Does anyone actually have any interest in something like this?

[barrysloate]

I can't speak for everyone, but I wasn't trying to suggest that destroying a Ty Cobb bat was a sign of the Apocalypse. And I respect Adam's distinction between privately and publicly held relics. But I do think it is a cheesy marketing ploy, and it's disheartening to think that 2000 collectors would actually enjoy owning a splinter from the bat.

The next time they dismantle a vintage Mercedes SL350 with the gull wings, I got first dibs on the lug nuts. I know the enjoyment I will get owning that.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's a Splendid Splinter.

[JP]

I was trying to one-up that...but I got stuck on "Chip off the old block" and then realized if it was a Ruth bat that "Babe in the Wood(s)" worked better....I got nothin'....too tired.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's a Splendid Splinter.

Now why didn't I think of that?

[glynparson]

Just add it to the list of questionable decesions made by the modern card investors.

[glynparson]

I would rather have all the bats kept whole and in private collections where I never see any of them. Then getting to see a little piece of wood. To me that's all it is once it has been cut up. It is no longer a bat or broken bat it is know just a splinter of wood. I don't think this practice should be illegal but that doesn't mean I have to think it is the right thing to do.

[Rich Klein]

With a small (I'll call them a focus group) group of SABR people at the 1st Deadball conference in 2002. Almost to a person, and understand they were not collectors, but had a fascination with the history of baseball, they were not against this process, providing two caveats

1) As long as not the ONLY or the LAST known example. For example (and my math may be a little bit off here), A Babe Ruth bat because it was so large, might produce 1,500 bat pieces that can fit on cards. Babe Ruth bats are reasonably available and cutting one up for this purpose is not going to affect the values very much of a full bat. In addition, you might be able to get younger collectors more interested in the greats of the past.

A case such as the Georges Vezina goalie pads being cut up (when they were the only ones known) was a good publicity move for ITG but a terrible blow to history.


2) If said bat or jersey was historically significant. For example, a bat the Babe used on an August day which broke without any homers coming off that bat, etc is frankly not as historically signiificant as the one he hit #60 in 1927 with. Historically significant artifacts should not be tampered with.

Regards
Rich

[Peter_Spaeth]

Did Donruss provide information about the provenance of this bat? If not, why in this day and age of rampant fraud would anyone assume it is what it purports to be?

[Orioles1954]

What Donruss did on most products from this era was to take pictures, purportedly of the bats from which the slivers were taken and put that on the back of the card. By the way, for the most part "bat cards" have gone the way of the dinosaur in the modern hobby. Only a couple of issues have them inserted at all. Most modern card collectors fall into two themes 1.) "prospect" collectors or 2.) "retro" themed collectors.