Bat Relic Cards

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Case12

Are these just gimmics? How does a card company get a slice from a 1927 Yankees Tony Lazarri bat? Sorta like buying a piece of the Brooklyn bridge?
I am probably showing my ignorance and gullibility just asking the question....

They buy a whole bat and cut it up. Then they can use slivers of it for years.

[cfhofer]

I have always viewed these bat cards as a gimmick or novelty. It is practically impossible to prove their provenance. The bat should be registered online with a reference serial number on the card. The card company could then provide further information on the bat and list what cards it created. At least it could then be proven the card company owned the bat, which is a start. Same thing with jersey cards.

Just my two cents.....

[Mark]

Originally Posted by cfhofer

I have always viewed these bat cards as a gimmick or novelty. It is practically impossible to prove their provenance. The bat should be registered online with a reference serial number on the card. The card company could then provide further information on the bat and list what cards it created. At least it could then be proven the card company owned the bat, which is a start. Same thing with jersey cards.

Just my two cents.....

After the bat is professionally authenticated, registered online, and cut into small pieces, the people who produce the cards ought to be put in jail for destroying a national treasure. That is my view.

[cfhofer]

Originally Posted by Mark

After the bat is professionally authenticated, registered online, and cut into small pieces, the people who produce the cards ought to be put in jail for destroying a national treasure. That is my view.

Touche Mark. I agree. Although if it was a true national treasure it should be in a museum for all to enjoy. Then that would never happen. For a single advanced collector to privately hoard priceless national treasures in his basement without sharing them with others isn't very noble either. Both examples are rooted in greed.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by cfhofer

Touche Mark. I agree. Although if it was a true national treasure it should be in a museum for all to enjoy. Then that would never happen. For a single advanced collector to privately hoard priceless national treasures in his basement without sharing them with others isn't very noble either. Both examples are rooted in greed.

Private collectors should display their bats to those who are interested. As for your museum point, I suspect that more people would pay attention to a Tony Lazzeri bat in somebody's private collection than if it, and all other pre-war, game used bats, were displayed in museums along with several thousand other pre-war, game used bats. What would happen if every GU bat were sent to Cooperstown? There would be row after row of Yankee bats, along with thousands of other bats, and the importance of any one bat would be very diminished. I think that the present situation works: there are a few museums with great bat collections, curated by collectors with intelligence and taste. There are some private collections that are similarly well managed. Their goal, I think, is not to get rich but to put together a collection that reflects their own knowledge of the game and of bats. Some are very impressive. True, some of us might live in basements with our old bats, but I think that such people have bigger problems than greed.

However that may be, at least the private collector does not destroy the artifact but passes it along to others, eventually.

[cfhofer]

Originally Posted by Mark

Private collectors should display their bats to those who are interested. As for your museum point, I suspect that more people would pay attention to a Tony Lazzeri bat in somebody's private collection than if it, and all other pre-war, game used bats, were displayed in museums along with several thousand other pre-war, game used bats. What would happen if every GU bat were sent to Cooperstown? There would be row after row of Yankee bats, along with thousands of other bats, and the importance of any one bat would be very diminished. I think that the present situation works: there are a few museums with great bat collections, curated by collectors with intelligence and taste. There are some private collections that are similarly well managed. Their goal, I think, is not to get rich but to put together a collection that reflects their own knowledge of the game and of bats. Some are very impressive. True, some of us might live in basements with our old bats, but I think that such people have bigger problems than greed.

However that may be, at least the private collector does not destroy the artifact but passes it along to others, eventually.

Yes Mark. I completely agree. As collectors we are only temporary custodians of these treasures. We have a responsibility to preserve them for future generations. Most get that (especially on a forum like this). However, there are some who will just consign to auction to maximize their return or worse just keep them until they are cold stiff in the grave. Then the family sells them off for peanuts. This is how card companies get these national treasures to destroy. So who do we ultimately blame? The card companies for making a buck or the collector who had a myopic view? The drug dealer or abuser question....

[bbcard1]

I would take a dissenting view from most folks on this board. A bat is not inherently something that I would consider a "national treasure" with a possible exception of a Ruth bat or a historic bat (Brett pine tar for example). A lot of these bats may not be in good condition anyway. If you make a bat card for someone like Tony Lazzeri or George Kell, you open their story up to a whole new generation of collectors, not just us dinosaurs who are borderline academics when it comes to baseball (myself included). I have a card that has a piece of Babe Ruth's pants. I think it's quite cool, but frankly, other than the monetary value, I am not sure I wouldn't rather have a card with a small piece of his pants than his actual pants. It's not like I would wear them around the house or frame them as a holy grail. I am not even sure I would want to dwell too long on what might have gone on in those pants.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by cfhofer

Touche Mark. I agree. Although if it was a true national treasure it should be in a museum for all to enjoy. Then that would never happen. For a single advanced collector to privately hoard priceless national treasures in his basement without sharing them with others isn't very noble either. Both examples are rooted in greed.

I strongly disagree. If not for the collectors who recognize the value and significance of items many would never be seen or lost. One of the big fallacies is that if a museum has it they will display it. Many museums only display a fraction of their holdings. The Smithsonian is a good example. You could go to every single museum building here in D.C. and look at every item on display. You will have viewed less than 1/10th of 1% of their holdings. They display items that people will find interesting, but that is for the masses and it changes with time. A lot less people today are interested in seeing Fonzie's jacket or Archie Bunker's chair then 20-30 years ago. With collectors there is always the chance that it will change hands and new people will get to enjoy it.

I agree that chopping up a bat or cutting up a uniform is bothersome, however it is a big stretch to call a Tony Lazzeri bat a 'national treasure.

[cfhofer]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I strongly disagree. If not for the collectors who recognize the value and significance of items many would never be seen or lost. One of the big fallacies is that if a museum has it they will display it. Many museums only display a fraction of their holdings. The Smithsonian is a good example. You could go to every single museum building here in D.C. and look at every item on display. You will have viewed less than 1/10th of 1% of their holdings. They display items that people will find interesting, but that is for the masses and it changes with time. A lot less people today are interested in seeing Fonzie's jacket or Archie Bunker's chair then 20-30 years ago. With collectors there is always the chance that it will change hands and new people will get to enjoy it.

I agree that chopping up a bat or cutting up a uniform is bothersome, however it is a big stretch to call a Tony Lazzeri bat a 'national treasure.

Of course no museum will display every holding. No one here is suggesting they should. I also agree that a Tony Lazzeri bat is not a 'national treasure'. But I guarantee the museum wouldn't sell a Lazzeri bat to be chopped up by a card company either.

I don't blame card companies for meeting a market demand. There is a thirst for relic cards so they quench it. They have no obligation to the hobby. But if we feel that destroying artifacts is wrong than we need to take a hard look in the mirror at who is really causing this problem.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by cfhofer

Of course no museum will display every holding. No one here is suggesting they should. I also agree that a Tony Lazzeri bat is not a 'national treasure'. But I guarantee the museum wouldn't sell a Lazzeri bat to be chopped up by a card company either.

I don't blame card companies for meeting a market demand. There is a thirst for relic cards so they quench it. They have no obligation to the hobby. But if we feel that destroying artifacts is wrong than we need to take a hard look in the mirror at who is really causing this problem.

I am with you on the destroying artifacts. The card companies created a niche and thus created market demand to sell more of their products. They have the money so they buy the items. Unfortunately, in this case, those who have the money make the rules.

When my Olympic group had space at the National a number of years ago I was approached by someone from Panini about purchasing autographs for their signature cards. I never followed through because I did not want them cutting up photos and other items to create the cards.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by Michael B

I strongly disagree. If not for the collectors who recognize the value and significance of items many would never be seen or lost. One of the big fallacies is that if a museum has it they will display it. Many museums only display a fraction of their holdings. The Smithsonian is a good example. You could go to every single museum building here in D.C. and look at every item on display. You will have viewed less than 1/10th of 1% of their holdings. They display items that people will find interesting, but that is for the masses and it changes with time. A lot less people today are interested in seeing Fonzie's jacket or Archie Bunker's chair then 20-30 years ago. With collectors there is always the chance that it will change hands and new people will get to enjoy it.

I agree that chopping up a bat or cutting up a uniform is bothersome, however it is a big stretch to call a Tony Lazzeri bat a 'national treasure.

^^^This...


Even the big museums recognize the part collectors play in preserving historical items. Especially collectors who bought things when they weren't considered important. Or that preserved something with a lot of context, like not breaking up a correspondence to sell individual items.


And the bit about not having everything on display is incredibly accurate. Most of a large museums holdings are there for eventual scholarly research, and aren't generally accessible.

In the 1980's I think the Smithsonian did its first inventory in a long time. They found 9 whale skeletons they'd misplaced in the 1950's
A bat that wasn't destined for display might never see the light of day or display case again.

I personally dislike bat/jersey cards of old time players. Current players can simply use a piece for an at bat or inning and turn it in as game used, so there shouldn't be any supply problems. Old stuff where there's a limited supply shouldn't be cut up, with the occasional exception of something in extremely poor condition. And even then I have doubts.