Does anyone actually have any interest in something like this?

[Anthony S.]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Would it be okay to cut the Mona Lisa into a thousand little pieces so that a thousand rich collectors can lay claim to a piece of it?

If it would tick off the French I might be able to get behind it.

[Orioles1954]

By the way, I am the guy who authored the description for the card Mr. Lichtman is mentioning. I think a FAR greater problem is the authenticity of these items. A game-used bat can yield up to 2,000 slivers, the majority of which are spread over several issues over many years. What kind of checks do the companies have to make sure these items don't get mixed up? Are the bats/jerseys authenticated by MEARS or PSA/DNA or someone else before being "packed out"? Upper Deck screwed up numerous instances of cut autographs, why not game-used inserts? Food for thought.

[Orioles1954]

Case in point: 2009 Topps Tribute had "game-used" bat pieces of Ruth, Gehrigs, Jackie Robinson and others. It was discovered they were actually pieces of seats or benches from various stadiums. They only fixed the problem when called out on it. Donruss had the best system of verifying game-used items by putting pictures of the items on their cards....then they went out of business.

James

[ctownboy]

orioles1954,

So a LOT OF GOOD it did them to spend the money on these artifacts, destroy them and then sell the slivers on cards to the collecting public....

David

[Orioles1954]

The issue is mostly moot anyway. Far fewer of these bats are being cut up due to manufacturer attrition, and that most modern collectors are favoring multi-colored game-used patches.

P.S: I remember in the 1980s The Smithsonian Museum of American History were selling certified pieces from one of Amelia Earhart's airplanes in their gift shop. If you seriously have a beef with card companies doing this to pre-war baseball items, why not contact the licensing division of MLB?

[quinnsryche]

Why can't people collect what they want without others judging what they believe to be the "right way" to collect? If someone wants to buy a Ty Cobb game used bat and enjoy it, ok. If someone wants to buy a card with a piece of game used Ty Cobb bat , ok. I think someone who collects cards that are missing 30-40% of the card is a bit strange, but have at it. I like graded cards, so shoot me. Should we build a time machine a go back and flog the kid who trimmed their Eddie Plank card, glued their Magie in an album or put their Wagner in the spokes of their bike? I know a guy who wallpapered his bathroom with cards and laughs every time he see the 52 Mantle, 53 Mays, 54 Banks etc. up on the wall. Let's lighten up here, it's only baseball cards! To compare the destruction of the Mona Lisa, Dead Sea Scrolls or Wailing Wall to the bat of a baseball player is absolutely ludicrous.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I think Lichtman really wants the card and is just trashing it in the hope of discouraging people from bidding on it -- a favorite tactic of his old friend Mr. Lewis.

[steve B]

I'm of mixed feelings on the modern game used cards. If it's a recent or current player I'm pretty much ok with it. The player can merely buy an extra, wear it for one inning, or if a bat use it for one at bat, and it's game used. No problem there.

But cutting up the older stuff just seems wrong, except in some special circumstances. I'll get to those later.

And I've been one of those people that could never afford much of anything game used. Much of the great stuff is still out of reach, but I can get the cheaper items. I used to look at the auctions and see articles or tv spots about some really great collections, and think ...Someday....

And I was able to pick up a few items by luck or knowledge or both.

Where will todays collectors get that sort of inspiration? What will they see as a goal to reach for? Will it be seen as worthwhile to learn about what a real piece of equipment should look like, or will that be seen as hopeless.
It works for cards too. It's very unlikely I'll ever own some of the really rare stuff, but I'm very glad there's people who can and do and notice the details about those cards.

The few times I'd think that cutting up something older would be if the item was really trashed to start with. Maybe a Cobb bat portion, like if he broke a bat and someone saved one of the pieces? Maybe not even then. Or maybe something like my Fenway seat. cut out very roughly in the early 70's remodel, it's got very uneven slats on one side. It really should be trimmed evenly, but then what to do with the roughly 6 and 8 inch pieces? Yeah, those could go into a card and I'd be ok with it.

Steve B

[Exhibitman]

David, in your vitriol you are missing my point: The analogy to items in museums and to public historic sites is inapposite. We are not talking about cutting up a museum collection, we are talking about privately-owned items that are not part of a public trust. I agree that ruining a museum collection--something expressly set aside for the public's benefit and education--is a stupid idea. Had you read carefully you would have seen that in my initial post I had already dismissed that idea. However, the issue framed the way that you and many other posters here frame it is a red herring. My card collection is a more apt analogy--privately held and not used for the public's benefit. It would not be as much of an issue if I decided to make relic cards from my collection as it would if the same exact cards in the Burdick Collection were shredded by the Met and sold in the gift shop.

Better yet, how about strip cards? Many collectors who get uncut strips will cut them down to individual cards, especially if one or two of them are mutilated and the rest are nice. Is that a collecing "sin" akin to cutting up the Mona Lisa?

My point, once again since you either missed it or do not want to acknowledge it, is that we are dicussing privately holding an item for one person's good versus cutting it up and creating many items that many people might privately hold and enjoy, not cutting up a piece of the commonly-held cultural heritage and distributing it to private owners. The two are very different concepts and in my view merit different reactions. All of the whining about the desecration of baseball history is based on a premise about the use and disposition of items in question that is inaccurate.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Orioles1954

P.S: I remember in the 1980s The Smithsonian Museum of American History were selling certified pieces from one of Amelia Earhart's airplanes in their gift shop. If you seriously have a beef with card companies doing this to pre-war baseball items, why not contact the licensing division of MLB?

At least it wasn't Roberto Clemente's plane.