Clipping up history - a bit O/T

[Archive]

Posted By: BigHurleyHick

I agree Anson. Last night I went crusing ebay just to see how much a piece of Babe Ruth bat would cost. I found several completed auctions for under $100. I also saw I could get a piece of Ted Williams bat for only $40.
I remember getting an Ivan Roderguiz jersey card in a UD pack back in 1999. It's book value was $120. By 2001 when there were packs offered in which there was guaranteed at least 1 piece of material a pack it was only half the value at $60. I believe it would have gone down a little but due to abundace of game used cards the price of individual cards don't sustain very well because tehre are so many alternatives to choose from. I don't know what the book value of that I-Rod is now but I bet I couldn't get $10 for it on ebay.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

i don't see why people get so excited over a bat card. its just the inside of the bat. whoopty do, the inside of the bat.

i guess UD will be cutting up hats, cleats, even socks. which is sad.

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

This is getting worse than the right to choose/right to life argument. Some people enjoy collecting "pieces of history." Some people don't. For those who don't, let's just agree to disagree. There is no sound "moral" or "ethical" argument here. Nobody's rights are being infringed upon and nobody is getting hurt. So--if you don't like the idea, don't collect them, but don't impose your self-righteous views on the rest of us and don't be so angry about it--it's memorabilia collecting after all, not foreign or domestic policy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

"Self righteous views" huh? You won't win any friends or arguments that way. You do realize this is a vintage baseball card board right?

Maybe you want to take a stab at my Declaration of Independence question. Should it be cut up for you to enjoy? So you can put it in your collection? Where do you draw the line on what to destroy in order to make a buck? That is the bottom line here. Upper Deck & other card companies don't care about you, your collection, or the history of the game. They just want to sell their lousy product for an outrageous price and the only way they can do that is by making you believe that a high priced chase card lies in the next pack.

[Archive]

Posted By: Adam Smith

Talk about self-righteous.....

You are comparing the Declaration of Independence to a baseball bat or uniform. Some of you have a skewed sense of reality.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anson

I realize that game-used clipped cards aren't going away. I just think that you DO have to draw the line with vintage players' stuff. What's next, the Ted Williams "Piece of the Head" cards?

Thank God that the Baseball HOF and Smithsonian have some of things and aren't willing to part with them to card companies.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Bryan: I am here neither to win friends nor arguments. I have plenty of friends and have won plenty of arguments. I'm also not interested in "making a buck" and have absolutely no interest in having a piece of the Declaration of Independence.

My point was, which you seemed to miss, that if I and others care to buy game-used memorabilia, there's no law that prohibits us from doing so. There is also no possible argument that would change our minds, as I'm sure there's no argument that would compel you to change yours.

As I said, if you're not interested in collecting them, don't. But your "arguments" are artificial, as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. I was merely asking that you respect the views of others and we will, yours.

P.S. And yes, I do realize this is a Vintage card Board and I think you knew that. Schoolyard jabs are also not a good way to win an argument. If you have a problem with it being off-topic, talk to the person who started the thread or ignore it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Cobby33 & Adam - How about you answer my question. I am trying to figure out where you would draw the line since you support it.

Do you even know what self righteous means? You can call me self righteous all you want but at least I am not selfish like you in the fact that you would rather have a small piece of a jersey worn by a player in your collection rather than have it left in tact for future generations to enjoy.

You do realize that if the day comes when you can actually afford to buy say a Mickey Mantle jersey you will either have to pay an outrageous amount compared to today's going rate or not get one at all because they were destroyed so you and other could have a swatch in your collection.

Anson - I agree they are not going away as long as people keep buying them. I just want to know what is next.

Cobby - I don't have a problem with being off topic I was just pointing out that discussing the pros of jerseys swatches will not be too popular here.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

It is obvious that we are not going to come to an agreement here and even if we did it isn't going to change anything in the long run.

However, just know that card companies are destroying baseball memorabilia in order to make a buck and by buying their product you are supporting their actions.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Bryan,

I had actually put a line about the Decl/Indep example in my previous post but deleted it. I'm not sure that's the best example of an extreme to use, because that's not in private hands and excluded from general access. Similarly with other examples such as art masterpieces. Therefore the need to cut it up, disperse the enjoyment among more private owners, etc, doesn't exist.

I know the public display argument doesn't get to the core issue of an individual's right to accumulate and own versus the consideration of preserving history, but it at least addresses that example.

To me in the end it would come down to this: What if it were the last one of something? What if it were the last Ty Cobb jersey in existence? Should the person who owns it be allowed to cut it up and distribute it? Is that different from that person locking it away in one piece for all time? I agree with the argument before that cutting it up destroys it for all time, while locking it away at least keeps some future ability to resurrect it.

Again, I don't know what to think. Property rights in America are a very big deal, and this is just another example of the difficulties that arise from the desire to protect that interest.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

This is an open board, even to me..... I think that most folks on this board would find cutting up jersey's, bats etc....to be idiotic. I would agree with that. IF folks want to collect that stuff more power to them and this IS America....those are my thoughts....regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Joann,

Good points. You are right the Declaration of Independence itself is a bit extreme. I believe there are parts of the draft of the document in the hands of private collectors and that is what I was referring to. Basically I want to know where to draw the line.

I really wish that it was none of my business as what a person collects shouldn't be any of my business but I am a huge fan of baseball history and frankly it kills me to see it being destroyed.

I do believe too much time and energy has been wasted on this thread especially since we have no effect on the outcome.

Bryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Bryan:
I did answer your question. I said I have no interest whatsoever in owning a piece of the Declaration of Independence. In fact, I think it's so outdated it's not really worth anything, but that's a different topic wholly inappropriate for this Board.
I think we've agreed to disagree, which is probably the best result we can hope for, so I thank you for the dialog.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

There are a number of copies of the Declaration of Independence in private hands. I think there are something close to 12 copies known to exist. The last one being found when a painting was removed from it frame and the DoC being hidden behind the frame backing.

The beauty of jersey or bat is in its entirety. The same as the beauty of painting or sculpture is in its entirety. How interested would you be in owning a 1 inch piece of a Leroy Nieman painting if UD started chopping them up and putting them into cards?

That little 1 inch piece of an original Nieman is worthless and meaningless without the context of the rest of the painting. The same goes for a 1 inch piece of jersey. Without the context of the entire jersey, that swatch is meaningless and worthless. You are taking UD's word that the swatch is what they claim. I seem to remember one of card companies getting busted for cutting up jerseys and claiming they were game used, when they actually weren't.

Cobb, I bet you have a lot of issues with collector of paintings and sculptures since these people tend to hide them and never let them see the light of day after they have purchased them. Guess we should start cutting them up too so we can all enjoy the great art that is being hidden away.

I can't enjoy these great works of art the same as I can't enjoy most historically significant baseball items, but I would much rather see them in the hands of someone that will keep them in tact, rather than be destroyed in the name of the all mighty dollar.

As had been pointed out, UD and the other card companies do not care about you or sports history, in the least. All they care about is getting you to part with your money and making their stock holders happy.

Jay

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

[Archive]

Posted By: zach

Amen Jay ! Great post ! I'm with you 102 percent

[Archive]

Posted By: Cat

I personally think anyone (Upper Deck or anyone else) cutting up jerseys or bats of players like Cobb, Jackson, or Ruth to sell by the piece should be taken out to the back forty and SHOT. Those UD cards with the chopped up signatures were pathetic, but on the other hand I could care less if some one bought a Van Gogh and sold it by the square inch. It's just my taste!!!

Edited to correct typos unless otherwise noted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

One of the little themes I run across in law school is whether "reasonable people can disagree" on something. A lot of times this board illustrates that perfectly for me. Just read this thread for the passion, thought and intellect that people have put into supporting their respective positions, even as the positions themselves vary widely. So many different shades of this issue have emerged. Talk about reasonable people disagreeing. Just an observation.

Oh, and I didn't know there were multiple copies of the Decl of Ind. Duh. I guess I've kind of heard that but didn't realize they weren't commemorative reproductions or something like that (although very "old reprints", lol). Does the US have more than one copy in its custody? That does really make the cutting up of the D/I a valid example, and puts a different spin on the issue. For me at least.

Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Jay: What may be "meaningless and worthless" to you may not be the same to somebody else. To me, most "art" is meaningless and worthless, yet I don't impose my values on those who collect or enjoy art.

My points in each of my posts has been (1) an acknowledgement that people's opinions differ on this issue; and (2) an observation that those who think that "cutting up" pieces of jersey is a crime, be a little more "charitable" in their opinions and not treat it like a personal, vindictive crusade, as there is no "right" or "wrong" answer to this issue.

I guess I failed in both respects, which is not surprising given the tendency of many on this Board to jam their viewpoints down the throat of others with no grace or tact (e.g. UD should be "shot" for making game-used products, etc.).

[Archive]

Posted By: William Brumbach

For what it's worth, Upper Deck is a privately held company with no stock holders. Topps, on the other hand, is publicly traded. As of right now they are the only two players left in the modern card game.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Cobby

I understand where you are coming from. I collect jerseys and cards but can't afford the big name player jerseys. Being that Honus Wagner is one of my all time favorites I wanted to get the UD Wagner jersey card, a piece of Wagner history right? I did buy it. I then went to Cooperstown and saw Honus Wagner's jersey in tact. It is an amazing sight to see. That is when I became so adamant about not destroying jerseys. They need to be protected because seeing one in one piece is so far greater than owning a piece of it. I still have that card mainly because the market has dropped out on game jersey cards. I will tell you this. I tend to look at the picture I took of Wagner's jersey far more often than I look at that jersey swatch.

Seeing the a jersey complete is seeing the player. You get an idea of his playing style by the wear. You get an idea of how big he was by the size of the jersey. You begin to see the player as a person, not just a legend. So far I have yet to get that feeling from the Wagner jersey swatch.

As much as you ask me to respect your collecting habits I ask you to respect other people's collecting habits. People do collect bats and jerseys and they are being destroyed. I don't collect comic books. Never read one in my life. But I wouldn't wish the destruction of the first Superman so a company can make a profit.

You say you don't really care for artwork. If you are ever in Paris (preferably the summer or fall) how about you go to the Louve. Don't go in, just sit outside and observe the incredible line of people who want to get in and ask yourself "how would they feel if a company started buying works of art to cut up and sell for a profit."

Bryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Cobby33

Bryan:
Thank you for the thoughtful response and I can't say I disagree with you on any point.
I do want to clarify, however, that I do not have any issues with those who choose to own or admire pieces of memorabilia which are intact. I wholeheartedly agree that those are valuable beyond currency. I certainly respect those who own "whole" pieces or those who covet them.
My point was, that people who choose to sell these items or collect them, should be given the same amount of slack, which I think you also agree with.
Finally, I have to admit I was being a little flippant about my comment about art. I do see its value and do appreicate some/most of it and if ever I am in Paris, I certainly intend to visit La Louvre.
Thanks again.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bryan

Cobby

To be fair I should state my problem lies with the card manufacturers. They are the ones doing the damange. Aslo I certainly understand the mentality of "well the damage has been done so why not own it." That is why I bought that Wagner in the first place.

As much as I wish people would stop buying the product of card manufacturers who destroy vintage memorabilia it isn't feasable. The card industry would die. And as much as it will pain me to do so I will buy their product for my children in hopes of sharing with them card collecting. (Hopefully they will catch on to vintage quickly.) What will be real funny is me having this very same argument with my six year old daughter the first time she pulls a vintage jersey or bat card, assuming card companies haven't seen the light by that time.

It's been nice chatting with you.

Bryan

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on with respect to this argument, because in my opinion both sides have valid points.

But...

Have any of you had the pleasure of seeing the look on a little kid's face when he pulls a game-used jersey card out of a brand-new pack?

To me, there's some value in that. I watched my son pull a piece of Bobby Thompson's bat out of a pack of cards. His eyes lit up like Christmastime. He then asked me all about Bobby Thompson - who was he? Why was he important? Tell me about the game! Tell me about the three New York teams - which one was better?

For that kind of conversation with my son, and to witness the joy on his face and his genuine interest in the history of the game, I'd hack up one of Bobby Thompson's bats myself.

I've also seen him rummage through boxes of basketball cards at shows - for what seemed like hours - looking for a swatch of Jason Kidd or Shaquille O'Neal's jersey. When he found them, you'd think he struck gold.

In my mind, there's still an element of this hobby that belongs to children, and I try to remember that whenever a discussion like this comes up.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Al, I agree in part, but it shouldn't take a chopped up bat or jersey to get those types of conversations going. I love my son, but I would find better, less destructive ways to talk to my son about these things.

I don't have a real problem witht he current player item being hacked up, since they can be easily replaced. My issue, along with most others, is with the destruction of historicaly significant and rare items that can never be replaced.

Jay

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

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

Like I said, Jay, I can see both sides of the fence. Actually, until I saw my son's eyes light up, I was firmly on your side.

But when he said "I OWN A PIECE OF BOBBY THOMPSON'S BAT!", I kinda got nudged a little toward the other side. It's only Bobby Thompson, I understand, but still...I don't collect game-used anything, so it's not like I've got that kind of stuff displayed in my house. So until he's an adult and can decide what to do with his own money, the only way he'll ever own something like that is if it's attached to a card.

We have lots of discussions about sports, and about baseball history, but when he held that card in his hand, he "got it" in a way I don't think he ever has before. The magnitude of the history sort of hit home with him.

Anyway, I thought it was cool, and it reminded me that this used to be a kid's hobby. I like that, and I sorta miss it a little.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: identify7

I wonder how often a kid opens up a pack of cards, finds a game used or its equivalent, and thinks "Id like to find out more about this player's part in baseball history".

And how often another kid does the same thing because he feels like he hit the lottery. And now his motivation in determining who the player was is largely to assess the value of his winnings.

My point is: are kids learning baseball or gambling here?

[Archive]

Posted By: Al Crisafulli

I guess that's not a value judgement I'm capable of making. I don't have a window into the mind of all kids, just the ones that live in my house with me.

But when I was a kid, if I pulled Pete Rose or George Brett out of a pack, I was excited because I got a "star", but I was also aware that Pete Rose or George Brett was more valuable than Steve Comer or Ken Clay.

But from my perspective, if it's the value of a special shiny insert card or whatever that gets a kid interested in baseball, and that helps keep the sport and the hobby viable, then I'm all for it.

-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: t206King

Kids cant afford packs lol i remeber when they were 25 cents in the early 90s, with 18 cards in them. kids have to fork out mum and dads money for a pack of only 4 cards. those were the days...

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

I recently purchased a vintage scrapbook (really a vintage pile of pages as it turned out) because a pretty rare set of boxing cards was in it and I needed one for my set. The cards were cut into silhouettes around the fighters' images (like an E125 looks) and nicely pasted down on the page. Now, the set has been "ruined" by the cutting and tbe book has been ruined by aging, so I'm keeping the one "card" I need anyway cutting up the book to get at the cards.

My feeling is that you can cut up whatever you own and sell it as you wish but that the card makers that cut up items to the point where they don't bear any resemblance to their original items are not doing a service to the collecting public. I'd rather not own a shard of a Ruth bat and know that the bat still exists than own a chip and feel that I have participated in the destruction of an historical artifact.