Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Odd item (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=157984)

yanks12025 10-21-2012 06:59 PM

Odd item
 
Ok, so I've seen this bat before sell in hunts acouple times and I think it was on ebay once. Why would they remove the Gehrig and Dimaggio autos just to fix the bat. First time sold for $43,000 which seems way too much. Then after removing the gehrig and DiMaggio it sells for little.



http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=751&lot_qual=





http://www.huntauctions.com/LIVE/ima...=527&lot_qual=

drc 10-21-2012 08:32 PM

To make room so the winner can get it signed by Derek Jeter and Don Mattingly?

Or perhaps the restorer mistakenly grabbed the bottle ink remover. Shemp did that once.

BigJJ 10-21-2012 08:51 PM

The original buyer may have excised the Gehrig signature, for placement onto a Gehrig model bat, giving the impression of a single signed Gehrig bat. And while at it, did a vintage DiMaggio impression of a single signed as well. This is arguably not a bad thing to do, so long as if the bat is resold, the creation of the bat is disclosed. Hard to find a single signed, non-personalized, Gehrig bat. And hard to find a vintage single signed DiMaggio bat. Sometimes collectors go to great lengths. :cool:

Shoeless Moe 10-21-2012 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drc (Post 1046110)
To make room so the winner can get it signed by Derek Jeter and Don Mattingly?

Or perhaps the restorer mistakenly grabbed the bottle ink remover. Shemp did that once.

"Shemp did that once"........outstanding!!!!!

Jlighter 10-21-2012 08:54 PM

Maybe it turned out the signatures were forgeries, so they were removed?

I'm sort of pulling at straws here.

thekingofclout 10-21-2012 09:19 PM

I would think that perhaps TOPPS or another card company bought it, removed the Gehrig & DiMag for their trading cards promotion, and then had the bat repaired, and are now trying to recover what ever money they can.

Cfern023 10-23-2012 10:44 PM

That's absolutely horrible.

I'm 25 and know how stupid that was, and I'm sure my little sister would too.

David Atkatz 10-23-2012 11:30 PM

You're right, Cfern--it is horrible. But why is it horrible?

I'll tell you why. Because it's wrong to destroy artifacts. (Even if they're just signed polaroids.)

Runscott 10-24-2012 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Atkatz (Post 1046802)
You're right, Cfern--it is horrible. But why is it horrible?

I'll tell you why. Because it's wrong to destroy artifacts. (Even if they're just signed polaroids.)

Agreed. Even if they had expertly 'fixed' the Gehrig/DiMaggio hole (which they didn't), they changed a historically-significant artifact.

It's not like team-signed vintage Yankees bats are something that can reproduce on their own, like Babe Ruth single-signed balls.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 PM.