Reissues

[murphusa]

what is you opinion on the JG glove

re-issue or what?

[vintagebrett]

That is why I would like to see the Rawlings tags on the back of the gloves - comparing them to each other and other examples will be helpful in forming an educated opinion.

[Mr. Mitt]

It's not only the backs of gloves they don't show. Often, including this auction, they have a crescent and only show the back! How silly is that! It's understandable that they want to save costs by not printing several photos in their catalog, but there's no extra cost for showing alternate pics on their website (besides the time it takes to upload them). This is why I would never consign with Hunt. Great guy, good deals at his auction, but leaves a ton of dough on the table for his consignors. On top of that, he really doesn't know gloves... well, compared with all of us!

[ebbets55]

This all makes me wonder if the Spalding I got from Hunt long ago is a re-issue. It’s the best glove I ever got out of that auction. Looks just like these Rawlings we are talking about. Love it either way.

JD

http://www.baseballglovecollector.com/g ... +Front.JPG

[Mr. Mitt]

Jim... looks vintage to me. Can't tell for certain without actually holding it, but it doesn't appear to be new leather. The alteration to the webbing may not be period, but I'm not sure.

[vintagebrett]

The leather on the Rawlings seems to be a tip off although I understand why you would issue the comparison to the JG Rolfe. When I saw the Rawlings exhibit at the 2008 All-Star Fan Fest, they had some reproductions and the leather/stamping looks like the ones in Hunts. They did not have KK or RR on display. The tags on the repros looked a little bit different and that is why I'd like to see them - I think they offer huge insight. I know Bob C. from Rawlings used to read here but I think he moved over to the modern forum. If someone knows how to contact him, maybe he could offer some insight.

JD, I think your glove is vintage but I agree with Mr. Mitt that the webbing might not be.

[Rickybulldog]

I find this whole thing alarming/disturbing. This whole reissue/repro stuff will have it's place in the hobby, but I for one wish this stuff would go away. Having this stuff available leaves things out for deceptive practices and shady people preying upon new/less knowledgeable collectors. JD, I'm glad you're OK either way (I'm assuming you aren't in it too much if it's a reissue), but I know I'd be pissed if I paid a lot for a glove I thought was the "real deal". A $30-40 lesson is easier to swallow rather than one for more $$$!!

[ebbets55]

Not me RBG. I love the fact that re-issues and repros are out there. They are cool and some of the nicer ones can get pretty pricey. I too don’t like when they aren’t described as such but in some rare cases, maybe the sellers don’t know. (When was the last time you thought an auction house was more knowledgeable about gloves than you were?) Heck, I just questioned whether one of mine was a reissue. I think the prices are reflected as such. Just bid them up to your threshold of pain and the prices will settle in to market. If everyone’s bids reflect the fact that a glove could be a reissue, then we will have the true prices. Buyer beware – always. I believe in a weak form of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis stating, loosely, that all information is out there and already reflected in the price. No one is getting a steal or a deal for the most part and not dealing with inside information.

If a glove totally looks like a repro then the price will reflect that. Lastly, we all have this wonderful Forum to bounce questions and ideas off of and it gives us a place to share information. I also try to put up as much information in the Glove Collector’s Library as I can get my hands on. I’m also available to answer as many questions as I’m asked. I currently get a minimum of 10 e-mails a day with general questions. Cool. It’s a lot of work responding to everyone and keeping dialogs going but very rewarding. Hope those guys reach out to others as well. We have a great community.

I just love learning more about gloves!

JD

[Mr. Mitt]

Chalk me up for hatred of repros. I understand their place in the hobby, but trying to pass them off as vintage is unforgivable. That being said, most of the repro models out there can never be mistaken for real gloves; the vast number of 19th century repros, Joe Phillip's repros done through Nokona, and Akadema's repros. Those examples are discernable from the real things.

Seems to me that the problem we're having here stems directly with Rawlings' reproductions. They make no differentiation with their reissues compared to their vintage counterpart (outside of a modern patch, which can not be seen in Hunt's catalog or website). Perhaps we need to raise this topic with Bob. To make everyone happy (those like Jim compared with those like Ricky and I), he would need to have some sort of marking on the repros so reissues can be more easily identifiable.

[Rickybulldog]

Well JG, to each his own I guess. Didn't take your post as you were saying it was a reissue, I knew you were questioning. My only problem is not everyone has the knowledgeable friends some of us have or are in the "tight-knit" group of ours and they run the risk of being hoodwinked with having this stuff out there. Yes, it is cool for nostalgic purposes, but as a buyer/collector I am not a fan.

[ebbets55]

Agreed about special stampings and such. I don’t think Rawlings, Bob or Hunt Auctions tried to defraud anybody. I just think the repros are getting better. Heck, if Rawlings is using original patterns like on the MM, RR and the KK then they are going to be better repros. I couldn’t give a crap one way or another. I’m cool with some people liking them and some people not. We all know Hunt doesn’t take pictures of both sides of gloves.

The answer is simply to ask Bob like you said Jerry. Let’s get him to make the call on the RR, the KK and the McQuinn. I would bet almost anything that the current bids reflect the fact that these are great reissues and not originals – and that the winning bidder isn’t going to say, “I got duped”. Let’s see how many people contact Hunt now and retract their bids. I don’t believe it will happen. Good reissues, especially Rawlings, will go higher.

After blowing up three 1” webs, I’m thinking about trying out a repro. I coach my eight year old boy’s little league team and I love playing catch and shagging balls. I love using 1” webs mostly and catching with two hands as I like them just bigger than my hand. I’m blowing these things apart all over the place. I don’t mind so much because I treat them as $50 gloves but I might consider using a repro just for the durability. If the feel isn’t right, I’m sure I’ll switch right back.

JD

[Mr. Mitt]

This may sound like a stupid question, but does Rawlings market their reissued gloves? I've never seen any of them for sale (other than auction houses). Also, are they produced in limited quantity or en mass?

If you know the answer to those questions, here's a followup pertaining specifically to the MM. Rawlings reissued a very small quantity of MM gloves for the Mantle family after Mick's passing. They were given to pall-bearers and family members. Johnny Blanchard's was auctioned off by Lelands a few years ago and Legendary recently auctioned one that was said to be given to the president of Rawlings. Have there been any other MM issuances or just this small quantity from 1995 (19 produced and 16 given to the Mantle family, according to Mastro)?

Someone get Bob over to the forum!

[vintagebrett]

I know the McQuinn was only made for the purpose of having it signed by Bush - the on that is on JD's site was consigned to me and was sold to John. There was a picture and letter with it from Bob stating the purpose of why it was made.

I don't think the other Rawlings have been made for resale yet - I remember there was talk but I don't think any of it came to fruition yet. The Mantle example(s) are easy to spot as reproductions - the tagging is not consistent with the original and the stampings look odd as well.

In regards to the ones in Hunts, I looked at similar era gloves to the Keltner and Rolfe, including some vintage of the same model - none of them had the registered trade mark circle R under Rawlings on the base of the palm - this looks to be something that began being stamped on the gloves in the 50's some time. I'd still like to see the backs to make a better descision but I'm still going with my original statement that these are reproductions.

I'm not opposed to reproductions - if done right, they can be a wonderful thing. And of course they need to be identifiable as such. I'm not crazy about the Vance and Gehrig repros that are out there - you can pick up original Vance gloves for just a little more money and they are pretty common. I can understand on the Gehrig because it's an iconic glove - just wish they had spent more time making it like the original.

For gloves that are waaaaaaaaaayyyy out of reach of the budget restrained collector, I think repros are a good idea. I'd love it if someone made some reproduction fingerless gloves the closely match the originals.

[clw]

As someone who's new to the glove collecting world, it's interesting to see the degree of polarization amongst you guys over the repro/reissues.

I think it would be a deplorable act to advert. a repro as a vintage piece, and I hope that doesn't become a common thing that shady sellers do. Though I gather that these repros are just as rare as the originals...from reading your posts. Perhaps they'll take on a legitimate value of their own at some point. I know I would gladly pay for that McQuinn repro...even with a Bush's signature on it.

I certainly see their place in the collector's market, though, especially for those who want a pristine example of a glove/mitt, and can't afford to pay through the nose for a mint original. I've been trying to find gloves in great or unused condition and I'm finding that very difficult. So far I know of only ebay and now, thanks to you fellows, the Hunt auctions. I'd love to find more, so please feel free to pm me with where you like to look.

I've been told by Lindsay Nabler (Nadler?) at Rawlings that there is still something in the works for marketing reproduction gloves.

[Rickybulldog]

Chalk me up for hatred of repros. I understand their place in the hobby, but trying to pass them off as vintage is unforgivable. That being said, most of the repro models out there can never be mistaken for real gloves; the vast number of 19th century repros, Joe Phillip's repros done through Nokona, and Akadema's repros. Those examples are discernable from the real things.

Seems to me that the problem we're having here stems directly with Rawlings' reproductions. They make no differentiation with their reissues compared to their vintage counterpart (outside of a modern patch, which can not be seen in Hunt's catalog or website).

Totally Agree! You hit the nail right on the head Jerry!

I would bet almost anything that the current bids reflect the fact that these are great reissues and not originals – and that the winning bidder isn’t going to say, “I got duped”. Let’s see how many people contact Hunt now and retract their bids. I don’t believe it will happen. Good reissues, especially Rawlings, will go higher.

That maybe true JD, because most people who bid/participate in Hunt are the higher end collectors and are probably in the know. But even if they think that these gloves are legit do you seriously think these people are going to say "I got duped" ? Hardly any victims of fraud come forward. If they do they aren't going to reveal who they are.

Still would like to know if John Graham's other glove was a reissue.