game used cards

[Archive]

Posted By: rob

So did Topps really destroy a bat used by Johnny Evers and put the pieces into hundreds of cards?

Or is there another way to make these?

http://cgi.ebay.com/T206-TOPPS-2002-JOHN-EVERS-AUTHENTIC-GAME-USED-BAT-CARD_W0QQitemZ170283138316QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_SM _Sports_Cards?hash=item170283138316&_trksid=p3286. c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A 1318

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug

It sure seems like they did and they destroyed a jersey to make the other card in the picture.

[Archive]

Posted By: jdrum

we're taking their word for it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Has anyone ever tried to prove/disprove the validity of these cards? I cannot imagine in my wildest dreams, being the person that actually has to take a scissors to a Johnny Evers Jersey. What a gig that must be, and what's his/her job title... destroyer of sacred artifacts?

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Dango

UD and Topps reps have stated many times that they believe its better for a lot of people to have a piece of an artifact, rather than one rich person own it......

Card Companies are like Robin Hood i guess.....

[Archive]

Posted By: jdrum

Atilla the Hun depending on how you look @ it.

Actually I bet they could care less who owns it, they needed to come up with a gimmick to sell their over produced cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug

To quote Indiana Jones "That deserves to be in a museum!". To me that would be a better way for multiple people to enjoy it than running it through a wood chipper and handing out pieces stuck to cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

More like the card world Communism than Robin Hood...give everyone an equal sized swatch of the jersey so they can all be equally unhappy.

The historical significance of those bats and jerseys are lost once they are broken into pieces and I would much prefer that a rich collector own the entire artifact - at least it would be well cared for and remain as it was when used. I can understand cutting up modern jerseys or bats as those are plentiful and easily replenished - the companies could even contract with someone like Pujols to use 4 different bats in a game for them to put into cards.

I haven't purchased a single modern card since the "artifact" cards started popping up and don't intend to.

[Archive]

Posted By: Fred C

Has anyone looked at the little slivers of bats that were used? They could have made thousands of those cards from each bat. The same goes for the uniform swatches. Then you hear about limited production numbers and you have to wonder what happened to the rest of the bat/uniform. Someone has those items. You would have to hope that the pieces of the equipment were taken from the areas that would have the least impact on the artifacts. Those card companies would have been better off donating the equipment to some type of traveling museum if they wanted to let everyone enjoy the stuff. What a bunch of morons.... (just my opinion)

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

If they were worried about impact on the artifacts they never would have cut them up in the first place. They probably saved swatches of the "C" in Cubs for a Tinker/Evers/Chance Triple Jersey card.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

I hope that simple prudence or self-interest would keep the card companies from destroying actual game used bats and jerseys. When it comes to game used bats, I hope they are cutting up bats that might have been "game used" rather than those that were certain to have been in the hands of those players. In any case, I find the whole business contemptible. I would not want a piece of a bat that has been destroyed. I have a small collection of pre war bats, and I would rather lose them all than cut them up and keep a piece of each of them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve F

It's moronic how some collectors believe this to be a prudent practice. There should be one "winner" card, per item and the lucky one gets the entire shirt, bat whatever. Of course, it would have to be done in such a way, that corporate ends up dumping the stockpile, before word got out that there is a winner.

[Archive]

Posted By: Doug

I think it was upper deck that did that several years ago. There were entry cards for random game used items in certain packs that you mailed in and they drew a winner for the actual item. That certainly seems like a much better idea to me.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

thats the same as destroying a joe jackson bat or a ruth jersey. thats the crazy thing about the producer of cards they destroy history.

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Dango

cutting up relics is a bad idea....

however i dont think Pujols would sell out and use a different bat each time up just to fulfil a contract......the guy signs for his 5Foundation and gives all the money to charity...he also holds a non-alcoholic new years eve party for charity......a money grubber he is not.....

[Archive]

Posted By: ken McMillan

I suspect that game used actually means used in a major league game. Not necessarily one played in by the player on the card. Deceptive advertising in general but not completely a lie.

kmac

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Just because Pujols does charity work doesn't mean he would be against making an extra buck on the side...there would be nothing wrong with that and I don't see how it would be selling out.

I'm not sure how the companies go about getting the modern equipment but what makes sense is to send a "Topps Bat Guy" out to a ballpark once a year or so to contract with the players they want for a couple bats. During that game, simply have each player use a different bat the first two or three times up and there you have it...a couple game used bats with enough wood chips for everyone!

Anyway, the larger point of my post was that cutting up current jerseys/bats/etc is no big deal because they can always get some lightly used equipment or equipment worn specifically for the purpose of those insert cards, leaving plenty of whole equipment for the game used collectors out there.

Cutting up something that cannot be replaced, however, is disgusting.

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Ken,
I sincerely hope you are right...how great would it be if the bat in that Johnny Evers card was actually used Jerome Walton or Hector Villanueva? Hey, at least it is still a game used bat of a Cubs player!

[Archive]

Posted By: ken McMillan

Greg,

I would find it hard to believe that there would be enough of a bat used by Evers to make enough cards let alone to destroy a valuable artifact. Being a die hard Cub fan myself I still wouldn't mind getting a piece of bat used by any Cub player. Go Cubs Go!!!!! or as we said this year " No Cubs no".


Kmac

[Archive]

Posted By: joe

Ken, I think you are mistaken, these pieces are really the bats or uniforms from the players depicted as sad as it seems. Anything for the buck.

Joe

Ty Cobb, Spikes flying!

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

There is a great difference between the "professional model bat" and what can be called truly "game used" bat. The former would be the same model and roughly the same length and weight as bats that are known to have been used by the player. But the latter would have to match factory records exactly and, if possible, have some further provenance, like side-writing from the bat factory or a contemporary letter. I suspect that the card companies that carve up the bats are working with the more common professional model bats.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

How would you feel if you sent your gamer off to Mastro/REA/Lelands only to learn later that it was bought by Topps?

[Archive]

Posted By: ken McMillan

maybe we could DNA test for Evers on the bat remnant??? if the DNA fits, we must acquit

[Archive]

Posted By: Greg Ecklund

Dan,
I've had that exact thought. I won an Al Simmons gamer in one the earlier Mastro auctions before these "artifact" cards caught on. After seeing what Topps and Upper Deck are doing to these treasures, I put in my will that anyone inheriting my collection or whatever else I end up leaving cannot auction or sell that bat under any condition lest it fall into the hands of those SOBs.

I'm not planning on going anytime soon (I'm 28), so hopefully by the time I reach old age those artifact cards will have proven a fad and will be a bad, but distant memory. Regardless, I've tried to do my part to ensure that there will always be one "complete" Simmons gamer out there and I hope anyone else who owns bats or uniforms of other great players will do the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

It's my understanding that these relic cards are the real deal. Imagine the backlash from modern collectors if word got out that these relic cards were really from bogus sources and they were NOT genuine as advertised.

It is also my understanding that one of the big Card companies of today cut up a Babe Ruth bat not that long ago. There are two schools of thought here. The card companies claim that its better to allow mulitple collectors a chance at owning a piece of sports history vs just one collector and of course there are those of us who prefer the item to be left in tact even if it is stuck in a collector's closet for 100 years never to be seen by human eyes again..

marty

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

"maybe we could DNA test for Evers on the bat remnant???"

Crab juice?


"I have Mountain Dew and crab juice."

"EWWWWWWW. I'll have a crab juice."

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

They didn't just cut up a Babe Ruth bat. They also destroyed the oldest extant Ruth jersey, a home pinstripe from 1922. (The card company paid over $200k for the jersey, and had a well-publicized "first-cut" event at which Julia Ruth Stevens, Babe's granddaughter, took the first snip.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark L

The card companies who argue that it is better for hundreds of collectors to have a "piece of history" are blind if they can't tell the difference between a baseball bat and the material out of which the bat is made. Once the bat is broken down into pieces, it no longer exists. They are destroying the form of the bat, and the form is as much a part of the bat as is the material. You don't need to be Aristotle to see that this is destruction. The same argument could be made for every painting in the Smithsonian. Why not let every American have some great art in his or her home?

[Archive]

Posted By: Marty Ogelvie

Excellent points Mark...

marty

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Very true. That post evoked a mental image of Roberto Clemente standing at the plate, feebly trying to hit the ball using a wooden disc the size of a Necco Wafer.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

Of course, the card companies don't really "believe" that it's better that the great unwashed masses can now afford to own a "piece of history." They certainly didn't invent the "game=used memorabilia card" in order to provide that opportunity for the majority of us. This argument was presented by them to counter the criticism that they were destroying irreplaceable historic artifacts.

The only thing these companies actually believe--and they know this from experience==is that placing these cards randomly in packs results in larger sales; sales large enough to much more than pay for the game-used items which they destroy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

does anybody know how to get a George Brett "pine tar" bat card out of the holder?.....it's stuck!

[Archive]

Posted By: Stephen Mitchell

Hopefully my experience will provide some relief to those mortified at the thought that actual game-used bats of baseball greats have been cut up to provide novelty baseball cards.

More than 30 years ago I was in the home of a recently deceased major league ballplayer. His widow had a number of things she hoped would prove valuable to collectors. Among the items were several bats (I assume game-used) that her big league husband had acquired from his contemporaries. His intent had been to construct a coffee table or some such invention using the bats as legs. (It has been more than 3 decades ago and I may not have received the whole story.) In any event, there was lumber once owned by Jimmie Foxx, Ernie Lombardi and more - all Hall of Famers or at least journeymen stars. And the knobs were all cut off!

This scenario may provide at least some relief. Perhaps the bats chosen for bat cards were shattered or re-engineered sticks like these!

Finally, I would tend to agree with other posters who question the veracity of some of the manufacturers regarding the bats used in their bat cards. A certain politician wagged his finger and sounded pretty convincing - as did a former major league first baseman when testifying before a senate committee regarding his non-use of performance enhancing substances: Very convincing but untruthful in both cases.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ken McMillan

how about an OJ Simpson game used glove card. Would sell due to the notoriety.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steven Finley

If they didn't cut up such priceless relics, how could they justify charging $160 for a two pack box that you'd pull a Chan Ho Park Auto and a 1/5 Jim Edmonds "Patch" out of. It's a joke and it amazes me that they can change the color of a card and stamp 4/75 on the back and collectors go crazy. Then again it's probably the same collectors that hoarded Brien Taylor rookies back in the day.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

"How would you feel if you sent your gamer off to Mastro/REA/Lelands only to learn later that it was bought by Topps?" If it sold at a good price, not my problem nor would I care. After all, I sold it.

I am on the fence on this issue. On the one hand I am not at all impressed by the cards themselves as most have so little of the item on them that they don't carry any interest. On the other hand, most of these items end up on some rich guy's wall, not displayed for the public. Is tha really "better" than having a sliver on a card that you can own? IMO, doesn't matter to me since I won't own either. The only cut cards I think are cool are the autographed ones.

In historical context, the card makers are doing precisely what was done throughout the middle ages with purported holy relics. Many local churches held items alleged to be bones of saints, pieces of the cross, etc. People have always been fascinated with things touched or used by others whom they revere, whether the context is religion or entertainment or sport.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark Lutz

If given a choice between (1) seeing a Wagner bat ground up in little pieces and distributed to thousands of baseball card collectors or (2) knowing that such a bat is in the hands of a rich collector, I would prefer that the bat stay intact and go to the private collection. I suppose that there are some people who are so resentful that they would not care about the destruction of a rare and beautiful artifact as long as a rich guy didn't get to enjoy it, but I find it hard to believe that many baseball card collectors harbor such envious thoughts.



As for collecting relics of the saints (their finger bones, etc), that's ok with me since the bodies of the saints in question would have already begun falling apart.



Mark

Society for the Preservation of Baseball Bats

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Agree...

For those opposed to "rich guys" owning treasures such as this, nobody lives forever. Eventually, these sacred pieces will make their way back into the marketplace, museums, various exhibits, etc. Heirs and surviving family members have commonly parted with things like this. Much of the Halper stuff is out there, recirculating over and over. This is certainly a better alternative than carving up/attaching tiny fragments to a piece of meaningless cardboard.

I have even seen "sawdust" cards. Apparently (in some cases), card companies have saved the sawdust that fell to the ground, and were able to compress it into a modern card. I bet the Topps employee who thought of that one got a great performance review and a hefty corresponding raise that year.

[Archive]

Posted By: fkw

When are they going to cut up the Liberty Bell, Mona Lisa, or even George Washington's wooden teeth....?

I want a piece of them please.

[Archive]

Posted By: E, Daniel

Ok, so I understand completely the contempt most posters have shown for the practice of collecting/creating game used cards.........and I'm happy enough to out my enjoyment of them.
What's more, I ONLY like the rarer, older pieces for which there are likely many fewer survivors.
I won't try and justify it because honestly, if you don't get it the very first time you see one of these gorgeous pieces there is no convincing to be done. If it doesn't talk to you to have these 'slices' of history on your walls I can't conjur one for you.
I hear you all, and your explanations and distresses, but here's my take to explain my thinking:

There is a huge difference for me between articles of history that may be classified as art, or object d'art, including all and any such pieces that have been created to be enjoyed as such, or through their survival connected to history become art in themselves....... - AND, the tools used by the artisans to create these timeless images.
While historically interesting and visually arresting perhaps, for me the bat manufactured by H&B for the Babe to clobber one 400 ft was merely the instrument through which he painted that picture, and it was the image of the sailing spinning nature of the ball flying from home to the grandstands that was the art itself. The twisting of his hips, the arc his arms took, how far in front of the plate his bat was on contact, his timing, his ability to conquer to magnitude of the moment, all that and more is the art for me. The bat - its length, weight, pine tar coverage etc..., was a fairly small player in the overall snapshot for me
When it comes to then owning such an instrument, we are really talking THINGS here, often which held zero sentimentality to the artist themself as he/she saw himself as the true source and expression of the art. Not some stick replaced every 6 weeks or so to continue the 'painting'.
The only situation for me where this overall thinking fails is when only ONE example remains extant of said tool. At this point, an item like this can be truly considered art in the way an original painting is art and could be valued thus.

Me? If 100 paint brushes used by picasso are known to have survived, and a couple are broken up with a single horse hair used on a created card - I'd love to own one.
If one particular example of a Frank Lloyd designed home was demolished because the owner wanted to make that choice, and a small Lloyd patented/designed glass brick was available for sale and it pleased me - I'd buy one in a second.
Let me be truly heretical here. If Jesus really was a carpenter and his wood plane survived his parting, I would much rather a screw from it go to a diciple similarly interested in wood working than for the entire piece to be scooped up by some Pontius Pilate or King Herod and be the property of his amusement.

I know this thinking is odd, and to be truthful modern game used stuff like autos and jerseys worn once have absolutely no interest for me. They're common and to be honest quite cynically 'prepared' by a conspiracy between players and the card companies for the express purpose of squeezing money out of the pockets of collectors and into their grubby mitts. But where the surviving numbers of such memorabillia are sufficiently low as to make the item desirably scarce and historically significant, I can really fall for the right item.
And I refuse to feel ashamed of that enjoyment.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

As usual you elegantly state your case. One in which most of us, including myself, disagree with. ....best regards

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

But it isn't jealousy, resentment or anger or anything else in that vein that led me to make it. I truly am on the fence on the issue because I don't see how it is "better" that "someone" has the item in his or her collection versus a lot of "no-ones" having a sliver of it in theirs. I agree that museum pieces should be in museums for all to enjoy but if someone wants to buy a bat or jersey and hang it in his or her office, fine by me. Just don't get sanctimonious about how that is somehow "better" for the world. It isn't better or worse, just different. Look at the post above mine; what a great use of these cards to create a work of art to be proudly displayed!

The Liberty Bell and Mona Lisa are on public display, BTW, so not good analogies.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I meant to direct my anger for the philistines in the baseball card industry who destroy old memorabilia and did not mean to abuse those who find the cards appealing.

You make an interesting point about the difference between a work of art like a painting and a mere tool. You very reasonably say that there are different things that a ballplayer (or artist) uses in his craft and that the most important of these would be something internal, his distinctive mind or spirit, which is at least as important as his bodily skills and strength. But the bat (or brush)is far less distinctive and important to the player (artist). Thus, it is Babe Ruths determination, swing, and athleticism that makes him impressive and memorable, not the Louisville Slugger that he used when he swung. If this is what youre saying, it sounds reasonable to me.

So, I ask myself, why do I care about the bats? I think it is because the bat is not just any tool used in the players everyday life. The player selected the design of the bat and often personalized it. Swing a Heine Groh bat or a Ruth bat. Each one tells you something about the size of the player and even about what kind of hitters they were. Thus, the reason why I do not care about Larry Doyle's silverware or about Paul Waner's lawnmowers is that they probably dont say much the ballplayer himself. But their bats tell me a little something about what made these particular players the distinctive hitters that they were. On similar grounds, I bet it would be very interesting to compare Picasso's brushes with Monet's or with Titian's.

So, anyway, thanks for your thoughtful remarks because they helped me think some more about why I give a darn about this topic.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Besides cutting up history, another main problem with such insert cards is how quickly they can/will devolve into realms of questionable/poor taste. There are already "hair" cards out there (whitch really need to cut it out). Pretty soon we will see pieces of Elian Gonzalez' inner tube glued to a piece of the shiny stuff. What's next? Swatches of John the Baptist's shower curtains?

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Reading the old Becket board discussions amongst young people who like and collect these cards, there are issues of the cards sometimes being altered. For example, a dishonest collector switching a plain piece of jersey with a multi-colored part, as multi color swatches are more popular. Just as people post pics of Pre-War cards on this board asking if they are reprints, Becket posters would post pics of jersey cards asking if they had been tampered with. The cards they were posting about were of current players, ala Allen Iverson rather than Babe Ruth.