Goldin 100 auction

[ichieh]

The sale has been very quiet so far with only few hours to go. Do you think it is because the economy has been choppy, or people simply wait until the last minute to bid? I am surprised the 1957 Mantle jersey and the MJ sneakers didn't generate a bid in over a month.

[ichieh]

And the Brady jersey has a high reserve

[ichieh]

and this LBJ playoff jersey is only at $42K

https://goldin.co/item/may-1-2017-le...giOjM4fQ%3D%3D

[Leon]

I don't follow those markets but there's a lot of stuff being sold lately. It seems more than normal, if there's a normal.
.

[ichieh]

The Mantle jersey is photo matched to 10 games, including matched to his first career cycle game. It was projected to hammer over a million and now it's only sitting at $375K. The LBJ jersey came from a playoff game where he scored like 38 points. His regular season jersey usually sold around $100K, and right now it's only at $42K. Very strange.

[ichieh]

Maybe there is a Mantle and LBJ fatigue in the market

[rlevy]

A lot of the heavy hitters wait until extended bidding to bid top numbers. I think we need to see where they end up before trying to assess the market.

Rick

[ichieh]

we are in the extended period now and still not much of activity. Where are all the heavy hitters go?

[Lordstan]

Personally, I think much of this stuff is in a bit of a bubble from the big push of the pandemic. Obviously people should collect what they like, but I would never buy some of this stuff at these prices.
I keep getting proven wrong, but a ton of stuff has retracted so perhaps it's now happening with this stuff.
We'll see how it ends.

Sent from my SM-F946U using Tapatalk

[Topnotchsy]

Mantle has sold.

This image captures a world I don't begin to fathom.

(I do recognize that these are essentially entirely different markets and collector bases but wow...)

[ichieh]

The Mantle jersey had 9 bids on day 1, and since then no bid. Very interesting

[rlevy]

I was reluctant to comment prior to closing, but the Mantle jersey, while impressive for being photo-matched to so many games, was restored on the front. Pre-pandemic, most HOF vintage jerseys were tough sales if restored, and sold for substantially less than one that was all original. It seemed to change a bit during the pandemic as new players entered the big ticket market, and it may be settling down a bit now. Most of the big hitters have always wanted all-original jerseys, and having a Mantle jersey with the NY restored, no matter how well done, is a non-starter. It would drive them crazy to look at it on their wall, knowing an important part of the jersey wasn't original. I have sold many big ticket items, and the first question I get is always about originality. So while the market may indeed be softening, I think it is hard to gauge the vintage baseball jersey market based on this one sale.

Rick

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by rlevy

I was reluctant to comment prior to closing, but the Mantle jersey, while impressive for being photo-matched to so many games, was restored on the front. Pre-pandemic, most HOF vintage jerseys were tough sales if restored, and sold for substantially less than one that was all original. It seemed to change a bit during the pandemic as new players entered the big ticket market, and it may be settling down a bit now. Most of the big hitters have always wanted all-original jerseys, and having a Mantle jersey with the NY restored, no matter how well done, is a non-starter. It would drive them crazy to look at it on their wall, knowing an important part of the jersey wasn't original. I have sold many big ticket items, and the first question I get is always about originality. So while the market may indeed be softening, I think it is hard to gauge the vintage baseball jersey market based on this one sale.

Rick

That's an important point. I never read the description, so I was not aware of the details, but that's a very significant factor.

Does anyone know what the pre-auction estimate on it was? Did they anticipate this, or was it $1M+?

[rlevy]

Jeff, I had thought the pre-sale estimate was $1mm+ but can't be sure. I tend to take pre-sale estimates on baseball game used jerseys with a grain of salt since every jersey is unique. Mantle jerseys are scarce and highly desirable, however year, originality, and condition all can affect the pool of prospective buyers and hence the price. I was a little surprised it didn't go a bit higher given it was from his MVP year and photo-matched to his cycle game that year, and I imagine Goldin was a little surprised as well, but the impact of the restoration on the price was impossible to predict.

Rick

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by rlevy

Jeff, I had thought the pre-sale estimate was $1mm+ but can't be sure. I tend to take pre-sale estimates on baseball game used jerseys with a grain of salt since every jersey is unique. Mantle jerseys are scarce and highly desirable, however year, originality, and condition all can affect the pool of prospective buyers and hence the price. I was a little surprised it didn't go a bit higher given it was from his MVP year and photo-matched to his cycle game that year, and I imagine Goldin was a little surprised as well, but the impact of the restoration on the price was impossible to predict.

Rick

The market has swung so rapidly in the last few years that it is hard to get any sort of handle on the market.

Heritage had some huge jerseys their last sale. The Koufax rookie jersey at $1.8M and Walter Johnson jersey for $2M missed estimates by a decent amount if I am not mistaken.

Time will tell where these settle. Truly remarkable pieces.

[ichieh]

Well, Mantle's jerseys don't grow from tree, so to me this jersey was way under valued and should have gone higher.

[perezfan]

Hard to say the Jersey was undervalued with the front being restored.

Think of it like a '52 Topps Mantle Card with the script "Mickey Mantle" portion erased and then re-written in. Serious Uniform collectors want them to be all-original and as worn by the player.

[ichieh]

last time I checked a 1952 Topps Mantle in any grade is doing pretty well, including those that are trimmed or has major crease.
5-10 years from now, if people still collect Mickey Mantle's jersey, this one will look dirt cheap.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Hard to say the Jersey was undervalued with the front being restored.

Think of it like a '52 Topps Mantle Card with the script "Mickey Mantle" portion erased and then re-written in. Serious Uniform collectors want them to be all-original and as worn by the player.

I definitely get the preference, but I don't think I agree with the comparison. If a collector has the budget, they can find 50+ 1952 Mantle's to choose from at any moment without much work. Finding another Mantle jersey is a much harder task.

[packs]

Do you guys think the jersey would have done better with no restoration? I'm interested in what the better decision is. With game used it seems like eye appeal can get in the way of what's preferred.

[rlevy]

No question, restoration of the NY was the right decision. Without it, the jersey would have sold for much less.
As a side-note, five years ago, Mantle jerseys, all-original, sold in the $500k-600k range. Last year, a 1958 all original sold for over $4mm. Kind of crazy to think that the restoration of the NY, which would be undetectable by most, probably resulted in the jersey selling for a small fraction of the 1958 jersey. Both jerseys were used by Mantle during great years in his career.

We collectors are a strange lot.

Rick

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by packs

Do you guys think the jersey would have done better with no restoration? I'm interested in what the better decision is. With game used it seems like eye appeal can get in the way of what's preferred.

Not sure if this answers your question but I can offer this example:

A few weeks ago, Heritage had a bunch of vintage Twins flannels. One was a 1968 Jerry Zimmerman road. Jerry wore #22, but this shirt had a vintage number change to 21, for use in the minors or subsequent spring training. The previous owner had the "1" removed and replaced with a modern "2" so the jersey now looks as it did in '68, with #22. The fading left by the removed "1" is easily visible.

I would have MUCH preferred the jersey still had the #21 on it, because that was what the team did to it, probably in 1969. So, it wouldn't be in original condition (as issued in 1968,) but it would be original to '69 or 1970.

As it currently is, it's a mostly 20th century GU shirt, with a modern, non-original "2" cluttering up the back.

[Bicem]

Mantle jersey aside, thought prices were pretty strong.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Not sure if this answers your question but I can offer this example:

A few weeks ago, Heritage had a bunch of vintage Twins flannels. One was a 1968 Jerry Zimmerman road. Jerry wore #22, but this shirt had a vintage number change to 21, for use in the minors or subsequent spring training. The previous owner had the "1" removed and replaced with a modern "2" so the jersey now looks as it did in '68, with #22. The fading left by the removed "1" is easily visible.

I would have MUCH preferred the jersey still had the #21 on it, because that was what the team did to it, probably in 1969. So, it wouldn't be in original condition (as issued in 1968,) but it would be original to '69 or 1970.

As it currently is, it's a mostly 20th century GU shirt, with a modern, non-original "2" cluttering up the back.

+1 Completely agree.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

I definitely get the preference, but I don't think I agree with the comparison. If a collector has the budget, they can find 50+ 1952 Mantle's to choose from at any moment without much work. Finding another Mantle jersey is a much harder task.

Haha… was not meant to be taken literally. Of course there are 5,000 ‘52 Mantles for each G/U Jersey of his. Just illustrating that the replacement “NY” would significantly drag down the price realized.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by rlevy

No question, restoration of the NY was the right decision. Without it, the jersey would have sold for much less.
As a side-note, five years ago, Mantle jerseys, all-original, sold in the $500k-600k range. Last year, a 1958 all original sold for over $4mm. Kind of crazy to think that the restoration of the NY, which would be undetectable by most, probably resulted in the jersey selling for a small fraction of the 1958 jersey. Both jerseys were used by Mantle during great years in his career.

We collectors are a strange lot.

Rick

I think (and I imagine you agree) that a lot was a wild upswing in the market that has now settled down. Obviously, factors like the stock market, interest rates etc will impact the high end of the market, but in my mind, we may have shifted back to a time where it makes sense to be buying.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Haha… was not meant to be taken literally. Of course there are 5,000 ‘52 Mantles for each G/U Jersey of his. Just illustrating that the replacement “NY” would significantly drag down the price realized.

I hear that

[ichieh]

How about the fact that the Mantle jersey was photo matched to 10 games,
which is unheard of for a vintage jersey from the 50’s. I am surprised it did not add too much value to the final price. I do think restoration was the right decision. It would be a very lengthy conversation to explain why a Mantle jersey has a minor league logo in the front of the jersey

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by ichieh

How about the fact that the Mantle jersey was photo matched to 10 games,
which is unheard of for a vintage jersey from the 50’s. I am surprised it did not add too much value to the final price. I do think restoration was the right decision. It would be a very lengthy conversation to explain why a Mantle jersey has a minor league logo in the front of the jersey

Is there a real value in photoshopping to many games vs 1 game? (Asking genuinely)

I don't know the market, so this is not an educated comment, but my assumption was that, given how few jerseys were used each year back then, that any jersey photomatched to one game, would have been used in dozens of games.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Is there a real value in photoshopping to many games vs 1 game? (Asking genuinely)

I don't know the market, so this is not an educated comment, but my assumption was that, given how few jerseys were used each year back then, that any jersey photomatched to one game, would have been used in dozens of games.

Suppose you and your father went to see some games at Yankee Stadium back in the day. You dig out the ticket stubs you've saved all these decades, and discover your idol, Mickey Mantle, was wearing that exact jersey when you and dad were at the game.

If you had the dough to be a serious bidder in the first place, wouldn't that match prompt you to boost your bid considerably?

[packs]

How often would Mantle have changed jerseys throughout a season? Is it safe to assume any Mantle gamer would have been worn for a stretch of games?

I know most of today's athletes have unlimited jerseys at their disposal but I also remember plenty of stories from old timers who had to purchase their own jersey.

[rlevy]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

Is there a real value in photoshopping to many games vs 1 game? (Asking genuinely)

I don't know the market, so this is not an educated comment, but my assumption was that, given how few jerseys were used each year back then, that any jersey photomatched to one game, would have been used in dozens of games.

Good question Jeff. It is generally believed that in the flannel period, players received 2 home and 2 road jerseys, although there have been instances of some players apparently receiving 3. So it is generally assumed that each jersey would have been worn roughly 30-50 games. Photo-matching of a jersey to any game is helpful to establish authenticity and adds to an expert's opinion letter. But photo-matching to a specific important game, like this Mantle jersey to his hitting for the cycle or hitting homeruns certainly adds to its value to collectors. I don't think it's the shear number of photo-matches that is important, but the specific games it is matched to that increases its desirability to collectors. And the more photo-matches, the greater the probability it can be linked to an important game of some type.

Yankee flannels are one of the easiest to photo-match because of the way the jersey was put together, causing the alignment of the pinstripes to be unique with every jersey. Other jerseys, like my Dodgers, are very difficult to photo-match since they all look the same, so matching them usually requires things like loose threads or some other damage.

Rick

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by rlevy

Good question Jeff. It is generally believed that in the flannel period, players received 2 home and 2 road jerseys, although there have been instances of some players apparently receiving 3. So it is generally assumed that each jersey would have been worn roughly 30-50 games. Photo-matching of a jersey to any game is helpful to establish authenticity and adds to an expert's opinion letter. But photo-matching to a specific important game, like this Mantle jersey to his hitting for the cycle or hitting homeruns certainly adds to its value to collectors. I don't think it's the shear number of photo-matches that is important, but the specific games it is matched to that increases its desirability to collectors. And the more photo-matches, the greater the probability it can be linked to an important game of some type.

Yankee flannels are one of the easiest to photo-match because of the way the jersey was put together, causing the alignment of the pinstripes to be unique with every jersey. Other jerseys, like my Dodgers, are very difficult to photo-match since they all look the same, so matching them usually requires things like loose threads or some other damage.

Rick

Well stated!

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by rlevy

Good question Jeff. It is generally believed that in the flannel period, players received 2 home and 2 road jerseys, although there have been instances of some players apparently receiving 3. So it is generally assumed that each jersey would have been worn roughly 30-50 games. Photo-matching of a jersey to any game is helpful to establish authenticity and adds to an expert's opinion letter. But photo-matching to a specific important game, like this Mantle jersey to his hitting for the cycle or hitting homeruns certainly adds to its value to collectors. I don't think it's the shear number of photo-matches that is important, but the specific games it is matched to that increases its desirability to collectors. And the more photo-matches, the greater the probability it can be linked to an important game of some type.

Yankee flannels are one of the easiest to photo-match because of the way the jersey was put together, causing the alignment of the pinstripes to be unique with every jersey. Other jerseys, like my Dodgers, are very difficult to photo-match since they all look the same, so matching them usually requires things like loose threads or some other damage.

Rick

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!

Originally Posted by Mark17

Suppose you and your father went to see some games at Yankee Stadium back in the day. You dig out the ticket stubs you've saved all these decades, and discover your idol, Mickey Mantle, was wearing that exact jersey when you and dad were at the game.

If you had the dough to be a serious bidder in the first place, wouldn't that match prompt you to boost your bid considerably?

I guess, though I can't imagine that is what generally motivates buyers to pay up.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!





I guess, though I can't imagine that is what generally motivates buyers to pay up.

It sure would for me, but everybody's different.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Mark17

It sure would for me, but everybody's different.

I don't doubt that it would be a motivator. for someone who went to games that year and also was in the market for a $500K+ item. I just imagine that the market of people potentially interested in this would barely overlap the Venn diagram of people who went to a game 67 years ago.

[ichieh]

Do anyone know the population report on Mickey Mantle photo-matched jersey?
Rick made a comment that the Yankees home jerseys were easier to matched, and I wonder if there are more matched home jerseys vs away jerseys?
If this Mantle jersey was already matched to 10 regular season games, can we assume thst it was also wore in the World Series?

[rlevy]

Originally Posted by ichieh

If this Mantle jersey was already matched to 10 regular season games, can we assume thst it was also wore in the World Series?

I would actually assume that it wasn't worn in the World Series unless shown otherwise. Here is my logic:
Most photo-matches of flannels are best performed with images taken before or after the game (pre or post-game on the field or in the locker room) and are usually close-up. Game action shots don't normally (but not always) have the necessary resolution for a conclusive match. Mickey Mantle, given his popularity, and in a home NY WS game, was undoubtedly the most photographed player at the Stadium pre and post every game. The photo-matching company may in fact have been able to conclude he was wearing a different uniform for the home games, but they obviously wouldn't say that in the opinion letter. If there were possible but not conclusive matches, they would have said so in their opinion letter. Sometimes, elimination (while maybe not conclusive) plays a role in photo-matching as well. So while he may have worn it during a WS game, I would assume he didn't unless shown otherwise.

As a side note, teams would sometimes wear the next seasons jersey during a World Series. One example (but there are others): In the 1952 World Series, the Dodgers wore their 1953 home jerseys which featured red numbers on the front, a new feature that the team wouldn't add to their roadies until 1959.

Rick

[MVSNYC]

I think the Mantle Jersey went very low. Even with the restoration, should've done much better. Not sure Goldin is the best place to sell memorabilia (great place to buy it though...I bought a Derek Jeter Game Used Full Uniform from his final season, photo-matched to two games against the Mets, tons of use, etc. from Goldin several years back. Got it for a very good price).

If this Mantle Jersey was in Heritage, it would've sold for at least double, IMO.

Anyway, sure, everyone wants an all original item, but this one, with all of the extensive photo-matching, putting it ON Mantle's back, without question...is enormous. Someone got an amazing deal.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

I think the Mantle Jersey went very low. Even with the restoration, should've done much better. Not sure Goldin is the best place to sell memorabilia (great place to buy it though...I bought a Derek Jeter Game Used Full Uniform from his final season, photo-matched to two games against the Mets, tons of use, etc. from Goldin several years back. Got it for a very good price).

If this Mantle Jersey was in Heritage, it would've sold for at least double, IMO.

Anyway, sure, everyone wants an all original item, but this one, with all of the extensive photo-matching, putting it ON Mantle's back, without question...is enormous. Someone got an amazing deal.

I think that Heritage is better than Goldin for items like this, but was surprised by the prices on the Koufax and Walter Johnson that sold recently at Heritage. I think the overall market is down considerably as compared to the past few years.

[MVSNYC]

Do you mean the ones that sold for +/- $2,000,000 each? I think those were very strong prices. Wasn't too long ago that only a Ruth or Gehrig Jersey would achieve those numbers...

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by MVSNYC

Do you mean the ones that sold for +/- $2,000,000 each? I think those were very strong prices. Wasn't too long ago that only a Ruth or Gehrig Jersey would achieve those numbers...

Rookie Koufax jersey and the only known Walter Johnson not in the HOF. And the Mantle did not meet reserve.

I think that 2 years ago, the Koufax and Johnson would sell for at least 50% more. Not sure what the Mantle reached, so can't comment on that.

[MVSNYC]

Morning Jeff, hope you're well!

The "Boom" peak was mid-late covid. Everything soared. They've come down...price adjustments have been made, but definitely much higher than pre-covid price levels. I'm talking most everything- cards, memorabilia, etc.

My overarching point is that pre-2020 these jerseys were likely not $1m jerseys (yet).

[rlevy]

I think you are both correct in that prices are still higher than pre-covid, but have softened a bit lately. Still, hard to tell for sure because so few of these rare jerseys hit the market, unlike 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson or 1952 Topps Mantle cards which are all over the place so easier to spot trends.

It is easiest for me to address the 1955 Koufax jersey as I follow his stuff more closely. It had four things going for it:
1. Koufax jerseys are extremely rare, probably around 10-12 all original jerseys have surfaced to this point.
2. Brooklyn jersey from their only championship year
3. Rookie jersey
4. Condition and originality

I believe the previous high for a Koufax jersey was $750,000 for a 1956 Brooklyn jersey, so $1.8mm blew that number out of the water. But this jersey was the unicorn to high end collectors because of #2 and 3 above, which frankly I don't fully understand in regards to Koufax jerseys.

I'll address #3 first. The "rookie" craze originally started with rookie cards. I understood that the theory back when it started was that we kids played with our cards (flipping them against walls or putting them in our bicycle spokes), damaging them, but you didn't use stars for these purposes. And rookies were expendable because we didn't know who they were, and thus years later were harder to find in good condition. Along the way, somehow the concept of a premium for rookie got applied to rookie jerseys, which makes no sense to me because all teams sent all jerseys down to their minor league teams for further use where they often underwent team name or number changes, or were lost or destroyed. So any jersey from that period stood the same chance of damage or disappearing. So why the premium for a "rookie" jersey just because it is a rookie jersey? Which leads me to #2 above.

Re #2 above. I also don't understand the premium placed on Brooklyn vs LA for Koufax. Sandy did absolutely nothing to help Brooklyn win the title in 1955. I get the "Brooklyn" premium for Snider or Hodges since they were at the tail end of their careers when the team moved to LA and most of their success was in Brooklyn. But to me, a Koufax jersey from Brooklyn, where he wasn't successful and contemplated quitting the game, is less desirable than one from his dominating years in LA 1961-66. It has been a while since one from these years has surfaced, but if it did, I imagine it wouldn't come close to the 1955 jersey sales price.

But I'm probably boring you.

Rick

[ichieh]

totally understand your rationale. What makes this space so great is that everyone has his/her own opinion on what to collect and what's important to him/her. I personally prefer the debut items, but I also see why people prefer memorabilia from the final or from the world series. Also, when it come to the unicorn, the big hitters will make the decision themselves so there is really no rhyme or rhythm on the final sold price. I personally place a lot of value on photo matching, but other collectors may pay more attention on the originality of the jersey than photo matching.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by rlevy

I think you are both correct in that prices are still higher than pre-covid, but have softened a bit lately. Still, hard to tell for sure because so few of these rare jerseys hit the market, unlike 1948 Leaf Jackie Robinson or 1952 Topps Mantle cards which are all over the place so easier to spot trends.

It is easiest for me to address the 1955 Koufax jersey as I follow his stuff more closely. It had four things going for it:
1. Koufax jerseys are extremely rare, probably around 10-12 all original jerseys have surfaced to this point.
2. Brooklyn jersey from their only championship year
3. Rookie jersey
4. Condition and originality

I believe the previous high for a Koufax jersey was $750,000 for a 1956 Brooklyn jersey, so $1.8mm blew that number out of the water. But this jersey was the unicorn to high end collectors because of #2 and 3 above, which frankly I don't fully understand in regards to Koufax jerseys.

I'll address #3 first. The "rookie" craze originally started with rookie cards. I understood that the theory back when it started was that we kids played with our cards (flipping them against walls or putting them in our bicycle spokes), damaging them, but you didn't use stars for these purposes. And rookies were expendable because we didn't know who they were, and thus years later were harder to find in good condition. Along the way, somehow the concept of a premium for rookie got applied to rookie jerseys, which makes no sense to me because all teams sent all jerseys down to their minor league teams for further use where they often underwent team name or number changes, or were lost or destroyed. So any jersey from that period stood the same chance of damage or disappearing. So why the premium for a "rookie" jersey just because it is a rookie jersey? Which leads me to #2 above.

Re #2 above. I also don't understand the premium placed on Brooklyn vs LA for Koufax. Sandy did absolutely nothing to help Brooklyn win the title in 1955. I get the "Brooklyn" premium for Snider or Hodges since they were at the tail end of their careers when the team moved to LA and most of their success was in Brooklyn. But to me, a Koufax jersey from Brooklyn, where he wasn't successful and contemplated quitting the game, is less desirable than one from his dominating years in LA 1961-66. It has been a while since one from these years has surfaced, but if it did, I imagine it wouldn't come close to the 1955 jersey sales price.

But I'm probably boring you.

Rick

Hi Rick,
Excellent analysis and FWIW, I couldn't agree with you more on what you shared with the others.

[Scott Garner]

xxx