D&M Ad Peice I Once Owned

[murphusa]

In 2000 I saw an ebay auction for a Frank Hogan D&M glove ad piece. Won the item for $35.00. Since it was prior to paypal I contacted the seller for payment info and asked if this was the only other one she had, Told me she had 2 other a Lew Fonseca and one without a name. She sold me all three for a total of $120.00 including postage. Got them and the two were for the model gloves of the players and the unnamed one was for D&M Bats

The bat ad looked like Lou Gehrig

In 2005 I submitted the item to Hunts Auction and they sold for Hogan $900, Fonseca $1400 Gehrig $2600

In 2007 Someone submitted to Hunts again and the Gehrig sold for $5,500.00

Last night the Gehrig sold for $875.00 as a D&M bat ad piece with no mention of Gehrig at Chrsitie's

Someone got a great deal

Photo from the Hunts Auctions of 2005

[perezfan]

I saw that too...

Christies did not do the consignor much of a favor by omitting Gehrig from the title/description. Wish I'd seen the piece pre-closing.

Perhaps someone here was lucky enough to land it?

[Shoeless Moe]

Not 875, more like 1200 once everything gets tacked on, but yep good buy

Partial blame could go to the consignor for not telling Chrisities, of course could be the widow of a dead guy selling his collection so she wouldn't know.

[MrSeven]

Can you actually claim it's Lou Gerhig? Despite the obvious appearance, does anyone think this a legal thing for not including his name on the display? Maybe D&M didn't actually have rights to use Gerhig's image.

[Topnotchsy]

I found it somewhat astonishing how important details like this were left out of auctions. Someone mentioned that there were photos that were used as the image for cards and that was not mentioned. They also ignored mentioning previous sale prices and often had the auction estimate at a fraction of the amount. (I bought a lot of 3 contracts for $625 that had an estimate of $600-$800. One of the 3 sold for $1500 at Hunt Auctions 4 years ago).

I understand that Christie's has not generally run sports auctions, but this was really hard for me to understand...

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by MrSeven

Can you actually claim it's Lou Gerhig? Despite the obvious appearance, does anyone think this a legal thing for not including his name on the display? Maybe D&M didn't actually have rights to use Gerhig's image.

+1

The pose is Gehrig-like, the image certainly not, IMO.
A stretch to refer to that as Gehrig.

[Lordstan]

To me there is no doubt.

https://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?s...oduct.chain%5D

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Edit: Now that I am home, I can post the actual photo

[Duluth Eskimo]

You found the exact photo. Even with three belt loops. That's awesome. I guess that solves that.

[Lordstan]

It's a pretty well known Conlon photo

[Leon]

Originally Posted by HRBAKER

+1

The pose is Gehrig-like, the image certainly not, IMO.
A stretch to refer to that as Gehrig.

Not really... (*with note to 20-20 hindsight, but it still looked like him to me)

.

[perezfan]

Isn't that also the '33 Goudey pose? I thought it was one of Gehrig's best-known images.

That said... I agree that D&M probably didn't have the contractual agreement necessary to put Gehrig's name on it. But the image is immediately recognizable.

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

To me there is no doubt.

https://dyn3.heritagestatic.com/lf?s...oduct.chain%5D

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Edit: Now that I am home, I can post the actual photo

The socks are different .