My pick up thread

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Won't be asking for help. Just gonna start posting my pick ups to my friends on here. I don't expect many ooooh and ahhhs, I just want to share my collection with the people on here who actually care.

Todays pick up...

Game used baseball from the July 13th 1950 Dodgers Game @ Wrigley.

Could Jackie have touched or played with this ball? Who knows... but it's really sweet.

[vintagesportscollector]

Congrats Stephen, nice pick up and thanks for sharing. We look forward to seeing more from you. We do have a monthly pick-up thread so you should post your pickups there, like the rest of us do. Not trying to be critical or poke you, just reminding you of the pick-up thread.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by vintagesportscollector

Congrats Stephen, nice pick up and thanks for sharing. We look forward to seeing more from you. We do have a monthly pick-up thread so you should post your pickups there, like the rest of us do. Not trying to be critical or poke you, just reminding you of the pick-up thread.

Thanks. I have a lot coming so I think it'll be best to keep this thread as to not overload the other.

[njdunkin1]

Originally Posted by vintagesportscollector

Congrats Stephen, nice pick up and thanks for sharing. We look forward to seeing more from you. We do have a monthly pick-up thread so you should post your pickups there, like the rest of us do. Not trying to be critical or poke you, just reminding you of the pick-up thread.

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Thanks. I have a lot coming so I think it'll be best to keep this thread as to not overload the other.

Great pickup, Stephen
I wanted to pipe in to agree with Joe here--the monthly pickup threads are just for this sort of thing. Overloading them (within reason ) with cool pickups is totally okay and encouraged. I would wholeheartedly recommend the use of this!
Cheers,
NJ

[perezfan]

Agree.... Just post them on the pickup thread, and all eyes will see them. Those threads are among the most viewed on net54, and get tons of hits.

You cannot overload it.... if everyone posted their own personal pickup thread, now that would be an overload!

Great Ball, BTW... Nice pickup

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by perezfan

... if everyone posted their own personal pickup thread, now that would be an overload!

Great Ball, BTW... Nice pickup

^^^^^^ this

[murphusa]

Post away and be proud of what you have collected. Lots of others do it in their own threads here. Just know that at times you won't get a pat on the back for your pick ups

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by murphusa

Post away and be proud of what you have collected. Lots of others do it in their own threads here. Just know that at times you won't get a pat on the back for your pick ups

Thanks Jim. Will do.

[JoeyFarino]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Thanks Jim. Will do.

I say making your own personal thread is a Awesome way to share your own individual pick-ups. Some people choose to post in the pick-up thread but do what makes you happy. The cool thing about posting your own thread is you know its just your stuff and can easily come back and reference a certain item if you need to without having to go through other peoples items to find it. Some people may have a issue with it and when they do just comment with a smiley face and keep posting...lol

[frankbmd]

The ball correctly identifies the score of the game on July 13, 1950 despite the date of July 14, 1950 on the ball itself. Why? I haven't a clue.

In the game on the thirteenth Robinson appears to have played the whole game and was credited with 3 putouts and 4 assists. He also as the second baseman would have participated in throwing the ball around the infield after infield outs, which would have allowed him to touch more game balls than those he fielded.

On the other hand a new ball entering the game conceivably could have been fouled off into the seats during the first at bat for that ball in which case Robinson would not have touched it. The ball looks like it received a bit of a beating, but when that occurred (during the game or after) is unknown.

In the game on the 14th of July, which Brooklyn won 1-0, Robinson also played the full game, but did not record any chances in the field. He still would have been a participant in tossing the ball around the horn after after infield outs though and also receiving throws from right and center field.

Another question, since the game score and date do not match, is why don't they match. The writing on the ball could have been done by the original recipient. Perhaps he caught a foul ball at Wrigley on the 13 th and wrote on the ball the next day looking at a calendar. Who knows? One would think that if the ball was entirely bogus, which I doubt, that whoever wrote on the ball later, with an intent to deceive, would not have made such an error. I see no advantage in terms of ball value to memoralizing either of the games in question with such an inscription, correctly or incorrectly.

Finally I wonder if forensic analysis using DNA testing has ever been used to determine who has touched which (or whose) balls. Also could DNA testing be used as an adjunct in autograph authentication?

Several years ago I had the opportunity to photograph a dual signed ball by Ruth and Gehrig. I confess to handling the ball without white gloves. On that ball I suspect that my DNA is there on the leather with the DNA of both Babe and Lou.

Given the arguments presented above one cannot say for sure, but it would seem more likely than not that Jackie touched your ball, if in fact that ball was in Chicago during July of 1950.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The ball correctly identifies the score of the game on July 13, 1950 despite the date of July 14, 1950 on the ball itself. Why? I haven't a clue.

In the game on the thirteenth Robinson appears to have played the whole game and was credited with 3 putouts and 4 assists. He also as the second baseman would have participated in throwing the ball around the infield after infield outs, which would have allowed him to touch more game balls than those he fielded.

On the other hand a new ball entering the game conceivably could have been fouled off into the seats during the first at bat for that ball in which case Robinson would not have touched it. The ball looks like it received a bit of a beating, but when that occurred (during the game or after) is unknown.

In the game on the 14th of July, which Brooklyn won 1-0, Robinson also played the full game, but did not record any chances in the field. He still would have been a participant in tossing the ball around the horn after after infield outs though and also receiving throws from right and center field.

Another question, since the game score and date do not match, is why don't they match. The writing on the ball could have been done by the original recipient. Perhaps he caught a foul ball at Wrigley on the 13 th and wrote on the ball the next day looking at a calendar. Who knows? One would think that if the ball was entirely bogus, which I doubt, that whoever wrote on the ball later, with an intent to deceive, would not have made such an error. I see no advantage in terms of ball value to memoralizing either of the games in question with such an inscription, correctly or incorrectly.

Finally I wonder if forensic analysis using DNA testing has ever been used to determine who has touched which (or whose) balls. Also could DNA testing be used as an adjunct in autograph authentication?

Several years ago I had the opportunity to photograph a dual signed ball by Ruth and Gehrig. I confess to handling the ball without white gloves. On that ball I suspect that my DNA is there on the leather with the DNA of both Babe and Lou.

Given the arguments presented above one cannot say for sure, but it would seem more likely than not that Jackie touched your ball.

Frank I think your crazy just went up to 38.02%. With your amazing research it is possible someone took an old ball and looked up a score and forgot that the date on the newspaper is not the same day the game was played. I have no comment on who touched any ball(s).

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by bnorth

Frank I think your crazy just went up to 38.02%. With your amazing research it is possible someone took an old ball and looked up a score and forgot that the date on the newspaper is not the same day the game was played. I have no comment on who touched any ball(s).

Asked and answered in paragraph 5.

[Republicaninmass]

Ebay return!

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Just in...

Haven't seen one of these before. 1927.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

The ball correctly identifies the score of the game on July 13, 1950 despite the date of July 14, 1950 on the ball itself. Why? I haven't a clue.

In the game on the thirteenth Robinson appears to have played the whole game and was credited with 3 putouts and 4 assists. He also as the second baseman would have participated in throwing the ball around the infield after infield outs, which would have allowed him to touch more game balls than those he fielded.

On the other hand a new ball entering the game conceivably could have been fouled off into the seats during the first at bat for that ball in which case Robinson would not have touched it. The ball looks like it received a bit of a beating, but when that occurred (during the game or after) is unknown.

In the game on the 14th of July, which Brooklyn won 1-0, Robinson also played the full game, but did not record any chances in the field. He still would have been a participant in tossing the ball around the horn after after infield outs though and also receiving throws from right and center field.

Another question, since the game score and date do not match, is why don't they match. The writing on the ball could have been done by the original recipient. Perhaps he caught a foul ball at Wrigley on the 13 th and wrote on the ball the next day looking at a calendar. Who knows? One would think that if the ball was entirely bogus, which I doubt, that whoever wrote on the ball later, with an intent to deceive, would not have made such an error. I see no advantage in terms of ball value to memoralizing either of the games in question with such an inscription, correctly or incorrectly.

Finally I wonder if forensic analysis using DNA testing has ever been used to determine who has touched which (or whose) balls. Also could DNA testing be used as an adjunct in autograph authentication?

Several years ago I had the opportunity to photograph a dual signed ball by Ruth and Gehrig. I confess to handling the ball without white gloves. On that ball I suspect that my DNA is there on the leather with the DNA of both Babe and Lou.

Given the arguments presented above one cannot say for sure, but it would seem more likely than not that Jackie touched your ball.

WHOA great research. Thanks for the input. This is definitely my coolest dodger/jackie piece so far. I would never sell this, but what would you value this piece at?

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

WHOA great research. Thanks for the input. This is definitely my coolest dodger/jackie piece so far. I would never sell this, but what would you value this piece at?

Without provenance I would say just a bit more than a generic Ford Frick ball, about $125 - 150.

[Shoeless Moe]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Ebay return!

sorry, but that was hilarious!

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

sorry, but that was hilarious!

I know he's real funny. What a nice guy.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by vintagesportscollector

Without provenance I would say just a bit more than a generic Ford Frick ball, about $125 - 150.

Please do not interpret any of my (research??) post as a Certificate of Authenticity of the Frickin' ball.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

How many Brooklyn Dodger stubs do you think someone has from 47-56? What would be your guesses. I was wondering if there is someone else out there with a lot that people know of. I'm up to just over 250.

[Enfuego]

Sharing is caring "the pickup thread"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Just got this bad boy in thanks to a buddy on the forum.

This is going to go great with my Robinson pins.

[khkco4bls]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Just got this bad boy in thanks to a buddy on the forum.

This is going to go great with my Robinson pins.

glad you like it steve.. put the pins on and take a pic.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by khkco4bls

glad you like it steve.. put the pins on and take a pic.

As close as I'm gonna get without messing it up haha

Still have a few more pins to add.

[irv]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

As close as I'm gonna get without messing it up haha

Still have a few more pins to add.

Very nice, Stephan!

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by irv

Very nice, Stephan!

Thanks brother!!!

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Just got in this Joe Adcock 4 HR game ticket stub with the original scoring from a baseball writer that was at the game. Also came with these clippings.

[RedsFan1941]

I do not know anything about Brooklyn tickets. Other than the PSA flip, what about the ticket stub identifies it as being from that particular game?

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by RedsFan1941

I do not know anything about Brooklyn tickets. Other than the PSA flip, what about the ticket stub identifies it as being from that particular game?

There is not much from this ticket that can tell. What was given to PSA was undisputed evidence as it was part of a whole ledger from a sports writer. Included was receipts from original purchase of seats. It was part of a huge collection from one guy that kept meticulous records from each game.