Glove Get Together - National - Baltimore Orioles Game

[GloveCrazy]

Thanks for the updates and the hard work at the National. I laughed when you said that you had promised yourself not to buy anything because that's one of those nearly impossible to keep promises (like no sweets for a year). Opportunities just come up when you are there early and as a dealer. Now let's see some more pictures!

[vintagebrett]

I do have a couple more pictures that I'll try to get up tomorrow. As for photos of my purchases, my camera broke today and after 3 hours on the phone with Canon, I should have a new one Thursday. Two of my purchases are with Dr. Peebles but I'll make sure to share the one I have here.

It's definitely difficult not to buy anything because I consider myself a collector, not a dealer. Luckily, some of the other items I liked were out of my price range so I didn't have to worry about them. We had some people bring stuff to the booth to sell but it wasn't anything we were interested in. Everyone in our booth did buy something for their collection so we all went home happy.

[Number9]

Yeah, what Brett said

Had an absolute blast working the booth and hanging with fellow collectors. I really can't say enough about the quality people in our hobby. Truly top notch in all regards. Being able to spend the week with some of the top collectors (though, at their level they should be called curators), was outstanding. I couldn't ask for any more. Thanks again guys!

It's especially nice to see the way kids look at the gloves. Some got a little carried away with the fist pounding, which made for some tense moments, but all in all it was really fun. I'd estimate that vintage equipment represented around 5-10% of the show. Sounds small and insignificant but there was a lot of excitement in and around those booths. In a sea of sameness, the gloves stick out.

Regarding the white gloves, or any gloves really, the consensus was that over-cleaning or over-restoring is not only bad for the glove, but also bad for the hobby. There is a finite amount of this stuff out there so anything that is not in the best interest of preservation is really harmful in the long run. The topic came up a few times with various collectors who felt that the integrity of the item was diminished when it's history had been deleted. I tend to lean in the direction of originality. If we were talking silver, I'd say don't polish it. If we were talking furniture, I'd say don't sand it. There are guidelines in every market, and they all vary, but within the equipment niche, the value seems to be in honest use, or conversely, in it's extreme lack of use. In short, people want to see antique finishes on their antiques and the feeling was that the bright whites of gloves are being pushed too far back and crossing the line into something that is detrimental. To give a frame of reference, a bright white glove should have a nearly flawless lining and solid piping, otherwise, the finishes are uneven and not consistent with it's use.

Here's a photo of us with Bill Simmons, aka the Sports Guy. From left, Brett, Bill Simmons, me, Travis. Nothing like having your photo taken when you're surrounded by giants.

[GloveCrazy]

Sounds like it was a lively conversation. I guess I’m a little surprised that this was such a hot topic given that we’ve been debating cleaning versus not, relacing versus not, and re lining versus not for years. Maybe it’s that the use of abrasives has grown. I agree in general that a glove should be consistent or it looks odd, but I view this as a case-by-case thing rather than potentially damaging to the hobby.

To me, it’s all about personal preference. I really don’t think gloves will ever get to the point where a Doak original with broken web lacing and a layer of chewing tobacco on the front sells for more than a lightly cleaned and relaced one, and I’d bet the farm it won’t get to that point on a 40s Doak H. I personally would prefer that a non abrasive cleaner and old looking lacing -- or better yet period lacing -- be used, and that the buttons aren’t very shiny, but the world doesn’t end if the lacing isn’t a good match (I’d change it).

I do think the really early stuff is probably there already, where originals are more valuable even with defects. I personally feel a lot stronger about the debate as it relates to the really old.

1” webs and full webs seem to be in that grey area, but not really. Because there is no scarcity other than maybe the real tough names, I lean again to personal preference. I’ve seen far too many ugly ducklings cleaned into near swans to suggest a hands-off policy, and I’ve rarely seen valuations dip on something that someone has put time into (regardless of method). I admit, though, that I’ve seen some abrasion “success stories” that I have preferred the original old time look (love those old-time-look faded-bomber jacket-looking gloves). If the owner likes it more than that’s really what matters most, and beauty is very subjective.

I do think it is sound advice to tell people to not go overboard on paying for inconsistent looking gloves, or that there may be some upside to all-originals (the real swans) now and in the future. I also think it’s good general advice to cleaners to keep within the parameters of original and consistent looking. Leaving a little dirt on abrasion projects, not shining the buttons or overly-cleaning the labels will be preferred by some (and maybe most down the road).

Just my two cents.

[murphusa]

Once in a while it would be nice of you to give us a few dollars

[stockbuddy]

Rob,

Good thoughts and your two cents seem well spent. I totally agree with you. A cleaning in moderation can even help preserve what is left of the old glove friend. At first thought, I wished all my gloves to be like new and pristine as the day they came to a sporting goods store from the company. But, with a second thought I think it seems cool that many of my gloves have been owned and played with by some individual and that glove became an extension of that person. With that said, I can't stand ink on a glove. I am sure I placed my name on my glove too to establish ownership of my 3.00 glove as a kid. LOL A clean glove with moderate dirt can go a long way to reflect the old gloves heritage and still keep it on the shelf for display. JMHO

Dave

[vintagebrett]

Here is a video from the National - very well done.

http://vimeo.com/13994568

[Number9]

Rob, I think we're on the same page. My feelings were focused on the early stuff as that's what I like and collect. Cleaning is fine, I've cleaned 90% of the gloves that have come through my hands, but there is a difference between removing surface dirt and removing surface. The former is part of regular care and maintenance and the latter is taking it too far, in my opinion. I think that as the hobby grows, and it will, the original or lightly worked examples will carry a large premium.

[vintagebrett]

I think we are all on the same page - if you go back, you'll see I specifically mentioned white gloves - that is where most of our discussion centered when it relates to cleaning.

Back to the National, I received a call from a nice young gentleman today who purchased some gloves at the show and wants more. Here's hoping that more people who picked up a glove continue their pursuit of the hobby. If you get Old Cardboard, make sure to check out today's eNewsletter - John's book is featured. The gentleman who run that publication (they also did the video I posted above) were very friendly and did a great job writing about John's book.

[GloveCrazy]

Yes, it sounds like many of us are on the same page for the most part regarding general maintenance, and appreciation for non touched originals. The discussion seemed like it was starting to expand beyond using abrasives on white gloves, though, and with the consensus among collectors tag I thought it was good to get further clarification (though I suppose it probably should be in the cleaning section).

To be honest, I still don't have clarification yet (wish I could have been there for the debate, especially if beer was involved). Are we really saying that someone shouldn't buy a $45 1920s dried up glove/mitt on ebay that nobody else wants and use magic eraser, etc. to "upgrade" it to a glove that many people want? I absolutely understand the argument about retaining history, and agree on many levels for the most part, but if that's what we are saying than I come down on the other side. I think there is something actually regal about restoring a lower tier non scarce glove into something that is appreciated. Just like there is with old bats or cars. I think we all understand that it will never be as valuable, and you don't have to buy it or trade for it if you don't like it, but I think that's different from suggesting that others shouldn't do it (not directed at any individual). Restoring gloves is what got me hooked.

By the way, I don't even like fast orange on more modern gloves because it is too abrasive for me, have probably as many untouched oldies in my displays as anybody, and trade for some of these restored gloves from time-to-time but prefer originals, but those are my preferences.

That video was great -- and you guys came off real well -- thanks for sharing!

[okdoak]

Agree with Rob and am thinking that we have two schools of thought as far as "preservation" is concerned when it comes to gloves. Collectors who look at a glove as an artifact and a time capsule of the past would like to leave it untouched. I can understand that esp. with the very early ones. If I could add a few zeroes to my pay stub and afford game used gloves, I wouldn't think of cleaning one. For all I know the dirt on it may have come from the Polo Grounds or Navin Field. Other collectors like myself, see a glove as a functional tool (albeit a beautiful one in many cases) and like the feel of a baseball in its pocket at times. They don't function well when they are dried up and coated in grime. Done right, the difference in the suppleness of the leather can be amazing after proper cleaning and conditioning. I have heard that it also preserves the leather that we are so fond of. Maybe I'd like to try to remove that black oil deposit in the pocket. What did they use back then before lanolin based conditioners? Neatsfoot? Sewing machine oil? Drain oil from the old man's Model T? Not sure if that's considered washing history away; I'm just glad when that crud is gone. And if I want to see what a shiny new Goldsmith or Rawlings Shield button looks like, I will damn well polish it, esp. if I retrieved it from the under $45 bargain bin on ebay that Rob mentioned. And if I do offer to sell it or trade it, curators and artifact collectors can express their disdain in this way: Don't Buy It!
I'm also interested in what constitutes a consensus. 3 opinions by like minded collectors? 30? 300? Even if there were a lot of collectors at the National, I'm betting that there were just as many who didn't make it there. How do you know that those opinions (and to me that's all they are, same as whether you prefer green over blue) reflect that of glove collectors as a whole?

[Rickybulldog]

Rob and Greg, I totally agree with what you said in the last 2 posts. Interesting points and I have enjoyed reading them. I think my first reaction to the whole cleaning thing was confusion because I thought fixing/cleaning up gloves is what many of us love to do (as someone already stated). I think the most difficult thing for me to agree with is that these “cleaned” white gloves are difficult to pass on because “collectors” are not going to trade or buy them from you.
I don’t think this is true at all.
Needing examples, I went over to the vintagebaseballglovecollector website and looked under white sewn webs (which over 70% have been cleaned in some way) and copied a few. Here are a couple examples of gloves I know that have been cleaned by different collectors. These gloves are no longer with their original owners/cleaners and are probably keepers for the people who purchased them or traded for them. I am also certain that these owners would have a pretty high demand for them if they were available. Needless to say, I’m all about polishing a diamond in the rough and if the glove has the potential go for it!

[ebbets55]

Brett, thank you for posting this controversial but enlightening topic. I love the fact that you swatted a hornet’s nest with this post as I love a good discussion from all sides but this one seems to have gotten way off-topic. I’m not sure of any consensus anymore as this has gotten out of control and after being told by others to re-read it a couple of times with a fresh perspective, I can see how people would be upset. I was part of one of the conversations, and I’m sure there were many others over the course of the week that I wasn’t a party to, but the one I remember was not heavy handed and not meant to single anyone out and no names were thrown around so I sure hope no one tries to read anything more into the discussion because it was just that, a discussion. Everyone has different thoughts and opinions and I respect that, we all do. But, I can see how it comes across differently than it really did. White gloves were in the booth, white gloves were being sold on the floor and white gloves were being bought. Naturally the discussion started about should this one be cleaned, and if so, how? Everyone had a different opinion.

I have gloves I will never touch. I like them original, dirty and just the way they are. I am, however, a big proponent and fan of cleaning white gloves because I like the way they look when they are cleaned. Some people do and some people don’t. I’m cool with that. To each his own. If I’m going to keep it, then why the hell would I care what anyone else thinks? I’m going to make it look how I like it. The original controversy wasn’t sell or keep, original or restored or more value or less value. It was cleaning technique - abrasive vs. non-abrasive. I’ve tried both and have obtained much better results with a non-abrasive approach. Decide for yourself below. Some gloves have crusty spots on them and I would rather take them off than leave them on (personal preference), thus the abrasive approach wins. Some gloves have oil stains and water doesn’t mix with oil so abrasive wins again. When a glove is just dingy, the non-abrasive approach wins every time.

Take my G41 for example. This glove was filthy when I got it. This glove never saw a grinder, magic-eraser, sandpaper, suede brush or anything else. As you can see, I chose to leave the center dark as a personal reminder of what it used to look like and the week-long grueling process it took me to clean it. Some people may hate that dark spot. So! I don’t care. I do. I can take it off whenever I want but since it’s mine, and I like it that way, I won’t.

Clean your gloves however you want or don’t. We have all messed up a glove or two and that’s how we learned and got better. Just go easy on them.

JD

[ebbets55]

I cleaned these years ago. Which ones came out better?

[Number9]

Well said JD, and nicely illustrated.

There was more than one conversation about this topic last week, only one took place with the entire group and that was at dinner on Tuesday night. Jerry showed the results of his recent cleaning project, JD and I then discussed what worked and didn't work in his (and my own limited) experience. Personally, I like to brush a white glove off with a detail brush and call it a day. JD is clearly more inclined to go deeper. I was intrigued and pressed him for details. The techniques and the gloves in question are shown in JD's photos above. Beyond that, it was just general chatter in the booth and on the floor. When more than one person outside the group mentions it, it becomes a recurring topic. A couple of examples come to mind. To illustrate, imagine your most disappointing ebay purchase. For me, it was a white glove that looked great in photos, and like fried hell in person. As a result, I will no longer buy a white glove based on photos alone unless it looks untouched. That same sentiment was expressed by a customer in our booth last week. He was very excited to be at the National because it's the only time this year that he can physically handle the gloves that he wants to purchase. When a customer, someone I don't know, tells me "I don't buy white gloves on ebay, I've only been disappointed", that says something. Another customer said of a different glove, "I'm glad that it hasn't been aggressively cleaned" (this glove wasn't white). Those are two quick examples of maybe a half dozen, but there was a trend forming in this direction, in my mind at least. It was not slam-fest, nor was it directed at anyone. The intent, I believe, was to inform the board of what people were saying. When customers say that that they won't buy aggressively cleaned gloves, that's limiting the market. Now, are there other collectors to take that person's place? Probably? Maybe? Who the hell knows. The point is, that vintage surface is one of the things that people were talking about in vintage baseball equipment. If you're a full-time/part-time/sometimes seller, (that's most of us) you should know what the market is saying. Plain and simple. If you're only a collector with the intent be buried with your treasures, go nuts with the 60 grit. No one will see it but you, and if it makes you happy, all the better. But for the benefit of those who sell, knowing what people are saying is beneficial, to say the least.

In closing, to anyone who feels slighted or singled out, that was not the intention. I for one, extend my apologies if you were.

I think the best solution is for everyone to make plans to attend next years National and have a beer together. Brett, you're on your own with the iced tea.

Good night.