Jackie Robinson: The chicken or the egg?

[Topnotchsy]

I think that for some, the historical significance of the contract (the fact that in some ways it was the step that broke the color barrier) might increase its significance as compared to a jersey for Robinson's rookie season which is incredible, but does not have allure as a singular item.

I am also not sure it is fair to compare him to Ruth since I am pretty certain that the number of jerseys a player wore throughout a season was much higher when Robinson played than when Ruth did (I can't say this for sure, but I know that back in the 20's and 30's they went through very few uniforms... it would seem reasonable that by the late 40's they were using far more.)

[Shoeless Moe]

If I could have one......jersey.


He wore it game after game, through the taunts, on the field, stole bases, stole home, got pats on the back, sweat, bled, gave his all, played BASEBALL! Made History!

Contract....."sign here", done. Put it in the file cabinet.



NO BRAINER!

[Dave Grob]

Jeff,

Just so we are clear, I was not comparing a Ruth jersey to a Robinson jersey, hence my language of "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

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Dave Grob

Jeff,

Just so we are clear, I was not comparing a Ruth jersey to a Robinson jersey, hence my language of "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

Dave,

I definitely hear that and didn't intend to imply otherwise. I was just saying that if we use the Ruth as a starting point for consideration, I would think a Jackie contract carries more allure as a historical item, while a Jackie jersey a bit less due to their likely being more in existence.

That said, for me personally, I think I'd probably prefer the jersey.

[HolyGrail]

The photo of Robinson and Rickey is truly iconic.

1) How do folks feel about the $30 million insurance appraisal?

2) Does anyone want to make an argument for preferring to own the contract instead of the jersey?

[Bestdj777]

Originally Posted by HolyGrail

The photo of Robinson and Rickey is truly iconic.

1) How do folks feel about the $30 million insurance appraisal?

2) Does anyone want to make an argument for preferring to own the contract instead of the jersey?

The contract is important for the impact it had on baseball. It is what broke the color barrier and its significance far exceeds that of the player himself. The jersey's importance is tied to the caliber of the player. If I was a Jackie Robinson collector my money would go to the jersey all day, every day. I'm not, so my preference would be for the more significant hobby-related item.

[71buc]

I would prefer the contract. I also think it's sad that either of these American Treasures could wind up in a private collection. The contract belongs in the National Civil Rights Museum and the Jersey in the Smithsonian. Such precious artifacts should belong to us all as citizens.

[Dave Grob]

Chris,

Interesting and defendable position that the significance of the contract as an act, trancends the signifcance of the player (any player). Not to put words in your mouth (or strokes on your key board), but that is what I took from your post.

Dave Grob

[Cmount76]

I'm a collector and I proudly display as much as I have space for - That said, a 1947 Jackie Robinson jersey displays a whole helluva lot cooler than a contract.