Koufax No - Hitter Glove a No - No!

[Archive]

Posted By: Robert Plancich

In the recently completed "Important Baseball Memorabilia" auction that was hosted by Sotheby's and Sports Cards Plus there was A Sandy Koufax 1963 Game-Used Glove that sold for $126,500.00 (including Buyer's Premium) - Lot #108. According to the lot description "The glove is a Spalding Frank Bolling model 42-212. Koufax's uniform number "32" is written on the thumb and pinky in vintage marker. A faint Koufax signature is also visible on the pinky, covered by a clear protective coating. Its impeccable provenance includes numerous photographs, including one of Koufax on the mound during the May 11, 1963 no-hitter, showing him wearing this very glove with the scoreboard visible in the background. A separate posed photograph of Koufax wearing the glove is detailed enough to match the model number and markings in the palm." The glove was authenticated By Messrs. Bushing & Knoll/SCDA as being authentic.

After reading the above description and hearing about all of this photographic evidence one would think that this glove is, in fact, authentic. The fact of the matter is that this is a real Koufax glove but the glove that sold for over $125,000.00 was never used in the no-hitter game or any other game for that matter. If you go to Sotheby's website you can view the pictures of this glove and easily tell that the glove has never been used. I consulted several glove experts and they agree that the glove is a real Koufax glove but was never used. It is my understanding that Mr. Bushing owned this glove (as well as the Seaver glove also in the same auction)which would explain why it was authenticated by SCDA. At least, this is a real Koufax glove but it would have never gone for the type of money that this glove realized without being linked to the no-hitter.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

Robert, are you going to warn folks about items in upcoming auctions as well?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hal Lewis

I don't know about anyone else... but I am enjoying the exposes.

But I agree that it would help to know BEFORE the auctions end.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Bob Lemke--you are the voice of SCD, at least on this forum. How about some comments from you on these attacks on your company's grading service.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh A.

This is a valuable service you are providing. It is important to expose the frauds and misdeeds of those who bring the hobby down.

I agree with the other posters, will you be posting reviews before auctions? Do you notice anything amiss in the current Mastronet auction?

Also, do you have any proof or documents to back up these claims? While it is good to expose a fraud, it is even better to have direct evidence.

"I'm thinking about getting a plasma T.V., in case I need a transfusion."- Steven Wright

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Josh--I think you have it backwards--it is good to have direct evidence before you expose something.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh A.

That's what I meant!! Sorry.... doing several things at once, and this caught my eye! <br /> (I'm an attorney, I should get this)
Thanks.

"I'm thinking about getting a plasma T.V., in case I need a transfusion."- Steven Wright

[Archive]

Posted By: prewarsports

Has anyone ever heard anything about all of those 19th century uniforms that were sold in the Halper sale? They all came from one guy, and it is not like he had tons of them, maybe 20, but every time this guy would find a uniform it was of a huge name.

He did not just have an 1890's Phillies jersey, but Ed Delahanty's jersey.

He did not just have a White Sox jersey, but Cap Ansons jersey.

Not just an Orioles jersey, but Wilbert Robinsons jersey.

Not just NY jerseys, but Ewing and Rusies jersey. etc. etc. etc.

I do not recall any Dad Clarke, or Brickyard Kennedy jerseys in the sale, or anyone like that, just big named hall of famers. Sounds similar to what is going on now with SCDA.

I always thought this was just way way way to much of a coincidence, and I think the final sale prices reflected that as well. How can any one person constantly be comming up with all these hall of fame jerseys and all they have is a little name sewn on the tail. The problem now is that eveything "Ex-Halper" is immediately taken for real.

Have any of these jerseys come up for resale since the sale? I dont think they have. Any thoughts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Rhys--Prior to the Halper auction weren't some of the vintage jerseys found to be no good?

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

I am no baseball glove or bat expert and could not authenticate a Sandy Koufax game used glove if my butt was on fire (not sure how my butt being on fire would help one way or the other, though), but I would want more evidence presented that this glove is not legitimate. Bushing/Knoll/SportscardsPlus/Sotheby's have represented this glove as genuine. Yes, they have made mistakes, but, before I overturned their opinion, I would want more information than the smallish auction pictures of the glove show it doesn't have much wear.

I understand that Herbie Scharfman (a well known sports & Dodgers photographer who I am familiar with) could very well have been given a legitimate Koufax glove, but the question is how does one attach the glove to a given game. Is Scharfman's word good enough? Is it possible that he embelished the store to his daughter over the campfire? Is his daughter's word good enough? What does her letter say? Is there relevant photo evidence, etc? Does the glove show game use? Has Koufax said anything? I would think the fact that glove was apparently displayed as the glove in Dodgers Stadium would be relevant (The Dodgers may have accepted Sharffman's opinion on face value and not researched the issue, but one would think the Dodgers organization's opinion would be worth something). Are the experts saying the glove is definitely the No Hitter glove, likely the glove or the evidence suggests it very well could be the glove? (How the experts represent their opinion does matter. If an expert says the glove 'could be' or even 'likely is' authentic that is what they say, and it would be wrong to claim they guaranteed 100 percent it was authentic.).

Even if I was a glove expert, I don't know these things. I guess what I am saying is that, on a personal basis, I don't know that the glove is authentic (though the glove is a Koufax glove, is backed by the opinion of the Dodgers and the estate of a famous photographer who would have had regular contact with Koufax). But I also don't know that it's a fake. Okay, the glove apparently doesn't show enough wear ... and what else.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Lemke

Jay, don't try to drag me into this. I have zero connection with SCD Authentic. In fact, my only official connection with SCD is as a columnist. I am employed by Krause Publications, a division of F+W Publications, as editor of Standard Catalog of Baseball Cards. Period.

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Bob,

Thank you for clearing that up! I made the same assumption about your relationship with SCD (and their affiliations) as many others did. It's a tough crowd out there.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

Sorry Bob. One time when I made a nasty comment about SCD's card grading service you stepped forward to defend them so I thought that you might also stand up for these guys.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

So goes "The Days Of Our Lives."

And now for the continuing adventures of:

"As The Stomach Turns."

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Hankron raises some excellent questions. I was at the auction, examined the glove, reviewed their files on the glove, and asked SportcardsPlus and Sotheby's for more evidence that this glove was in fact the same glove as used in Koufax's no-hitter. If so, I would have been a happy bidder. The problem was that the pictures they had were not clear enough to see that it was in fact the same glove, or for that matter even a Spalding model glove. In addition, the glove did not appear (to me) to have any game use on it. I have a hard time believing Koufax took the mound with an almost new glove, pitched a no-hitter, and then gave the glove away right after the game. More likely, he reached in to his locker and gave a friend a different glove, not one of his gamers. Seems more logical. However, I think that the author of this thread has gone too far in claiming the glove cannot possibly be the one used in Koufax's no-hitter. I could understand his statements if the glove could be determined not to be from 1963, but he can't say that because it is from that year. While I wouldn't spend my auction $$ on it because of the lack of use, that doesn't mean it couldn't be his no-hitter glove. The only way anyone will know for sure is if a clear picture can be found showing Koufax during or right after the game with the identical glove, where the markings match up exactly. I doubt Mr. Koufax will ever make a public statement about the glove, even if he knew it was, or wasn't, legitimate. I also think Robert Plancich's last statement regarding value is baseless since there are no other Koufax glove auction sales to compare this one to. The buyer and other bidders may be happy getting any Koufax glove, since there has never been another on the auction market.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Firstly, I don't know how the SCD LOA represents the glove, so I am not commenting on anyone's LOA.

Perhaps, in these situations, the auction shouldn't says "This is the No Hitter Glove" but present the evidence. For example, "This is a genuine Koufax glove, given by Koufax to the Dodgers' official photographer and signed by Koufax. As team photographer, Scharfman would have had regular contact with Koufax. The glove is proported to be the glove used in the No Hitter, and comes comes with a letter from the photographer's daughter detailing her father's relationship with Koufax and that her father said this was the No Hitter glove (I don't know what her letter really says). Though we don't have clear pictures of the game and glove exhibits little wear, the glove was displayed at Dodgers Stadium as the No Hitter Glove. Our glove experts express the opinion that the glove is consistant with being the glove as represented by the Dodgers and Scharfman's daughter." The bidders can assess the evidence, ask questions, get a second opinion, then make up their own minds what to bid.

[Archive]

Posted By: hankron

Whether from Mike Gutierrez or Lelands or PSA/DNA, a letter of authenticy almost never says "This is 100 percent authentic." The LOAs say something like "We have examined the whatever and in our opnion it is genuine" or "these autographs are consistant with the exemplars in our library." Obviously, they would not give out an LOA if they didn't beleive it to be genuine, but they are writing down their opinions.

It's the collectors, sellers and auction houses who represent the LOAs as "authenticated" and "guaranteed 100 percent genuine by PSA/DNA."

For example Scharfman's daughter's letter may simply say, and with 100 percent honesty and candor and accuracy, "My dad gave me this glove and he told me he got it from Sandy Koufax. Daddy said that this was the glove used by Koufax to pitch the No Hitter. I know that Daddy and Sandy Koufax were good friends, and I met Mr. Koufax numerous times as a kid. Mr. Koufax was always very nice to me and once had my whole family over to his house for latkes with apple sauce on Haunukka. I promise you that everything I just wrote is true." Even if the glove turned out to be a fake, everything she wrote was honest, candid and accurate.

You can only judge the LOA by reading the LOA, not by hearing how the seller or collector charectorizes it in a half-sentence during sale.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

Now back to:

As The Stomach Turns.