[Dave Grob]

In a matter of weeks, a 1947 Jackie Robinson home jersey (Heritage) and Robinson’s contracts (1945 & 1947) (Goldin Auctions) will come to market. The 1947 Robinson home jersey as a pre-auction estimate of $2M+ while the contracts are said to have an insured value in excess of $30M. There obviously is a great delta in perceived value between these two lots. In the end, any number of factors will decide the final prices on each, so the question I will pose is which is the more significant and why?

For me, although I am strongly wedded to uniforms, I believe the uniform is the more significant of the two. I base this on the premise that the jersey has created the value for the contracts. What would the value or significance of the contracts be today if Jackie Robinson had been a flop in uniform in 1947? What if in 1947 Robinson had been a marginal player in uniform or been unable to restrain himself in uniform? Would he even have been back with Brooklyn or in the majors in 1948 to sign yet another contract?

The fact of the matter is the Jackie Robinson legacy and value is one based on performance and conduct, not on permissions. Some might proffer that these are unparalleled sports memorabilia offerings…uniform vs contracts, but are they? Recently the transfer documents (permissions) for Babe Ruth’s move from the Boston Red Sox to New York Yankees sold for $2.3M (Lelands), yet the road jersey he wore in his first season in New York sold for $4.4M. Once again, what is the value and significance of the transfer documents if Ruth had gone to New York and been a bust instead of the Bam?

The above Ruth example was not provided as a gauge of relative value (a Ruth jersey vs a Robinson jersey; Ruth agreements vs Robinson agreements), but rather as probably the most recent and near peer example of my “permissions vs performance” construct.

Dave Grob