Question of the members who frame and display their memorabilia...

[Chris-Counts]

My first thought is how great nine blankets from the same team would look if laid out in the shape of a diamond. If it was eight or ten, it wouldn't work, but nine is the prefect number.

I looked at the Tigers checklist, and it's really an odd assortment of players. The only pitcher included is Harry Coveleski, who was in the minors in 1913, but who unexpectedly emerged as a star in 1914. So the blankets must have come out well into the season. But that doesn't explain why there are two players who were only in one game each in early 1914 before they were traded. And many of the team's stars are missing, like Sam Crawford.

As for your display, I have two displays of baseball silks, and I'm always concerned about light fading them, so I keep the room dark most of the time, and I paid for the right kind of glass that minimizes fading. So far, I haven't had a problem, but I believe blankets are particularly vulnerable to light — I've seen some very faded blankets over the years.

[icollectDCsports]

Nine blankets in the diamond pattern looks great, IMO. Have seen a number of such displays.

[Hankphenom]

Here is my display of Senators B-18s. I had a nice WaJo already, then about 20 years ago David Festberg(!) auctioned off his collection of commons he told me later was the result of years of upgrading. I got the 8 Washington commons for almost nothing, and couldn't believe the condition. I think it's the only time I've ever called a dealer to tell him how surprised and happy I was with the condition of a piece. I like to display my treasures, and when I laid them out trying to figure out how, to my amazement they together formed a diamond with each player in his correct position. This Washington club stayed intact for four years and was Clark Griffith's first great club in D.C., finishing second in 1912 and 1913 and in the first division all four years. This is one of my very favorite pieces, mounted by my framer with archival tape, of course, and always draws the eyes and comments of visitors to my collection.

[Hankphenom]

Closeup of above

[Jay Wolt]

Conor & Hank those B18 displays look fantastic

[Shackmsu]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Here is my display of Senators B-18s. I had a nice WaJo already, then about 20 years ago David Festberg(!) auctioned off his collection of commons he told me later was the result of years of upgrading. I got the 8 Washington commons for almost nothing, and couldn't believe the condition. I think it's the only time I've ever called a dealer to tell him how surprised and happy I was with the condition of a piece. I like to display my treasures, and when I laid them out trying to figure out how, to my amazement they together formed a diamond with each player in his correct position. This Washington club stayed intact for four years and was Clark Griffith's first great club in D.C., finishing second in 1912 and 1913 and in the first division all four years. This is one of my very favorite pieces, mounted by my framer with archival tape, of course, and always draws the eyes and comments of visitors to my collection.

Love it! That's what I'm going for! Thanks again

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Shackmsu

Love it! That's what I'm going for! Thanks again

Let us know when you are done, would love to see it. The B-18 displays look really great. I have only had one thing framed and it is a large Horner Composite photo which now hangs on my office wall.

[Shackmsu]

Originally Posted by Chris Counts

My first thought is how great nine blankets from the same team would look if laid out in the shape of a diamond. If it was eight or ten, it wouldn't work, but nine is the prefect number.

I looked at the Tigers checklist, and it's really an odd assortment of players. The only pitcher included is Harry Coveleski, who was in the minors in 1913, but who unexpectedly emerged as a star in 1914. So the blankets must have come out well into the season. But that doesn't explain why there are two players who were only in one game each in early 1914 before they were traded. And many of the team's stars are missing, like Sam Crawford.

As for your display, I have two displays of baseball silks, and I'm always concerned about light fading them, so I keep the room dark most of the time, and I paid for the right kind of glass that minimizes fading. So far, I haven't had a problem, but I believe blankets are particularly vulnerable to light — I've seen some very faded blankets over the years.

I'd love to see how you framed your silks.....any and all ideas for future reference is appreciated. Plus it's cool to see what other have on this board. All items I have framed are purchased with UV glass and always acid free backing/matting. My room is a basement with one small frosted glass window, so no sun thank God!

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Shackmsu

I'd love to see how you framed your silks.....any and all ideas for future reference is appreciated.

I've seen some get taped in, others get carefully sewn in. I actually used fabric as the backdrop and then just used tension to hold them up against the glass. I would never do that with a card or photo, but with cloth I don't see any harm in it.

[Shackmsu]

Originally Posted by conor912

I've seen some get taped in, others get carefully sewn in. I actually used fabric as the backdrop and then just used tension to hold them up against the glass. I would never do that with a card or photo, but with cloth I don't see any harm in it.

Thanks for the advice. Will look into this, I've got a great framer who is up on how to adhere items to a backing without ruining the integrity of the piece.

[jchcollins]

Whenever I see things framed like this, I cringe at the thought of light damage. I know there are ways around it, for example plexiglass or composite blocks 99% of UV rays. What I don't know, is if the protection lasts forever or if you would need to replace the glass substitute every serveral years over time. I know some of the one-screw cases say they protect UV rays, but for only 3 years or something. So guessing it does not last forever. There are also steps you can take to not use flourescent lighting, etc. To me this is all too much - which is why most of my collection lives in a dark closet and comes out only briefly for me to gawk at. ;-)

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Whenever I see things framed like this, I cringe at the thought of light damage. I know there are ways around it, for example plexiglass or composite blocks 99% of UV rays. What I don't know, is if the protection lasts forever or if you would need to replace the glass substitute every serveral years over time. I know some of the one-screw cases say they protect UV rays, but for only 3 years or something. So guessing it does not last forever. There are also steps you can take to not use flourescent lighting, etc. To me this is all too much - which is why most of my collection lives in a dark closet and comes out only briefly for me to gawk at. ;-)

I would never expose autographs or valuable cards to any kind of light for any length of time, and direct sunlight will fade anything, but for most kinds of display pieces, it's been my experience that you can frame them with regular clear glass and put them on a wall in a room with normal artificial lighting, minimal sunlight, and controlled heat and you will not live long enough to be able to spot any fading or other deterioration with your bare eyes. I've had my B-18s on a wall in my office for 25 years, and I doubt there's an instrument that could measure whatever miniscule loss of color or vibrancy has taken place in that time. I would say the same about the many vintage photos, posters, and other items I've had on my walls for decades now. If there's been any degeneration in any of them, my eyes aren't good enough to see it. I like to look at my stuff, and I think if you use common sense and keep them away from any light from windows and other sources of light or heat in your rooms, you can do that without worrying about damage to your treasures. In fact, whenever I get something matted and framed I like to think I am protecting it from the air that is the natural enemy of anything made out of paper or cloth.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by jchcollins

Whenever I see things framed like this, I cringe at the thought of light damage. I know there are ways around it, for example plexiglass or composite blocks 99% of UV rays. What I don't know, is if the protection lasts forever or if you would need to replace the glass substitute every serveral years over time. I know some of the one-screw cases say they protect UV rays, but for only 3 years or something. So guessing it does not last forever. There are also steps you can take to not use flourescent lighting, etc. To me this is all too much - which is why most of my collection lives in a dark closet and comes out only briefly for me to gawk at. ;-)

My display is in a room that is close to pitch black 23 hours a day. And even if it is fading, I doubt it's fading faster than my eyes' ability to perceive it. If I owned a Picasso, I'd hang it on a wall. Don't let stress get in the way enjoying something.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by conor912

My display is in a room that is close to pitch black 23 hours a day. And even if it is fading, I doubt it's fading faster than my eyes' ability to perceive it. If I owned a Picasso, I'd hang it on a wall. Don't let stress get in the way enjoying something.

I don't. I still sometimes even take cards to work with me like I took cards to school as a kid. There are always quick ways to draw on some hobby enjoyment. This site is another major one for me.