Topps 2021 Josh Gibson Bat Relic
 

I call BS. . . . .big time BS. . . . .

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36346199954...IAAOSw6ndg51T2

Can barely find a photo of Josh Gibson, and Topps has a bat?? Which, what, materialized for the first time a few months ago?

And was promptly cut up?

Utter nonsense.

If there are any Topps folks in the community, I'd love to hear an explanation.

And it's from an aluminum bat

I agree. I think any company selling game used relics of such significance should be expected to provide info about the legitimacy of the items they cut up.

[QUOTE=Snapolit1;2121495]I call BS. . . . .big time BS. . . . .

https://www.ebay.com/itm/36346199954...IAAOSw6ndg51T2

Can barely find a photo of Josh Gibson, and Topps has a bat?? Which, what, materialized for the first time a few months ago?

And was promptly cut up?

Utter nonsense.

If there are any Topps folks in the community, I'd love to hear an explanation.[/QUOTE

In 2005, Topps signed a 2 year agreement with Gibson's family and purchased 1 of 2 gamers the family owned at that time. There is a 1/1 bat barrel card in Topps Sterling that I assume came from this bat. Topps has issued game used bat cards of Gibson in small quantities that supposedly came from this bat recently. The other game used bat sold for over $300,000 in an auction. I think it was Sotheby's if my memory is correct and it has been a few years ago. So that is the Topps story on how they obtained a Gibson gamer.

[QUOTE=rand1com;2121570]Thanks for that info.

For G-d's sake, don't force them to prove that they destroyed an historically important object. It's much better to let them get away with fraud than to pressure them into actually mutilating scarce bats.

I do hate seeing these items cut up to be placed in cards, for sure, but I wouldn't encourage fraud.

It doesn't say bat anywhere on the card does it? Could be from a dugout bench for all anyone knows.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Piece of wood broken off a home he lived in . . .

When I was a kid, I liked the game used insert cards. Now, they make me sick to my stomach.

It is certainly very interesting the lengths they go to make no very clearly make no representation as to what this relic actually is supposed to be.

I assumed bat, but the word bat no where to be seen.

Gross negligence on the part of Topps. IMHO

Most importantly on the way they word these cards these days, who is to say the bat belonged to Gibson? Just because his picture is on the card doesn’t mean the bat piece belonged to him.

I could get a $50 bat from a 2021 player, have MLB authenticate it as “game used” for legality purposes, cut it up and put slices on a card featuring Jim Creighton and note that the “relic” is “game used” (it is) but not from any specific game, event or season. Not my fault people insinuate it might be Creighton’s, although since he’s been dead 160 years it might arouse some suspicion. A player like Gibson is juuuuuust plausible enough for most people to assume its good. Panini borders that line all the time with bats from very old HOFers.

At least for a few years in the early 2000s Donruss and Fleer would show you the actual memorabilia being cut up on the back of the card. As tragic as that was, you could at least say they had an item in their possession at one time vs the complete subterfuge that goes on today, even if some/most of it is legit.

It's even easier to just go to a decent lumberyard and buy a hunk of Ash. That way it's easier to cut up.

This disclaimer stuff has ruined the concept. I pulled a relic card from the Heritage case I busted last year and was very disappointed with that disclaimer. The last GU relic card I bought is a Hank Aaron bat card from 2001 that specifically warrants it is from a bat "...used by Hank Aaron in an official...game". If they're not going to be that specific, don't bother. Just don't.

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...er%20Aaron.jpg