by Number9 » June 24th, 2015, 1:46 pm
David, sorry to see this is still an issue. I was hoping you and Leland's would have found middle ground last summer. The facts are quite clear, as (I hope) you will see below.
Bottom line, this glove has been presented to me multiple times since 2013, and it is what it is. I've seen it in photos, I've held it person (before you, or Leland's had a chance to buy it). It was offered to me last summer and it was priced at a level that would have been profitable for me - if it were a webless. I passed because it is not a webless. While true that the button and the patch CAN date from the early 20c, the glove is not a true webless. I'm sorry to say, it is a full web that happens to be missing the web. I did a (reasonably) thorough search for Spalding webless models. The latest that I could find was offered in 1904. Perhaps you can find a later model, I'd love to see it. So, 1904.... that's a perfect time frame for that patch and that button. We agree there. However, the glove has a detail which dates it years later - the diverted finger seam. That patent was GRANTED in 1908 and was used on countless full web models for decades after it was introduced. Look at any webless you want, you won't find that finger seam. Add to that the construction of the thumb and forefinger and it's pretty clear cut. It was made for a web. Even the overall shape and padding formation indicate a later model. Most webless gloves, particularly the Spalding models, tend to have flat, mostly even padding across the palm and fingers, they are not thickly padded through the thumb and pinky finger. I would have loved to seen this glove discussed more on the show floor, but, the people who were most convinced of it being a webless were the people who became the most connected to it. I wish I could have been more convincing at the time. Sorry. Blame me if you'd like, but I tried to help. I still am. You're a nice guy and I hope it works out for you.
Huntington Base Ball Co.
www.HuntingtonBaseBallCo.com