Vintage Baseball Glove Forum

Stay the hell away from anything game used! There is no way of knowing that a particular player actually used an item or not. It all rests in the provenance/story (i.e. tall tale) of the seller. You and I both know that you can't trust any memorabilia dealer!

When someone sees my collection, someone involved in th ehobby or not, the first question is if the glove was used by a particular player. I have no problem emphatically saying "no". Does this news highlighting a glove, though it may be negative, help bring attention to vintage gloves? I'd say so. What do you think?




http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/2 ... 35618.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/nyreg ... h-lie.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cal ... -1.1104414

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/28/ca ... -20-years/

I sent a couple of those links to JD earlier today for his "Gloves in the News" blog, and, although I agree its not "good news", it does bring some attention to this collecting genre.

I guess what I thought of most when I saw the story was that someone, who didn't know what they were doing, got taken for an awful lot of money. I say that only to say this...I've noticed an awful lot of new collectors joining up here over the past year or so and think its great for all of us and the hobby as a whole. That being said, I would stress to them that it is critical to learn the hobby inside and out so that stories like this are not repeated.

I can't help but to think of the Ken-Wel handball mitt that sold for like $800 a few months back...a new and/or uneducated collector somewhere presumably ended up with it. What's more, that wasn't even being passed off in the same grande way that this "Ruth" glove was! If it had a BS backstory that poor buyer would likley have paid more.

The last thing I ever want or need to see is somebody filling some sort of "glove authentication gap" that gets created as a result of stuff like this. This is a GREAT hobby and one that I feel so very fortunate to be a part of now for the past 23 years. ONLY an educated collecting body will keep it as such for a long time to come.

JP
http://www.dugouttreasures.com

And it is a good thing that people here will help out others and try to lead them on the right path.

That said, I have been in the homes of some very knowledgable collectors and have seen bad stuff in their collections.

In this case though, how can you feel sorry for someone who spent $200,000 for something with out doing due diligence

As you all must know I agree with Jerry "Mr. Mitt" in principle as we battle this problem. I "help" authenticate purported game used gloves for several sources. I believe that the use of "unable to authenticate" should be given out far more often than it has in the past, esp. by one authentication house. I think grading from low grades to higher grades is a sound idea. But the grading should be emphasized by the seller and not just say "authenticated by". In many instances on game gloves it cannot be disproved that the glove wasn't used. The authenticator should give "unable" or a very low grade. I recently looked at a reputed Jackie Robinson gamer that could not be proven, though it was a top grade Rawlings 1940s glove (given to another Negro Leaguer after Jackie left the Kansas City Monarchs). I turned down a Willie Keeler (wrong hand). Mike Tinney and I discussed the Worth "Wambsganss gamer used for the W Series triple play glove as being very iffy. Image matching, especially as you go further back in time become more difficult with the grainy, dim black and white photos and the fact that most gloves are not turned in a way to detect any distinctive markings.
Too bad we didn't see this atrocious Babe Ruth game glove sooner to help someone out. And I'm not surprised there was a Las Vegas connection at one time. We have good information on the Ruth gloves especially with the Draper Maynard history of his use there. Game used bats is a much easier prospect as Hillerich & Bradsby, who furnished 80% to 90% of the major league bats. kept meticulous records and available book sources are out there as well. Gloves were purchased by the players themselves for years or given two a year under contract with no record of these from the glove companies available.
Dennis Esken and Dave Grob do meticulous studies of potential gamers and both are reliable if given a task. There is a large shift of buyers seeking modern day players gloves and that has turned out to be a niche of its own.
I wrote an article for Sports Collectors Digest on the difficult of evaluating just the 1950s gloves. I will be glad to reset that story for those who are interested.
In short, provenance doesn't go very far but it can be helpful. Images can help (A Lefty Grove glove sold in Hunt's Auction was the best I'd seen on this several years ago), grading would help but only if used in the correct way by the seller. We all know the problem with autographs and fakes, forgeries and opinions that abound in that hobby.

I don't think it will affect people's perceptions of the glove hobby. It's a guy doing something stupid. I do love the inane stories people concoct to move these items. I'm with murph on the buyer though. As a wise man once said "If you're dumb enough to eat it, you deserve to die."

As for grading/authenticating, I don't get the nummerical grades. It's either authentic or it's not. If you don't have any proof to verify, it should be not authentic or unable to authenticate. Simple as that. The whole number system that they use for game used bats is silly. It's just a cash grab designed to attract people who want to buy the number/letter rather than the item itself, very similar to the card grading game.

I couldn't get past the picture of the glove and the fact that it is for a right handed thrower. Neither one of these idiots, the seller and the buyer, knew that the Babe was a southpaw?! I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Ruth was ambidextrous; he used a right handed catcher's mitt at St. Mary's (evidently it was the only one they had) and he signed baseballs with his right hand in pictures I've seen. But has anyone ever seen a picture of him with a glove on his left hand?

Up until the mid 60's catholic schools turned all lefts into writing with their right hands

okdoak wrote:I couldn't get past the picture of the glove and the fact that it is for a right handed thrower. Neither one of these idiots, the seller and the buyer, knew that the Babe was a southpaw?!

Ha! I overlooked that! My first thought was that the glove isn't early enough to be from the late 19th century, not whether it was a correct hand glove. Sometimes we miss the obvious!

jpop43 wrote:I can't help but to think of the Ken-Wel handball mitt that sold for like $800 a few months back...a new and/or uneducated collector somewhere presumably ended up with it. What's more, that wasn't even being passed off in the same grande way that this "Ruth" glove was!

I was contacted by the winner of that handball mitt well after the auction ended. He has a deep collection and is not a newbie by any means, but he does not do his homework, is not involved on this board nor contacts other collectors on a regular basis. He was showing it off and bragging about it and I had to break the bad news to him. He, as well as others, are prideful and will not seek help as to indicate their knowledge does not match the money they throw at their collection. Furthermore, people don't seek help before making a purchase or bidding in fear of alerting others to a glove they might otherwise have missed. They'd rather try to get a lower price by not asking others and having them swoop in and buy it from under them.

Speaking of getting a good deal, another long-time collector, again, not involved here (pattern emerging), won one of JG's catcher's mitts in Legendary. It had an aftermarket leather patch sewn into the pocket with a kind of swirled stitching. It was advertised as a "tornado palm". Well, as we have all discussed here ad nausium, there were mistakes a plenty in Legendary's write ups. Some innocent, some intentional. In any event, the guy won the thing for like $400 or $450 and immediately contacted me to say he got a hell of a deal on a tornado palm and didn't have to spend $6,000 or $7,000 like the last two examples sold for. Again, I had to pass along bad news and bring him back to reality.

There are so many lessons to be learned from all this, but the main point is to do your homework and ask questions before spending high amounts. The second point is to do your homework. The research is sometimes more fun than acquiring an actual glove! I have a group of hobby friends who help each other with snooping and coming up with theories as to dating, manufacturing and such. Seriously, that's the fun part of this stuff. The third point is that you will never get a deal in a public auction. Sure, sometimes a glove flies under the radar on eBay, but never in a auction house auction. It's sells for what it's worth. If it were worth more,it would have hammered at a higher price. Simple economics. And lastly, do your homework!

I don't see anything on that glove that would link it to the 19c, chances are the reporter meant 1900s. Either way, Ruth was born in 1895. As a poor kid there's a slim chance of him ever using any glove in the 19c. Lastly, and most importantly, how did anyone get $750 for that glove on ebay last winter????

I think this is the glove that he is saying is the Ruth childhhod glove. It was sold by grandpa 7 in January 2011 as the description used in his ebay listing matches what the article says

Nice diverted finger seams. That's what, a 1908 patent, if I'm not mistaken....

Game used or not, its definitely a beautiful glove.

Closure to the case...

http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/pr ... nge-glove/