What is your opinion on destroying old artifacts to put in new cards?

[the 'stache]

I'm curious to know what the overall opinion of our forum members is on this. I see a card like the one pictured below, and I feel physically ill.



Great, not only was one priceless Babe Ruth artifact destroyed, but three. And for what? So this company could sell a few more boxes of their stupid cards?

I get that some people may never be able to afford a Lou Gehrig jersey, or a Shoeless Joe Jackson bat. I'm pretty sure I'm never going to have a framed Babe Ruth jersey sitting in my living room, and I'm fine with that. If I want to see one, I can hop on a plane, and visit Cooperstown. If I want to own a piece of Babe Ruth history, I'll just buy a Goudey card, or maybe an autographed baseball.

But do we really need to be destroying these incredible pieces? At what point does greed cross a line?

[glynparson]

I do not however think it should be illegal or anything. I exercise my dislike by refusing to buy modern product. I actually collected a little modern along with my vintage up until they started cutting up history. I do not get excited by poorly cut autos or small scraps of wood,( though I did buy a tiny piece of Titanic scarp wood for my wife from Kevin Saucier). I just think rare pieces being cut up is a travesty. When its modern bats or uniforms, I don't love it, but it bothers me far less. These are generally much more readily available items.

[Jim65]

Don't like it one bit but I voted 2, free country and all.

[brewing]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Don't like it one bit but I voted 2, free country and all.

+1

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Don't really care one way or the other.

[tribefan]

Probably not from an authentic item anyway.

[shernan30]

Think about the younger generation that buys the new cards to get their little piece of memorabilia. That Ruth card could spark the interested of a young collector to learn more about baseball history and not the $100MM players of today who are more worried about a pay check. It hurts a little to know there are two less jerseys and one less bat of Ruth, but there are 100 cards that can start a revolution of potential baseball historians who, in the future, can preserve the history of the game all because of that "one" card.

[insccollectibles]

Of course people can do what they want if they own the item. However, that person is only alive lets say 80 years and has destroyed a piece of history permanently. I feel the item should be passed along in tact not sold for a profit to be destroyed.

[tschock]

These are one of these questions I always hated on tests (pick the one that best describes....) as the selections are not mutually exclusive (IMO). I know, it's a "poll" but FWIW, I would select both if I could.

[packs]

I think it's a horrible idea but luckily I also believe that very few if any of these cards are legitimate. The company never says where they got their items from, offers no back up of authenticity, and does not seek third party authentication on any of their items, including cut signature cards.

In my humble opinion probably 99 percent of all game used items (excluding current players and even then who knows) are not really authentic.

[phikappapsi]

Gotta agree with the consensus on this one.

I stepped out of "modern" when I really started to get irritated about so much history being sent through the wood chipper. I exercised my right to discontinue my purchases.

That said, the company has every right to grind up a bat if they want to. the baseball card industry died because of mass production, and limited profitability. If this destruction of poor exemplars creates a feeling of rarity in new collectors, and keeps the industry going in some form, can it really be a bad a horrible idea? As Steven H said, if this inspired any young collectors to learn the history, or keep the hobby alive, then it may still not be worth it, but there is a value

[packs]

I would be intersted to see the back of the card if you have a scan. I'm sure it makes no mention to its origin, independent authentication, or offers any kind of insight into the item other than it being "authentic."

[steve B]

Steven H makes a good point, but not really one I agree with.

Should we promote art appreciation by selling 1/2 inch squares of Rembrandts and Picassos?
I was unimpressed by impressionist painting until I saw a few nice ones up close in a museum. Still unimpressed with Picasso.

And at the rate they're going, what will be left to appreciate and preserve?

I have seen items of this type that were ok. The Smithsonian air and space has restored a few cloth covered planes. Some that were done in the 70's and 80's were partly or maybe entirely financed by selling framed photos with squares of the original cloth covering. But the restorations were badly needed, much of the original covering had rotted or was otherwise damaged. And the replacement was exact, recreating even the exact twist of the individual threads in the cloth.
What they did was hardly vandalism for profit.

What to me is telling is that the company that does the most of this is Panini, an Italian company. None of their European offerings include game used anything. The non-sports don't have anything similar either.
So it's ok to cut up American history stuff but not theirs.

Maybe it's cultural. A guy I met who is probably the biggest collector of cycling jerseys said that hardly anyone there cared at all about any of the raceworn or used equipment.
For example, he bought the flag that was waved to start every Tour de France from the early 1900's to WWII - It was something like $15K and the seller thought he was crazy.

While I'd love to have a piece of game used or worn equipment from one of the games great players, I'd want the whole thing. Not a few tiny squares stuck to a card. (And since some of them are fake, I can hope that's the case with these.)
Heck, my Fenway park seat has uneven cuts on the boards of the back. Enough that I could trim them even and make at least a few hundred if not a couple thousand "memorabilia cards" I've owned it since the mid 80's and have considered removing the extra for getting autographs, or something like that. I just can't bring myself to take the saw to it. Doing that would even make it display better, and might increase the value - I still can't do it.

Steve B

[RobertGT]

Originally Posted by packs

I think it's a horrible idea but luckily I also believe that very few if any of these cards are legitimate. The company never says where they got their items from, offers no back up of authenticity, and does not seek third party authentication on any of their items, including cut signature cards.

In my humble opinion probably 99 percent of all game used items (excluding current players and even then who knows) are not really authentic.

+1. No need to get "physically ill" as the OP states, unless you are getting upset about the destruction of garments made in China and sold in Modell's. The card companies know full well what they are buying isn't authentic.
See article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/i-...icle-1.1159317

[teetwoohsix]

Hi Bill,

Well, I chose option #1 because I don't like the idea of any old artifacts being destroyed-but- if there were an option for "both of the above" I would have picked that one, because once someone else owns it, the decision is in their hands. I remember along time ago (well it seems like a long time ago ) a board member cut up a T206 (I can't remember why) and showed a picture of it. My first thought was, he must've been pissed to do that! My second thought was, why not give the card to a collector who would appreciate the card? My third thought was, well, it's his card and he can do whatever he wants with it!

Now, on the 'artifacts" not being real- that's something I've wondered about as well. I mean, it may be a piece of a bat, or a base, or a uniform,,,,but how does one truly know if it's authentic or not?

Sincerely, Clayton

[Peter_Spaeth]

Steve B., get yourself back to the MFA, this painting is stunning in person.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by packs

I would be intersted to see the back of the card if you have a scan. I'm sure it makes no mention to its origin, independent authentication, or offers any kind of insight into the item other than it being "authentic."

Packs, I'd just copied and saved a picture of the card front. Here's a link to the auction selling the card. There is a back picture included, and you're right. It's pretty typical verbiage for this kind of item:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/BABE-RUTH-20...item256a2b689a

I do agree with you that many of these cards are not what they claim they are, especially the more modern cards. But every once in a while, I see something that strikes me as clearly authentic, or at least highly probable to be authentic. Here's an example of a card that Panini showcased on their own website:



http://paniniamerica.net/dspNewsDetail.cfm?nid=102

That card bothers me.

I can see both sides of the argument to a certain extent, but I think destroying something like a Babe Ruth jersey is just selfish. Could getting a card with a little square from Ruth's jersey spark a kid's interest in baseball cards? I suppose so. I suppose, too, that a '34 Goudey Ruth card could do the same thing without having to ruin a piece of history.

[tschock]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Steve B., get yourself back to the MFA, this painting is stunning in person.

+1.

As with most artwork, even high-res reproductions don't do the originals justice. I didn't "get" Pollock until I came across one in the Museum of American Art in DC more than 20 years ago. I don't know if I ever felt so much movement as I did standing there like a statue for a good 20 minutes just taking it all in. (I don't think the particular piece is housed there anymore though)

[packs]

Just FYI, the only Babe Ruth jersey I could find that sold at a major auction in 2005 was the jersey he wore during the so called Called Shot Game. I highly doubt that jersey was the one cut up and put onto cards.

As a buyer or seller of the product, I think it's a fair question to ask where a company got their jersey from that they cut up and issued as cards. If the item is truly authentic a company should provide documentation, just like any major auction house does in the form of third party opinions or letters of provenance. That would only increase the value of the product and build confidence in their product. Show the jersey you bought, where you bought it, include a letter of authenticity or provenance on your website. That's what I would do if I were distributing items like this.

[slipk1068]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Don't like it one bit but I voted 2, free country and all.

+1

I wouldn't buy the junk but to each his own

[bigtrain]

I guess there are people who will say "It's only baseball" but to me a game-used Babe Ruth jersey is every bit as much a part of our cultural heritage as a great work of art or historic document. If I own a Babe Ruth jersey I suppose I have a legal right to cut it into pieces just as I could set fire to an original Van Gogh or Picasso, or a copy of the Declaration of Independence, if I own it. That I have a right to do it does not make it any less despicable.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by tribefan

Probably not from an authentic item anyway.

This I agree with. Most card companies would have a contest to win something like an authentic Babe Ruth jersey; few would actually cut it into little squares.

[EvilKing00]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Don't like it one bit but I voted 2, free country and all.

+2

[I Only Smoke 4 the Cards]

Originally Posted by shernan30

Think about the younger generation that buys the new cards to get their little piece of memorabilia. That Ruth card could spark the interested of a young collector to learn more about baseball history and not the $100MM players of today who are more worried about a pay check. It hurts a little to know there are two less jerseys and one less bat of Ruth, but there are 100 cards that can start a revolution of potential baseball historians who, in the future, can preserve the history of the game all because of that "one" card.

I agree with you on this.