Goldin 100 auction

[rlevy]

I think you are both correct in that prices are still higher than pre-covid, but have softened a bit lately. Still, hard to tell for sure because so few of these rare jerseys hit the market, unlike 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson or 1952 Topps Mantle cards which are all over the place so easier to spot trends.

It is easiest for me to address the 1955 Koufax jersey as I follow his stuff more closely. It had four things going for it:
1. Koufax jerseys are extremely rare, probably around 10-12 all original jerseys have surfaced to this point.
2. Brooklyn jersey from their only championship year
3. Rookie jersey
4. Condition and originality

I believe the previous high for a Koufax jersey was $750,000 for a 1956 Brooklyn jersey, so $1.8mm blew that number out of the water. But this jersey was the unicorn to high end collectors because of #2 and 3 above, which frankly I don't fully understand in regards to Koufax jerseys.

I'll address #3 first. The "rookie" craze originally started with rookie cards. I understood that the theory back when it started was that we kids played with our cards (flipping them against walls or putting them in our bicycle spokes), damaging them, but you didn't use stars for these purposes. And rookies were expendable because we didn't know who they were, and thus years later were harder to find in good condition. Along the way, somehow the concept of a premium for rookie got applied to rookie jerseys, which makes no sense to me because all teams sent all jerseys down to their minor league teams for further use where they often underwent team name or number changes, or were lost or destroyed. So any jersey from that period stood the same chance of damage or disappearing. So why the premium for a "rookie" jersey just because it is a rookie jersey? Which leads me to #2 above.

Re #2 above. I also don't understand the premium placed on Brooklyn vs LA for Koufax. Sandy did absolutely nothing to help Brooklyn win the title in 1955. I get the "Brooklyn" premium for Snider or Hodges since they were at the tail end of their careers when the team moved to LA and most of their success was in Brooklyn. But to me, a Koufax jersey from Brooklyn, where he wasn't successful and contemplated quitting the game, is less desirable than one from his dominating years in LA 1961-66. It has been a while since one from these years has surfaced, but if it did, I imagine it wouldn't come close to the 1955 jersey sales price.

But I'm probably boring you.

Rick

[ichieh]

totally understand your rationale. What makes this space so great is that everyone has his/her own opinion on what to collect and what's important to him/her. I personally prefer the debut items, but I also see why people prefer memorabilia from the final or from the world series. Also, when it come to the unicorn, the big hitters will make the decision themselves so there is really no rhyme or rhythm on the final sold price. I personally place a lot of value on photo matching, but other collectors may pay more attention on the originality of the jersey than photo matching.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by rlevy

I think you are both correct in that prices are still higher than pre-covid, but have softened a bit lately. Still, hard to tell for sure because so few of these rare jerseys hit the market, unlike 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson or 1952 Topps Mantle cards which are all over the place so easier to spot trends.

It is easiest for me to address the 1955 Koufax jersey as I follow his stuff more closely. It had four things going for it:
1. Koufax jerseys are extremely rare, probably around 10-12 all original jerseys have surfaced to this point.
2. Brooklyn jersey from their only championship year
3. Rookie jersey
4. Condition and originality

I believe the previous high for a Koufax jersey was $750,000 for a 1956 Brooklyn jersey, so $1.8mm blew that number out of the water. But this jersey was the unicorn to high end collectors because of #2 and 3 above, which frankly I don't fully understand in regards to Koufax jerseys.

I'll address #3 first. The "rookie" craze originally started with rookie cards. I understood that the theory back when it started was that we kids played with our cards (flipping them against walls or putting them in our bicycle spokes), damaging them, but you didn't use stars for these purposes. And rookies were expendable because we didn't know who they were, and thus years later were harder to find in good condition. Along the way, somehow the concept of a premium for rookie got applied to rookie jerseys, which makes no sense to me because all teams sent all jerseys down to their minor league teams for further use where they often underwent team name or number changes, or were lost or destroyed. So any jersey from that period stood the same chance of damage or disappearing. So why the premium for a "rookie" jersey just because it is a rookie jersey? Which leads me to #2 above.

Re #2 above. I also don't understand the premium placed on Brooklyn vs LA for Koufax. Sandy did absolutely nothing to help Brooklyn win the title in 1955. I get the "Brooklyn" premium for Snider or Hodges since they were at the tail end of their careers when the team moved to LA and most of their success was in Brooklyn. But to me, a Koufax jersey from Brooklyn, where he wasn't successful and contemplated quitting the game, is less desirable than one from his dominating years in LA 1961-66. It has been a while since one from these years has surfaced, but if it did, I imagine it wouldn't come close to the 1955 jersey sales price.

But I'm probably boring you.

Rick

Hi Rick,
Excellent analysis and FWIW, I couldn't agree with you more on what you shared with the others.

[MVSNYC]

All good points, good discussion...I think a great indication of the Game Used, Game Worn market will be how all of those blue chip pieces do in Heritage's August Platinum sale.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

All good points, good discussion...I think a great indication of the Game Used, Game Worn market will be how all of those blue chip pieces do in Heritage's August Platinum sale.

I follow GU flannels and it's a hard market to figure. Grey Flannel's auction last night for instance:

Lot #299 1968 Dodgers road Claude Osteen (1969 patch removed) $3355
Lot #302 1946 Cardinals road Bill Endicott near perfect condition $2082
Lot #366 1963 Dodgers home Pete Reiser (coach) $4003
Lot #420 1965 (Fox) and 1970 (Westrum) Giants home (both coaches) $763

I landed the Endicott and Giants coaches. Hard to believe a 1946 Cardinals GU shirt only brings a couple thousand. Endicott didn't play in that World Series, but he and this jersey were there, in the dugout. At some point, some day, the collective collectors market will reflect the relative scarcity and coolness of GU flannels.

[rlevy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I follow GU flannels and it's a hard market to figure. Grey Flannel's auction last night for instance:

Lot #299 1968 Dodgers road Claude Osteen (1969 patch removed) $3355
Lot #302 1946 Cardinals road Bill Endicott near perfect condition $2082
Lot #366 1963 Dodgers home Pete Reiser (coach) $4003
Lot #420 1965 (Fox) and 1970 (Westrum) Giants home (both coaches) $763

I landed the Endicott and Giants coaches. Hard to believe a 1946 Cardinals GU shirt only brings a couple thousand. Endicott didn't play in that World Series, but he and this jersey were there, in the dugout. At some point, some day, the collective collectors market will reflect the relative scarcity and coolness of GU flannels.

+1
While uniforms are at the top of my list of desired game used items, I think game used gloves are also under-appreciated and very cool. Players are assigned identical uniforms, but bats and gloves are both very personal items to the ballplayers.

Rick

[SyrNy1960]

Originally Posted by rlevy

+1
While uniforms are at the top of my list of desired game used items, I think game used gloves are also under-appreciated and very cool. Players are assigned identical uniforms, but bats and gloves are both very personal items to the ballplayers.

Rick

Rick,

I agree! As Denny Esken said, “A true player’s glove is the most difficult player piece to get, because gloves are far more personal. It takes weeks and months to break one in properly, to make it conform to the hand, to train it to scoop sharp grounders out of the dirt or pull down screaming line drives. A glove is like a dog – you have to train them to get them to do what you want.”

Bats, jerseys, caps, cleats, etc., there are plenty to go around, so many collectors have an opportunity to own one. But with gloves, they are just too rare and too difficult to obtain. I’m talking about a player’s primary season glove; not practice, workout, or spring training gloves.

Here is my 2005 MVP Alex Rodriguez Game Used Glove. I was able to photomatch the glove inside and out.

[MVSNYC]

Very cool Tony!

[perezfan]

Yup... no doubt about that one. Beauty!

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

I follow GU flannels and it's a hard market to figure. Grey Flannel's auction last night for instance:

Lot #299 1968 Dodgers road Claude Osteen (1969 patch removed) $3355
Lot #302 1946 Cardinals road Bill Endicott near perfect condition $2082
Lot #366 1963 Dodgers home Pete Reiser (coach) $4003
Lot #420 1965 (Fox) and 1970 (Westrum) Giants home (both coaches) $763

I landed the Endicott and Giants coaches. Hard to believe a 1946 Cardinals GU shirt only brings a couple thousand. Endicott didn't play in that World Series, but he and this jersey were there, in the dugout. At some point, some day, the collective collectors market will reflect the relative scarcity and coolness of GU flannels.

Great pickups Mark...

Especially that gorgeous Cardinals Jersey. I could easily envision that piece selling for double what you paid. I have seen them (in lesser condition) do just that.

And I agree that prices were all over the board in Grey Flannel... some pieces went nuts while others were bargain basement deals!

[rlevy]

Originally Posted by ichieh

totally understand your rationale. What makes this space so great is that everyone has his/her own opinion on what to collect and what's important to him/her. I personally prefer the debut items, but I also see why people prefer memorabilia from the final or from the world series. Also, when it come to the unicorn, the big hitters will make the decision themselves so there is really no rhyme or rhythm on the final sold price. I personally place a lot of value on photo matching, but other collectors may pay more attention on the originality of the jersey than photo matching.

I agree that photo-matching has been a very positive improvement in our hobby for game used items when done properly. I have tried to have my 1961 Koufax photo-matched by three different companies, but the best anyone could do was match it to a close-up shot of Sandy in 1962 spring training. Prior year jerseys were commonly worn in spring training the following year. There simply aren't enough photos with clarity of Sandy in 1961.

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

Hi Rick,
Excellent analysis and FWIW, I couldn't agree with you more on what you shared with the others.

Thanks Scott. I find it interesting how our hobby as evolved over the years.

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

All good points, good discussion...I think a great indication of the Game Used, Game Worn market will be how all of those blue chip pieces do in Heritage's August Platinum sale.

I agree, some great pieces there. If they don't do as well as expected, it may indicate some of the high end buyers are no longer participating. But all it takes is 2 bidders (1 if there is a reserve) to send the prices soaring.

As an aside on the Mantle jersey with the restored NY, it seems the vast majority of Mantle jerseys appear with some sort of restoration, usually the number 7 on the back. Very few are all original. Yet almost all Koufax jerseys appear on the market as all original. I can't really explain why. If the farm team names were the same as the parent, the front wouldn't be changed. And I understand changing the back number to suit a player's preference. But why weren't Sandy's uniforms modified with the same frequency as Mickey's?