.N.A.,hair samples,come on , enough is enough.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>Ted, you make a very valid point. I guess I'm just a little upset that a simple cancelled check is being clipped and divided in pieces to extract every penny possible. It certainly is the right of the owner to do so if they wish. I just find it silly and a little slimy. I think checks are a neat piece of memoribilia, as are some cut signatures. However, to sell the other pieces of the check after the signature is already clipped away seems a little tacky. <br /><br />But what do I know????? <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Chris Mc</b><p>The worst thing about the cut signatures cards pictured here is the fact that the signatures were cut to fit the card. Who cares about the about the modern piece of crap cardboard they are on,they cut up the cut signatures.<br />It looks as if a 6 year old designed the card.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>--

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>I'll never understand "cutting up" documents, checks and contracts for the sole purpose of making a buck. The sellers of these cards should just offer "redemption" cards. If the winner really wants the piece (lets say a Wagner check or full cut, not something cut down to fit a card) they can spend $10 to have it shipped to them. If they don't want it then it's a free market, they can sell it to someone else that would like it. I realize that this may actually cost the card manufacturers a little more money but wouldn't they rather be known as providers of highly desireable memorabilia rather than buthchers of history?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>I guess my last post pretty much is the same opinion as King's (above).

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p>i emailed upper deck, and have gotten stupid reasons for having these cards. i asked why are some autographs in pencil etc etc. how can you garantee authentication? to me some of the autographs on the cards look fake to be honest......., and also Topps with there buck herzog bats, and joe tinker bats. i think its just one bat taken apart to be honest. these companies i think cover it up by buy 1 or 2 items publicly so that it looks like there all authentic

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>its pathetic how Upper Deck screwed up on the Eddie Plank Cut Auto. they put a Eddie Plank signature who played in the 1970's on the card intended for the Eddie Plank who died in 1926, and the Eddie Plank who died in 1926, they out his signature on the Eddie Plank who played in the 1970's. i can't believe how they could have done that !!

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>Nope, UD plain ol' cut the signatures up. Here's another example I found on Ebay. Unless it wraps around the back, poor Charlie lost half his name.<br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136667242.JPG">

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>I think that's Lou's cousin, Charles Gehrig that signed that one.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>.</b><p>,

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Cutting up a Charlie Gehringer signature isn't the worst thing in the world. They are not that hard to come across. However cutting up a signature that is much more rare is downright wrong. But it does beg the question, who really wants a partial Charlie Gehringer signature anyways? It really does make you think about the mentality of the new card collector. Some seem to rather have a numbered card with a "ickey Mant" signature than an actual full Mickey Mantle autograph at a fraction of the price.<br /><br />To try to answer the jersey question, most of the swatch cards of the older players like Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, ect... are actually swatches from their pants, not jerseys. Initially they called all swatches jersey swatches but now they label the swatch as to whether it came from the jersey or the pants.<br /><br />If the card company does have an actual jersey (Bob Feller, Warren Spahn, ect...) they do cut it all up. And the swatches that contain portions of the lettering or jersey patches command much more money.<br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>So, is it only ok to cut up signatures that aren't that hard to find? I understand what you're saying but it's not responsible to hack things up, just to fit on a card. Yes, who would want half of a Gehringer signature. I would enjoy a full one, as "The Mechanical Man" was one of the most underrated complete players of the prewar era. I know his autographs are plentiful but it's just tacky to cut off the autos.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>I didn't say it was ok nor do I agree with it but if they are going to hack them up hopefully they will stick with the easier to find signatures and leave the rare ones in tact. Personally I don't understand why anyone would want that card in their collection.<br /><br />Same with jerseys. If they are going to destroy jerseys it would be nice if they would stick with current players who have numerous jerseys versus hacking up vintage jerseys that can not be replaced. But my opinion doesn't matter to the card companies so what does it matter what I think.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>T206King</b><p>EXACTLY!!!!!!!! upper deck and the rest of them should learn

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Donross ( i think ) spent $264 000 on a Ruth home jersey to cut up for their cards. i think read somewhere that there is only 3 or 4 in existance...?<br /><br />this is so stupid. who really cares if you own 1 square inch of someones jersey, or bat. its the inside of the bat for christ sakes.... <br /><br />collecting use to be about collecting sets, now its just about how many cut signature, jersey and bat cards you can get.<br /><br />whats next ??<br /><br />i'm guessing Upper Deck will cut up a T206 Wagner, and stick it onto cards.<br /><br />congrats on card companies ruining memorabilia.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>BigHurleyHick</b><p>&lt;&lt;why dont they insert a winning ticket saying you won a signed check buy johnson or a signed ball buy ty cobb, and have the person with the card pay for the shipping? i think that would be alot better then these crappy examples of history.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />I didn't get a chance to read all the posts but incase no one mentioned it one reason these pieces of history have now literally become pieces may be due to taxes. Upper Deck let one lucky winner have the bat Babe Ruth leaned on during his final speech in Yankee Stadium. UD purchased the bat for $107,000. The person who won the bat was thrilled until he was informed he had to pay $37,000 for the bat if he was to keep it. This may be one reason the companies decided to stick the memorabilia to cards instead of having a redemtion card to receive the product as a whole.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>I thought the bat Babe Ruth leaned on while giving his speach is owned by Bob Feller and has been on display in his museum in Iowa.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.bobfellermuseum.org/inside.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.bobfellermuseum.org/inside.html</a>

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>Yes, that was my understanding as well.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>In answer to who would want a "cut up" piece of history inserted in a card, I would- and so would a plethora of other game-used collectors. I think owning a piece of baseball history beats the heck out of knowing that it is being displayed on some overly-wealthy person's mantle or in their closet. What's wrong with that?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>It seems almost greedy to me, that many would rather see a Ruth jersey cut up in hundreds of pieces and spread over hundreds of people than see it intact in a safe place being taken care of. Its kinda like since I can't own the whole jersey than it should be cut up so I can own a sliver of it. I don't see a random piece of cut up fabric as a piece of history but the whole item I do.<br /><br />Edited to Add that that post wasn't directed towards anyone but just my opinions on the subject.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>Usually, when jerseys or bats were in the hands of a collector, no one saw them anyway. If a jersey or bat is just socked away in someone's closet for the past 25 years, what difference does it make? Instead of having one selfish collector hide the piece forever in his clost, why not allow more people with the opportunity to enjoy it? The average collector doesn't necessarily have $50,000-$100,000 to spend on a game-used jersey, so these items provide an opportunity for them to get a piece, however small it is, of a historic game-used items. There is nothing wrong with that.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I see nothing wrong with collecting refractors, hot prospect rookie cards and Hall of Famer signed insert cards, but these cards where a large potion of the signature is cut off is about the most moronic thing I've seen in the hobby in years. I don't understand the mentality of somone who pays premium $$ for one of these. I agree with those who say that if the signature is too large for the card, make a large card and insert a redemption card in the pack. If anything, a jumbo signature card would be cooler.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>"Instead of having one selfish collector hide the piece forever in his clost"<br /><br />So if a collector has a bat and doesn't shred it up he is now selfish ? What do you want the guy to do rent it out ? Its a baseball bat of course its going to stay in his house. Your cards stay in your house don't they? Why is it selfish to own a bat and have it in your closet or display but it isn't for a card ?Also why does everyone think these pieces are in someones closet. Most of the time thats not the case but part of a display.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Unless Donruss (which has lost its MLBPA license anyway) or Upper Deck or what not steals the subject jersey or bat or whatever item from you personally, why object to those who do want that 1"x1" piece of history in their collection? Doesn't the value of a collector's satisfactionin having one of these pieces outweigh the "moral" or "ethical" values of those who object to game-used memorabilia? Nobody is getting hurt or ripped off, are they?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>These wealthy collectors, who for year hoard the important bats and jerseys, now have to compete with card companies who can bid as much or more for these items. I think it is great that card manufacturers are giving average collectors an opportunity to own a part of history. This is a very popular area of modern collecting and there are a lot of collectors who collect game-used memorabilia cards. Knowing that many people can now enjoy and own a piece of baseball history is certainly better than knowing that only a handful of wealthy collectors hide these pieces for decades at a time.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Ok let's break this down. A size 44 Rawlings jersey is approximately 1,200 square inches. That would mean 1,200 jersey cards are made and initially 1,200 people get to "enjoy" the destroyed jersey. <br /><br />Have you ever seen a genuine game worn Ty Cobb jersey? Or any significantly player for that matter? It is far more impressive than owning a one square inch piece of the fabric. Remember once the jersey is destroyed it can never be replaced. It is obvious but people seem to forget that point. The supply isn't getting replennished. Once it is gone, it's gone.<br /><br />So should we start destroying all historically significant artifacts? Under your theory more people would be able to enjoy them. Guess it is time to cut up a t206 Wagner, maybe a couple of Picasso's and Monet's. Then for the granddaddy of all insert cards let's destroy the part of the Declaration of Independence. I mean after all there are many pages and people really only need to see the first page.<br /><br />It is downright immoral to destroy a historically significant artifact. Pieces of that caliber take on a nature of their own. They are not to be owned, rather they are to be taken care of by collectors for future generations to enjoy.<br /><br />So now why don't you reask the question who is more greedy;<br /><br />1) The wealthy collector who is enjoying and perserving a rare artifact.<br />2) The card company who destroys rare bats and jerseys to jack of the price of their product and sell more cards.<br />3) The modern collector who wants a piece of a destroyed jersey because they can't afford the whole thing.<br /><br />I will give you a hint. It isn't number 1.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>The answer to your question would depend on a number of follow-up question. Answer me this:<br /><br />1) Has the wealthy collector has donated the jersey or bat to a museum for others to enjoy? <br /><br />2) Did the wealthy collector publish a book or otherwise generated some photographs to share the piece of memorabilia with other collectors?<br /><br />3) Is the memorabilia sitting in a closet or a room where one person has hidden a number of other important pieces of memorabilia and no one in the world but this collector and three of his collector-buddies know where it is socked away?<br /><br />If the answer to these follow-up questions, is no, no, and yes, I have to say that the greedy one to your hypothetical is in fact number one (the wealthy collector who is enjoying and perserving a rare artifact).<br /><br /><br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>--<br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>Let's get serious here. No one really thinks that someone purchases a Babe Ruth jersey "to preserve for future generations" do they? The person who buys the Babe Ruth jersey buys the item for the same reason a smaller collector buys a 1933 Goudey card. And this is the same exact reason the even smaller collector buys packs in hopes of finding a card with a piece of Babe Ruth's jersey. We buy only to hoard, not to consume, not to share, not to give. just for the sole purpose of saying we've got one.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Why are you even on a vintage card message board if you don't understand the importance of keeping history in tact?<br /><br />The only thing the wealthy collector owes any of us is not to harm the artifact he or she has possession of.<br /><br />History is to be perserved first then enjoyed.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>Do you have the word history confused with the words artifact or object?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Artifacts are history and history is in artifacts.<br /><br />So how about that Declaration of Independence? Should we cut it up so you can enjoy it?<br /><br />Make no mistake about it. True collectors of high end pieces know and understand the importance of what they own. I would love to have heard the late Mr Barry Halper's opinion on this issue.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Upper Deck should just rip up jerseys of players who are still playing, because ripping up Ruth jerseys is stupid. like someone posted earlier, once its gone, its GONE. what a waste of a piece of history. <br /><br />i've noticed that upper deck doesn't make as many legendary cuts of Cobb an Walter Johnson anymore. probably because they wasted 113 Johnsons in 2001 legendary cuts. theres 1 cobb and 1 johnson for the 2005 set, just by themselves. there are a few more on duel cuts and quad cuts, but not that many.<br /><br />upper deck will soon cut up every signature cut, every jersey and bat at the rate they're going, and its pathetic. pretty soon an autograph NOT on a UD card will be worth more, because all of the card companies will want to buy them. <br /><br />all UD has to do is insert a card saying "You Have Won a Signature Cut of blah blah blah" and then you mail it to Upper Deck, and they mail you the signature.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Bryan,<br /><br />You make very good points about the uniqueness and irreplacability of many of these items, and I completely agree with them. But I think the argument you make may be too far the other way (and I really don't mean you as an individual, but similar arguments made by others as well).<br /><br />When you ask if we've ever seen a Cobb jersey, my answer would be no. But if ALL Cobb jerseys are in the hands of private collectors, my answer for alltime would be no because there would never be an opportunity for me to see one. The only way I could see one is in a museum. <br /><br />So go to a museum, right? Maybe. Museums are accessbile to varying degrees depending on how many and location. Some people can't get to, say, the Hall of Fame to see a Cobb jersey. So ... I guess my first point is that the argument to preserve makes perfect sense so long as at least some of the intact versions that remain are reasonably accessible to the public.<br /><br />Private collectors preserving for "future generations"? Again, that seems to imply the collective good of future generations. If it means future generations of private individuals (eg, over the next 1000 years the Cobb jersey could conceivably be owned and therefore seen by only 30 or so individuals -assuming a generation is approx 3/100 years), then to what purpose is it being preserved? At what point does preservation for preservation's sake miss it's own point? <br /><br />I don't think there's a good answer. You are so right - you destroy a single object, or a 1 of 5, or whatever, it can never be recovered for the end of time. But the altruistic desire (which, by the way, I completely share) that these items be preserved for others is frustrated by the fact that the preservation is often for the benefit of only a very few. <br /><br />So if preservation is going to primarily benefit private individuals, is there an argument that the private enjoyment could be more widespread and egalitarian by dispersing small pieces of the whole? And if they should stay intact, shouldn't they be more publicly accessible? And on the other hand, aren't there rights of individuals to own property that need to be considered, even if the property is unique and could be enjoyed via public display? This is America after all, right?<br /><br />I don't know the answer to these. Balancing the interests of preserving intact rare specimens and allowing enjoyment that is not based on financial status can probably best be resolved by having at least some on public display. <br /><br />Barring public display - intact for the benefit of a few, or dismembered for the benefit of the many? I'll leave that to wiser people than me!<br /><br />Joann

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p>no. you dont have historical artifacts if they are destroyed. its like having a 1970 HEMI cuda. intact worth 100K or more, in peices not worth a hole lot. Mr. Mastro of Mastronet said in an article " see this ruth bat card, it went for $65,000 now see the ruth bat this went for $65,000. you could buy a bat for what they paid for it!!!!". and its true. alot of the collectors dont collect them because they liek them. they collect them for the book value. if a walter johnson jersey card was issued and worth 2 dollars, know one would collect them. <br /><br />with the hole "letting the public have a chance to own history" is garbage. what honor do u have owning a half an inch by half an inch and pay good money for it? card companies already rip u off with over priced packs with 3 or 4 cards in them, even sometimes 5! i remeber when they issued 18 cards a pack. that is collecting! with all the problems with cutting the auto. wrong, and putting the wrong auto on some of them (ie. Plank) also cutting up Georges Vezina pads (only 1 pair exist today) for a stupid card is stupid. i would prefer to buy a program with autos on it, then buy one with it cut off in the card. i dont see how ppl cant see this.<br /><br />also if you say that only wealthy ppl have this stuff. why not cut the Honus wagner up? they cut jerseys, bats, hats, pants, chairs of stadiums, balls. why not cards? upper deck only sees dollar signs, not the fact theres history!<br /><br />rest my case!

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1136746425.JPG"> <br /><br />they havent used any of these yet!

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p>stupid companies

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Joann,<br /><br />You make excellent points.<br /><br />I wish items in private collections were more publically visible but that is the nature of the beast when it comes to collecting. Steven Wong's book made that obvious. In a perfect world we would have access to all of those items. But that isn't the case.<br /><br />However, as long as a specific jersey isn't destroyed there is a chance it and I may cross paths later down the road. Or it and others may cross paths. Once it is destroyed and encased in a piece of cardboard it's significance is almost entirely deminished.<br /><br />Private collections do turn over to museums. Barry Halper's t206 Wagner is on display in Cooperstown. In fact it is safe to say all baseball related items found in museums were once in a private collection. Some items just take longer to get there than others.<br /><br />Bryan

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Joe Jones</b><p>Great points Bryan.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>&lt;&lt;I thought the bat Babe Ruth leaned on while giving his speach is owned by Bob Feller and has been on display in his museum in Iowa.&gt;&gt;<br /><br />Yes Bryan you are correct. That is where the bat wound up in 2001 after the guy who won it from Upper Deck sold it after he knew there would be no way for him to pay the $37,000 in taxes. If anyone has any old back issues of Beckett there was a story about it in the Sept. 2001 issue. <br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Interesting. Thanks for that piece of info.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>cmoking</b><p>What if when the guy sold it, he sold it for less than $37,000? WHat is the tax implication then? <br /><br />Say he owed $37K in taxes based on the previous sale of the bat. But say when he put the bat up for auction, he only received $25K for it. <br /><br />Does he owe any taxes? Does he keep any of the funds that he received for the bat?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>BigHurleyHick</b><p>I apologize for not having a scanner but I used my digital camera to get the article online. It might be a little hard to read if your eye sight isn't great. I put it on 2 web pages due to the glare making part of the article unreadable in certain spots so that way it is in a different spot for the 2 pictures of it.<br /><br /><a href=http://home.hvc.rr.com/jokersballz/DSCF0036.JPG target="_blank">Article page 1</a> <br /><br /><a href=http://home.hvc.rr.com/jokersballz/DSCF0039.JPG target="_blank">Article page 2</a>

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>I'm sure UD would have bought it and chopped it up for many pack busters to "enjoy". Let's be real, even though game-used jersey cards, bat cards, pant cards, hat cards, etc...are the draw towards many of the new products, it's more of a gambling bug than a true desire to own something. <br /><br />Do you honestly ever see anyone busting open a pack, in hope of getting that Ruth bat card to keep for their collection? Sure, they would love to get it. However, they would most likely flip it on Ebay to make money. They're hoping for that home run pack that will make them a few bucks. There might be a handful of collectors who actually want that specific card for their collections. However, they will probably buy it on the secondary market. <br /><br />Additionally, there are now so many different game-used cards from Ruth, Williams, etc.. that it dilutes the value of owning that little 1X1 chunk. The nostalgia wears off and then people aren't as excited about their little "piece" of history. However, they probably would much rather appreciate an intact item in the long run. So, like the trend of most new material, the game used stuff becomes worth very little at the expense of something that's irreplaceable.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>BigHurleyHick</b><p>I agree Anson. Last night I went crusing ebay just to see how much a piece of Babe Ruth bat would cost. I found several completed auctions for under $100. I also saw I could get a piece of Ted Williams bat for only $40. <br />I remember getting an Ivan Roderguiz jersey card in a UD pack back in 1999. It's book value was $120. By 2001 when there were packs offered in which there was guaranteed at least 1 piece of material a pack it was only half the value at $60. I believe it would have gone down a little but due to abundace of game used cards the price of individual cards don't sustain very well because tehre are so many alternatives to choose from. I don't know what the book value of that I-Rod is now but I bet I couldn't get $10 for it on ebay.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>i don't see why people get so excited over a bat card. its just the inside of the bat. whoopty do, the inside of the bat. <br /><br />i guess UD will be cutting up hats, cleats, even socks. which is sad.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>This is getting worse than the right to choose/right to life argument. Some people enjoy collecting "pieces of history." Some people don't. For those who don't, let's just agree to disagree. There is no sound "moral" or "ethical" argument here. Nobody's rights are being infringed upon and nobody is getting hurt. So--if you don't like the idea, don't collect them, but don't impose your self-righteous views on the rest of us and don't be so angry about it--it's memorabilia collecting after all, not foreign or domestic policy.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>"Self righteous views" huh? You won't win any friends or arguments that way. You do realize this is a vintage baseball card board right?<br /><br />Maybe you want to take a stab at my Declaration of Independence question. Should it be cut up for you to enjoy? So you can put it in your collection? Where do you draw the line on what to destroy in order to make a buck? That is the bottom line here. Upper Deck & other card companies don't care about you, your collection, or the history of the game. They just want to sell their lousy product for an outrageous price and the only way they can do that is by making you believe that a high priced chase card lies in the next pack.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Adam Smith</b><p>Talk about self-righteous.....<br /><br />You are comparing the Declaration of Independence to a baseball bat or uniform. Some of you have a skewed sense of reality.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anson</b><p>I realize that game-used clipped cards aren't going away. I just think that you DO have to draw the line with vintage players' stuff. What's next, the Ted Williams "Piece of the Head" cards? <br /><br />Thank God that the Baseball HOF and Smithsonian have some of things and aren't willing to part with them to card companies.<br /><br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Bryan: I am here neither to win friends nor arguments. I have plenty of friends and have won plenty of arguments. I'm also not interested in "making a buck" and have absolutely no interest in having a piece of the Declaration of Independence.<br /><br />My point was, which you seemed to miss, that if I and others care to buy game-used memorabilia, there's no law that prohibits us from doing so. There is also no possible argument that would change our minds, as I'm sure there's no argument that would compel you to change yours.<br /><br />As I said, if you're not interested in collecting them, don't. But your "arguments" are artificial, as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. I was merely asking that you respect the views of others and we will, yours.<br /><br />P.S. And yes, I do realize this is a Vintage card Board and I think you knew that. Schoolyard jabs are also not a good way to win an argument. If you have a problem with it being off-topic, talk to the person who started the thread or ignore it.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Cobby33 & Adam - How about you answer my question. I am trying to figure out where you would draw the line since you support it.<br /><br />Do you even know what self righteous means? You can call me self righteous all you want but at least I am not selfish like you in the fact that you would rather have a small piece of a jersey worn by a player in your collection rather than have it left in tact for future generations to enjoy.<br /><br />You do realize that if the day comes when you can actually afford to buy say a Mickey Mantle jersey you will either have to pay an outrageous amount compared to today's going rate or not get one at all because they were destroyed so you and other could have a swatch in your collection.<br /><br />Anson - I agree they are not going away as long as people keep buying them. I just want to know what is next.<br /><br />Cobby - I don't have a problem with being off topic I was just pointing out that discussing the pros of jerseys swatches will not be too popular here.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>It is obvious that we are not going to come to an agreement here and even if we did it isn't going to change anything in the long run.<br /><br />However, just know that card companies are destroying baseball memorabilia in order to make a buck and by buying their product you are supporting their actions.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Bryan,<br /><br />I had actually put a line about the Decl/Indep example in my previous post but deleted it. I'm not sure that's the best example of an extreme to use, because that's not in private hands and excluded from general access. Similarly with other examples such as art masterpieces. Therefore the need to cut it up, disperse the enjoyment among more private owners, etc, doesn't exist.<br /><br />I know the public display argument doesn't get to the core issue of an individual's right to accumulate and own versus the consideration of preserving history, but it at least addresses that example. <br /><br />To me in the end it would come down to this: What if it were the last one of something? What if it were the last Ty Cobb jersey in existence? Should the person who owns it be allowed to cut it up and distribute it? Is that different from that person locking it away in one piece for all time? I agree with the argument before that cutting it up destroys it for all time, while locking it away at least keeps some future ability to resurrect it.<br /><br />Again, I don't know what to think. Property rights in America are a very big deal, and this is just another example of the difficulties that arise from the desire to protect that interest.<br /><br />Joann

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>This is an open board, even to me..... I think that most folks on this board would find cutting up jersey's, bats etc....to be idiotic. I would agree with that. IF folks want to collect that stuff more power to them and this IS America....those are my thoughts....regards

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Joann,<br /><br />Good points. You are right the Declaration of Independence itself is a bit extreme. I believe there are parts of the draft of the document in the hands of private collectors and that is what I was referring to. Basically I want to know where to draw the line.<br /><br />I really wish that it was none of my business as what a person collects shouldn't be any of my business but I am a huge fan of baseball history and frankly it kills me to see it being destroyed.<br /><br />I do believe too much time and energy has been wasted on this thread especially since we have no effect on the outcome.<br /><br />Bryan

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Bryan:<br />I did answer your question. I said I have no interest whatsoever in owning a piece of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, I think it's so outdated it's not really worth anything, but that's a different topic wholly inappropriate for this Board.<br />I think we've agreed to disagree, which is probably the best result we can hope for, so I thank you for the dialog.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>There are a number of copies of the Declaration of Independence in private hands. I think there are something close to 12 copies known to exist. The last one being found when a painting was removed from it frame and the DoC being hidden behind the frame backing.<br /><br />The beauty of jersey or bat is in its entirety. The same as the beauty of painting or sculpture is in its entirety. How interested would you be in owning a 1 inch piece of a Leroy Nieman painting if UD started chopping them up and putting them into cards? <br /><br />That little 1 inch piece of an original Nieman is worthless and meaningless without the context of the rest of the painting. The same goes for a 1 inch piece of jersey. Without the context of the entire jersey, that swatch is meaningless and worthless. You are taking UD's word that the swatch is what they claim. I seem to remember one of card companies getting busted for cutting up jerseys and claiming they were game used, when they actually weren't.<br /><br />Cobb, I bet you have a lot of issues with collector of paintings and sculptures since these people tend to hide them and never let them see the light of day after they have purchased them. Guess we should start cutting them up too so we can all enjoy the great art that is being hidden away.<br /><br />I can't enjoy these great works of art the same as I can't enjoy most historically significant baseball items, but I would much rather see them in the hands of someone that will keep them in tact, rather than be destroyed in the name of the all mighty dollar.<br /><br />As had been pointed out, UD and the other card companies do not care about you or sports history, in the least. All they care about is getting you to part with your money and making their stock holders happy.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>zach</b><p>Amen Jay ! Great post ! I'm with you 102 percent <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cat</b><p>I personally think anyone (Upper Deck or anyone else) cutting up jerseys or bats of players like Cobb, Jackson, or Ruth to sell by the piece should be taken out to the back forty and SHOT. Those UD cards with the chopped up signatures were pathetic, but on the other hand I could care less if some one bought a Van Gogh and sold it by the square inch. It's just my taste!!! <br><br>Edited to correct typos unless otherwise noted.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>One of the little themes I run across in law school is whether "reasonable people can disagree" on something. A lot of times this board illustrates that perfectly for me. Just read this thread for the passion, thought and intellect that people have put into supporting their respective positions, even as the positions themselves vary widely. So many different shades of this issue have emerged. Talk about reasonable people disagreeing. Just an observation. <br /><br />Oh, and I didn't know there were multiple copies of the Decl of Ind. Duh. I guess I've kind of heard that but didn't realize they weren't commemorative reproductions or something like that (although very "old reprints", lol). Does the US have more than one copy in its custody? That does really make the cutting up of the D/I a valid example, and puts a different spin on the issue. For me at least.<br /><br />Joann

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Jay: What may be "meaningless and worthless" to you may not be the same to somebody else. To me, most "art" is meaningless and worthless, yet I don't impose my values on those who collect or enjoy art.<br /><br />My points in each of my posts has been (1) an acknowledgement that people's opinions differ on this issue; and (2) an observation that those who think that "cutting up" pieces of jersey is a crime, be a little more "charitable" in their opinions and not treat it like a personal, vindictive crusade, as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this issue.<br /><br />I guess I failed in both respects, which is not surprising given the tendency of many on this Board to jam their viewpoints down the throat of others with no grace or tact (e.g. UD should be "shot" for making game-used products, etc.). <br /><br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>William Brumbach</b><p>For what it's worth, Upper Deck is a privately held company with no stock holders. Topps, on the other hand, is publicly traded. As of right now they are the only two players left in the modern card game.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Cobby<br /><br />I understand where you are coming from. I collect jerseys and cards but can't afford the big name player jerseys. Being that Honus Wagner is one of my all time favorites I wanted to get the UD Wagner jersey card, a piece of Wagner history right? I did buy it. I then went to Cooperstown and saw Honus Wagner's jersey in tact. It is an amazing sight to see. That is when I became so adamant about not destroying jerseys. They need to be protected because seeing one in one piece is so far greater than owning a piece of it. I still have that card mainly because the market has dropped out on game jersey cards. I will tell you this. I tend to look at the picture I took of Wagner's jersey far more often than I look at that jersey swatch. <br /><br />Seeing the a jersey complete is seeing the player. You get an idea of his playing style by the wear. You get an idea of how big he was by the size of the jersey. You begin to see the player as a person, not just a legend. So far I have yet to get that feeling from the Wagner jersey swatch.<br /><br />As much as you ask me to respect your collecting habits I ask you to respect other people's collecting habits. People do collect bats and jerseys and they are being destroyed. I don't collect comic books. Never read one in my life. But I wouldn't wish the destruction of the first Superman so a company can make a profit.<br /><br />You say you don't really care for artwork. If you are ever in Paris (preferably the summer or fall) how about you go to the Louve. Don't go in, just sit outside and observe the incredible line of people who want to get in and ask yourself "how would they feel if a company started buying works of art to cut up and sell for a profit."<br /><br />Bryan

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Bryan:<br />Thank you for the thoughtful response and I can't say I disagree with you on any point.<br />I do want to clarify, however, that I do not have any issues with those who choose to own or admire pieces of memorabilia which are intact. I wholeheartedly agree that those are valuable beyond currency. I certainly respect those who own "whole" pieces or those who covet them.<br />My point was, that people who choose to sell these items or collect them, should be given the same amount of slack, which I think you also agree with.<br />Finally, I have to admit I was being a little flippant about my comment about art. I do see its value and do appreicate some/most of it and if ever I am in Paris, I certainly intend to visit La Louvre.<br />Thanks again.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Bryan</b><p>Cobby<br /><br />To be fair I should state my problem lies with the card manufacturers. They are the ones doing the damange. Aslo I certainly understand the mentality of "well the damage has been done so why not own it." That is why I bought that Wagner in the first place.<br /><br />As much as I wish people would stop buying the product of card manufacturers who destroy vintage memorabilia it isn't feasable. The card industry would die. And as much as it will pain me to do so I will buy their product for my children in hopes of sharing with them card collecting. (Hopefully they will catch on to vintage quickly.) What will be real funny is me having this very same argument with my six year old daughter the first time she pulls a vintage jersey or bat card, assuming card companies haven't seen the light by that time.<br /><br />It's been nice chatting with you.<br /><br />Bryan<br /><br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on with respect to this argument, because in my opinion both sides have valid points.<br /><br />But...<br /><br />Have any of you had the pleasure of seeing the look on a little kid's face when he pulls a game-used jersey card out of a brand-new pack?<br /><br />To me, there's some value in that. I watched my son pull a piece of Bobby Thompson's bat out of a pack of cards. His eyes lit up like Christmastime. He then asked me all about Bobby Thompson - who was he? Why was he important? Tell me about the game! Tell me about the three New York teams - which one was better? <br /><br />For that kind of conversation with my son, and to witness the joy on his face and his genuine interest in the history of the game, I'd hack up one of Bobby Thompson's bats myself.<br /><br />I've also seen him rummage through boxes of basketball cards at shows - for what seemed like hours - looking for a swatch of Jason Kidd or Shaquille O'Neal's jersey. When he found them, you'd think he struck gold.<br /><br />In my mind, there's still an element of this hobby that belongs to children, and I try to remember that whenever a discussion like this comes up.<br /><br />-Al

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>jay behrens</b><p>Al, I agree in part, but it shouldn't take a chopped up bat or jersey to get those types of conversations going. I love my son, but I would find better, less destructive ways to talk to my son about these things. <br /><br />I don't have a real problem witht he current player item being hacked up, since they can be easily replaced. My issue, along with most others, is with the destruction of historicaly significant and rare items that can never be replaced.<br /><br />Jay<br><br>I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>Like I said, Jay, I can see both sides of the fence. Actually, until I saw my son's eyes light up, I was firmly on your side.<br /><br />But when he said "I OWN A PIECE OF BOBBY THOMPSON'S BAT!", I kinda got nudged a little toward the other side. It's only Bobby Thompson, I understand, but still...I don't collect game-used anything, so it's not like I've got that kind of stuff displayed in my house. So until he's an adult and can decide what to do with his own money, the only way he'll ever own something like that is if it's attached to a card.<br /><br />We have lots of discussions about sports, and about baseball history, but when he held that card in his hand, he "got it" in a way I don't think he ever has before. The magnitude of the history sort of hit home with him.<br /><br />Anyway, I thought it was cool, and it reminded me that this used to be a kid's hobby. I like that, and I sorta miss it a little.<br /><br />-Al

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>identify7</b><p>I wonder how often a kid opens up a pack of cards, finds a game used or its equivalent, and thinks "Id like to find out more about this player's part in baseball history".<br /><br />And how often another kid does the same thing because he feels like he hit the lottery. And now his motivation in determining who the player was is largely to assess the value of his winnings.<br /><br />My point is: are kids learning baseball or gambling here?

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>Al Crisafulli</b><p>I guess that's not a value judgement I'm capable of making. I don't have a window into the mind of all kids, just the ones that live in my house with me.<br /><br />But when I was a kid, if I pulled Pete Rose or George Brett out of a pack, I was excited because I got a "star", but I was also aware that Pete Rose or George Brett was more valuable than Steve Comer or Ken Clay.<br /><br />But from my perspective, if it's the value of a special shiny insert card or whatever that gets a kid interested in baseball, and that helps keep the sport and the hobby viable, then I'm all for it.<br /><br />-Al<br /><br />

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>t206King</b><p>Kids cant afford packs lol i remeber when they were 25 cents in the early 90s, with 18 cards in them. kids have to fork out mum and dads money for a pack of only 4 cards. those were the days...

Clipping up history - a bit O/T
 

Posted By: <b>warshawlaw</b><p>I recently purchased a vintage scrapbook (really a vintage pile of pages as it turned out) because a pretty rare set of boxing cards was in it and I needed one for my set. The cards were cut into silhouettes around the fighters' images (like an E125 looks) and nicely pasted down on the page. Now, the set has been "ruined" by the cutting and tbe book has been ruined by aging, so I'm keeping the one "card" I need anyway cutting up the book to get at the cards. <br /><br />My feeling is that you can cut up whatever you own and sell it as you wish but that the card makers that cut up items to the point where they don't bear any resemblance to their original items are not doing a service to the collecting public. I'd rather not own a shard of a Ruth bat and know that the bat still exists than own a chip and feel that I have participated in the destruction of an historical artifact.