Bat Relic Cards

[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.

[cfhofer]

Originally Posted by 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.

Good point Todd. But my question for you is how do you know that Babe Ruth card contains a swatch of his pants and not some Yankee batboy? I think we put too much trust in the card companies here. While I agree with Mark regarding the destruction of national treasures, if they are destroyed (smh) I'd like to know the specific origin of the swatch or sliver. Maybe through an online site with a reference serial number on the card. They could show a picture of the artifact (before being destroyed) and provide some information on the provenance and what cards were created with it.