Don Miller autograph 1927 Yankee

[Johnw67]

Does any one have any advice on where to obtain an autograph cut of Don Miller??

[PhilNap]

Until recently I had been looking for one for more than ten years. My approach had always been to do it quietly. I told as few people as possible for fear of stirring up interest and creating competition. A lot of people collect the 1927 Yankees but not all have Don Miller on their want list since he never played a game. I figured it would be better to keep it that way just in case his elusive signature ever became available.

Lelands sold one of his payroll checks in 2000 or 2001 for more than $1000. Other than signatures on a few team signed balls, that’s the only signature of his I have ever seen. I have been told a couple of others exist in private collections. I was also told that Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy exist.

A couple of months ago, out of desperation to fill the hole in my collection while I am still breathing, I did the unthinkable. I took an exacto knife to a team ball. To do so was completely against everything I believe in. But, it was a reasonably affordable ball, Ruth was a clubhouse and Miller was on the bottom of a side panel. So I was able to perform the surgery and keep the rest of the ball intact so as to not completely destroy history.

That’s the long answer to your question. Unfortunately the short answer is don't hold your breath. Happy hunting!!

[Johnw67]

Thank you for your time, and happy hunting!!!

[r2678]

Curious, I went through Google for Don Miller and found a reference to Joseph Styborski being an "unknown" 1927 Yankee. Is his autograph equally hard to find?

[PhilNap]

Like Miller I've only seen one payroll check and don't think I've seen him at all on a team ball.

[r2678]

Phil - Thank You

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

Until recently I had been looking for one for more than ten years. My approach had always been to do it quietly. I told as few people as possible for fear of stirring up interest and creating competition. A lot of people collect the 1927 Yankees but not all have Don Miller on their want list since he never played a game. I figured it would be better to keep it that way just in case his elusive signature ever became available.

Lelands sold one of his payroll checks in 2000 or 2001 for more than $1000. Other than signatures on a few team signed balls, that’s the only signature of his I have ever seen. I have been told a couple of others exist in private collections. I was also told that Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy exist.

A couple of months ago, out of desperation to fill the hole in my collection while I am still breathing, I did the unthinkable. I took an exacto knife to a team ball. To do so was completely against everything I believe in. But, it was a reasonably affordable ball, Ruth was a clubhouse and Miller was on the bottom of a side panel. So I was able to perform the surgery and keep the rest of the ball intact so as to not completely destroy history.

That’s the long answer to your question. Unfortunately the short answer is don't hold your breath. Happy hunting!!

GULP

[Michael B]

[QUOTE=PhilNap;1153267]
A couple of months ago, out of desperation to fill the hole in my collection while I am still breathing, I did the unthinkable. I took an exacto knife to a team ball. To do so was completely against everything I believe in. But, it was a reasonably affordable ball, Ruth was a clubhouse and Miller was on the bottom of a side panel. So I was able to perform the surgery and keep the rest of the ball intact so as to not completely destroy history.

I am sorry, but am I missing something? From what I have gathered he did not play a game for the team. Why would you need him for a complete team? I would also ask why would you destroy an item for a signature of a non-entity? Intellectual curiosity and nothing more.

[earlywynnfan]

[QUOTE=Michael B;1153452]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

A couple of months ago, out of desperation to fill the hole in my collection while I am still breathing, I did the unthinkable. I took an exacto knife to a team ball. To do so was completely against everything I believe in. But, it was a reasonably affordable ball, Ruth was a clubhouse and Miller was on the bottom of a side panel. So I was able to perform the surgery and keep the rest of the ball intact so as to not completely destroy history.

I am sorry, but am I missing something? From what I have gathered he did not play a game for the team. Why would you need him for a complete team? I would also ask why would you destroy and item for a signature of a non-entity? Intellectual curiosity and nothing more.

As a second Q, I'm wondering what kind of display you're doing with these? What kind of medium would look complete with a tiny scrap of a leather ball included? As above, not necessarily judging, just confused!
Ken

[prewarsports]

People are so obsessed with the 1927 Yankees that guys who at one point in time that were on the roster (even Spring Training) are highly sought after by collectors. I have had a handful of Roy Chesterfield autographs in the past and they sell for $500++ and he never played a game in the majors but is in that 1927 Yankees Spring Training team photo. Even the batboy sells for more than $5000! I get it to some degree, but no other team has anything even close as far as fans wanting anythig and everything associated with the team.

Rhys

[mr2686]

Am I correct that Rube Marquard was on the 27 Yankee roster late in the season but never made it in to a game and didn't play in the series?

[GKreindler]

Mike,

I can't speak for Marquard, but I know Stan Coveleski signed with the club as a reliever in mid-July, but if I remember, never appeared in a game that season or during the games against Pittsburgh.

Maybe I'm a bit biased, as I've been watching Phil put together some of the pieces to his '27 Yanks collection, but I think it's definitely been a fun project to really go all out for. And that's even though I know the hell he went through to get the Miller autograph.

But for someone as passionate about the ballclub (especially from that season) as he is, it had to be a labor of love. I definitely gotta take my hat off to the man.

Graig

[mr2686]

Graig, Coveleski might be the one I was thinking of. I knew it was a HOF pitcher towards the end of his career. I'm a completionist at heart and include players with no ab or IP as long as they were actually in a game. I have to draw he line at roster players that never played...unless of course they are easy to find.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Graig, Coveleski might be the one I was thinking of. I knew it was a HOF pitcher towards the end of his career. I'm a completionist at heart and include players with no ab or IP as long as they were actually in a game. I have to draw he line at roster players that never played...unless of course they are easy to find.

Would you include or exclude Basketball HOFer Bill Sharman from a collection of 1951 NY Giants? I did not research, but I seem to recall he would have been on deck if Thomson did not hit his homerun.

[prewarsports]

Everyone thinks Urban Shocker is the toughest player autograph to find because he died young. In fact the toughest are Joe Giard and Walter Beall, each of which will set you back somewhere between $3,000-$10,000 for a flat (album page, team sheet etc.).

Rhys

[PhilNap]

[QUOTE=Michael B;1153452]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

I am sorry, but am I missing something? From what I have gathered he did not play a game for the team. Why would you need him for a complete team? I would also ask why would you destroy and item for a signature of a non-entity? Intellectual curiosity and nothing more.

[QUOTE=earlywynnfan;1153462]

Originally Posted by Michael B

As a second Q, I'm wondering what kind of display you're doing with these? What kind of medium would look complete with a tiny scrap of a leather ball included? As above, not necessarily judging, just confused!
Ken

It's really not too hard to understand. Though he didn't play in a game, he was a member of the team and did appear in the official team photograph. If one is putting together a display of signatures along with that photo, it would be incomplete without his signature. Whether that signature is on a GPC, a payroll check or a 'tiny scrap of a leather ball', it's still a signature. Sure that signature may not be as attractive as the others but in the case of Don Miller one does not have the luxury of making choices. You take what you can get or you get nothing at all. Going the route I did with the ball was simply a case of taking what I could get.

[David Atkatz]

That photograph is far from "official." Historically, anyone who was working out with the team and in uniform the day the photos were taken would appear. The "official roster" probably existed only in Huggins' head.

[PhilNap]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That photograph is far from "official." Historically, anyone who was working out with the team and in uniform the day the photos were taken would appear. The "official roster" probably existed only in Huggin's head.

I guess I used that term loosely. He actually appears in a couple of the team photos. The one I am referring to may not be "official" but it is the most prominent and often published.

[Michael B]

[QUOTE=PhilNap;1153678][QUOTE=Michael B;1153452]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

It's really not too hard to understand. Though he didn't play in a game, he was a member of the team and did appear in the official team photograph. If one is putting together a display of signatures along with that photo, it would be incomplete without his signature. Whether that signature is on a GPC, a payroll check or a 'tiny scrap of a leather ball', it's still a signature. Sure that signature may not be as attractive as the others but in the case of Don Miller one does not have the luxury of making choices. You take what you can get or you get nothing at all. Going the route I did with the ball was simply a case of taking what I could get.

Thank you for answering. I can appreciate your perspective.

[earlywynnfan]

[QUOTE=PhilNap;1153678][QUOTE=Michael B;1153452]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

It's really not too hard to understand. Though he didn't play in a game, he was a member of the team and did appear in the official team photograph. If one is putting together a display of signatures along with that photo, it would be incomplete without his signature. Whether that signature is on a GPC, a payroll check or a 'tiny scrap of a leather ball', it's still a signature. Sure that signature may not be as attractive as the others but in the case of Don Miller one does not have the luxury of making choices. You take what you can get or you get nothing at all. Going the route I did with the ball was simply a case of taking what I could get.

Trust me, I understand the completionist mentality way too much!
I'm just wondering how you have these displayed so that a scrap of leather is more meaningful than having a ball sit on the shelf next to a binder (or whatever). Do you have some sort of large framed display?

Ken

[Johnw67]

Just a quick note to go along with this, I called the Hall of Fame in Cooperstown and they sent me images of photos they had on file and the one team photo that I wound up buying did have Don Miller in the photo in fact he was standing right next to Babe Ruth. I really wanted to get the signature of every one that was in the photo(coaches, ball boy, team doctor). I have really nice pieces so far of every one except Don Miller, that is why I started this subject.
Thanks for all of the input. John

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by Michael B

Would you include or exclude Basketball HOFer Bill Sharman from a collection of 1951 NY Giants? I did not research, but I seem to recall he would have been on deck if Thomson did not hit his homerun.

Actually, Willie Mays was on deck, however if Sharman would have been on deck I think it would be of interest to include him unless he was so scarce that it didn't make financial sense.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by PhilNap

I guess I used that term loosely. He actually appears in a couple of the team photos. The one I am referring to may not be "official" but it is the most prominent and often published.

Phil, wasn't there some Ted guy that was pretty tough too??

[JimStinson]

I don't know what this adds to the 1927 "MIX" but I have a 1927 Yankees check made out to and endorsed by E.J. Herr who was then a scout ($650.00) also have a 1939 Yankees check made out to and endorsed by MARK ROTH who was the travel secretary on the 1927 team signed on the front by Barrow ($350.00) . Sorry this post ended up here instead of the BST but it was (I thought) on topic
_______________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

[jerseygary]

So what would be the ultimate master list for the 1927 Yankees autograph collector? The 25 players who got in a game and the manager and coaches are easy but what about scouts, doctor, etc? And for the record, don't worry, just curious, not attempting to assemble the thing!

I tried finding a 2010 Detroit News article about Don Miller but everything led to a dead link - anyone have a copy of it?

STAFF
Jacob Ruppert - owner
Miller Huggins - manager
Art Fletcher - coach
Charley O'Leary - coach
Eddie Bennett - batboy

CATCHERS
Benny Bengough
Pat Collins
Johnny Grabowski

INFIELDERS
Joe Dugan
Mike Gazella
Lou Gehrig
Mark Koenig
Tony Lazzeri
Ray Morehart
Julie Wera

PITCHERS
Walter Beall
Joe Giard
Waite Hoyt
Don Miller
Wilcy Moore
Herb Pennock
George Pipgras
Dutch Ruether
Bob Shawkey
Urban Shocker
Joe Styborski
Myles Thomas

OUTFIELDERS
Earle Combs
Cedric Durst
Bob Meusel
Ben Paschal
Babe Ruth

[prewarsports]

Some people go for everyone that was in the team picture, so you have got your Spencer Adams, Roy Chesterfield, Don Miller etc. People do care about Doc Woods the Trainer and the front office staff etc too, and like I said before, the batboy.

As far as I know this is the ONLY team people do this with. Even the 1919 White Sox/Reds guys arent that obsessed.

Rhys

[JimStinson]

Agreed, The 1919 Reds & White Sox are almost as popular from a collecting standpoint as the 1927 Yankees but a distant second and/ or 3rd . I think the reason collectors don't obsess so much about the non active players on those teams is because its near impossible just to complete a roster of either of the 1919 teams.

That being said and while it is not debatable the collectability and popularity of the Murderers Row team, the 1927 Yankees MIGHT NOT have been the greatest team ever. Many historians of the game will argue the 1906 Cubs, 1939 Yankees or 1929 Athletics were better teams overall when considering the greatest team of all time. I'd also throw in the 1934 Cardinals, 1986 Mets & 1905 Giants.
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Agreed, The 1919 Reds & White Sox are almost as popular from a collecting standpoint as the 1927 Yankees but a distant second and/ or 3rd . I think the reason collectors don't obsess so much about the non active players on those teams is because its near impossible just to complete a roster of either of the 1919 teams.

That being said and while it is not debatable the collectability and popularity of the Murderers Row team, the 1927 Yankees MIGHT NOT have been the greatest team ever. Many historians of the game will argue the 1906 Cubs, 1939 Yankees or 1929 Athletics were better teams overall when considering the greatest team of all time. I'd also throw in the 1934 Cardinals, 1986 Mets & 1905 Giants.
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

Maybe I am biased, but I think the 1998 Yankees should be considered.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Maybe I am biased, but I think the 1998 Yankees should be considered.

No you are not biased that was a great team , So was the 1961 Yankees. Bill James puts the 1997 Braves, 1935 Tigers & 1957 Braves in his top 10.

Pictured here is what Braves Johnny Logan had to say about it, Ya Gotta love that guy..
__________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

...
1986 Mets & 1905 Giants.
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

Jim, given your thoroughness of thought before posting, I would not question you, but seeing the '86 Mets on your list surprises me. That was a great year for teams almost knocking them off in the playoffs - going in to the playoff I would not have bet on them winning it all.

As far as the teams before them, I doubt any of us fully understand what it took to be 'great' during the deadball era. I read a lot of baseball articles from that period and it's like thinking with a different brain.

[RichardSimon]

I am not putting them up with the greatest teams in history but they were a damn good team,,, 108 Wins and they beat Houston in 6 in the NLCS, Game 6 is considered a classic. They only played one playoff series then.
Las Vegas had them as the World Series favorite.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

I am not putting them up with the greatest teams in history but they were a damn good team,,, 108 Wins and they beat Houston in 6 in the NLCS, Game 6 is considered a classic. They only played one playoff series then.
Las Vegas had them as the World Series favorite.

I thought that with Mike Scott and Nolan Ryan, the Mets had no chance (I watched game 6 in an airport and had to board before it ended)

And of course, without Buckner, they had no chance against the Red Sox. Given all that, I wouldn't even rate them the best of '86. But they did get the job done.

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Runscott

without Buckner, they had no chance against the Red Sox.

Technically not true. At the time of the Buckner gaffe, the Mets had already tied the game. If Buckner had made the play, the game would have gone into the 11th inning.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Gary Dunaier

Technically not true. At the time of the Buckner gaffe, the Mets had already tied the game. If Buckner had made the play, the game would have gone into the 11th inning.

That's really interesting. I always remembered it as the Red Sox could have won it if Buckner had made the play, but the earlier wild pitch had tied it up. Buckner just finished things off.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

That's really interesting. I always remembered it as the Red Sox could have won it if Buckner had made the play, but the earlier wild pitch had tied it up. Buckner just finished things off.

That's what happens when you get old

[r2678]

Enough with this talk about Boston and the Mets! I'd like to know where my 1959 Indians rank!

[mschwade]

1959 Indians? Hard to put them up for argument of the best team ever when the Indians haven't won a World Series since 1948.

[JimStinson]

Poor Buckner , It was not Buckner's fault at all he was playing injured could barely walk actually , and with the lead they had....It was the manager's job to place a defensive sub at first that could at least walk..
Manager blew it not Bill Buckner.
And give the Mets some credit for taking advantage of it and having the tenacity to come back and win , except for Keith Hernandez who was already in the clubhouse drinking a beer and thinking "wait till NEXT year"..
________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

[packs]

I don't understand why Buckner gets all the heat. As was pointed out, making the play wouldn't have given Boston the win.

The same thing with Bucky Dent's homerun. I get it, the home run put the Yankees ahead. But it didn't win the game. After he hit the home run the Red Sox rallied for four runs in the bottom of the 8th. Reggie Jackson's home run in the top of the 8th was the one who won the game for the Yankees. Not Bucky Dent's.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand why Buckner gets all the heat. As was pointed out, making the play wouldn't have given Boston the win.

The same thing with Bucky Dent's homerun. I get it, the home run put the Yankees ahead. But it didn't win the game. After he hit the home run the Red Sox rallied for four runs in the bottom of the 8th. Reggie Jackson's home run in the top of the 8th was the one who won the game for the Yankees. Not Bucky Dent's.

Bucky Dent's homerun put the Yankees up 4-2, Reggie added an insurance homerun in the top 8th to go up 5-2. Boston scored two runs in the bottom of the 8th and the Yankees held on. Reggie's homerun provided the difference in the end, but Bucky's blast was a three-run shot hit by a guy that had 5 total in 1978.... Hence the Seriously? Bucky *BLEEPING* Dent?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

I don't understand why Buckner gets all the heat. As was pointed out, making the play wouldn't have given Boston the win.

Because he's the one who missed the easy grounder in a tight game. That's really all it amounts to. I used to have a recurring dream where I didn't put my glove down until the ball arrived, and I missed the ball - that's how much my coaches used to drill that into me.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by mschwade

Bucky Dent's homerun put the Yankees up 4-2, Reggie added an insurance homerun in the top 8th to go up 5-2. Boston scored two runs in the bottom of the 8th and the Yankees held on. Reggie's homerun provided the difference in the end, but Bucky's blast was a three-run shot hit by a guy that had 5 total in 1978.... Hence the Seriously? Bucky *BLEEPING* Dent?

Least we not forget that the Dent homer would not even have happened , Had the unstoppable Ron Guidry (25-3 , 1.74 era) beaten the last place 59-102 Toronto Blue Jays in the last regular season game. Instead the Jays pulled off a win Knotting up the season and forcing the Sox vs Yanks duel.
______________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

[packs]

Litterally, I know why people remember Bucky Dent. But if you talk to casual sports fans they always think his home run won the game just like they think if Buckner had caught the grounder the Red Sox would have won the series.

In fact I'd bet most casual fans don't even know there was a 7th game played after the Buckner game.

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

Least we not forget that the Dent homer would not even have happened , Had the unstoppable Ron Guidry (25-3 , 1.74 era) beaten the last place 59-102 Toronto Blue Jays in the last regular season game. Instead the Jays pulled off a win Knotting up the season and forcing the Sox vs Yanks duel.
______________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

Shucks , memory first to go when getting old ...it was Cleveland not the Jays although the Jays DID hand Guidry one of his 3 losses but it was over a week before , Yanks lost to Cleveland in final game and was Hunter that started and not Guidry. Like Rose Ann Rosanadana would say "nevermind"
________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by packs

Litterally, I know why people remember Bucky Dent. But if you talk to casual sports fans they always think his home run won the game just like they think if Buckner had caught the grounder the Red Sox would have won the series.

In fact I'd bet most casual fans don't even know there was a 7th game played after the Buckner game.

Wasn't there a guy that landed on the field in a parachute around the 3rd inning ??? of the 6th game Mets vs Sox. The 7th game is less remembered because (I think) most people took for granted that the Sox were so devastated & deflated by the sixth game loss, that they might as well have just "Gone fishing" that day , I know Yogi said "its not over till its over" but after the 6th game IT WAS OVER ...
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by packs

Litterally, I know why people remember Bucky Dent. But if you talk to casual sports fans they always think his home run won the game just like they think if Buckner had caught the grounder the Red Sox would have won the series.

In fact I'd bet most casual fans don't even know there was a 7th game played after the Buckner game.

Is 'Litterally' a combination of 'Little' and 'Literally'? Or something involving 'litter'?

I'm just a casual remembererer.

[jerseygary]

I don't buy into that whole "deflated" argument that gets used for teams like the '86 Red Sox Game 6 and the 2003 Cubs after that fan incident. Both teams had a whole game to redeem themselves and to use a last minute loss as an excuse is just wrong. If they couldn't find it in themselves to pick themselves up and start fresh the next game, then they didn't deserve to win and the best team won. Take the 2001 Diamond Backs win over the Yankees - how many of those games did Arizona blow, yet they had the fortitude to win the series in the end. Now that's a team should have been deflated, but wasn't.

[packs]

Sometimes all you've got to hold onto is a spelling error.

[Lordstan]

Mike Sergio was the guy who parachuted into Shea.
Back then we did a signing with him. We sold a truckload of signed World Series programs.
Very nice guy. They arrested him for endangering the public. It's funny because I saw his jump log. He had over 10000 jumps and told me he could land on a spot the size of a dime if asked to.

As a Mets fan, I always hated the fact that Buckner misplayed the ball. The fact is that he would've fielded the ball on the edge of the outfield with bad ankles. Mookie Wilson was already about a third of the way up the line when he made the error. Even if he fielded it cleanly, there is no way Buckner or the pitcher would've beat Mookie to first base.
Perhaps the winning run doesn't score on that play, but I don't think the inning is over either.
Best,
Mark

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[JimStinson]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

Mike Sergio was the guy who parachuted into Shea.
Back then we did a signing with him. We sold a truckload of signed World Series programs.
Very nice guy. They arrested him for endangering the public. It's funny because I saw his jump log. He had over 10000 jumps and told me he could land on a spot the size of a dime if asked to.

As a Mets fan, I always hated the fact that Buckner misplayed the ball. The fact is that he would've fielded the ball on the edge of the outfield with bad ankles. Mookie Wilson was already about a third of the way up the line when he made the error. Even if he fielded it cleanly, there is no way Buckner or the pitcher would've beat Mookie to first base.
Perhaps the winning run doesn't score on that play, but I don't think the inning is over either.
Best,
Mark

Very Cool , The guy with the parachute helped to make that one of the most amazing games I'd ever seen. Mike Sergio ! did he ever say what possessed him to do it ?
Weird things always seem to happen whenever the Red Sox or Cubs are involved in playoffs or WS. Don't blame Buckner the "goat" in that Series was John McNamara who completely forgot he was a manager. Buckner should have never even STARTED the game and certainly should have been on the bench with that lead, even if McNamara himself had to play 1st base.
____________
jim@stinsonsports.com
web site
stinsonsports.com