Topps Authentic Bat Card

[Archive]

Posted By: Mental Midget 

Does anyone see anything wrong
with this card? And if the piece of
bat is authentic, whose is it?http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=56119&item=5119106081&rd=1

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The card pictures Eddie Collins. And that piece of wood just as easily be from a broken office chair as it could a game used bat.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: M. Midget

That's not a bad idea, Charlie Comiskey or Connie Mack "Authentic Piece of Office Chair"-or Branch Rickey.

[Archive]

Posted By: peterp

I don't know if you're not familiar with modern cards or if you're seeing something that looks suspicious on this card, but Topps and the other companies have been adding Game-Used memorabilia to cards for the last 7 years. The Topps 206 set also has Bat cards from John McGraw and a few others.

They're certified as real, maybe they aren't, but in the context of the trading card world, they're considered as good as real.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The problem is the card is mislabeled and with only a sliver of wood, how can you know if the bat was a Jimmy Collins or Eddie Collins model.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: M. Midget

In other words, did this card begin with an authentic Jimmy Collins bat-from which pieces were taken-or an Eddie Collins bat. Calls into question Topps "authentic" bats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mental M

That's pretty funny about the Jimmy or Eddie Collins. Perhaps it's an ERROR card and it's worth about a bajillion bucks more than a normal card.

Maybe, just maybe Topps wanted to see if anyone would notice.

In any case it makes me sick to think that these card manufacturers would even consider cutting a piece of history into little pieces so they can make a buck or two. I know, this board has been down this road before and it still irritates me to think that some marketing genious would destroy a bat like this. Personally, I'd like to see the evidence that proves that this is a sliver from an Eddie (or Jimmy) Collins bat. Let me stop before I get on a roll.

[Archive]

Posted By: peterp

Oh OK, I see what you're talking about. Didn't realize that was an Eddie Collins card being mislabeled as a Jimmy Collins. I get what you're saying now.

[Archive]

Posted By: Davis r. b.

Just looked up both Collins players and they both played for Philadelphia A's a.1908, so who knows??? Could be the wrong picture used. Do like these cards from Topps.

[Archive]

Posted By: PeterP

I have to respectfully disagree on cutting up bats and jerseys (and occasionally, shoes, caps, gloves, and balls) being a bad thing. I think it's great that the card companies are offering a chance for us to own a piece of history.

I look at it this way, half this stuff is sitting in some person's closet, whether it's a collector, a dealer, or the player's estate. Maybe if we're lucky, we can look at -not touch- it behind glass at a museum. Plus, for many players, there are enough jerseys and bats to go around.

The nicest of these GU cards I saw was one that Donruss put out in its Leaf Certified Materials brand a couple years ago. It featured the elephant patch off of Roger Maris's KC A's jersey. Sweet.

[Archive]

Posted By: petecld

With all due respect, I will never be so desperate to own a piece of history that I would agree to destroy a piece of history in order to do so.

[Archive]

Posted By: Davis r.b.

I agree with Pete: to cut up a Babe Ruth Jersey or bat in any way is nearly criminal in my opinion.

[Archive]

Posted By: M. Midget

I think it would be interesting to see what Topps would say about the Jimmy/Eddie Collins card, could shed some light on the whole authentic materials market. PSA and SGC grade these cards and make them authentic without quetion.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

PeterP, sounds like you would be first in line to buy a scrap of the Mona Lisa if they cut that up into little pieces so that everyone could have a chance to a piece of this great masterpiece.

A piece of a bat, jersey, etc is totally meaningless without teh context of what it really is. And what's so great about the elephant patch from Maris' KC jersey? Wouldn't be more impressive to be able to see whole jersey rather than just the patch? If you really want the patch, common jerseys can be had cheap and you get the patch, plus a whole jersey. The Maris patch without the jersey and relavent tagging is totally meaninglesss and worthless.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: peterp

I think that takes it a little far to compare the Mona Lisa to a sweaty baseball jersey, esp. when in just about every case, there's several to many jerseys/bats available of old-time players.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and I do see your point, but I just think the Mona Lisa comparison is a little bit extreme.

You might as well have used the Shroud of Turin as an example.

[Archive]

Posted By: Davis r.b.

I personally like the bat and jersey cards as something different in the hobby. Plus, if there would be a chance to get the "smile" swatch, I'm in with the Mona Lisa cards.
davis

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

The Mona Lisa example is not extreme. One of the card companies cut up the only pair of legpads that Terry Sawchuck wore during his entire career. Taking it fromt he other angle, the Mona Lisa is not the only work of art created by DaVinci, so why not cut it up? There are many other DaVinci artworks out there. Or how about tossing a Chippendale chair into a wood chipper and selling off the slivers. I doubt anyone would be lining up to to get a sliver of a Chippendale chair or other piece of expensive furniture. It would be pretty funny to people your house is decorated in Louis XIV furniture and then show then your collection of slivers hanging on the wall.

Sorry, but destroying something, whether it is art, sports equipment, etc is a bad thing as the context that made the item special is lost once you chop it up into little pieces.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: peterp

The Mona Lisa example is not extreme. One of the card companies cut up the only pair of legpads that Terry Sawchuck wore during his entire career.

>>>>>That's a different story. I'm not familiar with Terry Sawchuck, I'm assuming football?

>>>>>The closest example I can think of in baseball was the furor last year when Donruss/Playoff purchased one of three known Ruth home jerseys and began slicing it up to insert into something like 7 years worth of cards.

Taking it fromt he other angle, the Mona Lisa is not the only work of art created by DaVinci, so why not cut it up? There are many other DaVinci artworks out there.

>>>>True, but it's the only Mona Lisa in existence. And while I personally am against it, I guess really there is nothing to stop whoever owns the Mona Lisa from cutting it up.


Or how about tossing a Chippendale chair into a wood chipper and selling off the slivers. I doubt anyone would be lining up to to get a sliver of a Chippendale chair or other piece of expensive furniture.

>>>>Chippendale chairs aren't collectible in the same way baseball cards and memorabilia are.


It would be pretty funny to people your house is decorated in Louis XIV furniture and then show then your collection of slivers hanging on the wall.

Sorry, but destroying something, whether it is art, sports equipment, etc is a bad thing as the context that made the item special is lost once you chop it up into little pieces.

>>>>>As I said before, you make a valid point and it's certianly a reasonable opinion to hold. However, I look at it this way, to a point (excluding 1 of a kind type items). Many critics say that taking a nice Ruth or Gehrig jersey or bat and chopping it up deprives everyone of the pleasure of seeing it. Unless it's in a museum or being passed around from person to person, these jerseys or bats are being held in private collections, or being offered for sale in a dealer's store, or are sitting in storage in the player's estate. At least when a trading card company buys it, they're offering the chance for thousands upon thousands of collectors to get a piece of history, and actually be able to touch it and look at it up close.

>>>>>That's something that can't really even be offered in a museum, when the item is behind protective glass.

>>>>>That said, the card companies are saturating the market even with old-time HOFers memorabilia. I'm not even really intrested in those cars anymore, esp. for modern players. Before getting back into vintage I was going through the cut autograph route. Upper Deck (and now others) are offering cut autographs on cards of decreased players. I managed to pick up a Lloyd Waner, Hank Greenberg, Ray Dandrige, and Johnny Mize. Very expensive, very valuable. Also picked up a Mantle that was signed while he was alive.

>>>>>>Now that's something I think is worth cutting up. It introduces card collectors to the memorabilia market, but keeps the focus on cards (I wouldn't by cut autographs that are just sold as index cards or checks).

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

At least when a trading card company buys it, they're offering the chance for thousands upon thousands of collectors to get a piece of history, and actually be able to touch it and look at it up close.

Jay's whole point was that once a Babe Ruth uniform is cut into a bunch of tiny pieces it ceases to be a piece of history and becomes tiny pieces of fabric virtually indistinguishable from any other swatch of gray fabric.

I would think that any kid interested in the game's past would feel much more in touch with the game if he could see the Babe's uniform in some kind of traveling exhibit, rather than by pulling a small piece of it from a pack. I would guess that their first thought when pulling a jersey card is to wonder how much they can sell it for on Ebay.

The new cards with autograph cuts in them are kind of neat though, but what would you think is someone did those like they did the jersey cards? Why not cut up an individual Gehrig signiture and put the "Lou" in one card and the "Gehrig" in another. That way 2 different people could touch a "piece of history".

Also picked up a Mantle that was signed while he was alive.

Yogi: "He must have signed that autograph before he died."

[Archive]

Posted By: M.Midget

I believe the relics cards are purely sales driven and the companies give no thought to respecting the items of former baseball heroes; it's the ultimate disrespect really. Also, regarding the Jimmy/Eddie Collins card, didn't Topps research these cards and the t206 set-and didn't Keith Olbermann, who endorsed the Topps 206 set, notice this card was wrong?

[Archive]

Posted By: Paul

That's got to be Eddie's bat. An Eddie Collins bat is undoubtedly rare. But I would be surprised to learn that a Jimmy Collins bat even exists. If there was one, and Topps cut up the only one, that would be a real shame.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

peterp, you better brush up on your antiques and watch the Antiques Roadshow more. There are very few Chippendale chairs that sell for less than the most valuable cards. Antique furniture from big name makers in general sells for insane amounts of money. At least I think it's insane. A $100 on a futon is pushing my limit and Lee and I jsut got some bookshelves for $20. Can't see spending tens of thousands of dollars on that type of stuff. Then again, people can see spending money old baseball cards either. Too each their own.

By the way, Sawchuck is probably the great the greatest goalie ever to play hockey.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jason Smith

This thread all boils down to a reverence for the history of baseball (or history of art for that matter) vs. the almighty dollar. Even if there are 10 bats out there of Eddie Collins, it's still a shame for them to be chopped up to be put in a baseball card. So what, each collector has a chance at a piece of baseball history. What kind of piece of history is a chip of the inside of a bat? If this bat was intact to begin with then I think it's totally wrong to chop it up like this. If it was a bat that was broken into several pieces already then I could understand their "good intention" of making the history available to everyone. But this comes down to money. The company can turn a profit by destroying a piece of history. End of story. It's wrong (in my opinion), but as long as there are buyers out there for this stuff, then there will be sellers...
Jason

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

first i don't like what they're doing.i think if they have to cut up these items and place them with cards, it would be nice if they put a patch of babe ruths 1930's era uniform with a authentic goudey card.or cobb uniform with a t card.i'd like that better anyway.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Guys, I think it's pretty obvious it's about the money. I'd hate to drop a bomb on everyone, but tobacco cards, caramel cards, gum cards, and professional baseball itself were created for the money.

I didn't mean to mislead anyone when I said that the card companies were "offering us the opportunity" that they were doing it for altruistic reasons. Of course not. Of course the profit motive is what is driving them to offer GU cards. But, thanks to the old invisible hand, that profit motive has the side-effect of "offering us the opportunity" to own a piece of history.

And I do stand by my original statement that even if there were 10 Eddie Collins bats in existence, most, if not all are just sitting in some dealer's store or some private collector's house. Hell, they might as well not even exist if we're using the "everyone should get a chance to appreciate them" rationale for their existence and importance.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Peter, doesn't matter if these items reside in personal collections. It's selfish on the part of collectors to hide these great things from the punlic, but it is equally selfish on your part to think that everyone should have a chance to own a small piece of these items. What are you, a communist? Everyone had a chance to own these things at some point. It's a matter of who is willing to pay more money.

There also needs to be some point where morals and ethics override the desire for the all-mighty dollar. There are a finite number of these objects out there and if they all get chopped up, we will have nothing left for kids and grandkids to see intact. Your arguement of X number of these objects exists works fine for modern (post 1980) players since they practically wear a new uniform or use a new bat every day, but it's just not practical from a historical sense to chop scarce and items. I challenge you to find me one archeologist or historian that thinks it is a good idea to chop of historically and culturally significant items.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Peter, doesn't matter if these items reside in personal collections. It's selfish on the part of collectors to hide these great things from the punlic,

>>>>Jay, Four lines down you say it's a matter of who is willing to pay the most. Three lines down you joke about communism. I'm getting a mixed message here.

but it is equally selfish on your part to think that everyone should have a chance to own a small piece of these items. What are you, a communist?

>>>>If they're willing to pay, sure. No one's talking about forcibly taking these bats from a collector and giving it to everyone else. If Collector A sells to Card Company B, and Card Company B rightfully owns the bat, they can do whatever they want with it, whether or not I agree with it.

Everyone had a chance to own these things at some point. It's a matter of who is willing to pay more money.

>>>>Yes, and in this case Topps did.

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Stufflestreet

Let me get this straight...some collectors see the value in slicing a bat (which should belong in the HOF for fans to see IMO) into tiny pieces because "they allow collectors to own a piece of history." OK, I get that.

But do those same collectors think it's OK to cut up an old Reach or Spaulding guide, then sell the photos contained within as "cards," with their own specialized holders? I mean, that's allowing a collector to own a piece of history too. Considering many collectors wouldn't bother looking for the guides to get the great information, it gives them the chance to get a "piece" of that for their own collections.

Please tell me that you agree with this syllogism.

[Archive]

Posted By: Morrie

"But do those same collectors think it's OK to cut up an old Reach or Spaulding guide, then sell the photos contained within as "cards," with their own specialized holders?"

Whatever they are, they aren't "cards." Maybe I'm missing your point. If you then took them and embedded them in a baseball card the way cut signatures are embedded, then you would have created a card - but just cutting something up and sticking it in a slab doesn't make it a card, and calling it such would probably be fraudulent. Feel free to clarify.

"I mean, that's allowing a collector to own a piece of history too. Considering many collectors wouldn't bother looking for the guides to get the great information, it gives them the chance to get a "piece" of that for their own collections."

It seems pretty directly analogous.

"Please tell me that you agree with this syllogism."

It's not a syllogism (the classic syllogism: Humans are mortal; Greeks are human; Therefore, Greeks are mortal). But cutting up one of the Spalding guides and inserting the pieces into modern cards the way cut signatures, bat sections, and jersey swatches are inserted would IMO be analogous activities, and on the same moral level.

Morrie

[Archive]

Posted By: M. Midget

The answer to these and many other of life's questions
can only be given by one man: Keith Olbermann.

[Archive]

Posted By: tim m

Hey, would I love a Babe Ruth gamer? or even a Maris gamer, of course,,,Could I afford one? never, so when a friend gave me a piece of a Maris jersey card when I got married I was thrilled,,,,its affordable and I own it,,,i enjoy it,,,,is it stupid, probably,,,,but its kinda cool also,,,,

i would love a real Maris jeresy, but it will never happen, but I rubbed the swatch, and thought it was cool to touch Maris jersey

[Archive]

Posted By: Pete

Let me get this straight...some collectors see the value in slicing a bat (which should belong in the HOF for fans to see IMO)

>>>>>And what if the owner doesn't want to give it to the HOF? Then we're at an impasse, it would seem.

into tiny pieces because "they allow collectors to own a piece of history." OK, I get that.

But do those same collectors think it's OK to cut up an old Reach or Spaulding guide, then sell the photos contained within as "cards," with their own specialized holders?

>>>>>Yes, with one caveat: Calling a picture a card might be fraud or at the least misrepresentation, depending on how you want to look at it and who you talk to. That aside, sure, it's a free country, sell whatever you want and call it a piece of history. And if the buyers are willing to pay for it, then everyone's happy. It's all about supply and demand, just the same as with cards. The only reason any of our cards have any value is because there's thousands (and in some cases, millions) of collector's out there chasing after the same cards. Cards are only worth what someone's willing to pay for them.

That said, I personally think those pictures are crap and couldn't care less about them. But if someone else wants to pay $20 for a Ruth photo? Good for them, it's obviously worth the $20 to them, and if it brings them some happiness, even better.

I mean, that's allowing a collector to own a piece of history too. Considering many collectors wouldn't bother looking for the guides to get the great information, it gives them the chance to get a "piece" of that for their own collections.

Please tell me that you agree with this syllogism.

>>>I do. Actually, you kind of made the point for me. I see nothing to disagree with here.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Here's a great idea, lets cut up the Declaration of Independence into individual letters so that as many people as possible can actually own this very important piece of American history.

Sorry, but greed and capitalism doesn't justify anything. As I've said before, at some point common sense, morals and ethics need to suppercede the greed/money factor. Sadly, time and again, this country proves that money is more important than anything else. History or the well being of people or the planet be damned. Just becuase it's legal to do it, doesn't mean you should.

Jay

I like to sit outside, drink beer and yell at people. If I did this at home I would be arrested, so I go to baseball games and fit right in.

[Archive]

Posted By: Morrie

When I said "Same moral level," I was actually agreeing with what Jay is saying. I very much dislike cutting up pieces of history. Unfortunately, what I think is not nearly as important to card companies as what the market requests. More's the shame...

That being said, everybody should collect what they like. I'll stick with my ratty t206's.

Morrie