Clipping up history - a bit O/T

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I know many of you have stated your opinion on cutting up vintage uniforms, bats, pants, etc to add to new baseball card sets. While it's been out of hand for quite a few years, there's a new trend that bothers me a bit.

Cut signatures and autographed checks have become very popular as of late. However, I've seen something that's a little disturbing, in my opinion. I have no problem with someone using a cut signature, a check or document to slab, mat and frame with a pic, or make a display. However, some dealers are not only selling the autograph, but cutting other pieces of text or numbers and selling them in the same fashion. The "pay to" line on a check, the date line, etc.. I guess if there's a demand for it, then there's money to be had. But, I find it a bit sleazy. How much money can you suck out of one check or document?

[Archive]

Posted By: DJ

As a person who purchased over 50 of Ty Cobb's check stubs (I suppose Ty writing "gas bill $9.65" is rather obscure), something in Ty's writing itself perhaps allows that person to get "something" handwritten by a legend without forking over a large sum of money for a signature. As long as the piece is honest and not a forgery, why not milk it and give a collector a chance to own a very small piece of history that may mean something to that person. After all, some people find a one inch swatch of a jersey to their liking or a piece of baseball bat.

My lawyer friend was excited one day to own "two words" that George Washington wrote. It was nicely displayed, he felt it was $225 well worth it (more than $100 per word and one word was quite short....twelve total letters around $18 a letter)to him....not to me.

DJ

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

I think your right 100%, these companies have buctchered the hobby with these stupid cards. i have some examples of rediculous cards, they have come out with!!!!!!!

Missing the C in "Cy", stupidness!!





Look at the Mantle, looks like alot of his name is missing!!!





This is stupid, barley a H and missing the R!!!





I have found also the companies havent issued as many of the autograph cards as 2 or 3 years ago. guess there running out of Walter Johnson checks!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

cards have autographs from beautiful peices, these companies buy jerseys and checks just to cut them up. why dont they insert a winning ticket saying you won a signed check buy johnson or a signed ball buy ty cobb, and have the person with the card pay for the shipping? i think that would be alot better then these crappy examples of history.

next its going to be the toilet paper they used before a world series lol

my opinion anyways

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Mc

How do you market band aids if your Johnson and Johnson? You put Nemo or Barbie on it and some shine. It's nothing more than one uping in the card market. "I have a limited edition", "I have a refractor", "well I have cut pants", "cut sig", etc.............What's next, D.N.A.,hair samples,come on , enough is enough.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Ted, you make a very valid point. I guess I'm just a little upset that a simple cancelled check is being clipped and divided in pieces to extract every penny possible. It certainly is the right of the owner to do so if they wish. I just find it silly and a little slimy. I think checks are a neat piece of memoribilia, as are some cut signatures. However, to sell the other pieces of the check after the signature is already clipped away seems a little tacky.

But what do I know?????

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Mc

The worst thing about the cut signatures cards pictured here is the fact that the signatures were cut to fit the card. Who cares about the about the modern piece of crap cardboard they are on,they cut up the cut signatures.
It looks as if a 6 year old designed the card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

--

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

I'll never understand "cutting up" documents, checks and contracts for the sole purpose of making a buck. The sellers of these cards should just offer "redemption" cards. If the winner really wants the piece (lets say a Wagner check or full cut, not something cut down to fit a card) they can spend $10 to have it shipped to them. If they don't want it then it's a free market, they can sell it to someone else that would like it. I realize that this may actually cost the card manufacturers a little more money but wouldn't they rather be known as providers of highly desireable memorabilia rather than buthchers of history?

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred (Fred)

I guess my last post pretty much is the same opinion as King's (above).

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

i emailed upper deck, and have gotten stupid reasons for having these cards. i asked why are some autographs in pencil etc etc. how can you garantee authentication? to me some of the autographs on the cards look fake to be honest......., and also Topps with there buck herzog bats, and joe tinker bats. i think its just one bat taken apart to be honest. these companies i think cover it up by buy 1 or 2 items publicly so that it looks like there all authentic

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

its pathetic how Upper Deck screwed up on the Eddie Plank Cut Auto. they put a Eddie Plank signature who played in the 1970's on the card intended for the Eddie Plank who died in 1926, and the Eddie Plank who died in 1926, they out his signature on the Eddie Plank who played in the 1970's. i can't believe how they could have done that !!

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Nope, UD plain ol' cut the signatures up. Here's another example I found on Ebay. Unless it wraps around the back, poor Charlie lost half his name.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I think that's Lou's cousin, Charles Gehrig that signed that one.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: .

,

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Cutting up a Charlie Gehringer signature isn't the worst thing in the world. They are not that hard to come across. However cutting up a signature that is much more rare is downright wrong. But it does beg the question, who really wants a partial Charlie Gehringer signature anyways? It really does make you think about the mentality of the new card collector. Some seem to rather have a numbered card with a "ickey Mant" signature than an actual full Mickey Mantle autograph at a fraction of the price.

To try to answer the jersey question, most of the swatch cards of the older players like Honus Wagner, Christy Mathewson, ect... are actually swatches from their pants, not jerseys. Initially they called all swatches jersey swatches but now they label the swatch as to whether it came from the jersey or the pants.

If the card company does have an actual jersey (Bob Feller, Warren Spahn, ect...) they do cut it all up. And the swatches that contain portions of the lettering or jersey patches command much more money.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

So, is it only ok to cut up signatures that aren't that hard to find? I understand what you're saying but it's not responsible to hack things up, just to fit on a card. Yes, who would want half of a Gehringer signature. I would enjoy a full one, as "The Mechanical Man" was one of the most underrated complete players of the prewar era. I know his autographs are plentiful but it's just tacky to cut off the autos.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I didn't say it was ok nor do I agree with it but if they are going to hack them up hopefully they will stick with the easier to find signatures and leave the rare ones in tact. Personally I don't understand why anyone would want that card in their collection.

Same with jerseys. If they are going to destroy jerseys it would be nice if they would stick with current players who have numerous jerseys versus hacking up vintage jerseys that can not be replaced. But my opinion doesn't matter to the card companies so what does it matter what I think.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206King

EXACTLY!!!!!!!! upper deck and the rest of them should learn

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Donross ( i think ) spent $264 000 on a Ruth home jersey to cut up for their cards. i think read somewhere that there is only 3 or 4 in existance...?

this is so stupid. who really cares if you own 1 square inch of someones jersey, or bat. its the inside of the bat for christ sakes....

collecting use to be about collecting sets, now its just about how many cut signature, jersey and bat cards you can get.

whats next ??

i'm guessing Upper Deck will cut up a T206 Wagner, and stick it onto cards.

congrats on card companies ruining memorabilia.

[Archive]

Posted By: BigHurleyHick

<<why dont they insert a winning ticket saying you won a signed check buy johnson or a signed ball buy ty cobb, and have the person with the card pay for the shipping? i think that would be alot better then these crappy examples of history.>>

I didn't get a chance to read all the posts but incase no one mentioned it one reason these pieces of history have now literally become pieces may be due to taxes. Upper Deck let one lucky winner have the bat Babe Ruth leaned on during his final speech in Yankee Stadium. UD purchased the bat for $107,000. The person who won the bat was thrilled until he was informed he had to pay $37,000 for the bat if he was to keep it. This may be one reason the companies decided to stick the memorabilia to cards instead of having a redemtion card to receive the product as a whole.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

I thought the bat Babe Ruth leaned on while giving his speach is owned by Bob Feller and has been on display in his museum in Iowa.

http://www.bobfellermuseum.org/inside.html

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

Yes, that was my understanding as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

In answer to who would want a "cut up" piece of history inserted in a card, I would- and so would a plethora of other game-used collectors. I think owning a piece of baseball history beats the heck out of knowing that it is being displayed on some overly-wealthy person's mantle or in their closet. What's wrong with that?

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

It seems almost greedy to me, that many would rather see a Ruth jersey cut up in hundreds of pieces and spread over hundreds of people than see it intact in a safe place being taken care of. Its kinda like since I can't own the whole jersey than it should be cut up so I can own a sliver of it. I don't see a random piece of cut up fabric as a piece of history but the whole item I do.

Edited to Add that that post wasn't directed towards anyone but just my opinions on the subject.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam Smith

Usually, when jerseys or bats were in the hands of a collector, no one saw them anyway. If a jersey or bat is just socked away in someone's closet for the past 25 years, what difference does it make? Instead of having one selfish collector hide the piece forever in his clost, why not allow more people with the opportunity to enjoy it? The average collector doesn't necessarily have $50,000-$100,000 to spend on a game-used jersey, so these items provide an opportunity for them to get a piece, however small it is, of a historic game-used items. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I see nothing wrong with collecting refractors, hot prospect rookie cards and Hall of Famer signed insert cards, but these cards where a large potion of the signature is cut off is about the most moronic thing I've seen in the hobby in years. I don't understand the mentality of somone who pays premium $$ for one of these. I agree with those who say that if the signature is too large for the card, make a large card and insert a redemption card in the pack. If anything, a jumbo signature card would be cooler.

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

"Instead of having one selfish collector hide the piece forever in his clost"

So if a collector has a bat and doesn't shred it up he is now selfish ? What do you want the guy to do rent it out ? Its a baseball bat of course its going to stay in his house. Your cards stay in your house don't they? Why is it selfish to own a bat and have it in your closet or display but it isn't for a card ?Also why does everyone think these pieces are in someones closet. Most of the time thats not the case but part of a display.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Unless Donruss (which has lost its MLBPA license anyway) or Upper Deck or what not steals the subject jersey or bat or whatever item from you personally, why object to those who do want that 1"x1" piece of history in their collection? Doesn't the value of a collector's satisfactionin having one of these pieces outweigh the "moral" or "ethical" values of those who object to game-used memorabilia? Nobody is getting hurt or ripped off, are they?

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam Smith

These wealthy collectors, who for year hoard the important bats and jerseys, now have to compete with card companies who can bid as much or more for these items. I think it is great that card manufacturers are giving average collectors an opportunity to own a part of history. This is a very popular area of modern collecting and there are a lot of collectors who collect game-used memorabilia cards. Knowing that many people can now enjoy and own a piece of baseball history is certainly better than knowing that only a handful of wealthy collectors hide these pieces for decades at a time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Ok let's break this down. A size 44 Rawlings jersey is approximately 1,200 square inches. That would mean 1,200 jersey cards are made and initially 1,200 people get to "enjoy" the destroyed jersey.

Have you ever seen a genuine game worn Ty Cobb jersey? Or any significantly player for that matter? It is far more impressive than owning a one square inch piece of the fabric. Remember once the jersey is destroyed it can never be replaced. It is obvious but people seem to forget that point. The supply isn't getting replennished. Once it is gone, it's gone.

So should we start destroying all historically significant artifacts? Under your theory more people would be able to enjoy them. Guess it is time to cut up a t206 Wagner, maybe a couple of Picasso's and Monet's. Then for the granddaddy of all insert cards let's destroy the part of the Declaration of Independence. I mean after all there are many pages and people really only need to see the first page.

It is downright immoral to destroy a historically significant artifact. Pieces of that caliber take on a nature of their own. They are not to be owned, rather they are to be taken care of by collectors for future generations to enjoy.

So now why don't you reask the question who is more greedy;

1) The wealthy collector who is enjoying and perserving a rare artifact.
2) The card company who destroys rare bats and jerseys to jack of the price of their product and sell more cards.
3) The modern collector who wants a piece of a destroyed jersey because they can't afford the whole thing.

I will give you a hint. It isn't number 1.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam Smith

The answer to your question would depend on a number of follow-up question. Answer me this:

1) Has the wealthy collector has donated the jersey or bat to a museum for others to enjoy?

2) Did the wealthy collector publish a book or otherwise generated some photographs to share the piece of memorabilia with other collectors?

3) Is the memorabilia sitting in a closet or a room where one person has hidden a number of other important pieces of memorabilia and no one in the world but this collector and three of his collector-buddies know where it is socked away?

If the answer to these follow-up questions, is no, no, and yes, I have to say that the greedy one to your hypothetical is in fact number one (the wealthy collector who is enjoying and perserving a rare artifact).

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

--

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam Smith

Let's get serious here. No one really thinks that someone purchases a Babe Ruth jersey "to preserve for future generations" do they? The person who buys the Babe Ruth jersey buys the item for the same reason a smaller collector buys a 1933 Goudey card. And this is the same exact reason the even smaller collector buys packs in hopes of finding a card with a piece of Babe Ruth's jersey. We buy only to hoard, not to consume, not to share, not to give. just for the sole purpose of saying we've got one.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Why are you even on a vintage card message board if you don't understand the importance of keeping history in tact?

The only thing the wealthy collector owes any of us is not to harm the artifact he or she has possession of.

History is to be perserved first then enjoyed.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam Smith

Do you have the word history confused with the words artifact or object?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Artifacts are history and history is in artifacts.

So how about that Declaration of Independence? Should we cut it up so you can enjoy it?

Make no mistake about it. True collectors of high end pieces know and understand the importance of what they own. I would love to have heard the late Mr Barry Halper's opinion on this issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Upper Deck should just rip up jerseys of players who are still playing, because ripping up Ruth jerseys is stupid. like someone posted earlier, once its gone, its GONE. what a waste of a piece of history.

i've noticed that upper deck doesn't make as many legendary cuts of Cobb an Walter Johnson anymore. probably because they wasted 113 Johnsons in 2001 legendary cuts. theres 1 cobb and 1 johnson for the 2005 set, just by themselves. there are a few more on duel cuts and quad cuts, but not that many.

upper deck will soon cut up every signature cut, every jersey and bat at the rate they're going, and its pathetic. pretty soon an autograph NOT on a UD card will be worth more, because all of the card companies will want to buy them.

all UD has to do is insert a card saying "You Have Won a Signature Cut of blah blah blah" and then you mail it to Upper Deck, and they mail you the signature.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Bryan,

You make very good points about the uniqueness and irreplacability of many of these items, and I completely agree with them. But I think the argument you make may be too far the other way (and I really don't mean you as an individual, but similar arguments made by others as well).

When you ask if we've ever seen a Cobb jersey, my answer would be no. But if ALL Cobb jerseys are in the hands of private collectors, my answer for alltime would be no because there would never be an opportunity for me to see one. The only way I could see one is in a museum.

So go to a museum, right? Maybe. Museums are accessbile to varying degrees depending on how many and location. Some people can't get to, say, the Hall of Fame to see a Cobb jersey. So ... I guess my first point is that the argument to preserve makes perfect sense so long as at least some of the intact versions that remain are reasonably accessible to the public.

Private collectors preserving for "future generations"? Again, that seems to imply the collective good of future generations. If it means future generations of private individuals (eg, over the next 1000 years the Cobb jersey could conceivably be owned and therefore seen by only 30 or so individuals -assuming a generation is approx 3/100 years), then to what purpose is it being preserved? At what point does preservation for preservation's sake miss it's own point?

I don't think there's a good answer. You are so right - you destroy a single object, or a 1 of 5, or whatever, it can never be recovered for the end of time. But the altruistic desire (which, by the way, I completely share) that these items be preserved for others is frustrated by the fact that the preservation is often for the benefit of only a very few.

So if preservation is going to primarily benefit private individuals, is there an argument that the private enjoyment could be more widespread and egalitarian by dispersing small pieces of the whole? And if they should stay intact, shouldn't they be more publicly accessible? And on the other hand, aren't there rights of individuals to own property that need to be considered, even if the property is unique and could be enjoyed via public display? This is America after all, right?

I don't know the answer to these. Balancing the interests of preserving intact rare specimens and allowing enjoyment that is not based on financial status can probably best be resolved by having at least some on public display.

Barring public display - intact for the benefit of a few, or dismembered for the benefit of the many? I'll leave that to wiser people than me!

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

no. you dont have historical artifacts if they are destroyed. its like having a 1970 HEMI cuda. intact worth 100K or more, in peices not worth a hole lot. Mr. Mastro of Mastronet said in an article " see this ruth bat card, it went for $65,000 now see the ruth bat this went for $65,000. you could buy a bat for what they paid for it!!!!". and its true. alot of the collectors dont collect them because they liek them. they collect them for the book value. if a walter johnson jersey card was issued and worth 2 dollars, know one would collect them.

with the hole "letting the public have a chance to own history" is garbage. what honor do u have owning a half an inch by half an inch and pay good money for it? card companies already rip u off with over priced packs with 3 or 4 cards in them, even sometimes 5! i remeber when they issued 18 cards a pack. that is collecting! with all the problems with cutting the auto. wrong, and putting the wrong auto on some of them (ie. Plank) also cutting up Georges Vezina pads (only 1 pair exist today) for a stupid card is stupid. i would prefer to buy a program with autos on it, then buy one with it cut off in the card. i dont see how ppl cant see this.

also if you say that only wealthy ppl have this stuff. why not cut the Honus wagner up? they cut jerseys, bats, hats, pants, chairs of stadiums, balls. why not cards? upper deck only sees dollar signs, not the fact theres history!

rest my case!

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

they havent used any of these yet!

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

stupid companies

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Joann,

You make excellent points.

I wish items in private collections were more publically visible but that is the nature of the beast when it comes to collecting. Steven Wong's book made that obvious. In a perfect world we would have access to all of those items. But that isn't the case.

However, as long as a specific jersey isn't destroyed there is a chance it and I may cross paths later down the road. Or it and others may cross paths. Once it is destroyed and encased in a piece of cardboard it's significance is almost entirely deminished.

Private collections do turn over to museums. Barry Halper's t206 Wagner is on display in Cooperstown. In fact it is safe to say all baseball related items found in museums were once in a private collection. Some items just take longer to get there than others.

Bryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jones

Great points Bryan.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

<<I thought the bat Babe Ruth leaned on while giving his speach is owned by Bob Feller and has been on display in his museum in Iowa.>>

Yes Bryan you are correct. That is where the bat wound up in 2001 after the guy who won it from Upper Deck sold it after he knew there would be no way for him to pay the $37,000 in taxes. If anyone has any old back issues of Beckett there was a story about it in the Sept. 2001 issue.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Interesting. Thanks for that piece of info.

[Archive]

Posted By: cmoking

What if when the guy sold it, he sold it for less than $37,000? WHat is the tax implication then?

Say he owed $37K in taxes based on the previous sale of the bat. But say when he put the bat up for auction, he only received $25K for it.

Does he owe any taxes? Does he keep any of the funds that he received for the bat?

[Archive]

Posted By: BigHurleyHick

I apologize for not having a scanner but I used my digital camera to get the article online. It might be a little hard to read if your eye sight isn't great. I put it on 2 web pages due to the glare making part of the article unreadable in certain spots so that way it is in a different spot for the 2 pictures of it.

Article page 1

Article page 2

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I'm sure UD would have bought it and chopped it up for many pack busters to "enjoy". Let's be real, even though game-used jersey cards, bat cards, pant cards, hat cards, etc...are the draw towards many of the new products, it's more of a gambling bug than a true desire to own something.

Do you honestly ever see anyone busting open a pack, in hope of getting that Ruth bat card to keep for their collection? Sure, they would love to get it. However, they would most likely flip it on Ebay to make money. They're hoping for that home run pack that will make them a few bucks. There might be a handful of collectors who actually want that specific card for their collections. However, they will probably buy it on the secondary market.

Additionally, there are now so many different game-used cards from Ruth, Williams, etc.. that it dilutes the value of owning that little 1X1 chunk. The nostalgia wears off and then people aren't as excited about their little "piece" of history. However, they probably would much rather appreciate an intact item in the long run. So, like the trend of most new material, the game used stuff becomes worth very little at the expense of something that's irreplaceable.