I was recently asked why I have always had such an issue with an auction house having undisclosed reserves as well as their bidding on lots on behalf of the bidder in order to work towards that undisclosed figure. The prevailing counter argument seems to be that no one is forcing a collector to bid on anything. I suspect that there may not be a consistent legal position based on locality since you can find language such as this listed in various auction house bidding policies and instructions:

– Reserve bids may be executed on cataloged lots on behalf of the seller and shall be executed confidentially in a manner similar to the execution of absentee bids.

To me, this is deceptive business practice on two distinct levels. In the first case, by the auction house executing these phantom bids, it creates the perception that there is more interest in the item than truly exits. Once again, no is forcing anyone to bid on any item, but the collector psyche is an intriguing one to say the least. I suspect that bidding decisions are often made because of a desire “not to miss out” on what someone else also appears to want. Even if the disclaimer was made that that these “in house reserve bids” would only be made up to the point of the reserve, the auction house clearly has a hand in creating the false impression of interest in the item. I have no idea how many times I have re-bid on an item, only to have actually been bidding against myself. Remember the auction house is going to garner a larger fee based on what I am willing to bid, so if they can lead me to believe that another collector (when there isn’t one) is after the same item and I am at risk of missing out by not going higher, how is not a deceptive business practice?

From a marketing standpoint and also understanding the collector mindset, I can see why starting an item low with a hidden reserve has appeal to these auction houses. It is designed to protect the investment of the consigner and lead the collector to believe he can obtain the item at a low price. Additionally, if the auction house has offered a cash advance on the item, then they also have equity and a real financial interest in the item as well. Starting at a low bid de-sensitizes the process as the decision becomes an incremental one and not one involving a “lump sum” decision if you will. As collectors and bidders, it is often easier to tell ourselves and focus on the increment of just “another $50, $100, or $1000” rather than the end purchase price, and trust me, this is not lost on those auction houses you are engaged in bidding with and against.

The second issue I have with what I feel is a deceptive business practice, is that it also leads to a false impression of what the true market value or priced realized is. Yes, I fully realize that with any collectable, the value is what someone is willing to pay for the item. But what about when the item never truly sold for the price depicted? For example, an auction house conceals a fairly high hidden reserve and then bids the item up to just under that figure. In reality, the item never sold, yet they taut it as a sale and price realized in order to attract future consignments for related items. The reality is that auction house sales are a significant factor in pricing within the industry and hobby, especially when buyer’s premiums are factored in. Think about it, if you were buying an item from a dealer and he said, “my price is $2500 because I sold one just like this last year for $2500.” How do you as buyer or the collective hobby react when they learn that no such sale was ever made, and in fact this false sales figure is just that…a false impression of the market. With dealers, this is not easy to see or learn about, but with auction houses, it is not so transparent. Look for items that appear to have sold for decent money, only to see them show up in subsequent auctions the next month. Remember as a consigner looking to flip an item you just bought and paid handsomely for, the reason the item brought the price it did was because you were in the bidding process (and maybe the auction house was as well). With you being removed, there is one less bidder, and in fact the high bidder not participating in the process. That is of course unless the auction house will let you bid on the item or simply as a matter of policy, do it for you on the next go around.

I spend time addressing this issue as I am seeing a number of individuals entering this hobby for the first time and their initial purchases are not for $100-$200 jerseys or bats. For those that are and considering bidding in auctions, take the time to read the various policies and understand what they entail. For MEARS Auctions, we have made a point to make this very easy and very public. No Shill Bidding and No Hidden Reserves. The people you are bidding against are other collectors, not the house or the consigner. Unlike some auction venues that have recently established this as their position after years of entertaining what I feel is a deceptive business practice, MEARS Auctions has always run this way and our policies. While recent as an auction house, our policies are well grounded and nested in our core beliefs that have been resident since our inception as a hobby/industry entity…In short, Full Disclosure and Full Accountability.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect. Take the time to truly learn about those you do business with and you will enjoy all of this that much more.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel free to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com

I was recently asked why I have always had such an issue with an auction house having undisclosed reserves as well as their bidding on lots on behalf of the bidder in order to work towards that undisclosed figure. The prevailing counter argument seems to be that no one is forcing a collector to bid on anything. I suspect that there may not be a consistent legal position based on locality since you can find language such as this listed in various auction house bidding policies and instructions:

– Reserve bids may be executed on cataloged lots on behalf of the seller and shall be executed confidentially in a manner similar to the execution of absentee bids.

To me, this is deceptive business practice on two distinct levels. In the first case, by the auction house executing these phantom bids, it creates the perception that there is more interest in the item than truly exits. Once again, no is forcing anyone to bid on any item, but the collector psyche is an intriguing one to say the least. I suspect that bidding decisions are often made because of a desire “not to miss out” on what someone else also appears to want. Even if the disclaimer was made that that these “in house reserve bids” would only be made up to the point of the reserve, the auction house clearly has a hand in creating the false impression of interest in the item. I have no idea how many times I have re-bid on an item, only to have actually been bidding against myself. Remember the auction house is going to garner a larger fee based on what I am willing to bid, so if they can lead me to believe that another collector (when there isn’t one) is after the same item and I am at risk of missing out by not going higher, how is not a deceptive business practice?

From a marketing standpoint and also understanding the collector mindset, I can see why starting an item low with a hidden reserve has appeal to these auction houses. It is designed to protect the investment of the consigner and lead the collector to believe he can obtain the item at a low price. Additionally, if the auction house has offered a cash advance on the item, then they also have equity and a real financial interest in the item as well. Starting at a low bid de-sensitizes the process as the decision becomes an incremental one and not one involving a “lump sum” decision if you will. As collectors and bidders, it is often easier to tell ourselves and focus on the increment of just “another $50, $100, or $1000” rather than the end purchase price, and trust me, this is not lost on those auction houses you are engaged in bidding with and against.

The second issue I have with what I feel is a deceptive business practice, is that it also leads to a false impression of what the true market value or priced realized is. Yes, I fully realize that with any collectable, the value is what someone is willing to pay for the item. But what about when the item never truly sold for the price depicted? For example, an auction house conceals a fairly high hidden reserve and then bids the item up to just under that figure. In reality, the item never sold, yet they taut it as a sale and price realized in order to attract future consignments for related items. The reality is that auction house sales are a significant factor in pricing within the industry and hobby, especially when buyer’s premiums are factored in. Think about it, if you were buying an item from a dealer and he said, “my price is $2500 because I sold one just like this last year for $2500.” How do you as buyer or the collective hobby react when they learn that no such sale was ever made, and in fact this false sales figure is just that…a false impression of the market. With dealers, this is not easy to see or learn about, but with auction houses, it is not so transparent. Look for items that appear to have sold for decent money, only to see them show up in subsequent auctions the next month. Remember as a consigner looking to flip an item you just bought and paid handsomely for, the reason the item brought the price it did was because you were in the bidding process (and maybe the auction house was as well). With you being removed, there is one less bidder, and in fact the high bidder not participating in the process. That is of course unless the auction house will let you bid on the item or simply as a matter of policy, do it for you on the next go around.

I spend time addressing this issue as I am seeing a number of individuals entering this hobby for the first time and their initial purchases are not for $100-$200 jerseys or bats. For those that are and considering bidding in auctions, take the time to read the various policies and understand what they entail. For MEARS Auctions, we have made a point to make this very easy and very public. No Shill Bidding and No Hidden Reserves. The people you are bidding against are other collectors, not the house or the consigner. Unlike some auction venues that have recently established this as their position after years of entertaining what I feel is a deceptive business practice, MEARS Auctions has always run this way and our policies. While recent as an auction house, our policies are well grounded and nested in our core beliefs that have been resident since our inception as a hobby/industry entity…In short, Full Disclosure and Full Accountability.

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect. Take the time to truly learn about those you do business with and you will enjoy all of this that much more.

Dave Grob

For questions or comments on this article, please feel free to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com

One question that always seems to come up runs along the lines of “was this a good buy?” There are any number of ways to look at this and I always encourage folks to collect what they enjoy and enjoy what they collect. That being said, it would be both naive and disingenuous of me to suggest I don’t consider monetary value, both immediate and long term in the items I look to acquire.

Last week, I took some time off to go home to Cincinnati to see my dad for Father’s Day. I also took this occasion to make my first trip to the Great American Ball Park to catch the Reds-Red Sox. It was an incredible experience as the last time I watched these two teams play in Cincinnati, I was eleven years old and it was the 1975 World Series. One thing that caught my eye was the city’s new found love for Jay Bruce….catchy t-shirts with the phrase “Bruce Almighty” were everywhere. This week, one of Bruce’s gamers sold for just over $500 on E-Bay. Was this a good buy? I don’t know but I offer these thoughts for folks looking to buy gamers as long term investments.

Bruce has a nice history or pedigree if you will…1st round pick (12th overall) in the 2005 draft. He hit .364 in the minors (49 games) and has very good speed and strong arm. He has also got off to a fast start at the major league level, albeit for a very poor playing team. Back to the issue of value. Two things will drive this…proximity and performance. Proximity refers to where a guy plays…some guys can end up being average to better than average ball players, but end up spending enough time in one city that they become fan favorites. Performance refers to the ability to put up the numbers over an extended period of time. By extended period of time I am talking about 10 years or more. Along the way you would hope it would include some noteworthy All Star or World Series action.

For the Bruce bat to have any real long term financial upside, and factoring in proximity and performance, consider that even if both of these work out in a positive manner, the modern player and the “marketing machine” will ensure that every bit of his stuff is retained and positioned for a place in the market place. What this means in the simplest of terms is that none of the Bruce bats are likely to have a nail hammered into them or tapped up and used by a bunch of kids playing a pickup game on the local diamond. There will always be an ample supply of Bruce bats. Success with respect to performance is only likely to lead to the proliferation of product.

The majority of folks I have come across in the hobby that are dealers like to buy their items at about 50% of retail. This may sound like a huge mark up, but they often end up eating or sitting on product for an extended period of time. In the case of this Bruce bat, at $517.00 retail and as an investment, what do you need to see in terms of proximity and performance to make it a $1000 bat? Also consider the amount of additional product of his that will be on the market in the time it takes for this bat to reach that point. From an investment perspective, you are either looking at selling early while the initial demand is still strong and the availability is low, or waiting and hoping that he becomes a Hall of Fame caliber player some 10-15 years down the road. Now think of all of this against the back drop of what the current sale price is for a nice Jeter or Arod bat which can be found in the $1500 range.

Holding onto a bat for a player like Bruce is tough with respect to timing when it comes to pulling the trigger on selling. Mind you, all of this doesn’t consider if the bat was bought because you just really like the player and plan to keep it as part of your personal collection. I decided to look at the MEARS Bushing and Kinunen For Sales site for examples of once very promising players whose bats can know be found for less than the price of this Bruce bat:

-1934-1943 Jim Tobin Hillerich and Bradsby: Member of the 1945 Detroit Tigers World Series Team. $450

-1950s Chris Cannizzaro Hillerich & Bradsby: Member of both the original 1962 Mets and 1969 Padres. $450

-1950-1957 Charlie Silvera Hillerich & Bradsby: Member of the 1948-56 New York Yankees World Series teams. $450

-1950s Smokey Burgess Hillerich & Bradsby: Member of the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame. $350

-1980-1983 Ralph Garr Louisville Slugger: 1974 National League Batting Champion. $450.

-1980-1983 Davey Lopes Louisville Slugger: 4x All Star and member of 4 Dodger World Series Teams. $350

-1986 Bob Boone Rawlings: 4x All Star; 7x Gold Glove winner. $350

-1991 Dave Parker Rawlings: 7 x All Star, 1978 NL MVP, 3x Gold Glove winner, 2x NL Batting Champion. $500

You will find any number of similar priced bats of period stars and super stars on the Bushing and Kinunen For Sales Site. These bats, by a function of age and where the hobby was at the time, are likely to exist in fewer numbers than those of the modern player who tend to keep track of everything. These bats also represent offerings that will always have appeal to either a team or theme collector.

My point in all of this is not so much to say if the Bruce E-Bay bat was good buy at $517.00 or not, but rather to offer some thoughts on what goes into a bat’s value at the moment and over time. If you are not wedded to an item you have bought as a keeper for your own personal collection, always consider availability in terms of numbers and why someone other than yourself would want the bat…also think about proximity and long term performance…just some thoughts…

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect.

Dave Grob

For question or comments on this article, please feel to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com.

One question that always seems to come up runs along the lines of “was this a good buy?” There are any number of ways to look at this and I always encourage folks to collect what they enjoy and enjoy what they collect. That being said, it would be both naive and disingenuous of me to suggest I don’t consider monetary value, both immediate and long term in the items I look to acquire.

Last week, I took some time off to go home to Cincinnati to see my dad for Father’s Day. I also took this occasion to make my first trip to the Great American Ball Park to catch the Reds-Red Sox. It was an incredible experience as the last time I watched these two teams play in Cincinnati, I was eleven years old and it was the 1975 World Series. One thing that caught my eye was the city’s new found love for Jay Bruce….catchy t-shirts with the phrase “Bruce Almighty” were everywhere. This week, one of Bruce’s gamers sold for just over $500 on E-Bay. Was this a good buy? I don’t know but I offer these thoughts for folks looking to buy gamers as long term investments.

Bruce has a nice history or pedigree if you will…1st round pick (12th overall) in the 2005 draft. He hit .364 in the minors (49 games) and has very good speed and strong arm. He has also got off to a fast start at the major league level, albeit for a very poor playing team. Back to the issue of value. Two things will drive this…proximity and performance. Proximity refers to where a guy plays…some guys can end up being average to better than average ball players, but end up spending enough time in one city that they become fan favorites. Performance refers to the ability to put up the numbers over an extended period of time. By extended period of time I am talking about 10 years or more. Along the way you would hope it would include some noteworthy All Star or World Series action.

For the Bruce bat to have any real long term financial upside, and factoring in proximity and performance, consider that even if both of these work out in a positive manner, the modern player and the “marketing machine” will ensure that every bit of his stuff is retained and positioned for a place in the market place. What this means in the simplest of terms is that none of the Bruce bats are likely to have a nail hammered into them or tapped up and used by a bunch of kids playing a pickup game on the local diamond. There will always be an ample supply of Bruce bats. Success with respect to performance is only likely to lead to the proliferation of product.

The majority of folks I have come across in the hobby that are dealers like to buy their items at about 50% of retail. This may sound like a huge mark up, but they often end up eating or sitting on product for an extended period of time. In the case of this Bruce bat, at $517.00 retail and as an investment, what do you need to see in terms of proximity and performance to make it a $1000 bat? Also consider the amount of additional product of his that will be on the market in the time it takes for this bat to reach that point. From an investment perspective, you are either looking at selling early while the initial demand is still strong and the availability is low, or waiting and hoping that he becomes a Hall of Fame caliber player some 10-15 years down the road. Now think of all of this against the back drop of what the current sale price is for a nice Jeter or Arod bat which can be found in the $1500 range.

Holding onto a bat for a player like Bruce is tough with respect to timing when it comes to pulling the trigger on selling. Mind you, all of this doesn’t consider if the bat was bought because you just really like the player and plan to keep it as part of your personal collection. I decided to look at the MEARS Bushing and Kinunen For Sales site for examples of once very promising players whose bats can know be found for less than the price of this Bruce bat:

-1934-1943 Jim Tobin Hillerich and Bradsby: Member of the 1945 Detroit Tigers World Series Team. $450

-1950s Chris Cannizzaro Hillerich & Bradsby: Member of both the original 1962 Mets and 1969 Padres. $450

-1950-1957 Charlie Silvera Hillerich & Bradsby: Member of the 1948-56 New York Yankees World Series teams. $450

-1950s Smokey Burgess Hillerich & Bradsby: Member of the Cincinnati Reds Hall of Fame. $350

-1980-1983 Ralph Garr Louisville Slugger: 1974 National League Batting Champion. $450.

-1980-1983 Davey Lopes Louisville Slugger: 4x All Star and member of 4 Dodger World Series Teams. $350

-1986 Bob Boone Rawlings: 4x All Star; 7x Gold Glove winner. $350

-1991 Dave Parker Rawlings: 7 x All Star, 1978 NL MVP, 3x Gold Glove winner, 2x NL Batting Champion. $500

You will find any number of similar priced bats of period stars and super stars on the Bushing and Kinunen For Sales Site. These bats, by a function of age and where the hobby was at the time, are likely to exist in fewer numbers than those of the modern player who tend to keep track of everything. These bats also represent offerings that will always have appeal to either a team or theme collector.

My point in all of this is not so much to say if the Bruce E-Bay bat was good buy at $517.00 or not, but rather to offer some thoughts on what goes into a bat’s value at the moment and over time. If you are not wedded to an item you have bought as a keeper for your own personal collection, always consider availability in terms of numbers and why someone other than yourself would want the bat…also think about proximity and long term performance…just some thoughts…

As always, collect what you enjoy and enjoy what you collect.

Dave Grob

For question or comments on this article, please feel to drop me a line at DaveGrob1@aol.com.

As lead authenticator, I anxiously awaited the challenge of evaluating this knit Yankees pinstripe. With previous experience, the MEARS research center, and our tools for evaluating, I began the process.

To begin, 1975 was a very good year for Thurman Munson, both defensively, and surprisingly offensively. During the year, Munson won his final gold glove for his work behind the plate. 1975 did find Munson taking command of his offense. Having yet to play in the post season, the offensive transformation by Munson definitely contributed to the Yankees future post season appearances, which began the following season. For the season, Munson played in 157 games. He socked 190 hits (career high), 102 RBI’s (2nd best) and batted .318 (career high).

Relating to memorabilia, the Yankee captain’s jersey is quite rare. Currently, MEARS has evaluated 6 deemed to be authentic Mickey Mantle game worn jerseys. All museum pieces. By comparison, this is only the second authentic Thurman Munson evaluated and graded by MEARS, with 3 being labeled as “Unable to Authenticate”.

While conducting the evaluation of the 1975 Thurman Munson Home Wilson New York Yankees jersey, I compiled reference for comparison of manufacturer, size, and total population. A black light was used to inspect internal and external stitching, and a magnified light source was used to inspect numbering, team logo, and neckline stitching. The conclusion:

Stitching Examination: A complete examination and visual tracing of the internal seam stitching was conducted. 1970s Wilson Yankees home jerseys of super star players are notorious for being opened at the neckline. This jersey had no signs of tampering. To conduct the visual examination, the right inner button path seam was inspected. By visually following the manufactures seam up towards the collar, then down to the right left inner button path; one continual stitch pattern is found. There were no breaks in the thread and the sewing was applied in a consistent manner throughout.

Internal stitching of the 1,5, and NY logo was also conducted. Some anchor stitching was broken a various spots of both the 1,5, and would be consistent with game wear.

Manufacture: The jersey was manufactured by Wilson and is consistent with the suppliers found before and after the 1975 season. During my research, this was the first 1975 Yankees home jersey I have found to have entered the hobby. The MEARS complete research library, that contains an overwhelming majority of known jersey that have been auctioned between 1992-2007, could produce no 1975 examples. Nor did the MEARS database of items evaluated by our company conatin a 1975 Yankees home jersey. To conduct trend analysis, we examined Yankees uniforms immediately preceding and following the 1975 season. Our research supported Wilson as a manufacture for the timeframe of 1973-76. Examples found were:

MEARS database 1973 Yankees Home Jersey Wilson Jim Turner

MEARS database 1974 Yankees Home Jersey Wilson Thurman Munson (pants)

MEARS database 1976 Yankees Home Jersey Wilson Yogi Berra

Wilson was also a known supplier of other major league teams in 1975 and support Wilson as a supplier of Yankees jerseys. They were:

1975 Brewers (MEARS database)

1975 Cubs (MEARS database)

1975 Indians (MEARS database)

1975 Orioles (MEARS database)

1975 Reds (MEARS database)

1975 Royals (MEARS database)

1975 Tigers (MEARS database)

1975 White Sox (MEARS database)

Size: Chest measurement 21” across, tagged size 42. Actual size matches tagged size. To establish the correct size of jerseys issued to Thurman Munson, MEARS referenced examples from our database. Examples used for comparison are:

1974 Yankees Wilson Road size 42 RW 11/91

1977 Yankees Wilson Home size 44 Lelands 7/04

1979 Yankees Wilson Home size 44 MEARS #302592

Therefore, the sized 42 jersey is consistent with the trends found of examples of Thurman Munson Yankees jerseys which have entered the hobby.

Black Light: Exposure to a black light revealed the Wilson factory stitching was consistently applied on all of the factory sewn seams. There was no evidence of broken or added threading in the area of the collar/button stitching. The black light revealed the threads were all original with no visible additions. The presence of additional threads may indicate repairs, alterations, or potential fraud; the black light eliminated the possibility of any of the above alterations.

Jersey Trade Index: Upon review, this is only the second authentic Thurman Munson jersey examined by MEARS to date.

Condition: Spotted staining found on the front of the jersey was the cause of the one point deduction. The jersey exhibited heavy overall wear.

In conclusion, New York Yankees HOF jerseys are rare, authentic Thurman Munson shirts are impossible. By examining this jersey, the MEARS process of evaluation, grading, use of a black light and magnified light source, and the application of trend analysis of data contained in the MEARS database allowed us to issue a favorable opinion on this New York rarity.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS lead evaluator for this item

As lead authenticator, I anxiously awaited the challenge of evaluating this knit Yankees pinstripe. With previous experience, the MEARS research center, and our tools for evaluating, I began the process.

To begin, 1975 was a very good year for Thurman Munson, both defensively, and surprisingly offensively. During the year, Munson won his final gold glove for his work behind the plate. 1975 did find Munson taking command of his offense. Having yet to play in the post season, the offensive transformation by Munson definitely contributed to the Yankees future post season appearances, which began the following season. For the season, Munson played in 157 games. He socked 190 hits (career high), 102 RBI’s (2nd best) and batted .318 (career high).

Relating to memorabilia, the Yankee captain’s jersey is quite rare. Currently, MEARS has evaluated 6 deemed to be authentic Mickey Mantle game worn jerseys. All museum pieces. By comparison, this is only the second authentic Thurman Munson evaluated and graded by MEARS, with 3 being labeled as “Unable to Authenticate”.

While conducting the evaluation of the 1975 Thurman Munson Home Wilson New York Yankees jersey, I compiled reference for comparison of manufacturer, size, and total population. A black light was used to inspect internal and external stitching, and a magnified light source was used to inspect numbering, team logo, and neckline stitching. The conclusion:

Stitching Examination: A complete examination and visual tracing of the internal seam stitching was conducted. 1970s Wilson Yankees home jerseys of super star players are notorious for being opened at the neckline. This jersey had no signs of tampering. To conduct the visual examination, the right inner button path seam was inspected. By visually following the manufactures seam up towards the collar, then down to the right left inner button path; one continual stitch pattern is found. There were no breaks in the thread and the sewing was applied in a consistent manner throughout.

Internal stitching of the 1,5, and NY logo was also conducted. Some anchor stitching was broken a various spots of both the 1,5, and would be consistent with game wear.

Manufacture: The jersey was manufactured by Wilson and is consistent with the suppliers found before and after the 1975 season. During my research, this was the first 1975 Yankees home jersey I have found to have entered the hobby. The MEARS complete research library, that contains an overwhelming majority of known jersey that have been auctioned between 1992-2007, could produce no 1975 examples. Nor did the MEARS database of items evaluated by our company conatin a 1975 Yankees home jersey. To conduct trend analysis, we examined Yankees uniforms immediately preceding and following the 1975 season. Our research supported Wilson as a manufacture for the timeframe of 1973-76. Examples found were:

MEARS database 1973 Yankees Home Jersey Wilson Jim Turner

MEARS database 1974 Yankees Home Jersey Wilson Thurman Munson (pants)

MEARS database 1976 Yankees Home Jersey Wilson Yogi Berra

Wilson was also a known supplier of other major league teams in 1975 and support Wilson as a supplier of Yankees jerseys. They were:

1975 Brewers (MEARS database)

1975 Cubs (MEARS database)

1975 Indians (MEARS database)

1975 Orioles (MEARS database)

1975 Reds (MEARS database)

1975 Royals (MEARS database)

1975 Tigers (MEARS database)

1975 White Sox (MEARS database)

Size: Chest measurement 21” across, tagged size 42. Actual size matches tagged size. To establish the correct size of jerseys issued to Thurman Munson, MEARS referenced examples from our database. Examples used for comparison are:

1974 Yankees Wilson Road size 42 RW 11/91

1977 Yankees Wilson Home size 44 Lelands 7/04

1979 Yankees Wilson Home size 44 MEARS #302592

Therefore, the sized 42 jersey is consistent with the trends found of examples of Thurman Munson Yankees jerseys which have entered the hobby.

Black Light: Exposure to a black light revealed the Wilson factory stitching was consistently applied on all of the factory sewn seams. There was no evidence of broken or added threading in the area of the collar/button stitching. The black light revealed the threads were all original with no visible additions. The presence of additional threads may indicate repairs, alterations, or potential fraud; the black light eliminated the possibility of any of the above alterations.

Jersey Trade Index: Upon review, this is only the second authentic Thurman Munson jersey examined by MEARS to date.

Condition: Spotted staining found on the front of the jersey was the cause of the one point deduction. The jersey exhibited heavy overall wear.

In conclusion, New York Yankees HOF jerseys are rare, authentic Thurman Munson shirts are impossible. By examining this jersey, the MEARS process of evaluation, grading, use of a black light and magnified light source, and the application of trend analysis of data contained in the MEARS database allowed us to issue a favorable opinion on this New York rarity.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS lead evaluator for this item

Item examined: 1985-86 Hakeem Olajuwon Houston Rockets Home Game Worn Jersey

The following information was gathered via the MEARS Jersey Grading and Authentication Worksheet, copyright 2005-2008. Hologram #308146 was issued. Our methods included the physical examination of the jersey, recording detailed information via the worksheet, comparing the information to our database, preparing full scale (1:1 ratio) color prints for examination, photographing of actual jersey for use for imagery analysis, using a light table and magnified light source to determine originality and check for alterations, comparing fabric and lettering to a common player jersey from the same relative timeframe, and finally preparing the completed letter of opinion.

Jersey style was issued to be worn during 1985-86 , Hakeem Olajuwon’s 2nd NBA season (68 games) and verified via enclosed color photo. Due to the dating of the Sand Knit tag 1985, (MEARS database 1977-87), style of the font, (34-no serifs), and the lack of NBA shoulder logo, (introduced 1986), this jersey is dated to the 1985-86 season.

To establish style, MEARS evaluated the following images (copies included):

MEARS 1984 Rawlings Rockets Home Olajuwon- serifed numbers

MEARS 1985 Rawlings Rockets Home Olajuwon-non serfied numbers

MEARS 1986 Sand Knit Rockets Road Olajuwon-non serfied numbers, NBA Logo shoulder

To establish the Rawlings tag (measures 1 15/16” x 2 ¾”) was from 1985, we compared it to the following jerseys from the same year:

MEARS 1985 Nets Road Same Rawlings tag

MEARS 1985 Nets Home Same Rawlings tag

MEARS 1985 Rockets Same Rawlings tag

All three examined 1985 NBA jersey tags were consistent with respect to design to MEARS #308146.

To verify the size 44, we examined all other Olajuwon jerseys that have entered the market. Items used for comparison were:

1984 Rawlings Rockets Olajuwon size 42

1990 Champion Rockets Olajuwon size 46

1991 Champion Rockets Olajuwon size 46

Therefore, without other known examples from 1985, this jersey falls within an acceptable range of sizes to be worn by Olajuwon during the 1984-91 timeframe.

Inspection with both the magnified light source and table revealed this jersey is all original and exhibits solid moderate game wear. The lettering shows wear around the edges of the anchor stitching. The Rawlings Size 44 tag also shows wear and puckering.

On the inside seam is the “Rawlings, Adult 44, Made in U.S.A. for care see reverse” tag. A second tag is found which reads, “2 inch, extra length”.

Therefore, based on the manufacture and tag style (1985), type of numeral font (non-serifed), lack of NBA shoulder logo (pre 1986), and examination of moderate game wear, MEARS was able to attribute this jersey to be issued and worn by Akeem Olajuwon during the 1985-86 season. The jersey was awarded the grade of MEARS A10.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS

Item examined: 1985-86 Hakeem Olajuwon Houston Rockets Home Game Worn Jersey

The following information was gathered via the MEARS Jersey Grading and Authentication Worksheet, copyright 2005-2008. Hologram #308146 was issued. Our methods included the physical examination of the jersey, recording detailed information via the worksheet, comparing the information to our database, preparing full scale (1:1 ratio) color prints for examination, photographing of actual jersey for use for imagery analysis, using a light table and magnified light source to determine originality and check for alterations, comparing fabric and lettering to a common player jersey from the same relative timeframe, and finally preparing the completed letter of opinion.

Jersey style was issued to be worn during 1985-86 , Hakeem Olajuwon’s 2nd NBA season (68 games) and verified via enclosed color photo. Due to the dating of the Sand Knit tag 1985, (MEARS database 1977-87), style of the font, (34-no serifs), and the lack of NBA shoulder logo, (introduced 1986), this jersey is dated to the 1985-86 season.

To establish style, MEARS evaluated the following images (copies included):

MEARS 1984 Rawlings Rockets Home Olajuwon- serifed numbers

MEARS 1985 Rawlings Rockets Home Olajuwon-non serfied numbers

MEARS 1986 Sand Knit Rockets Road Olajuwon-non serfied numbers, NBA Logo shoulder

To establish the Rawlings tag (measures 1 15/16” x 2 ¾”) was from 1985, we compared it to the following jerseys from the same year:

MEARS 1985 Nets Road Same Rawlings tag

MEARS 1985 Nets Home Same Rawlings tag

MEARS 1985 Rockets Same Rawlings tag

All three examined 1985 NBA jersey tags were consistent with respect to design to MEARS #308146.

To verify the size 44, we examined all other Olajuwon jerseys that have entered the market. Items used for comparison were:

1984 Rawlings Rockets Olajuwon size 42

1990 Champion Rockets Olajuwon size 46

1991 Champion Rockets Olajuwon size 46

Therefore, without other known examples from 1985, this jersey falls within an acceptable range of sizes to be worn by Olajuwon during the 1984-91 timeframe.

Inspection with both the magnified light source and table revealed this jersey is all original and exhibits solid moderate game wear. The lettering shows wear around the edges of the anchor stitching. The Rawlings Size 44 tag also shows wear and puckering.

On the inside seam is the “Rawlings, Adult 44, Made in U.S.A. for care see reverse” tag. A second tag is found which reads, “2 inch, extra length”.

Therefore, based on the manufacture and tag style (1985), type of numeral font (non-serifed), lack of NBA shoulder logo (pre 1986), and examination of moderate game wear, MEARS was able to attribute this jersey to be issued and worn by Akeem Olajuwon during the 1985-86 season. The jersey was awarded the grade of MEARS A10.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS

Item examined: 1974 Oscar Robertson Milwaukee Bucks Road Game Worn Jersey

The following information was gathered via the MEARS Jersey Grading and Authentication Worksheet, copyright 2005-2008. Hologram #308234 was issued. Our methods included the physical examination of the jersey, recording detailed information via the worksheet, comparing the information to our database, preparing full scale (1:1 ratio) color prints for examination, photographing of actual jersey for use for imagery analysis, using a light table and magnified light source to determine originality and check for alterations, comparing fabric and lettering to a common player jersey from the same relative timeframe, and finally preparing the completed letter of opinion.

Jersey style was issued to be worn in the 1973-74 season, Oscar Robertson’s final NBA season and verified via Getty Images. Due to the dating of the Sand Knit tag (examples introduced during 1974), this jersey was issued as a road pull over mesh jersey to be worn during the end of the regular season and possibly the 1974 Playoffs/Finals. With the NBA season overlapping two calendar years (end of 1973, beginning of 1974), the 1974-style tag is consistent with a jersey being issued for the early 1974 portion of the season. The 1974 season spanned from January to May. Therefore, the style and design of the Sand Knit tag was most consistent with a jersey that would have been supplied to the Bucks for the 2nd half of the season or was issued as a new jersey to be worn during the playoffs and NBA finals. The Medalist-Sandknit company of Berlin, WI, a local supplier of team apparel, manufactured the jersey. The jersey in uniquely designed with 3 different and distinct tagging. The tags are:

1. Milwaukee Sporting Goods Sand Knit distributor tag

2. Designed & Tailored Exclusively for the Milwaukee Bucks tag

3. Sand Knit size 42 tag

The tagging arrangement is consistent with the 1972-73 Bucks road #19 jersey examined by MEARS, meaning three tags (distributor, exclusive, size) were applied in a vertical fashion. This jersey was dated by the early version of the Sand Knit tag.

All three tags are required for this jersey to be an authentic 1973-74 example. The dating of the tag can be determined by the bottom Sand-Knit size 42 tag. During the 1974 season, the first examples of Sand Knit tags can found with the medal symbol being found on the bottom middle of the tag. Previous examples found the tag on the upper right edge. This design practice continued through 1976. Based on the playing career of Oscar Robertson, (ended 1974), the style, and the Sand Knit tag (introduced in 1974), this jersey can be attributed to the final half of the season of Oscar Robertson’s career.

The jersey is size 42, appropriate for Oscar Robertson’s 6’5” frame. The chest measurement of 19 inches and torso measurement of 31 inches is also correct sizing for the Big O. Regarding the size, the jersey compares quite favorably to another Sand Knit jersey of a Hall of Famer of comparable size.

Per our evaluation, MEARS #305084, 1975-76 Pete Maravich New Orleans Jazz Sand Knit Road Jersey, the physical dimensions of both the player and the jersey compared quite favorably to the examined Oscar Robertson. Both were supplied by Medalist/Sand Knit, which allowed us to track the consistency of the body shell materials and the chest/torso cut and sizing. Also, both players were of similar physical stature.

Oscar Robertson

6’5”, 205 pounds

1974 Oscar Robertson Jersey Measurements

Chest: 42

Torso: 31

Tag Size: 42

Pete Maravich

6’5”, 197 pounds

1975 Pete Maravich Jersey Measurements

Chest: 20 ½ inch

Torso: 30 ½ inch

Tag Size: 42 inch

Therefore by comparison, both Sand Knit supplied jerseys were tagged size 42 and measured via the chest and torso to within ½ “ of each other. Both players were 6’5”; therefore, the size of 42 is consistent for their size for a 1974/75 Sand Knit supplied jersey.

The team name (MILWAUKEE), numbering (1), and lettering (ROBERTSON), are manufactured from a unique red on white painted vinyl. Again, this is consistent with the common 1972-73 Bucks road #19 jersey examined by MEARS.

ROBERTSON is manufactured from traditional double serifed two color tackle twill, red on white and is directly applied to the reverse in 2 ¾” lettering and sewn with a zig zag stitch. The front number 1 (3 5/8”) is serifed cut from the same two color vinyl materials as the MILWAUKEE team font. The reverse number 1 (7 7/8”) is serifed cut from the same two color vinyl material as the front numeral. The vinyl materials is consistent with the 1972-73 Bucks road #19 jersey examined by MEARS is similar in respect to texture, two tone color application, zig zag anchor stitching of the materials.

The style of the jersey could be verified as being worn during the period by examining Getty Images:#73634884, 75880628.

Inspection with both the magnified light source and table revealed this jersey is all original and exhibits solid moderate/heavy game wear. The lettering shows wear around the edges of the anchor stitching and the three rows of tagging shows signs of light/moderate puckering. There are no alterations or team repairs.

With this being Oscar Robertson’s final season, he helped lead the Milwaukee Bucks to a Central Division Championship. The Bucks beat the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Semi Finals. From there they beat the Chicago Bulls in 5 games for the Western Finals. With the victory, the Bucks played the Boston Celtics for the 1974 NBA Finals. The Celtics beat the Bucks in a close 7 game series to end the career of Oscar Robertson. Based on the design of the jersey and the introduction of the 1974 style Sand Knit tag, this jersey was definitely issued to be worn during the 1973-74 season and possibly the 1974 playoffs and Finals, thus making this Oscar Robertson’s final NBA jersey.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

Item examined: 1974 Oscar Robertson Milwaukee Bucks Road Game Worn Jersey

The following information was gathered via the MEARS Jersey Grading and Authentication Worksheet, copyright 2005-2008. Hologram #308234 was issued. Our methods included the physical examination of the jersey, recording detailed information via the worksheet, comparing the information to our database, preparing full scale (1:1 ratio) color prints for examination, photographing of actual jersey for use for imagery analysis, using a light table and magnified light source to determine originality and check for alterations, comparing fabric and lettering to a common player jersey from the same relative timeframe, and finally preparing the completed letter of opinion.

Jersey style was issued to be worn in the 1973-74 season, Oscar Robertson’s final NBA season and verified via Getty Images. Due to the dating of the Sand Knit tag (examples introduced during 1974), this jersey was issued as a road pull over mesh jersey to be worn during the end of the regular season and possibly the 1974 Playoffs/Finals. With the NBA season overlapping two calendar years (end of 1973, beginning of 1974), the 1974-style tag is consistent with a jersey being issued for the early 1974 portion of the season. The 1974 season spanned from January to May. Therefore, the style and design of the Sand Knit tag was most consistent with a jersey that would have been supplied to the Bucks for the 2nd half of the season or was issued as a new jersey to be worn during the playoffs and NBA finals. The Medalist-Sandknit company of Berlin, WI, a local supplier of team apparel, manufactured the jersey. The jersey in uniquely designed with 3 different and distinct tagging. The tags are:

1. Milwaukee Sporting Goods Sand Knit distributor tag

2. Designed & Tailored Exclusively for the Milwaukee Bucks tag

3. Sand Knit size 42 tag

The tagging arrangement is consistent with the 1972-73 Bucks road #19 jersey examined by MEARS, meaning three tags (distributor, exclusive, size) were applied in a vertical fashion. This jersey was dated by the early version of the Sand Knit tag.

All three tags are required for this jersey to be an authentic 1973-74 example. The dating of the tag can be determined by the bottom Sand-Knit size 42 tag. During the 1974 season, the first examples of Sand Knit tags can found with the medal symbol being found on the bottom middle of the tag. Previous examples found the tag on the upper right edge. This design practice continued through 1976. Based on the playing career of Oscar Robertson, (ended 1974), the style, and the Sand Knit tag (introduced in 1974), this jersey can be attributed to the final half of the season of Oscar Robertson’s career.

The jersey is size 42, appropriate for Oscar Robertson’s 6’5” frame. The chest measurement of 19 inches and torso measurement of 31 inches is also correct sizing for the Big O. Regarding the size, the jersey compares quite favorably to another Sand Knit jersey of a Hall of Famer of comparable size.

Per our evaluation, MEARS #305084, 1975-76 Pete Maravich New Orleans Jazz Sand Knit Road Jersey, the physical dimensions of both the player and the jersey compared quite favorably to the examined Oscar Robertson. Both were supplied by Medalist/Sand Knit, which allowed us to track the consistency of the body shell materials and the chest/torso cut and sizing. Also, both players were of similar physical stature.

Oscar Robertson

6’5”, 205 pounds

1974 Oscar Robertson Jersey Measurements

Chest: 42

Torso: 31

Tag Size: 42

Pete Maravich

6’5”, 197 pounds

1975 Pete Maravich Jersey Measurements

Chest: 20 ½ inch

Torso: 30 ½ inch

Tag Size: 42 inch

Therefore by comparison, both Sand Knit supplied jerseys were tagged size 42 and measured via the chest and torso to within ½ “ of each other. Both players were 6’5”; therefore, the size of 42 is consistent for their size for a 1974/75 Sand Knit supplied jersey.

The team name (MILWAUKEE), numbering (1), and lettering (ROBERTSON), are manufactured from a unique red on white painted vinyl. Again, this is consistent with the common 1972-73 Bucks road #19 jersey examined by MEARS.

ROBERTSON is manufactured from traditional double serifed two color tackle twill, red on white and is directly applied to the reverse in 2 ¾” lettering and sewn with a zig zag stitch. The front number 1 (3 5/8”) is serifed cut from the same two color vinyl materials as the MILWAUKEE team font. The reverse number 1 (7 7/8”) is serifed cut from the same two color vinyl material as the front numeral. The vinyl materials is consistent with the 1972-73 Bucks road #19 jersey examined by MEARS is similar in respect to texture, two tone color application, zig zag anchor stitching of the materials.

The style of the jersey could be verified as being worn during the period by examining Getty Images:#73634884, 75880628.

Inspection with both the magnified light source and table revealed this jersey is all original and exhibits solid moderate/heavy game wear. The lettering shows wear around the edges of the anchor stitching and the three rows of tagging shows signs of light/moderate puckering. There are no alterations or team repairs.

With this being Oscar Robertson’s final season, he helped lead the Milwaukee Bucks to a Central Division Championship. The Bucks beat the Los Angeles Lakers in the Western Semi Finals. From there they beat the Chicago Bulls in 5 games for the Western Finals. With the victory, the Bucks played the Boston Celtics for the 1974 NBA Finals. The Celtics beat the Bucks in a close 7 game series to end the career of Oscar Robertson. Based on the design of the jersey and the introduction of the 1974 style Sand Knit tag, this jersey was definitely issued to be worn during the 1973-74 season and possibly the 1974 playoffs and Finals, thus making this Oscar Robertson’s final NBA jersey.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

1934-37 Rogers Hornsby Louisville Slugger Professional Model bat

For the purpose of this evaluation, MEARS #306550, after a physical inspection of the bat, comparison to factory records, use of a magnified light source to search for originality and/or alterations, determining that the knob was regular (flared) vs. his Hornsby (large Ruth) knob, and evaluation of game use, we were able to determine this bat was all-original and factory recorded in the H&B factory records as being requested by Rogers Hornsby for the years of 1934-37. To proceed with our evaluation, we accessed the H&B factory records.

Factory records were accessed to aid in:

1. Dating determination

2. Model/style as determined by knob preference

3. Verification of length & weight specifications as ordered by Hornsby

4. Number and dates of orders per Hornsby

Examination of Rogers Hornsby personal bat records reveal the first possible reference of this bat was found in the 1934 H&B records. Hornsby had been ordering bats since he signed his endorsement contract with Hillerich & Bradsby on 4/13/26. MEARS examined the label period of 1934 to 1937 as Hornsby retired from baseball in 1937. The 1938 records were for coaches’ bats and this bat does not match the length of bats ordered at that later date. This confirms the dating of the bat to Hornsby’s playing career. The actual version of the centerbrand per the manufacturing process dates the label period to a broader range to 1934 to 1944. This means the centerbrand dye used during the manufacturing process was found on bats that date throughout the 1934-44 era. Due to the last playing year of Hornsby, 1937, and the model/length (regular Hornsby knob/35”), this bat was determined to date from the 1934 to 1937 era. Personal records consistent with MEARS #306550 examined included the following orders:

5-25-34 regular Hornsby 35/36 oz.

4-14-34 regular Hornsby 35” 36 oz.

8-8-35 regular Hornsby 35” 36 oz.

4-14-36 regular Hornsby 36/37 oz.

5-12-36 regular Hornsby 36 oz.

2-26-36 regular Hornsby 35” 35/36 oz.

5-28-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

6-22-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

6-26-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

7-8-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

This bat at its current weight (32.8 ounces) is most consistent with the 1937 shipping records of bats weighing 32 to 34 ounces. But, as illustrated by MEARS, it is proven bats can loose up to 5 ounces, therefore, the 1934-1936 ordered bats (weighing 36 to 37 ounces) must also be considered. H&B factory records confirm this bat as a weight ordered by Rogers Hornsby during the 1934 to 1937 era.

Records indicate that the use of the phrase “regular Hornsby” referred to as his main or index record of a flared knob. The flared knob can be determined by noting its shape as its “flares” at the end, but does not quite form a full knob. Hornsby did indeed use a standard knob at various times during his career. He made specific references to the large size of the knob as H&B categorized them as the “Ruth” knob. Bats having the larger Ruth knob were referenced in the records as “his Hornsby”. H&B factory records confirm this as being a model with the correct regular knob (flared) as being ordered by Rogers Hornsby during the 1934 to 1937 era.

Rogers Hornsby index length is considered to be 35”. The term index length refers to a player’s main choice or preference to length. There are some inconsistencies by H&B in their practice of recording Hornsby bat lengths during this timespan of 1934 to 1937. Sometimes the specific lengths are noted, sometimes just the phrase “regular Hornsby”. In the later instances, it is assumed to default to the index lengths of 35”. H&B factory records confirm this as being a bat ordered and recorded as a length requested by Rogers Hornsby during the 1934 to 1937 era.

Additional orders of bats were found in Rogers Hornsby personal bat records during the timespan of 1934 to 1937. This bat could not have been one of those since those additional orders were listed as having large Ruth knobs or were manufactured from a totally different Chick Haffey model bat. Factory records confirm this as being a bat ordered by Rogers Hornsby during his playing career.

Post career: Rogers Hornsby did continue to order bats through the end of this broad label period dating, 1943. Hornsby remained very active in professional baseball and continued to coach, play exhibition games, and manage. This bat was not found in his personal records during post playing career of 1937 since available H&B records listed those models in longer lengths. Records shows:

1938: (3) Hornsby 36”, 36-ounce bats

(3)Chick Hafey 36”, 36-ounce bats

1942: (3) Hornsby 36”, 36-ounce bats

(9) unlisted model 36”, 34-ounce bats

This bat does not match the lengths of bats from this label period (1938-44) that Hornsby would have used as a coach.

In summary, after a complete examination of the bat and factory records, MEARS determined this bat matches factor records for the period of 1934-37 and exhibits heavy use, which is consistent with major league play. Our total examination with respect to use/manufacturer characteristics allowed us to assign this bat the grade of A7. (5 points base grade for matching factory records, 2 points for use, and notation of professionally restored handle)

1934-37 Rogers Hornsby Louisville Slugger Professional Model bat

For the purpose of this evaluation, MEARS #306550, after a physical inspection of the bat, comparison to factory records, use of a magnified light source to search for originality and/or alterations, determining that the knob was regular (flared) vs. his Hornsby (large Ruth) knob, and evaluation of game use, we were able to determine this bat was all-original and factory recorded in the H&B factory records as being requested by Rogers Hornsby for the years of 1934-37. To proceed with our evaluation, we accessed the H&B factory records.

Factory records were accessed to aid in:

1. Dating determination

2. Model/style as determined by knob preference

3. Verification of length & weight specifications as ordered by Hornsby

4. Number and dates of orders per Hornsby

Examination of Rogers Hornsby personal bat records reveal the first possible reference of this bat was found in the 1934 H&B records. Hornsby had been ordering bats since he signed his endorsement contract with Hillerich & Bradsby on 4/13/26. MEARS examined the label period of 1934 to 1937 as Hornsby retired from baseball in 1937. The 1938 records were for coaches’ bats and this bat does not match the length of bats ordered at that later date. This confirms the dating of the bat to Hornsby’s playing career. The actual version of the centerbrand per the manufacturing process dates the label period to a broader range to 1934 to 1944. This means the centerbrand dye used during the manufacturing process was found on bats that date throughout the 1934-44 era. Due to the last playing year of Hornsby, 1937, and the model/length (regular Hornsby knob/35”), this bat was determined to date from the 1934 to 1937 era. Personal records consistent with MEARS #306550 examined included the following orders:

5-25-34 regular Hornsby 35/36 oz.

4-14-34 regular Hornsby 35” 36 oz.

8-8-35 regular Hornsby 35” 36 oz.

4-14-36 regular Hornsby 36/37 oz.

5-12-36 regular Hornsby 36 oz.

2-26-36 regular Hornsby 35” 35/36 oz.

5-28-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

6-22-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

6-26-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

7-8-37 regular Hornsby 35” 32/34 oz.

This bat at its current weight (32.8 ounces) is most consistent with the 1937 shipping records of bats weighing 32 to 34 ounces. But, as illustrated by MEARS, it is proven bats can loose up to 5 ounces, therefore, the 1934-1936 ordered bats (weighing 36 to 37 ounces) must also be considered. H&B factory records confirm this bat as a weight ordered by Rogers Hornsby during the 1934 to 1937 era.

Records indicate that the use of the phrase “regular Hornsby” referred to as his main or index record of a flared knob. The flared knob can be determined by noting its shape as its “flares” at the end, but does not quite form a full knob. Hornsby did indeed use a standard knob at various times during his career. He made specific references to the large size of the knob as H&B categorized them as the “Ruth” knob. Bats having the larger Ruth knob were referenced in the records as “his Hornsby”. H&B factory records confirm this as being a model with the correct regular knob (flared) as being ordered by Rogers Hornsby during the 1934 to 1937 era.

Rogers Hornsby index length is considered to be 35”. The term index length refers to a player’s main choice or preference to length. There are some inconsistencies by H&B in their practice of recording Hornsby bat lengths during this timespan of 1934 to 1937. Sometimes the specific lengths are noted, sometimes just the phrase “regular Hornsby”. In the later instances, it is assumed to default to the index lengths of 35”. H&B factory records confirm this as being a bat ordered and recorded as a length requested by Rogers Hornsby during the 1934 to 1937 era.

Additional orders of bats were found in Rogers Hornsby personal bat records during the timespan of 1934 to 1937. This bat could not have been one of those since those additional orders were listed as having large Ruth knobs or were manufactured from a totally different Chick Haffey model bat. Factory records confirm this as being a bat ordered by Rogers Hornsby during his playing career.

Post career: Rogers Hornsby did continue to order bats through the end of this broad label period dating, 1943. Hornsby remained very active in professional baseball and continued to coach, play exhibition games, and manage. This bat was not found in his personal records during post playing career of 1937 since available H&B records listed those models in longer lengths. Records shows:

1938: (3) Hornsby 36”, 36-ounce bats

(3)Chick Hafey 36”, 36-ounce bats

1942: (3) Hornsby 36”, 36-ounce bats

(9) unlisted model 36”, 34-ounce bats

This bat does not match the lengths of bats from this label period (1938-44) that Hornsby would have used as a coach.

In summary, after a complete examination of the bat and factory records, MEARS determined this bat matches factor records for the period of 1934-37 and exhibits heavy use, which is consistent with major league play. Our total examination with respect to use/manufacturer characteristics allowed us to assign this bat the grade of A7. (5 points base grade for matching factory records, 2 points for use, and notation of professionally restored handle)

by Troy R. Kinunen…When evaluating pre 1917 professional model game used bats, different criteria must be applied to the authentication process. Factory records to support bats from this pre 1917 labeling period are almost non-existent. What is available are a handful of ledger entries, which most often only listed a player’s weight. A specific reference to this bat is not known at this time, but other factors lead us to conclude it is a professional model. MEARS applies photographic evidence, other examples examined in the MEARS database, and the examination of limited but known H&B ledger entries. The combination of the above information is the basis of our opinion deeming this bat as a professional model decal bat.

There is photographic evidence that players used decal bats in Major League games during this period of 1906 to 1911. MEARS has archived a photo of an unnamed New York Giant, circa 1904-07, using a decal bat of an unidentified bat maker.

Additional photos of players using decal bats in the major leagues include:

1. 1902-15 circa undated photo of Hall of Fame catcher Roger Bresnahan using a decal bat from an unknown supplier.

2. 1914 Hank Gowdy was mentioned in the 1939 H&B catalog as using a decal bat during the World Series.

3. 1908 circa Ty Cobb photo using what appears to be a H&B model decal bat.

Additional professional model decal bats have been examined by MEARS and our examination revealed the production information compared quite favorable (matching in some instances) with signature model Hillerich & Bradsby bats in respect to manufacturer model specifications, and with specific respect to length and weight. Professional Model Decal bats examined were:

MEARS 251387 Ty Cobb 34.5″, 37 ounces

MEARS 251351 Ty Cobb 34.5″, 38 ounces

MEARS 251886 Honus Wagner 34. 5″, 41.5 ounces

Examination and comparison of these bats were used to establish that H&B bats bearing decals of known endorsee’s were manufactured in length and weights of documented ordering patterns of the respective player in their 125 signature model versions. Meaning decal bat specifications were consistent with 125 signature model bat specifications in terms of model, length, and weight.

It should also be noted that during the timeframe of 1911-16, there are less than 12 known signature model bats that have entered the hobby bearing the signature of ANY player. Spalding was a supplier of major league bats for the era and may explain some of the lack of known H&B examples entering the hobby. This leads MEARS to conclude if players weren’t using bats with factory stamped signatures on the barrel, that professional model decal bats and non-H&B supplied bats were the bat of choice for this early era. The above photographic evidence supports this opinion.

An exact H&B entry of this Frank Baker decal bat has not been recorded to date, but MEARS determined this bat is consistent with the model used by Frank Baker and a length and weight that was consistent with being used during the 1911-16 deadball era. The weight of the bat is also consistent with an order by Baker during his final season in the majors, 36 to 37 ounces during 1922.

In regards to factory records for this bat, we have the following information of orders as referenced in the Louisville Slugger archives for Baker bats from his playing career:

File Card: His old Frank Baker (2/8/1911); Model B38-34” caliper only.

H&B display bat: 34.5”, 47 oz.

1921 Sam Rice Thick Handle Model / 40 oz; Model sent in: 39 oz

1922 His Model: n/s oz.; Old Harry Hooper model: 36 to 37 oz.

Tool Room Lengths Listed on player chart: Frank Baker 34”

Therefore, study of the available factory records show Frank Baker ordered bats measuring in the following lengths and weights:

Lengths

1. n/s = not specified

2. 34”

3. 34.5”

Weights

1. 36 to 37 oz

2. 39 oz

3. 47 oz

No complete factory records are available to support ordering patterns with respect to model, length, and weight of bats ordered by Baker during the 1911-16 timeframe. The above ranges and known production patterns of major league ballplayers from the era serve as our guide to determine acceptable professional model game bats lengths and weights.

The playing career of Frank Baker spanned from 1908 to 1922. He signed his contract with Louisville Slugger on 10/24/11. Thus, the bat would have been made available for Baker during the entire 1911-16 time span.

Grading: Based on the quality of the wood and the range of the manufacturers characteristics with respect to model, length and weight, the bat is determined by MEARS to be a Frank Baker professional model decal bat. When examining these bats from this label period, we must take into consideration the lack of complete factory records. Evaluation as professional model comes from the known and examined photos, which confirm use of decal bats during the approximate era. Also, the manufacturer characteristics of length (33″) and weight (36.7 ounces) fall within the ordering patterns of players from the era and is within a consistent weight range (36 to 37 ounces) with one referenced ledger entry of weight for Baker (see 1922 His Model: n/s oz.; Old Harry Hooper model: 36 to 37 oz.)

Final grade was determined of 5 base points (matches known examples to model and known dimensions (length & weight) of bats used in the major leagues during this era), 1 point for light use. Final Grade: MEARS A6.

by Troy R. Kinunen…When evaluating pre 1917 professional model game used bats, different criteria must be applied to the authentication process. Factory records to support bats from this pre 1917 labeling period are almost non-existent. What is available are a handful of ledger entries, which most often only listed a player’s weight. A specific reference to this bat is not known at this time, but other factors lead us to conclude it is a professional model. MEARS applies photographic evidence, other examples examined in the MEARS database, and the examination of limited but known H&B ledger entries. The combination of the above information is the basis of our opinion deeming this bat as a professional model decal bat.

There is photographic evidence that players used decal bats in Major League games during this period of 1906 to 1911. MEARS has archived a photo of an unnamed New York Giant, circa 1904-07, using a decal bat of an unidentified bat maker.

Additional photos of players using decal bats in the major leagues include:

1. 1902-15 circa undated photo of Hall of Fame catcher Roger Bresnahan using a decal bat from an unknown supplier.

2. 1914 Hank Gowdy was mentioned in the 1939 H&B catalog as using a decal bat during the World Series.

3. 1908 circa Ty Cobb photo using what appears to be a H&B model decal bat.

Additional professional model decal bats have been examined by MEARS and our examination revealed the production information compared quite favorable (matching in some instances) with signature model Hillerich & Bradsby bats in respect to manufacturer model specifications, and with specific respect to length and weight. Professional Model Decal bats examined were:

MEARS 251387 Ty Cobb 34.5″, 37 ounces

MEARS 251351 Ty Cobb 34.5″, 38 ounces

MEARS 251886 Honus Wagner 34. 5″, 41.5 ounces

Examination and comparison of these bats were used to establish that H&B bats bearing decals of known endorsee’s were manufactured in length and weights of documented ordering patterns of the respective player in their 125 signature model versions. Meaning decal bat specifications were consistent with 125 signature model bat specifications in terms of model, length, and weight.

It should also be noted that during the timeframe of 1911-16, there are less than 12 known signature model bats that have entered the hobby bearing the signature of ANY player. Spalding was a supplier of major league bats for the era and may explain some of the lack of known H&B examples entering the hobby. This leads MEARS to conclude if players weren’t using bats with factory stamped signatures on the barrel, that professional model decal bats and non-H&B supplied bats were the bat of choice for this early era. The above photographic evidence supports this opinion.

An exact H&B entry of this Frank Baker decal bat has not been recorded to date, but MEARS determined this bat is consistent with the model used by Frank Baker and a length and weight that was consistent with being used during the 1911-16 deadball era. The weight of the bat is also consistent with an order by Baker during his final season in the majors, 36 to 37 ounces during 1922.

In regards to factory records for this bat, we have the following information of orders as referenced in the Louisville Slugger archives for Baker bats from his playing career:

File Card: His old Frank Baker (2/8/1911); Model B38-34” caliper only.

H&B display bat: 34.5”, 47 oz.

1921 Sam Rice Thick Handle Model / 40 oz; Model sent in: 39 oz

1922 His Model: n/s oz.; Old Harry Hooper model: 36 to 37 oz.

Tool Room Lengths Listed on player chart: Frank Baker 34”

Therefore, study of the available factory records show Frank Baker ordered bats measuring in the following lengths and weights:

Lengths

1. n/s = not specified

2. 34”

3. 34.5”

Weights

1. 36 to 37 oz

2. 39 oz

3. 47 oz

No complete factory records are available to support ordering patterns with respect to model, length, and weight of bats ordered by Baker during the 1911-16 timeframe. The above ranges and known production patterns of major league ballplayers from the era serve as our guide to determine acceptable professional model game bats lengths and weights.

The playing career of Frank Baker spanned from 1908 to 1922. He signed his contract with Louisville Slugger on 10/24/11. Thus, the bat would have been made available for Baker during the entire 1911-16 time span.

Grading: Based on the quality of the wood and the range of the manufacturers characteristics with respect to model, length and weight, the bat is determined by MEARS to be a Frank Baker professional model decal bat. When examining these bats from this label period, we must take into consideration the lack of complete factory records. Evaluation as professional model comes from the known and examined photos, which confirm use of decal bats during the approximate era. Also, the manufacturer characteristics of length (33″) and weight (36.7 ounces) fall within the ordering patterns of players from the era and is within a consistent weight range (36 to 37 ounces) with one referenced ledger entry of weight for Baker (see 1922 His Model: n/s oz.; Old Harry Hooper model: 36 to 37 oz.)

Final grade was determined of 5 base points (matches known examples to model and known dimensions (length & weight) of bats used in the major leagues during this era), 1 point for light use. Final Grade: MEARS A6.

November 29, 2007

The following information was gathered via the MEARS Jersey Grading and Authentication worksheet, copyright 2005-07. Hologram #307533 was issued. Our methods of evaluation included the physical examination of the jersey, recording detailed information via the worksheet, comparing the information to our database, photographing of actual jersey for use for documentation, conducting imagery analysis, conducting trend analysis with respect to sizing and manufacturer, using both a light table and magnified light source to examine possible signs of originality and/or alterations, and finally preparing the completed letter of opinion. The final Letter of Opinion was uploaded to our website and the jersey was included in our jersey trade index report.

Item inspected: 1966 Jim Taylor Green Bay Packers Home jersey manufactured by Sand Knit

MEARS evaluator Troy R. Kinunen conducted the physical examination of the jersey and authored the final Letter of Opinion.

Jersey Physical Description

The player inspected is Jim Taylor, jersey issued (determined by tagging era) to 1966. The jersey was issued as a home version. The home issue is determined by the Kelly Green color found of the durene fabric. The Kelly Green was first used by the Packers during the 1960 season and remained the staple color to date. This color is in direct contrast to the Aqau Blue/Green issued pre 1961. The color is important as it helps support the 1966 dating.

The jersey was manufactured of high quality, professional grade dureene material supplied by the local Sand Knit manufacturing company of Berlin, WI. Sand Knit began supplying the Green Bay Packers with jerseys starting 1964 and continued to 1990. Previously they were supplied by the Red Fox Company. The style of the jersey was examined and compared favorably to 7 visual areas of distinction:

1. Crew Neck Pullover

2. Standard shoulder yoke construction

3. Proper sleeve length (full) & striping

4. Presence of elbow pad pockets

5. Square Tail

6. Proper shoulder, front, and back serifed numbering

7. Proper durene material

8. Proper Kelly Green color

All 8 of these features must be present for a circa 1966 game used Green Bay Packers Home jersey. Comparisons to the following photos allowed for a style match for each of the above features (see 1-8):

MEARS 1966 Fuzzy Thurston (#63) Action photo

MEARS 1966 Bart Starr (#15) throwing photo

MEARS 1967 #34 Wire Photo

MEARS 1966 Green Bay Packers Team Photo

The three jerseys and one photo allow MEARS to compare both the number 3 and 1 of the #31 to the numbers worn by the above players and the referenced 1966 team photo. The inspection of these jerseys allowed us to examine material and tagging and this circa 1966-67 Sand Knit manufactured jersey compared favorably. MEARS also compared the durene materials to other documented examples of authentic Green Bay Packers jerseys manufactured by Sand Knit. These included both Hall of Fame and common players. This was done in order to compare the durene fabric, cut and application of the numerals, and compare sleeve striping and length to actual examples.

Actual examples used for comparison were:

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Doug Hart

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Gale Gillingham

1963-65 Sand Knit Packers Home Bart Starr (color copy plates)

1969 Sand Knit Packers Road Willie Davis

1964-66 Sand Knit Packers Home Paul Hornung (MEARS #304033)

MEARS (#307533) 1966 Jim Taylor compared quite favorably to the 5 previously examined examples with respect to materials, numbering, sleeve length and striping, and overall characteristics. Also, the jersey was compared to the official 1966 Packers color team photo that featured the players in their home jersey. This image again allowed MEARS to confirm jersey construction (sleeve length & stripes, yoke, crew neck) and numeral characteristics. Besides being able to use the photo of Jim Taylor (from left: 7th player, top row), we are able to compare the numeral font of Taylor’s #31 to the following players to make comparisons of style and cut of numerals:

#81, #21, #43, #37, #63, #73, #83

Each of the above players wearing these numbers, each having Taylor’s 3 or 1 as part of their numbers, was viewable for comparison. The jerseys referenced in the photo compared quite favorable to the examined Jim Taylor jersey.

Tagging Era Examination (1966-67)

This jersey is manufactured by Sand Knit and is tagged on the outside lower tail. The tag has a white field with the large red “SAND” with black “KNIT, ATHLETIC SPORTSWEAR AND CLOTHING, SAND KNITTING MILLS CORP, BERLIN, WIS.” There is no size tag found on this version of the Sand Knit tag, which is a crucial element for dating this jersey to 1966-67. The previous version of this tag (1963-65) found the size included on the bottom line of the Sand Knit tag, not present on this version. Thus, with the style of the tag in conjunction with the lack of size printed, this tag can be attributed to the 1966-67 era. During 1968, the design of the tag again changed.

Sizing

The size tag in the collar, 46 (box tag in collar), is applied with a single green thread. The numeric printing is sans serifs and consistent to both examined 1968 Packers home jerseys in the MEARS archives:

1968 Packers Home Doug Hart

1968 Packers Home Gale Gillingham

Although later issue, they are both Sand Knit supplied and the size tag is applied to all three examples in a consistent manner.

To verify the actual jersey size matches tagged size, MEARS measured the chest from armpit to arm pit. (standard measuring technique). The measured chest size is 23 inches across, which perfectly matches the size 46 tag. The torso measured at 33 ½ inches.

Numbering

Jim Taylor was issued #31 while playing with the Green Bay Packers from 1958-66. Any number of sources including the 1966 Green Bay Packers Yearbook and media guide can verify this. The number is hand cut from heavy materials and sewn with a consistent and professional zig zag stitch pattern. This is consistent will all other examined examples. The size of the numbering, 9” front, 11” back, is consistent with the range of numbering for:

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Doug Hart

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Gale Gillingham

1963-65 Sand Knit Packers Home Bart Starr (color copy plates)

1969 Sand Knit Packers Road Willie Davis

1964-66 Sand Knit Packers Home Paul Hornung (MEARS #304033

Due to the hand cut nature of the numerals, there was a 1/8” to ¼” variance on all examined numerals, an acceptable and to be expected range caused by the hand cut. When examined on the light table, no signs of another number are present, thus establishing the numbers were original as issued.

Dating

MEARS attributes the dating of this jersey to 1966. This was determined by the fact of the style of the jersey, the manufacture and its style of tag, and Jim Taylor’s playing career, which ended in 1966. The intersection of all these facts allows for a 1966 year of issuance to be determined. As previously stated, the design of the Sand Knit tag allows us to date this version to 1966-67. The main feature is the absence of a size indicator. With MEARS determining the tag dating to 1966-67 and Jim Taylor’s last season with the Packers as being 1966, MEARS attributes this jersey to the 1966 season.

Tail Cut

Another feature of this jersey is the squaretail, which is hemmed with a reinforced seam. This is consistent with the other 5 examined Green Bay Packers jersey we examined.

Autograph

The jersey is signed, “Good Luck, Jim Taylor” and the signature has been authenticated by JSA and PSA/DNA.

Wear

The jersey exhibits heavy game wear consistent with action associated with a fullback in the NFL. For the 1966 season, Jim Taylor played in 14 regular season games, ran the ball with 204 attempts (5th in league), gained 705 yards, and scored 4 TD’s. The overall wear of this jersey is consistent with a full season of wear. The heavy wear is consistent and distributed evenly throughout the body, chest, and shoulder areas of the jersey. With specific reference to game wear, use is manifested on the following areas:

*Right front there is evidence of a seam repair between yoke and upper jersey front

*Team repair on the right shoulder

*Team repair on right front area

*Two large team repairs on shoulder panel

*Large areas of contact remnants on right yoke

*Team repair on lower left yoke seam

*Team repair to left shoulder yoke

*Large areas of contact marks on left yoke

*3 large team repairs on reverse.

*Contact marks found in 3 large areas on reverse

*Front area exhibits heavy area of contact marks on both front numerals and surrounding areas

*16 vintage visible team repairs

After examining Green Bay Packers jerseys as both a collector and dealer for 20 years, it is my expert opinion that the wear is consistent with one full season of NFL game action. This point is mentioned because the Green Bay Packers were known for using their regular season jerseys in subsequent seasons as practice jerseys. This jersey is not consistent with jerseys worn during practice and is not evaluated as such. This was documented via the 1960s durene Packers Road jersey I personally purchased from the estate of Ray Nitschke. The jersey was in no condition for regular season use and it had been inventoried as Ray’s last practice jersey. It is also known the Packers donated their equipment to the Onieda Correctional Facility. This explains the scarcity of 1960s Packers jerseys. 1960s Packers jersey did not remain in condition to be used for several regular season use. Therefore in my expert opinion, this jersey is in the same condition as last used at the professional level.

Conclusion

Our physical examination of the jersey included inspection of the durene body shell, front, back and shoulder numbers, internal examination of stitching and repairs, originality of overall jersey features, evaluation of wear and team repairs, and comparison via the MEARS database of tagging, size measurements, and visual aspects of distinction. A magnified light source and table was used and there was no discovery of changes or alterations. MEARS is confident to evaluate this jerseys as a 1966 Jim Taylor Green Bay Packers Game Worn Home jersey. The heavy wear and team repairs, totaling 16, is consistent with regular/post season game wear. The jersey appears to be all original as last worn by Jim Taylor during the 1966 season.

Based on the intended use of the item, NFL football games, the team repairs and heavy wear help support the authenticity of this jersey. With support of photographs, tagging data, and comparable examples, we are able to award this jersey a perfect grade of MEARS A10.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS Authenticator

Additional Resources used for imagery analysis:

Complete History of the Green Bay Packers/Super Bowl Champions: Green Bay Packers DVD

MEARS Video Database

MEARS LOO Database

MEARS Jersey plate database

MEARS Tagging archives

1966 Green Bay Packers Yearbook

1967 Green Bay Packers Yearbook

1966 Green Bay Packers Official Media Guide

1967 Green Bay Packers Official Media Guide

November 29, 2007

The following information was gathered via the MEARS Jersey Grading and Authentication worksheet, copyright 2005-07. Hologram #307533 was issued. Our methods of evaluation included the physical examination of the jersey, recording detailed information via the worksheet, comparing the information to our database, photographing of actual jersey for use for documentation, conducting imagery analysis, conducting trend analysis with respect to sizing and manufacturer, using both a light table and magnified light source to examine possible signs of originality and/or alterations, and finally preparing the completed letter of opinion. The final Letter of Opinion was uploaded to our website and the jersey was included in our jersey trade index report.

Item inspected: 1966 Jim Taylor Green Bay Packers Home jersey manufactured by Sand Knit

MEARS evaluator Troy R. Kinunen conducted the physical examination of the jersey and authored the final Letter of Opinion.

Jersey Physical Description

The player inspected is Jim Taylor, jersey issued (determined by tagging era) to 1966. The jersey was issued as a home version. The home issue is determined by the Kelly Green color found of the durene fabric. The Kelly Green was first used by the Packers during the 1960 season and remained the staple color to date. This color is in direct contrast to the Aqau Blue/Green issued pre 1961. The color is important as it helps support the 1966 dating.

The jersey was manufactured of high quality, professional grade dureene material supplied by the local Sand Knit manufacturing company of Berlin, WI. Sand Knit began supplying the Green Bay Packers with jerseys starting 1964 and continued to 1990. Previously they were supplied by the Red Fox Company. The style of the jersey was examined and compared favorably to 7 visual areas of distinction:

1. Crew Neck Pullover

2. Standard shoulder yoke construction

3. Proper sleeve length (full) & striping

4. Presence of elbow pad pockets

5. Square Tail

6. Proper shoulder, front, and back serifed numbering

7. Proper durene material

8. Proper Kelly Green color

All 8 of these features must be present for a circa 1966 game used Green Bay Packers Home jersey. Comparisons to the following photos allowed for a style match for each of the above features (see 1-8):

MEARS 1966 Fuzzy Thurston (#63) Action photo

MEARS 1966 Bart Starr (#15) throwing photo

MEARS 1967 #34 Wire Photo

MEARS 1966 Green Bay Packers Team Photo

The three jerseys and one photo allow MEARS to compare both the number 3 and 1 of the #31 to the numbers worn by the above players and the referenced 1966 team photo. The inspection of these jerseys allowed us to examine material and tagging and this circa 1966-67 Sand Knit manufactured jersey compared favorably. MEARS also compared the durene materials to other documented examples of authentic Green Bay Packers jerseys manufactured by Sand Knit. These included both Hall of Fame and common players. This was done in order to compare the durene fabric, cut and application of the numerals, and compare sleeve striping and length to actual examples.

Actual examples used for comparison were:

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Doug Hart

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Gale Gillingham

1963-65 Sand Knit Packers Home Bart Starr (color copy plates)

1969 Sand Knit Packers Road Willie Davis

1964-66 Sand Knit Packers Home Paul Hornung (MEARS #304033)

MEARS (#307533) 1966 Jim Taylor compared quite favorably to the 5 previously examined examples with respect to materials, numbering, sleeve length and striping, and overall characteristics. Also, the jersey was compared to the official 1966 Packers color team photo that featured the players in their home jersey. This image again allowed MEARS to confirm jersey construction (sleeve length & stripes, yoke, crew neck) and numeral characteristics. Besides being able to use the photo of Jim Taylor (from left: 7th player, top row), we are able to compare the numeral font of Taylor’s #31 to the following players to make comparisons of style and cut of numerals:

#81, #21, #43, #37, #63, #73, #83

Each of the above players wearing these numbers, each having Taylor’s 3 or 1 as part of their numbers, was viewable for comparison. The jerseys referenced in the photo compared quite favorable to the examined Jim Taylor jersey.

Tagging Era Examination (1966-67)

This jersey is manufactured by Sand Knit and is tagged on the outside lower tail. The tag has a white field with the large red “SAND” with black “KNIT, ATHLETIC SPORTSWEAR AND CLOTHING, SAND KNITTING MILLS CORP, BERLIN, WIS.” There is no size tag found on this version of the Sand Knit tag, which is a crucial element for dating this jersey to 1966-67. The previous version of this tag (1963-65) found the size included on the bottom line of the Sand Knit tag, not present on this version. Thus, with the style of the tag in conjunction with the lack of size printed, this tag can be attributed to the 1966-67 era. During 1968, the design of the tag again changed.

Sizing

The size tag in the collar, 46 (box tag in collar), is applied with a single green thread. The numeric printing is sans serifs and consistent to both examined 1968 Packers home jerseys in the MEARS archives:

1968 Packers Home Doug Hart

1968 Packers Home Gale Gillingham

Although later issue, they are both Sand Knit supplied and the size tag is applied to all three examples in a consistent manner.

To verify the actual jersey size matches tagged size, MEARS measured the chest from armpit to arm pit. (standard measuring technique). The measured chest size is 23 inches across, which perfectly matches the size 46 tag. The torso measured at 33 ½ inches.

Numbering

Jim Taylor was issued #31 while playing with the Green Bay Packers from 1958-66. Any number of sources including the 1966 Green Bay Packers Yearbook and media guide can verify this. The number is hand cut from heavy materials and sewn with a consistent and professional zig zag stitch pattern. This is consistent will all other examined examples. The size of the numbering, 9” front, 11” back, is consistent with the range of numbering for:

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Doug Hart

1968 Sand Knit Packers Home Gale Gillingham

1963-65 Sand Knit Packers Home Bart Starr (color copy plates)

1969 Sand Knit Packers Road Willie Davis

1964-66 Sand Knit Packers Home Paul Hornung (MEARS #304033

Due to the hand cut nature of the numerals, there was a 1/8” to ¼” variance on all examined numerals, an acceptable and to be expected range caused by the hand cut. When examined on the light table, no signs of another number are present, thus establishing the numbers were original as issued.

Dating

MEARS attributes the dating of this jersey to 1966. This was determined by the fact of the style of the jersey, the manufacture and its style of tag, and Jim Taylor’s playing career, which ended in 1966. The intersection of all these facts allows for a 1966 year of issuance to be determined. As previously stated, the design of the Sand Knit tag allows us to date this version to 1966-67. The main feature is the absence of a size indicator. With MEARS determining the tag dating to 1966-67 and Jim Taylor’s last season with the Packers as being 1966, MEARS attributes this jersey to the 1966 season.

Tail Cut

Another feature of this jersey is the squaretail, which is hemmed with a reinforced seam. This is consistent with the other 5 examined Green Bay Packers jersey we examined.

Autograph

The jersey is signed, “Good Luck, Jim Taylor” and the signature has been authenticated by JSA and PSA/DNA.

Wear

The jersey exhibits heavy game wear consistent with action associated with a fullback in the NFL. For the 1966 season, Jim Taylor played in 14 regular season games, ran the ball with 204 attempts (5th in league), gained 705 yards, and scored 4 TD’s. The overall wear of this jersey is consistent with a full season of wear. The heavy wear is consistent and distributed evenly throughout the body, chest, and shoulder areas of the jersey. With specific reference to game wear, use is manifested on the following areas:

*Right front there is evidence of a seam repair between yoke and upper jersey front

*Team repair on the right shoulder

*Team repair on right front area

*Two large team repairs on shoulder panel

*Large areas of contact remnants on right yoke

*Team repair on lower left yoke seam

*Team repair to left shoulder yoke

*Large areas of contact marks on left yoke

*3 large team repairs on reverse.

*Contact marks found in 3 large areas on reverse

*Front area exhibits heavy area of contact marks on both front numerals and surrounding areas

*16 vintage visible team repairs

After examining Green Bay Packers jerseys as both a collector and dealer for 20 years, it is my expert opinion that the wear is consistent with one full season of NFL game action. This point is mentioned because the Green Bay Packers were known for using their regular season jerseys in subsequent seasons as practice jerseys. This jersey is not consistent with jerseys worn during practice and is not evaluated as such. This was documented via the 1960s durene Packers Road jersey I personally purchased from the estate of Ray Nitschke. The jersey was in no condition for regular season use and it had been inventoried as Ray’s last practice jersey. It is also known the Packers donated their equipment to the Onieda Correctional Facility. This explains the scarcity of 1960s Packers jerseys. 1960s Packers jersey did not remain in condition to be used for several regular season use. Therefore in my expert opinion, this jersey is in the same condition as last used at the professional level.

Conclusion

Our physical examination of the jersey included inspection of the durene body shell, front, back and shoulder numbers, internal examination of stitching and repairs, originality of overall jersey features, evaluation of wear and team repairs, and comparison via the MEARS database of tagging, size measurements, and visual aspects of distinction. A magnified light source and table was used and there was no discovery of changes or alterations. MEARS is confident to evaluate this jerseys as a 1966 Jim Taylor Green Bay Packers Game Worn Home jersey. The heavy wear and team repairs, totaling 16, is consistent with regular/post season game wear. The jersey appears to be all original as last worn by Jim Taylor during the 1966 season.

Based on the intended use of the item, NFL football games, the team repairs and heavy wear help support the authenticity of this jersey. With support of photographs, tagging data, and comparable examples, we are able to award this jersey a perfect grade of MEARS A10.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

MEARS Authenticator

Additional Resources used for imagery analysis:

Complete History of the Green Bay Packers/Super Bowl Champions: Green Bay Packers DVD

MEARS Video Database

MEARS LOO Database

MEARS Jersey plate database

MEARS Tagging archives

1966 Green Bay Packers Yearbook

1967 Green Bay Packers Yearbook

1966 Green Bay Packers Official Media Guide

1967 Green Bay Packers Official Media Guide

The names Babe, Mick, Duke, Mr. Cub, and Big Train are all easily recognizable and associated with players that became legends. When we hear those nicknames, we immediately know who they belong to. Although all were famous men, can you tell me what or if Mickey Mantle had a nickname for his bat? In the history of baseball, only one bat was universally known to all, and it was the Black Betsy.

My evaluation of the Black Betsy bat was recorded as follows:

MEARS hologram #: 305170

1916-17 Louisville Slugger Black Betsy Professional Model bat: style/model of bat used by Joe Jackson (returned by Jack Warhop)

The following item is a 1916-17 Louisville Slugger Black Betsy model bat which is identical with respect to model, style, finish, and consistent in regards to length and weight of other MEARS examined bats manufactured (H&B and Spalding) to be used by Shoeless Joe Jackson during his playing days with the Chicago White Sox. The style, model, and finish have been photographically documented as being used by Joe Jackson. Although absent of a name on barrel, we could confirm the manufacturing characteristics with respect to bats used by Joe Jackson by comparing this example to the circa 1911 Joe Jackson vault mark bat (J13) and store model bats which were made available to the hobby during the same relative time frame. Vault marked examples can serve as factory records as it is known that future bats were manufactured from the archived vault marked examples.

This examined bat matched the manufacturer dimensions of the vault marked example. It is also known that store model bats were designed from the players preferred specifications. If a store model bat exists, it was designed from a bat used by the player endorsee. Typically the players most favorite model. The manufactures dimensions of this bat compare very favorably to the examined store model examples made available during the same time frame especially in terms of knob, handle, barrel, barrel end, and finish. The dimensions of a store model bat were taken directly from the players personal model bat. Store model Joe Jackson bats prove this as a model ordered and preferred by Joe Jackson.

A photograph is provided which shows the similarities of the three. 1. Vault Marked example, 2. Examined Black Betsy, 3. Black Betsy Store Model bat. The unique design and finish coupled with examination of available images and examination of documented examples allows us to attribute the use of the Black Betsy model bat to Joe Jackson. With the strong similarities of the three, it is can be concluded that Black Betsy finished bats matching these similar dimensions can be deemed as a model ordered by Joe Jackson.

This examined bat measures 35 ½” length and weighs 42 ounces, both within an acceptable ordering variance of the examples this bat was compared to. Examples of professional model bats examined by MEARS and supported when reviewing the Louisville Slugger shipping records routinely establish players using bats varying in length of 1” to 3” and weights of 1 ounce to 4 ounces. These variances are associated with the most commonly ordered model of bats ordered by players. There are extremes to both ends of the spectrum which have been documented and examples of less variances found when reviewing the factory records. We concluded that this bat falls within the documented and accepted ordering variances of professional model bats.

Due to its unique features, mainly consisting of black betsy finish and blank barrel, this bat is being evaluated as a Black Betsy style/model bat that was one type used by Joe Jackson. Without a player’s name appearing on the centerbrand, absolute attribution cannot be made to a player, but I believe it to be the model used by Joe Jackson as it compares quite favorably to three other documented examples. Therefore, we are evaluating the bat as type of model it was manufactured as. There are no known catalogs, records, or ledgers showing other players being offered the Black Betsy model bat in these dimensions with a blank barrel, but it is possible. We do know that other players did use bats with the black betsy finish, but those examples were found with the players name stamped on the barrel. Three documented examples of Black Betsy bats have entered the hobby. All three examined by MEARS were found to be originally manufactured as a blank barrel. Therefore, I feel it is proper to attribute this bat as being the correct model in regards to style, length, weight, finish, and barrel end as a bat preferred and used by Joe Jackson. There is no proof currently known which explains the introduction of blank barreled black betsy bats for player use, but then again, no other bat was as unique to the sport and so closely associated to one player. Its uniqueness caused this bat to be referred to by its own name, Black Betsy. This may account for the reason no player’s name was added to the barrel, as it wasn’t needed for the purpose of identification, as its color and model were unique enough.

A signature version was also available for Joe Jackson’s use during the 1916 era. Two signature model examples from the similar timeframe have been examined by MEARS and are referenced in this article for the purpose of comparison. Photographs clearly support the use of both the Black Betsy and non- Black Betsy finished bats by Joe Jackson. The examined signature model bats are consistent with the photographs and support the style, model, and color of a non-Black Betsy Style bat being used by Joe Jackson. The signature model examples were not consistent in terms of length and weight to the 3 documented Joe Jackson examples. This illustrated that the Black Betsy blank barreled models were more consistent with respect to length and weight than the signature versions. Examples examined were:

1. J13- 1911 J.F. Hillerich & Son vault marked bat
2. Spalding Black Betsy MEARS #301331
3. M EARS #303705 1911-16 Black Betsy (Hunt Auctions)

Joe Jackson did indeed use a Black Betsy model bat exhibiting the dark blackened finish with what appeared via photographs as a blank barrel. Four detailed images are referenced and provided. The image allows for a visual examination of the bat’s model, barrel end shape, centerbrand presence, lack of visible writing/stamping on barrel end upon visual inspection of the images, and two-toned black Betsy finish. This bat compares favorably to the images while conducting a visual comparison of bat to photos. The Black Betsy bats are thought to be blank barreled, as other examined Black Betsy model bats examined by MEARS were also blank barreled. The examination of the available photographs does not show any name stamped on the barrel. The centerbrands are clearly visible but no name can be seen on the barrel. This may be due to quality of the image used which does not allow a detailed view of the barrel that would show the presence of a player’s name, or the bat was photographed as a blank barreled bat. It is our opinion of the latter explanation. No examples of Black Betsy finished bats from 1912-19 label period made to similar dimension containing Joe Jackson’s facsimile signature have ever been examined within the hobby. No examples were included in the original Louisville Slugger find.

Also, we have examined three documented Joe Jackson bats, and all were lacking any player’s name at time of manufacturing. Examination of the three documented examples allowed us to compare this examined example with regards to manufacturing characteristics, barrel label, length, and weight. They were:

* J13- 1911 J.F. Hillerich & Son vault marked bat. This bat was manufactured as a blank barrel, meaning the Joe Jackson signature or block lettered stamping did not appear on the barrel at the time it first left the factory. In must be noted that it was common during this timeframe for players to use blank barreled bats. Another high profile example of a bat from this era lacking barrel stampings is the Honus Wagner game used bat, which is part of the Dr. Richard Angrist collection. The stamping of player’s name on a regular basis is not documented in the hobby until the post 1917 label periods for Louisville Slugger bats. The J13 is the model number that was assigned to this model of bat at the factory for Joe Jackson. The manufacturer characteristics are medium handle, thick handle, and bullet tip barrel end. This barrel end is unique as it has more rounding and tapers to the end much more drastically than the usual barrel end. This preference was requested by Joe Jackson and the factory assigned the new model designation, J13, to him for exclusive reference of this model. This examined bat perfectly mirrors these design specifications. Therefore, this bat is the same model as the documented J13 vault marked example in regards to design specifications and barrel end shape. See attached images.

* Spalding Black Betsy MEARS #301331, was also manufactured as a blank barrel model. Thought to have been originally manufactured before his signing with Louisville Slugger in 1912, the model is quite different than the J13 model. It was manufactured as a blank barrel model, which was consistent in terms of the manufacturer methods of the era in regards to producing bats without a player’s name on barrel. This example does not support the model as it is clearly different, but is used to reference that bats from this era were produced sans barrel stampings.

* MEARS #303705 1911-16 Black Betsy (Hunt Auctions). This bat measured 35.5” in length and weighed 40.6 ounces. It also contained the bullet tip barrel end, which is consistent in terms of production methods of the J13 model designation. The length and weight of this additional sample is near identical to the examined bat. This bat comes with provenance in the form of a letter from Marguerite M. (Hauer) Joyce. Her father was Thomas Hauer. He was employed by the Boston Braves and Boston Red Sox. During his term as a clubhouse attendant, it was passed down as family legend that he obtained this bat from Joe Jackson. This is an example of a blank barreled Joe Jackson with both manufacturing characteristics quite consistent with the examined bat and accompanied by provenance. Photograph of Thomas Hauer and original sale description of this bat is included.

With respect to other bats exhibiting the Black Betsy finish having a players name stamped into the barrel, there are two examples referenced by Dave Bushing of MEARS. The examples were:

1911-19 Hank Gowdy Louisville Slugger Black Betsy signature model
1911-15 Chick Gandil (34”) Louisville Slugger Black Betsy model bat with block lettered name (www.blackbetsy.com)

These references are the only known examples of Black Betsy finished bats having a players name that have been examined by the staff of MEARS to date. Dave Bushing also determined that both bats contained player identification on the barrel, which was applied at the factory at the time of original manufacture. The names were not added at a later time like the instance of the Spalding Black Betsy and the J13 vault marked example. We have found no additional references of other players requesting a black Betsy style bat. It should also be noted that the Gandil bat measured 34”. This was a 1” difference than any of the MEARS examined black Betsy bats. By comparison, this illustrates that the one of the other documented Black Betsy model bats containing a players name on barrel was different that the Joe Jackson bats in two distinct ways:

1. The length was 1” shorter than any examined Joe Jackson Black Betsy bats
2. The Black Betsy style bat which was ordered by another player (Gandil) and was bearing that player’s name was found to not be consistent with the lengths of the documented and recorded Black Betsy style bats examined by MEARS.

The Hank Gowdy bat measurements were not recorded therefore disallowing it for comparison sake. This illustrates that the players whose name was factory stamped Gandil and Gowdy used bats containing barrel stampings which was in direct contrast to the blank barrel bats thought to be used by Shoeless Joe Jackson. For the sake of full disclosure, the 1” shorter variance alone does not exclude the bat from being Joe Jackson’s, as ordering patterns support players with that degree of length variance or greater. But, the 1” shorter length in conjunction with the player’s name on barrel disqualifies that examined example from being manufactured for Joe Jackson.

It should be noted that both the J13 and the Spalding Black Betsy model bats entered the hobby with JACKSON stamped into the barrel. This was done by both manufactures at a later time when the bat was returned for duplication for his barnstorming career. No name appeared on the bat at the time the bats were issued for use by Joe Jackson. Both examples having blank barrels are consistent with this examined model.

Typically, MEARS examines bats containing a factory stamped players name, (most often signature models), which were manufactured in accordance with the player’s specifications. These player specifications are recorded via side written and vault marked examples, lathe and tool room bats, and available factory records. Players first signed a contract, and then their names were added to the model of their choice. Typically, during this early timeframe, the contract allowed for the players autograph to appear on the decal which was placed on store model bats which served as product branding for Louisville Slugger and promotion of the players model to the general public. For the years 1912-1917, it is our experience that most game used professional model bats were issued as blank barreled. Store model decal bats were also issued during the 1912-1917 timeframe, which were consistent with the model of bat used by Joe Jackson.

Joe Jackson did indeed sign a contract with Hillerich & Bradsby and was issued signature model Louisville Slugger professional model bats for his use in the majors. Examples examined dated from the 1916-19 timeframe. Both examples of the signature model Joe Jackson bats examined by MEARS measured 33” in length and were found with thinner handles and barrels. The signature models were in direct contrast to the Black Betsy model bats and were different with respect to model, dimensions, and finish.

Although this bat does not contain his facsimile factory stamped signature, the bat is consistent in regards to length, weight, model and finish of his J13 Louisville Slugger and his 1911-16 MEARS #303705 Black Betsy. The examined J13 model is the only bat referenced in the available Louisville Slugger personal player records for Joe Jackson. Therefore, this bat is consistent in respect to model (special emphasis on handle and barrel end) with the only recorded Joe Jackson bat model. Image included of the original J13 Joe Jackson Louisville Slugger bat, which allows for comparison.

Another supporting fact that this examined model and the additional Black Betsy model bats were issued for use for Joe Jackson is the fact that the examined Black Betsy model mirrors the retail model 40JJ decal bats that were offered via retail dealers. Store model bats were manufactured using the dimensions of their game used professional model counterparts. With their introduction to the general public, Louisville Slugger retail or “store model” bats were issued with a different centerbrand markings. The decal store model bats which are commonly found within the hobby were marked in the center as “40JJ”, with the initials standing for Joe Jackson. Enclosed is an advertisement dated 1913 promoting the fact that Joe Jackson was endorsing Louisville Slugger bats for the following season. To support the fact that the store model examples were issued with the 40JJ centerbrand which was different than the “double dash dot dash” found on professional model centerbrands, we examined the Schverling, Daly & Gales 1917 Spring & Summer Catalog. On page 21 is found both a price list and a photographic image of the store model Joe Jackson bat, where the 40JJ centerbrand on the decal bat is clearly illustrated. This serve as verifiable proof that Louisville offered store model Joe Jackson bats during this approximate timeframe. It is also a fact that store model bats were manufactured from the same model as the professional version preferred and used by the player. Therefore, if a store model bat exists, its model was taken from a professional model bat. So, by examining the store model Joe Jackson bats which has entered the hobby, we can determine what model the bats originated from. Enclosed is a full-length color image of a 1911-15 Joe Jackson 40JJ-decal store model retail bat. It mirrors this examined bat in regards to knob, handle, barrel, barrel end, and Black Betsy finish. When comparing store model versus professional model, please keep in mind that the model (shape) is more important than the length and weight, as both were offered to retail customers in a variety of options.

This Black Betsy bat, with specifications consistent with bats used by Joe Jackson, was returned to the factory by fellow major leaguer Jack Warhop. While pitching for the New York Yankees, Warhop was a contemporary to Shoeless Joe and his major league career spanned from 1908 to 1916. Both were major leaguers and both were in the American League. This would have allowed Warhop access to both Joe Jackson and his bats during the 1916 season. Logic would dictate that teammates would most likely borrow bats and return them to the factory to have their own model replicated. Our own MEARS database supports that trend as seen in the McNair/Ferrell, Trosky/Greenberg, Horsnby/Adair, and Ott/Moore examples. All were teammates. But for MEARS #302984, major leaguers Al Cuccinello was never a teammate with Paul Waner, yet he used his model to have an Al Cuccinello signature model produced.

Additional examples of players using other’s bats and recorded via side writing have been examined by MEARS. This lends support to the fact that players used bats which contained the factory signature of one player and was returned to the Louisville Slugger factory by another. Examples examined by MEARS include:

MEARS #303778 Eric McNair Signature Model returned by Rick Ferrell
MEARS #258251 Hal Trosky Signature Model returned by Hank Greenberg
MEARS #302984 Paul Waner Player Model returned by Al Cuccinello
MEARS #251534 Rogers Hornsby Signature Model returned by Jimmy Adaira
Examined by Bushing Mel Ott Signature Model returned by Joe Moore

Historical Back Ground of Jack Warhop and the details of the history of the Black Betsy model bat

Next, I will address both Jack Warhop and Joe Jackson in their baseball related historical context.
Jack Warhop was famous for pitching Babe Ruth’s first major league homerun. It should also be noted that this side written example originated directly from the vaults of Louisville Slugger. The sides written examples are considered the best of the best as in this instance the side writing allowed for a direct link to a major league ball player. Although not side written as “Joe Jackson”, this side written Jack Warhop bat does provide a direct link to the American League during the 1916 era when Joe Jackson was playing for the Chicago White Sox.

As a player, Jackson was a left-handed hitter with a beautiful swing, which Babe Ruth claimed to have imitated. Jackson had power and speed, was considered the finest left fielder in the game, and possessed a strong arm. He never won a batting title, but finished second to Ty Cobb in his first three full seasons, and ranked third on two other occasions. With his career curtailed because of the “Black Sox” scandal, Jackson’s career average remained frozen at .356 – the third highest in history. Joe Jackson was famous for many things, but his bat is the only one in baseball history known by its own name.

According to legend, Jackson spun, or had someone else spin, his bats out of hickory. He named his bats: there was Blonde Betsy, Big Jim, and Old General. But his most famous piece of lumber was Black Betsy, a charcoal-darkened bat with a wide barrel, a brass staple, and a Spalding logo on the sweet spot. Jackson received the bat in 1908, and used it into the 1930s, when he was playing in outlaw leagues in the south. The Black Betsy, which originated from his estate, was used as a model for comparison to this Louisville Slugger example.

MEARS had the privilege of examining the Spalding model Joe Jackson Black Betsy (#301331) and was able to compare this example with it.

Spalding Black Betsy MEARS #301331: 34 ¾” length, 39.6 ounces
Black Betsy MEARS #305170: 35 ½” length, 42 ounces

This Black Betsy model measured within ¾” and weighed with 2.2 ounces of famous Black Betsy bat. One of the only surviving records made available to MEARS is the tool room chart referencing the Joe Jackson model bat. Illustrated on the diagram is the noted length of 35”. The 35” serves as the only known factory reference to a Joe Jackson requested length. By comparison, both bats are within the accepted ordering variances commonly found when examining existing records. Meaning, it is not uncommon and documented via Louisville shipping records of players ordering bat which vary ½” or more when examining the ordering patterns throughout a player’s career.

This was an important point of comparison as the Black Betsy was photographically documented as being used by Joe Jackson and included in his final will and testament. This Black Betsy H&B bat compared very favorably in regards to manufacturing traits with that documented example.

The charcoal process, which produced the “Black Betsy” effect was duplicated by Louisville Slugger and the company, began to produce bats for Joe Jackson with the desired finish. MEARS has only evaluated 2 Louisville Slugger signature model Joe Jackson bats which were manufactured during his playing days, and both were without the “Black Betsy’ finish. Upon examination of the signature model, the flame darkened black Betsy finish was absent on these signature models. Also, photographs from the period support Joe Jackson using non-black Betsy finished bats. Examples included. It is our theory these were the models sent to him and was supported by the signing of his H&B contact on June 1st, 1912. It is MEARS belief that Joe Jackson used the signature models in accordance with the signing of his contract with H&B, but he simultaneously used the Black Betsy Model. Photos of Joe Jackson from the 1911 to 1920 era support the fact that Joe Jackson used both bats with the Black Betsy finish matching that model and bats without the finish manufactured as a different model. Images included.

Although we are confident that these 125 signature models are professional models, there has not been photographic evidence to support his use of signature model. It should also be noted that there are very few images, which allow for examination of the barrel to verify the presence of a barrel signature. The lack of images which allow us to clearly see the barrel do not deter us from evaluating professional model Joe Jackson signature model bats. It just does not allow for photographic support. But through the study of the records, vault marked and side written examples, and other examples from collections examined, we are able to issue opinions based on the additional information what we gather. Also, the images provided do show Jackson using a different model than the Black Betsy. This model compares favorably with the 2 examined signature model examples.

Available photos support the use of Black Betsy Model bats by Joe Jackson. What we have examined though the study of photos were many instances of Joe Jackson using a blank barreled bat with the Black Betsy finish. Photographic comparison also verifies the shape of handle, barrel end, and two color as being consistent when comparing this bat to the referenced images.

In the MEARS library, were able to examine 4 photos showing Joe Jackson using Black Betsy model bats.

* Image 1.) Shows Joe Jackson with 4 Black Betsy model bats while playing with the Chicago
White Sox.
* Image 2.) Shows Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson while with the Cleveland Indians. Jackson’s last year with the Indians was 1915, but the image illustrates that Jackson preferred the Black Betsy model as early as 1915.
* Image 3.) Shows Jackson with the White Sox using a Black Betsy in a batting shot.
* Image 4.) Finally, the last image shows Joe Jackson with the White Sox closely inspecting his Black Betsy model.

Regarding factory records, there are no known records available to support this bat. There are very few records, mostly ledger entries listing weights or a group of 5-tool room charts which list lengths only. We have addressed the lack of factory records when evaluating pre 1920 bats by using comparable examples; the available information addressed previously, photographic support, vault marked/side written examples, available bat catalogs, and comparing the specifications of other bats examined by MEARS.

We based our opinion on this Black Betsy model bat on the study and comparison of factory production information (model, length & weight) and photographic images of recorded examples examined by MEARS. All examined bats were consistent within a length and weight range with the ordering pattern of known Black Betsy bats that have entered the market. For the sake of full disclosure, there are no specific mentions of Joe Jackson ordering any Black Betsy model bats but we know he preferred and did indeed use them based on the existence of the photos. The reason being is the complete set of H&B records from this period of 1916-17 are not known to exist. Therefore we will never know with respect to factory records with 100% certainty that this bat was ordered by Joe Jackson, but the length, weight, model, and photographic evidence supports is manufacturing and issuance to Shoeless Joe. As a point of comparison, both the side written H&B Joe Jackson bat and the Spalding Black Betsy bat were not supported by factory records. In the case of the side Louisville Slugger example, the side writing served as the main record of source. The final Will & Testament of Joe Jackson himself supported the provenance of the Spalding example. By accepting the provenance, you are accepting the manufacturing characteristics with respects to length and weight as being accurate. This can then be used for a point of comparison. We also know of no other records or photos (to date) of other players using a blank barreled Black Betsy model/finish bat. The only other known Black Betsy bat not attributed to Joe Jackson was a Hank Gowdy signature model from the 1914-1919 era. Although this bat did have the Black Betsy finish, it also had the signature contract barrel stamping of Gowdy.

Trend Analysis

The following is a list of bat examined by MEARS. Era of issuance, length, and weight are listed to allow trend analysts. This examined bat compares favorably to the other known documented Black Betsy bats that have entered the market.

MEARS #215217 1917-20 35.75” 41 oz. Black Betsy Model
MEARS #258318 1917-20 36 3/8” 38 oz. Black Betsy Model
MEARS #301331 1910’s 34 ¾” 39.6 oz Spalding Black Betsy
MEARS Lathe Chart 35” 35” length, weight not listed
MEARS #303705 1911-16 35.5” 40.6 oz Black Betsy
MEARS #305170 1916-17 35 ½” 42 oz. Black Betsy

This bat is the only example examined with the 1916-17 label period, therefore, making is manufacturing dating exclusive to his time with the Chicago White Sox.

As is customary, another player returned this bat to Louisville Slugger. In grease pencil side writing, Jack Warhop can be seen upon close examination. Rumored to be only 5’6” or so and nicknamed the “flea”, his height is not listed in any baseball almanac, only his weight of 168 pounds is listed. With the bat’s length and weight being very consistent with known Joe Jackson professional model bats, it is quite possible that this bat was returned to the factory by Warhop to be used a style of bat for his personal use. Although he may have swung a bat mirroring Joe Jackson’s specifications, it was common for players to request adjustments in both length and weight when returning a bat to the Louisville Slugger factory. Requests for sanded barrels, different knobs, and thinner handles are supported by Louisville Slugger factory records. It is most likely Warhop sent this bat in for a duplicate to be made since he records showed he continued to play organized baseball at least through the 1922 season. Therefore, he would have need additional bats to continue his career.

Jack Warhop’s Minor League career.
1908-1915 Yankees
1916 Dallas of the Texas League
1916 Salt Lake City and Baltimore
1917 Toronto
1922 Columbia of the South Atlantic League

Again, there are no known or available factory records referencing the ordering or returning of this bat by Jack Warhop to the factory for duplication. What we do know by the existence of this side written example that Jack Warhop did return a Black Betsy model bat mirroring Joe Jackson player specifications for his own model to be replicated from. The process of players returning bats to the factory has been documented via the 1,000’s of side written examples, which are housed at Louisville Slugger, and examples, which have entered the hobby. Many have been examined by MEARS and serve as our verification of the process. Although we do not have the 1916 records, we can examine post 1930 Louisville Slugger Personal Player bat records to show this practice was recorded once the records were kept. For example when looking at the following records,

“1933 Harry Danning, order Spencer Harris Model, Shave Handle”
“9-11-34 Mickey Cochrane order Jimmy Foxx model, ½ shorter”

The previous examples serve to illustrate that there are recorded instances of player’s ordering a bat and then asking for it to be modified to their own unique specifications. In the case of Jack Warhop, as a player slight in stature (after all, he was nicknamed the flea) it is quite plausible he may have liked the Black Betsy model and finish and after returning it to Louisville, asked for a model to be sent in a different length and weight. For clarification, this is only conjecture, as factory records do not support what type of bat Jack Warhop preferred. He may have used a bat mirroring these specifications. It is the author’s opinion that the bat was sent in and modifications may have been requested.

Use & Condition

Bat exhibits heavy use when examined from knob to barrel end. Upon inspection of the grain, you can see lifting of the grain which is caused from repeated contact with the ball. This is exhibited on all surfaces of the bat, especially above the centerbrand. This is a direct result of game use. Deadwood is quite visible on the reverse portion of the bat, and again a result of much game used caused by contact of bat to ball. The black betsy finish has been sanded in an approximate 10” area. This was done at the factory to allow for the addition of the factory applied side writing. On the handle area near the knob, there is a 4-inch crack. Also, one very small layer of the knob has been chipped away. Overall, the use is optimal and allowed for the awarding of the full 3 points. A small chip in the knob warranted a ½ deduction.

Grading & Conclusion

Although there are additional examples of players using bats with the black Betsy finish, the only two known examples which have been examined by the staff of MEARS were found with the players name branded into the centerbrand.

The factory records from this era are known to be incomplete. Therefore, we do not have records to show that Joe Jackson ordered this model bat. The lack of a player’s name does not allow us to 100% positively attribute this bat to any one player like its signature model brothers. Then again, no other bat was as famous of a model as the Black Betsy was, and no player’s name was needed to identify such an unique style bat.

In conclusion, although not supported by detailed and complete factory records, which no bats from this era are, the use of both imagery and trend analysis, the understanding of manufacturing specifications, the fact that this bat matches the known store model Joe Jackson bats in regards to model and finish, favorable photographic comparisons, and manufacturing and player specifications consistent with three documented examples, we are able to evaluate this bat as a 1916-17 Black Betsy bat attributed to the model used by Shoeless Joe Jackson. The lack of player’s name is the source for our attribution to Joe Jackson as opposed to clearly identifying as such.

Final Grade: MEARS A9.5

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen
MEARS

The names Babe, Mick, Duke, Mr. Cub, and Big Train are all easily recognizable and associated with players that became legends. When we hear those nicknames, we immediately know who they belong to. Although all were famous men, can you tell me what or if Mickey Mantle had a nickname for his bat? In the history of baseball, only one bat was universally known to all, and it was the Black Betsy.

My evaluation of the Black Betsy bat was recorded as follows:

MEARS hologram #: 305170

1916-17 Louisville Slugger Black Betsy Professional Model bat: style/model of bat used by Joe Jackson (returned by Jack Warhop)

The following item is a 1916-17 Louisville Slugger Black Betsy model bat which is identical with respect to model, style, finish, and consistent in regards to length and weight of other MEARS examined bats manufactured (H&B and Spalding) to be used by Shoeless Joe Jackson during his playing days with the Chicago White Sox. The style, model, and finish have been photographically documented as being used by Joe Jackson. Although absent of a name on barrel, we could confirm the manufacturing characteristics with respect to bats used by Joe Jackson by comparing this example to the circa 1911 Joe Jackson vault mark bat (J13) and store model bats which were made available to the hobby during the same relative time frame. Vault marked examples can serve as factory records as it is known that future bats were manufactured from the archived vault marked examples.

This examined bat matched the manufacturer dimensions of the vault marked example. It is also known that store model bats were designed from the players preferred specifications. If a store model bat exists, it was designed from a bat used by the player endorsee. Typically the players most favorite model. The manufactures dimensions of this bat compare very favorably to the examined store model examples made available during the same time frame especially in terms of knob, handle, barrel, barrel end, and finish. The dimensions of a store model bat were taken directly from the players personal model bat. Store model Joe Jackson bats prove this as a model ordered and preferred by Joe Jackson.

A photograph is provided which shows the similarities of the three. 1. Vault Marked example, 2. Examined Black Betsy, 3. Black Betsy Store Model bat. The unique design and finish coupled with examination of available images and examination of documented examples allows us to attribute the use of the Black Betsy model bat to Joe Jackson. With the strong similarities of the three, it is can be concluded that Black Betsy finished bats matching these similar dimensions can be deemed as a model ordered by Joe Jackson.

This examined bat measures 35 ½” length and weighs 42 ounces, both within an acceptable ordering variance of the examples this bat was compared to. Examples of professional model bats examined by MEARS and supported when reviewing the Louisville Slugger shipping records routinely establish players using bats varying in length of 1” to 3” and weights of 1 ounce to 4 ounces. These variances are associated with the most commonly ordered model of bats ordered by players. There are extremes to both ends of the spectrum which have been documented and examples of less variances found when reviewing the factory records. We concluded that this bat falls within the documented and accepted ordering variances of professional model bats.

Due to its unique features, mainly consisting of black betsy finish and blank barrel, this bat is being evaluated as a Black Betsy style/model bat that was one type used by Joe Jackson. Without a player’s name appearing on the centerbrand, absolute attribution cannot be made to a player, but I believe it to be the model used by Joe Jackson as it compares quite favorably to three other documented examples. Therefore, we are evaluating the bat as type of model it was manufactured as. There are no known catalogs, records, or ledgers showing other players being offered the Black Betsy model bat in these dimensions with a blank barrel, but it is possible. We do know that other players did use bats with the black betsy finish, but those examples were found with the players name stamped on the barrel. Three documented examples of Black Betsy bats have entered the hobby. All three examined by MEARS were found to be originally manufactured as a blank barrel. Therefore, I feel it is proper to attribute this bat as being the correct model in regards to style, length, weight, finish, and barrel end as a bat preferred and used by Joe Jackson. There is no proof currently known which explains the introduction of blank barreled black betsy bats for player use, but then again, no other bat was as unique to the sport and so closely associated to one player. Its uniqueness caused this bat to be referred to by its own name, Black Betsy. This may account for the reason no player’s name was added to the barrel, as it wasn’t needed for the purpose of identification, as its color and model were unique enough.

A signature version was also available for Joe Jackson’s use during the 1916 era. Two signature model examples from the similar timeframe have been examined by MEARS and are referenced in this article for the purpose of comparison. Photographs clearly support the use of both the Black Betsy and non- Black Betsy finished bats by Joe Jackson. The examined signature model bats are consistent with the photographs and support the style, model, and color of a non-Black Betsy Style bat being used by Joe Jackson. The signature model examples were not consistent in terms of length and weight to the 3 documented Joe Jackson examples. This illustrated that the Black Betsy blank barreled models were more consistent with respect to length and weight than the signature versions. Examples examined were:

1. J13- 1911 J.F. Hillerich & Son vault marked bat
2. Spalding Black Betsy MEARS #301331
3. M EARS #303705 1911-16 Black Betsy (Hunt Auctions)

Joe Jackson did indeed use a Black Betsy model bat exhibiting the dark blackened finish with what appeared via photographs as a blank barrel. Four detailed images are referenced and provided. The image allows for a visual examination of the bat’s model, barrel end shape, centerbrand presence, lack of visible writing/stamping on barrel end upon visual inspection of the images, and two-toned black Betsy finish. This bat compares favorably to the images while conducting a visual comparison of bat to photos. The Black Betsy bats are thought to be blank barreled, as other examined Black Betsy model bats examined by MEARS were also blank barreled. The examination of the available photographs does not show any name stamped on the barrel. The centerbrands are clearly visible but no name can be seen on the barrel. This may be due to quality of the image used which does not allow a detailed view of the barrel that would show the presence of a player’s name, or the bat was photographed as a blank barreled bat. It is our opinion of the latter explanation. No examples of Black Betsy finished bats from 1912-19 label period made to similar dimension containing Joe Jackson’s facsimile signature have ever been examined within the hobby. No examples were included in the original Louisville Slugger find.

Also, we have examined three documented Joe Jackson bats, and all were lacking any player’s name at time of manufacturing. Examination of the three documented examples allowed us to compare this examined example with regards to manufacturing characteristics, barrel label, length, and weight. They were:

* J13- 1911 J.F. Hillerich & Son vault marked bat. This bat was manufactured as a blank barrel, meaning the Joe Jackson signature or block lettered stamping did not appear on the barrel at the time it first left the factory. In must be noted that it was common during this timeframe for players to use blank barreled bats. Another high profile example of a bat from this era lacking barrel stampings is the Honus Wagner game used bat, which is part of the Dr. Richard Angrist collection. The stamping of player’s name on a regular basis is not documented in the hobby until the post 1917 label periods for Louisville Slugger bats. The J13 is the model number that was assigned to this model of bat at the factory for Joe Jackson. The manufacturer characteristics are medium handle, thick handle, and bullet tip barrel end. This barrel end is unique as it has more rounding and tapers to the end much more drastically than the usual barrel end. This preference was requested by Joe Jackson and the factory assigned the new model designation, J13, to him for exclusive reference of this model. This examined bat perfectly mirrors these design specifications. Therefore, this bat is the same model as the documented J13 vault marked example in regards to design specifications and barrel end shape. See attached images.

* Spalding Black Betsy MEARS #301331, was also manufactured as a blank barrel model. Thought to have been originally manufactured before his signing with Louisville Slugger in 1912, the model is quite different than the J13 model. It was manufactured as a blank barrel model, which was consistent in terms of the manufacturer methods of the era in regards to producing bats without a player’s name on barrel. This example does not support the model as it is clearly different, but is used to reference that bats from this era were produced sans barrel stampings.

* MEARS #303705 1911-16 Black Betsy (Hunt Auctions). This bat measured 35.5” in length and weighed 40.6 ounces. It also contained the bullet tip barrel end, which is consistent in terms of production methods of the J13 model designation. The length and weight of this additional sample is near identical to the examined bat. This bat comes with provenance in the form of a letter from Marguerite M. (Hauer) Joyce. Her father was Thomas Hauer. He was employed by the Boston Braves and Boston Red Sox. During his term as a clubhouse attendant, it was passed down as family legend that he obtained this bat from Joe Jackson. This is an example of a blank barreled Joe Jackson with both manufacturing characteristics quite consistent with the examined bat and accompanied by provenance. Photograph of Thomas Hauer and original sale description of this bat is included.

With respect to other bats exhibiting the Black Betsy finish having a players name stamped into the barrel, there are two examples referenced by Dave Bushing of MEARS. The examples were:

1911-19 Hank Gowdy Louisville Slugger Black Betsy signature model
1911-15 Chick Gandil (34”) Louisville Slugger Black Betsy model bat with block lettered name (www.blackbetsy.com)

These references are the only known examples of Black Betsy finished bats having a players name that have been examined by the staff of MEARS to date. Dave Bushing also determined that both bats contained player identification on the barrel, which was applied at the factory at the time of original manufacture. The names were not added at a later time like the instance of the Spalding Black Betsy and the J13 vault marked example. We have found no additional references of other players requesting a black Betsy style bat. It should also be noted that the Gandil bat measured 34”. This was a 1” difference than any of the MEARS examined black Betsy bats. By comparison, this illustrates that the one of the other documented Black Betsy model bats containing a players name on barrel was different that the Joe Jackson bats in two distinct ways:

1. The length was 1” shorter than any examined Joe Jackson Black Betsy bats
2. The Black Betsy style bat which was ordered by another player (Gandil) and was bearing that player’s name was found to not be consistent with the lengths of the documented and recorded Black Betsy style bats examined by MEARS.

The Hank Gowdy bat measurements were not recorded therefore disallowing it for comparison sake. This illustrates that the players whose name was factory stamped Gandil and Gowdy used bats containing barrel stampings which was in direct contrast to the blank barrel bats thought to be used by Shoeless Joe Jackson. For the sake of full disclosure, the 1” shorter variance alone does not exclude the bat from being Joe Jackson’s, as ordering patterns support players with that degree of length variance or greater. But, the 1” shorter length in conjunction with the player’s name on barrel disqualifies that examined example from being manufactured for Joe Jackson.

It should be noted that both the J13 and the Spalding Black Betsy model bats entered the hobby with JACKSON stamped into the barrel. This was done by both manufactures at a later time when the bat was returned for duplication for his barnstorming career. No name appeared on the bat at the time the bats were issued for use by Joe Jackson. Both examples having blank barrels are consistent with this examined model.

Typically, MEARS examines bats containing a factory stamped players name, (most often signature models), which were manufactured in accordance with the player’s specifications. These player specifications are recorded via side written and vault marked examples, lathe and tool room bats, and available factory records. Players first signed a contract, and then their names were added to the model of their choice. Typically, during this early timeframe, the contract allowed for the players autograph to appear on the decal which was placed on store model bats which served as product branding for Louisville Slugger and promotion of the players model to the general public. For the years 1912-1917, it is our experience that most game used professional model bats were issued as blank barreled. Store model decal bats were also issued during the 1912-1917 timeframe, which were consistent with the model of bat used by Joe Jackson.

Joe Jackson did indeed sign a contract with Hillerich & Bradsby and was issued signature model Louisville Slugger professional model bats for his use in the majors. Examples examined dated from the 1916-19 timeframe. Both examples of the signature model Joe Jackson bats examined by MEARS measured 33” in length and were found with thinner handles and barrels. The signature models were in direct contrast to the Black Betsy model bats and were different with respect to model, dimensions, and finish.

Although this bat does not contain his facsimile factory stamped signature, the bat is consistent in regards to length, weight, model and finish of his J13 Louisville Slugger and his 1911-16 MEARS #303705 Black Betsy. The examined J13 model is the only bat referenced in the available Louisville Slugger personal player records for Joe Jackson. Therefore, this bat is consistent in respect to model (special emphasis on handle and barrel end) with the only recorded Joe Jackson bat model. Image included of the original J13 Joe Jackson Louisville Slugger bat, which allows for comparison.

Another supporting fact that this examined model and the additional Black Betsy model bats were issued for use for Joe Jackson is the fact that the examined Black Betsy model mirrors the retail model 40JJ decal bats that were offered via retail dealers. Store model bats were manufactured using the dimensions of their game used professional model counterparts. With their introduction to the general public, Louisville Slugger retail or “store model” bats were issued with a different centerbrand markings. The decal store model bats which are commonly found within the hobby were marked in the center as “40JJ”, with the initials standing for Joe Jackson. Enclosed is an advertisement dated 1913 promoting the fact that Joe Jackson was endorsing Louisville Slugger bats for the following season. To support the fact that the store model examples were issued with the 40JJ centerbrand which was different than the “double dash dot dash” found on professional model centerbrands, we examined the Schverling, Daly & Gales 1917 Spring & Summer Catalog. On page 21 is found both a price list and a photographic image of the store model Joe Jackson bat, where the 40JJ centerbrand on the decal bat is clearly illustrated. This serve as verifiable proof that Louisville offered store model Joe Jackson bats during this approximate timeframe. It is also a fact that store model bats were manufactured from the same model as the professional version preferred and used by the player. Therefore, if a store model bat exists, its model was taken from a professional model bat. So, by examining the store model Joe Jackson bats which has entered the hobby, we can determine what model the bats originated from. Enclosed is a full-length color image of a 1911-15 Joe Jackson 40JJ-decal store model retail bat. It mirrors this examined bat in regards to knob, handle, barrel, barrel end, and Black Betsy finish. When comparing store model versus professional model, please keep in mind that the model (shape) is more important than the length and weight, as both were offered to retail customers in a variety of options.

This Black Betsy bat, with specifications consistent with bats used by Joe Jackson, was returned to the factory by fellow major leaguer Jack Warhop. While pitching for the New York Yankees, Warhop was a contemporary to Shoeless Joe and his major league career spanned from 1908 to 1916. Both were major leaguers and both were in the American League. This would have allowed Warhop access to both Joe Jackson and his bats during the 1916 season. Logic would dictate that teammates would most likely borrow bats and return them to the factory to have their own model replicated. Our own MEARS database supports that trend as seen in the McNair/Ferrell, Trosky/Greenberg, Horsnby/Adair, and Ott/Moore examples. All were teammates. But for MEARS #302984, major leaguers Al Cuccinello was never a teammate with Paul Waner, yet he used his model to have an Al Cuccinello signature model produced.

Additional examples of players using other’s bats and recorded via side writing have been examined by MEARS. This lends support to the fact that players used bats which contained the factory signature of one player and was returned to the Louisville Slugger factory by another. Examples examined by MEARS include:

MEARS #303778 Eric McNair Signature Model returned by Rick Ferrell
MEARS #258251 Hal Trosky Signature Model returned by Hank Greenberg
MEARS #302984 Paul Waner Player Model returned by Al Cuccinello
MEARS #251534 Rogers Hornsby Signature Model returned by Jimmy Adaira
Examined by Bushing Mel Ott Signature Model returned by Joe Moore

Historical Back Ground of Jack Warhop and the details of the history of the Black Betsy model bat

Next, I will address both Jack Warhop and Joe Jackson in their baseball related historical context.
Jack Warhop was famous for pitching Babe Ruth’s first major league homerun. It should also be noted that this side written example originated directly from the vaults of Louisville Slugger. The sides written examples are considered the best of the best as in this instance the side writing allowed for a direct link to a major league ball player. Although not side written as “Joe Jackson”, this side written Jack Warhop bat does provide a direct link to the American League during the 1916 era when Joe Jackson was playing for the Chicago White Sox.

As a player, Jackson was a left-handed hitter with a beautiful swing, which Babe Ruth claimed to have imitated. Jackson had power and speed, was considered the finest left fielder in the game, and possessed a strong arm. He never won a batting title, but finished second to Ty Cobb in his first three full seasons, and ranked third on two other occasions. With his career curtailed because of the “Black Sox” scandal, Jackson’s career average remained frozen at .356 – the third highest in history. Joe Jackson was famous for many things, but his bat is the only one in baseball history known by its own name.

According to legend, Jackson spun, or had someone else spin, his bats out of hickory. He named his bats: there was Blonde Betsy, Big Jim, and Old General. But his most famous piece of lumber was Black Betsy, a charcoal-darkened bat with a wide barrel, a brass staple, and a Spalding logo on the sweet spot. Jackson received the bat in 1908, and used it into the 1930s, when he was playing in outlaw leagues in the south. The Black Betsy, which originated from his estate, was used as a model for comparison to this Louisville Slugger example.

MEARS had the privilege of examining the Spalding model Joe Jackson Black Betsy (#301331) and was able to compare this example with it.

Spalding Black Betsy MEARS #301331: 34 ¾” length, 39.6 ounces
Black Betsy MEARS #305170: 35 ½” length, 42 ounces

This Black Betsy model measured within ¾” and weighed with 2.2 ounces of famous Black Betsy bat. One of the only surviving records made available to MEARS is the tool room chart referencing the Joe Jackson model bat. Illustrated on the diagram is the noted length of 35”. The 35” serves as the only known factory reference to a Joe Jackson requested length. By comparison, both bats are within the accepted ordering variances commonly found when examining existing records. Meaning, it is not uncommon and documented via Louisville shipping records of players ordering bat which vary ½” or more when examining the ordering patterns throughout a player’s career.

This was an important point of comparison as the Black Betsy was photographically documented as being used by Joe Jackson and included in his final will and testament. This Black Betsy H&B bat compared very favorably in regards to manufacturing traits with that documented example.

The charcoal process, which produced the “Black Betsy” effect was duplicated by Louisville Slugger and the company, began to produce bats for Joe Jackson with the desired finish. MEARS has only evaluated 2 Louisville Slugger signature model Joe Jackson bats which were manufactured during his playing days, and both were without the “Black Betsy’ finish. Upon examination of the signature model, the flame darkened black Betsy finish was absent on these signature models. Also, photographs from the period support Joe Jackson using non-black Betsy finished bats. Examples included. It is our theory these were the models sent to him and was supported by the signing of his H&B contact on June 1st, 1912. It is MEARS belief that Joe Jackson used the signature models in accordance with the signing of his contract with H&B, but he simultaneously used the Black Betsy Model. Photos of Joe Jackson from the 1911 to 1920 era support the fact that Joe Jackson used both bats with the Black Betsy finish matching that model and bats without the finish manufactured as a different model. Images included.

Although we are confident that these 125 signature models are professional models, there has not been photographic evidence to support his use of signature model. It should also be noted that there are very few images, which allow for examination of the barrel to verify the presence of a barrel signature. The lack of images which allow us to clearly see the barrel do not deter us from evaluating professional model Joe Jackson signature model bats. It just does not allow for photographic support. But through the study of the records, vault marked and side written examples, and other examples from collections examined, we are able to issue opinions based on the additional information what we gather. Also, the images provided do show Jackson using a different model than the Black Betsy. This model compares favorably with the 2 examined signature model examples.

Available photos support the use of Black Betsy Model bats by Joe Jackson. What we have examined though the study of photos were many instances of Joe Jackson using a blank barreled bat with the Black Betsy finish. Photographic comparison also verifies the shape of handle, barrel end, and two color as being consistent when comparing this bat to the referenced images.

In the MEARS library, were able to examine 4 photos showing Joe Jackson using Black Betsy model bats.

* Image 1.) Shows Joe Jackson with 4 Black Betsy model bats while playing with the Chicago
White Sox.
* Image 2.) Shows Ty Cobb and Joe Jackson while with the Cleveland Indians. Jackson’s last year with the Indians was 1915, but the image illustrates that Jackson preferred the Black Betsy model as early as 1915.
* Image 3.) Shows Jackson with the White Sox using a Black Betsy in a batting shot.
* Image 4.) Finally, the last image shows Joe Jackson with the White Sox closely inspecting his Black Betsy model.

Regarding factory records, there are no known records available to support this bat. There are very few records, mostly ledger entries listing weights or a group of 5-tool room charts which list lengths only. We have addressed the lack of factory records when evaluating pre 1920 bats by using comparable examples; the available information addressed previously, photographic support, vault marked/side written examples, available bat catalogs, and comparing the specifications of other bats examined by MEARS.

We based our opinion on this Black Betsy model bat on the study and comparison of factory production information (model, length & weight) and photographic images of recorded examples examined by MEARS. All examined bats were consistent within a length and weight range with the ordering pattern of known Black Betsy bats that have entered the market. For the sake of full disclosure, there are no specific mentions of Joe Jackson ordering any Black Betsy model bats but we know he preferred and did indeed use them based on the existence of the photos. The reason being is the complete set of H&B records from this period of 1916-17 are not known to exist. Therefore we will never know with respect to factory records with 100% certainty that this bat was ordered by Joe Jackson, but the length, weight, model, and photographic evidence supports is manufacturing and issuance to Shoeless Joe. As a point of comparison, both the side written H&B Joe Jackson bat and the Spalding Black Betsy bat were not supported by factory records. In the case of the side Louisville Slugger example, the side writing served as the main record of source. The final Will & Testament of Joe Jackson himself supported the provenance of the Spalding example. By accepting the provenance, you are accepting the manufacturing characteristics with respects to length and weight as being accurate. This can then be used for a point of comparison. We also know of no other records or photos (to date) of other players using a blank barreled Black Betsy model/finish bat. The only other known Black Betsy bat not attributed to Joe Jackson was a Hank Gowdy signature model from the 1914-1919 era. Although this bat did have the Black Betsy finish, it also had the signature contract barrel stamping of Gowdy.

Trend Analysis

The following is a list of bat examined by MEARS. Era of issuance, length, and weight are listed to allow trend analysts. This examined bat compares favorably to the other known documented Black Betsy bats that have entered the market.

MEARS #215217 1917-20 35.75” 41 oz. Black Betsy Model
MEARS #258318 1917-20 36 3/8” 38 oz. Black Betsy Model
MEARS #301331 1910’s 34 ¾” 39.6 oz Spalding Black Betsy
MEARS Lathe Chart 35” 35” length, weight not listed
MEARS #303705 1911-16 35.5” 40.6 oz Black Betsy
MEARS #305170 1916-17 35 ½” 42 oz. Black Betsy

This bat is the only example examined with the 1916-17 label period, therefore, making is manufacturing dating exclusive to his time with the Chicago White Sox.

As is customary, another player returned this bat to Louisville Slugger. In grease pencil side writing, Jack Warhop can be seen upon close examination. Rumored to be only 5’6” or so and nicknamed the “flea”, his height is not listed in any baseball almanac, only his weight of 168 pounds is listed. With the bat’s length and weight being very consistent with known Joe Jackson professional model bats, it is quite possible that this bat was returned to the factory by Warhop to be used a style of bat for his personal use. Although he may have swung a bat mirroring Joe Jackson’s specifications, it was common for players to request adjustments in both length and weight when returning a bat to the Louisville Slugger factory. Requests for sanded barrels, different knobs, and thinner handles are supported by Louisville Slugger factory records. It is most likely Warhop sent this bat in for a duplicate to be made since he records showed he continued to play organized baseball at least through the 1922 season. Therefore, he would have need additional bats to continue his career.

Jack Warhop’s Minor League career.
1908-1915 Yankees
1916 Dallas of the Texas League
1916 Salt Lake City and Baltimore
1917 Toronto
1922 Columbia of the South Atlantic League

Again, there are no known or available factory records referencing the ordering or returning of this bat by Jack Warhop to the factory for duplication. What we do know by the existence of this side written example that Jack Warhop did return a Black Betsy model bat mirroring Joe Jackson player specifications for his own model to be replicated from. The process of players returning bats to the factory has been documented via the 1,000’s of side written examples, which are housed at Louisville Slugger, and examples, which have entered the hobby. Many have been examined by MEARS and serve as our verification of the process. Although we do not have the 1916 records, we can examine post 1930 Louisville Slugger Personal Player bat records to show this practice was recorded once the records were kept. For example when looking at the following records,

“1933 Harry Danning, order Spencer Harris Model, Shave Handle”
“9-11-34 Mickey Cochrane order Jimmy Foxx model, ½ shorter”

The previous examples serve to illustrate that there are recorded instances of player’s ordering a bat and then asking for it to be modified to their own unique specifications. In the case of Jack Warhop, as a player slight in stature (after all, he was nicknamed the flea) it is quite plausible he may have liked the Black Betsy model and finish and after returning it to Louisville, asked for a model to be sent in a different length and weight. For clarification, this is only conjecture, as factory records do not support what type of bat Jack Warhop preferred. He may have used a bat mirroring these specifications. It is the author’s opinion that the bat was sent in and modifications may have been requested.

Use & Condition

Bat exhibits heavy use when examined from knob to barrel end. Upon inspection of the grain, you can see lifting of the grain which is caused from repeated contact with the ball. This is exhibited on all surfaces of the bat, especially above the centerbrand. This is a direct result of game use. Deadwood is quite visible on the reverse portion of the bat, and again a result of much game used caused by contact of bat to ball. The black betsy finish has been sanded in an approximate 10” area. This was done at the factory to allow for the addition of the factory applied side writing. On the handle area near the knob, there is a 4-inch crack. Also, one very small layer of the knob has been chipped away. Overall, the use is optimal and allowed for the awarding of the full 3 points. A small chip in the knob warranted a ½ deduction.

Grading & Conclusion

Although there are additional examples of players using bats with the black Betsy finish, the only two known examples which have been examined by the staff of MEARS were found with the players name branded into the centerbrand.

The factory records from this era are known to be incomplete. Therefore, we do not have records to show that Joe Jackson ordered this model bat. The lack of a player’s name does not allow us to 100% positively attribute this bat to any one player like its signature model brothers. Then again, no other bat was as famous of a model as the Black Betsy was, and no player’s name was needed to identify such an unique style bat.

In conclusion, although not supported by detailed and complete factory records, which no bats from this era are, the use of both imagery and trend analysis, the understanding of manufacturing specifications, the fact that this bat matches the known store model Joe Jackson bats in regards to model and finish, favorable photographic comparisons, and manufacturing and player specifications consistent with three documented examples, we are able to evaluate this bat as a 1916-17 Black Betsy bat attributed to the model used by Shoeless Joe Jackson. The lack of player’s name is the source for our attribution to Joe Jackson as opposed to clearly identifying as such.

Final Grade: MEARS A9.5

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen
MEARS

March 13, 2007

Hologram #: 305945

Player Inspected: Bill Russell

Height: 6’ 10”, Weight: 220

Playing career: 1956-1969

MEARS was asked to examine the following item, hologram #305945. Our examination included a physical inspection of the jersey and trunks, comparison to known authentic examples from our database; imagery analysts by comparing examined jersey to game action photos, and inspection of jersey while looking for originality and/or alterations. The finding were compiled on the Jersey Grading and Authentication Official Worksheet, 2006-2007. Troy R. Kinunen completed the evaluation and final report.

Jersey Physical Description

The white jersey was issued as a Boston Celtics home. This can be verified via the 1956 and 1957 Team photo. The jersey was manufactured to be worn as a player during the regular season. The dureen material was standard issue for 1950’s Celtics jerseys. The jersey was manufactured and supplied to the team by Horace Partridge. The cut of the tail was tailored as a straight cut as opposed to the round cut. This fact was important in the dating of the jersey.

Tagging Examination

Examination of the Horace Partridge tag provided us with several data points. Comparison to the MEARS database determined this tag was the style and design issued by Horace Partridge circa 1952-65. It was factory applied on the outside tail. The size, design, style, script, and use of numeric size indicator is proper and correct for a Horace Partridge tag that was issued during this era.

This establishes the proper tagging era which should be found on a circa 1956 Celtics jersey. The size indicator, 44, still appears on the bottom of the tag instead of a separate tag which was placed on the right of later versions of the Horace Partridge tag.

Other examples of Horace Partridge tags, which were examined and compared, to the examined Russell found in the MEARS database include:

1. 1960s Horace Partridge Bill Russell Home MEARS database
2. Late 1950s-early 1960s Horace Partridge Bob Cousy Home MEARS database
3. Late 1950s-early 1960s Horace Partridge Bob Cousy Road MEARS database

All three examined jerseys were consistent with the examined 1956 circa Bill Russell Home Jersey.

Size Examination

Size 44 was noted on the Horace Partridge tag. Other examples of Russell wearing size 44 have been found in the hobby.

1965 Bill Russell Celtics jersey road Horace Partridge size 44 Grey Flannel Fall 2005

1965 Bill Russell Celtics jersey home Horace Partridge size 44 Grey Flannel Summer 2005
1960 Bill Russell All Star Game jersey Wilson Size 44 Grey Flannel May 2001
1962 Bill Russell All Star Game jersey Wilson size 44 Grey Flannel 2001

Therefore, it is established that size 44 was correct for Russell during his playing career.

Example of Late 1950s-early 1960s Jersey Used to Establish Correct Font, Piping, and Yoke of Horace Partridge Manufactured Celtics Home jersey

Example #1) From MEARS database Horace Partridge 1950s Home Bob Cousy

1. Note similarities between Bill Russell and Bob Cousy neck piping.
2. Note similarities between Bill Russell and Bob Cousy “CELTICS” font
3. Note similarities between Bill Russell and Bob Cousy yokes
4. Round tail started late 1950’s-early 1960s

Although the body shell was manufactured at a slightly later date than the examined Russell, (evidenced by round tail) was the font, piping, yoke, and manufacturer were the same as the Bob Cousy Celtics home.

Example of Straight Cut Tail used to Identify Dating of Celtics Home Jerseys Circa 1956

Examples in our database, including the above example of the Cousy, illustrate the round tail, which came into vogue in the late 1950s. Below, note the circa 1955 Harry Gallatin jersey which was manufactured by Horace Partridge and illustrates the squaretail used by Horace Partridge during the mid 1950s and verifies this square cut was proper for the examined Russell rookie era jersey.

The Rawlings Bob Pettit verified that a manufacturer from the same period (mid 1950s) was producing jerseys with a similar squaretail cut.

Similarities in Corbis image #1376463, 1957 Team photo in Home White Uniforms

Examination of the following dated 1957 photo allows us to illustrate the following in regards to the examined circa 1956-57 Bill Russell Home Jersey

1. Bill Russell did indeed wear #6 during this time frame
2. Close examination of the photo shows the satin trunks were worn with the dureene jersey
3. The neck and yoke piping on the examined jersey compares favorably with the above referenced photo
4. The arm yokes are tight and compare favorably to the examined jersey
5. The font of the team name CELTICS compare favorably with the examined jersey
6. The font of the 6 compares favorably with the examined jersey

1956 home jersey

Similarities between examined jersey and the 1957 Topps Bill Russell Card #77

1. Card verifies Bill Russell did indeed wear #6 during his rookie campaign
2. Neck and yoke piping compares favorably
3. Font of CELTICS compares favorably
4. Use of satin trunks with dureene trunks verified
5. Font on front number 6 compares favorably
6. Opening size of yoke compares favorably

Trunks

A pair of white satin trunks was submitted with this jersey. They were manufactured by Horace Partridge and size 36. No specific player I.D. was present pairing jersey to trunks. They do appear to be all original with no noticeable alterations.

Conclusion:

Based on the examination of the 1957 Topps card, 1957 Corbis team photo and comparisons to other examples in the MEARS database, we are able to conclude that:

1. Based on tag dating and cut of tail, this jersey can be attributed to circa 1956-57
2. Dureene materials, satin lettering and numbering are correct and all original for Bill Russell/Boston Celtics for the 1956-57era.
3. The size 44 is correct for Bill Russell for the period and supported by other known authentic examples, which have entered the hobby.
4. Piping on yoke and neck is correct in color scheme and can be verified via several noted photographic examples
5. Wear is significant and consistent with a full season or more of use and appropriate for the period.
6. No alterations of any kind
7. Satin trunks are consistent in terms of design, material, and labeling as to be expected on a pair of matching trunks. No player I.D. was included on the trunks specifically pairing trunks to jersey.

Regarding the grade, MEARS assigns this jersey a MEARS A10 as it matches all of our criteria for the grade.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

March 13, 2007

Hologram #: 305945

Player Inspected: Bill Russell

Height: 6’ 10”, Weight: 220

Playing career: 1956-1969

MEARS was asked to examine the following item, hologram #305945. Our examination included a physical inspection of the jersey and trunks, comparison to known authentic examples from our database; imagery analysts by comparing examined jersey to game action photos, and inspection of jersey while looking for originality and/or alterations. The finding were compiled on the Jersey Grading and Authentication Official Worksheet, 2006-2007. Troy R. Kinunen completed the evaluation and final report.

Jersey Physical Description

The white jersey was issued as a Boston Celtics home. This can be verified via the 1956 and 1957 Team photo. The jersey was manufactured to be worn as a player during the regular season. The dureen material was standard issue for 1950’s Celtics jerseys. The jersey was manufactured and supplied to the team by Horace Partridge. The cut of the tail was tailored as a straight cut as opposed to the round cut. This fact was important in the dating of the jersey.

Tagging Examination

Examination of the Horace Partridge tag provided us with several data points. Comparison to the MEARS database determined this tag was the style and design issued by Horace Partridge circa 1952-65. It was factory applied on the outside tail. The size, design, style, script, and use of numeric size indicator is proper and correct for a Horace Partridge tag that was issued during this era.

This establishes the proper tagging era which should be found on a circa 1956 Celtics jersey. The size indicator, 44, still appears on the bottom of the tag instead of a separate tag which was placed on the right of later versions of the Horace Partridge tag.

Other examples of Horace Partridge tags, which were examined and compared, to the examined Russell found in the MEARS database include:

1. 1960s Horace Partridge Bill Russell Home MEARS database
2. Late 1950s-early 1960s Horace Partridge Bob Cousy Home MEARS database
3. Late 1950s-early 1960s Horace Partridge Bob Cousy Road MEARS database

All three examined jerseys were consistent with the examined 1956 circa Bill Russell Home Jersey.

Size Examination

Size 44 was noted on the Horace Partridge tag. Other examples of Russell wearing size 44 have been found in the hobby.

1965 Bill Russell Celtics jersey road Horace Partridge size 44 Grey Flannel Fall 2005

1965 Bill Russell Celtics jersey home Horace Partridge size 44 Grey Flannel Summer 2005
1960 Bill Russell All Star Game jersey Wilson Size 44 Grey Flannel May 2001
1962 Bill Russell All Star Game jersey Wilson size 44 Grey Flannel 2001

Therefore, it is established that size 44 was correct for Russell during his playing career.

Example of Late 1950s-early 1960s Jersey Used to Establish Correct Font, Piping, and Yoke of Horace Partridge Manufactured Celtics Home jersey

Example #1) From MEARS database Horace Partridge 1950s Home Bob Cousy

1. Note similarities between Bill Russell and Bob Cousy neck piping.
2. Note similarities between Bill Russell and Bob Cousy “CELTICS” font
3. Note similarities between Bill Russell and Bob Cousy yokes
4. Round tail started late 1950’s-early 1960s

Although the body shell was manufactured at a slightly later date than the examined Russell, (evidenced by round tail) was the font, piping, yoke, and manufacturer were the same as the Bob Cousy Celtics home.

Example of Straight Cut Tail used to Identify Dating of Celtics Home Jerseys Circa 1956

Examples in our database, including the above example of the Cousy, illustrate the round tail, which came into vogue in the late 1950s. Below, note the circa 1955 Harry Gallatin jersey which was manufactured by Horace Partridge and illustrates the squaretail used by Horace Partridge during the mid 1950s and verifies this square cut was proper for the examined Russell rookie era jersey.

The Rawlings Bob Pettit verified that a manufacturer from the same period (mid 1950s) was producing jerseys with a similar squaretail cut.

Similarities in Corbis image #1376463, 1957 Team photo in Home White Uniforms

Examination of the following dated 1957 photo allows us to illustrate the following in regards to the examined circa 1956-57 Bill Russell Home Jersey

1. Bill Russell did indeed wear #6 during this time frame
2. Close examination of the photo shows the satin trunks were worn with the dureene jersey
3. The neck and yoke piping on the examined jersey compares favorably with the above referenced photo
4. The arm yokes are tight and compare favorably to the examined jersey
5. The font of the team name CELTICS compare favorably with the examined jersey
6. The font of the 6 compares favorably with the examined jersey

1956 home jersey

Similarities between examined jersey and the 1957 Topps Bill Russell Card #77

1. Card verifies Bill Russell did indeed wear #6 during his rookie campaign
2. Neck and yoke piping compares favorably
3. Font of CELTICS compares favorably
4. Use of satin trunks with dureene trunks verified
5. Font on front number 6 compares favorably
6. Opening size of yoke compares favorably

Trunks

A pair of white satin trunks was submitted with this jersey. They were manufactured by Horace Partridge and size 36. No specific player I.D. was present pairing jersey to trunks. They do appear to be all original with no noticeable alterations.

Conclusion:

Based on the examination of the 1957 Topps card, 1957 Corbis team photo and comparisons to other examples in the MEARS database, we are able to conclude that:

1. Based on tag dating and cut of tail, this jersey can be attributed to circa 1956-57
2. Dureene materials, satin lettering and numbering are correct and all original for Bill Russell/Boston Celtics for the 1956-57era.
3. The size 44 is correct for Bill Russell for the period and supported by other known authentic examples, which have entered the hobby.
4. Piping on yoke and neck is correct in color scheme and can be verified via several noted photographic examples
5. Wear is significant and consistent with a full season or more of use and appropriate for the period.
6. No alterations of any kind
7. Satin trunks are consistent in terms of design, material, and labeling as to be expected on a pair of matching trunks. No player I.D. was included on the trunks specifically pairing trunks to jersey.

Regarding the grade, MEARS assigns this jersey a MEARS A10 as it matches all of our criteria for the grade.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen

February 8, 2007

Understanding the Authentication Process: Evaluating a 19th century player bat with attributed provenance

With each item MEARS is asked to evaluate, new circumstances and challenges arise. For the Robert Edward Auction sale event ending April 28th, 2007, MEARS was asked to evaluate and grade a bat attributed to George Wright circa 1869. This bat and player were both historically important as the 1869 Red Stockings are recognized as being the first professional baseball team and George Wright was their star player. With the bat being manufactured during the 1860s with no markings or factory records, it was our job to establish whether the bat could have been made for George Wright. Grading also posed a challenge as the provenance was established via attributed baseball related accoutrements. With several months of research and evaluation and the cooperation of additional independent experts, we were able to make attribution to George Wright and issue a final grade.

RE: circa 1869 bat with accoutrements attributing its ownership and use to George Wright

Introduction:

The above item, Hologram #305800 was submitted on behalf of Robert Edward Auctions for Evaluation and Grading. As part of our evaluation process, we conducted a physical examination of the bat and accompanying decorative accoutrements. The accoutrements consisted of:

1. Newspaper draft with hand written notations by sports writer Tim Murnane (see image)
2. Period Cincinnati baseball ribbon (see image)
3. Period Atlantics BBC baseball ribbon (see image)
4. Boston B.B. Club Property of Mrs. George Wright/ M.T.M. hanging tag (see image)

The dating of the accoutrements were important as it served a point of departure for evaluating and substantiating the provenance which is critical for any attribution to George Wright. The ribbons were examined by John Thorn and the staff of Robert Edwards Auctions and found to be authentic and of the period. MEARS accepted the independent opinion of John Thorn in the capacity of authenticating the baseball specific relics/accoutrements, which aided in the attribution to George Wright. The credentials of John Thorn are listed:

John Thorn

1. Author of Total Baseball: The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia
2. Author of The Hidden Game of Baseball
3. Author of Treasures of the Baseball Hall of Fame
4. Chief Editor Total Baseball
5. Founder of Total Sports Publishing
6. Essayist for the Boston Globe, New York Times, American Heritage, The Sporting News

7. Ken Burn’s 1994 “Baseball” contributor and Senior Creative Consultant
8. 2006 SABR recipient of their highest honor, Bob Davids Award

In the opinion of Robert Edward Auctions,

” In our opinion, John Thorn is the single most knowledgeable and insightful baseball scholar
in the world, and for many reasons, including the fact that he has had the benefit of studying collections at libraries all over the country for so many years, he may be the single most knowledgeable and
accomplished scholar specializing in baseball history to ever live.” …REA

John Thorn was able to authenticate the accoutrements as authentic, but their exact time of placement on the bat was undetermined.

JSA confirmed the writing on the newspaper draft as consistent with the handwriting of sportswriter Tim Murnane and that the hanging “property of Mrs. George Wright” tag and hand written notations was vintage. Dave Bushing conducted the physical examination of the bat to determine the timeframe of issuance and degree of use. Troy R. Kinunen conducted the research and fact verification and authored the final Letter of Opinion. MEARS provided the expertise in regards to the physical examination and grading of the bat while taking into account the opinions provided by the additional experts which allows us to consider the provenance into the assignment of the final grade. The accoutrements were examined independently and seem to substantiate attribution to George Wright by both period and association of individuals involved. Our evaluation concluded the bat was consistent with the style of bat, which would have been used by George Wright during the 1869 timeframe. The 1869 era was examined due to the style of the bat and approximate dating of the accouterments. According to Rob Lifson, the title of the description of the bat as it will appear in the Robert Edward Auction catalog makes note that the offered bat is “Attributed to George Wright in 1869” because it is impossible to prove that this is the bat that George Wright used with the Red Stockings in 1869, yet that is precisely what we believe it to be. –REA

Manufacturer: There is no manufacturers marking present on this bat which specifically connects this bat to George Wright, as this lack of practice would be expected from a bat from this period. The practice of adding player’s name, team, or the company of manufacture was not the norm at this time. Baseball was in its infancy and incorporated major sporting goods companies had yet to be formed, although George Wright did enter the business as Wright & Ditson during the 1880’s and became a pioneer in the industry. Competitor Albert Spalding formed his namesake rival company in 1876.

Bats used by players during this era would be of the hand turned variety with no identifying factory markings. Most were made locally by the area woodworkers. Manufacturing stampings did not begin to appear with any regularity on sporting goods equipment until the 1880s. Therefore, the lack of markings on this bat is consistent with what would have been used during the 1869 period.

Era: The dating range of the issuance of the bat is thought to be from time of 1869-82. This range was estimated based on the style of the bat, notation & hang tag, playing career of George Wright (1869-82) and the understanding of the era’s manufacturing process. Understanding of the manufacturing process supports the attribution of the 1869 (starting date of dating range), which is found on the hand tag and reads,

“Geo. Wright’s bat from 1869 given by him to M.T.M.”

Manufacturer identification (corporate branding) began to appear with more regularity during the early 1880s so the lack of logo was used to establish the end of our dating range (1882). The manufacturing process with lack of corporate branding coincides with the playing career of George Wright. With lack of manufacturer markings, an examination of the style, length, weight, and model (shape) of the bat determine this bat is consistent with the manufacturing practices of bats produced before 1880. The physical dimensions of the bat measured 38” in length and the bat weighed 37.4 ounces at time of examination. Photos of George Wright support the use of a long bat. Weight is unverified, but reasonable for a bat of that length. The style of the bat can be compared to the photograph of the Boston cabinet card of George Wright (see image). Examination of the photo for comparison sake illustrated George Wright holding a bat similar in model and appearance. Note the similarities of the very long, slender bat with round barrel. Also, the cabinet photo illustrates a very small knob with rounded end that is consistent with the examined bat. Judging by the era of this bat by the evaluation of its manufacturing traits, the bat is consistent with the model of bat that may have been used by George Wright during his playing career.

Production Information: For the purpose of grading, there are no chronicled references available for this bat. To our knowledge, there are no factory records available for any bats issued for players for the 19th century. The examination of the manufacturing characteristics and the study of period photography determined our base grade. After our evaluation we then determined the bat was consistent with bats used at the professional level for the 1869-82 timeframe. We also examined catalogs containing images and descriptions of trophy bats (non-game used) to eliminate the possibility of this being one. Provenance was evaluated for completion of the final grade.

Use Characteristics: The bat exhibited use that was evident throughout the length of the bats’ surfaces. Use was evenly distributed on all surfaces of the barrel. Examining the compressions of the grain and indentations to the bat’s surface saw this. The indentations were consistent with use found from handling, traveling, game play, and general storage. When evaluating the use in terms of its effects on the condition of the bat, we found no handle crack, no deadwood, and no other condition problems. Yet, without the lack of any of the above examined condition traits, the bat was still evaluated as having significant use. Although now decorated, it can clearly been seen the use occurred underneath the application of the accoutrements. Use was consistent when compared to other game used bats examined by MEARS. It was our opinion the use was applied in game situations and environments, and not associated with handling and storage wear found on trophy or presentation bats. Handling wear on a trophy bat would be more superficial when compared to a bat known to be game used. This bat exhibited use characteristics closely associated with game action.

Grading: One of the main components of grading is to assign a numerical value, which aids in the comparison of one item to another similar one. Typically grading is conducted while using a blend of production information, use characteristics and player traits. With the bat being manufactured during the 19th century, different grading criteria was applied. Therefore, this bat is being graded based on the similarity in style to the type of bat used during the 19th century. Attribution to George Wright was considered after examining the model of the bat with additional emphasis on the accruements. There is no recorded manufacturer data to support this bat being manufactured for George Wright and the foundation of its attribution lies solely on the provenance. Therefore, MEARS established a grade based on those criteria of style, use, and attribution. The application of our grading system will allow us to evaluate and assign a grade to additional 19th century items if the opportunity arises. Even with the challenges faced with the grading of this bat, MEARS is quite confident to award this rare 19th century bat the grade of MEARS A10 based on the evaluation of the bat and the accompanying evaluation of the accoutrements. The qualification of the bat as “Attributed” is a necessary lower standard inherent in evaluating a bat of this type; appropriate for the evaluation of a bat from this early era attributed to any specific player.

A base grade of 5 points was awarded for the bat comparing favorably in regards to length, model, knob & barrel style to examined photos of players from the period. Additional examples examined include:

– Baseball by Ken Burns. Photo of 1869 Reds with bats, page 22
– A Celebration! By James Buckley, Jr and Jim Gigliotti. Photo of 1869 Reds with bats, page 35

In regards to style, model, & barrel dimensions of bats manufactured to be used during 1869-82, due to the limited and unique nature of this bat, we did not have additional physical bats or production information to compare. Therefore, our awarding of the base grade was conducted by visual comparison to available photos of players from the era. The image of the George Wright cabinet photo was very helpful in determining the style and model of bat preferred by George Wright during his playing career with the Red Sox. The photograph did not verify this as the exact bat when compared to the cabinet photo, but it did allow for style and manufacturing verification. The base grade was awarded for the style/model of bat only. Provenance and attribution to George Wright were addressed in the provenance section. (5 points)

Use: In our opinion, the use was consistent with a full season or move of use and categorized as heavy or significant. George Wright joined the team in 1869. Under the terms of his contract, the season started on March 15th and lasted until November 15th. The professional Cincinnati Red Stockings club played their first game May 4th, 1869 with a 45-9 win over the Great Westerns of Cincinnati. The team won 57 games without defeat, counting only those games against National Association clubs. The Red Stockings played over 70 games in the first season counting games against other collegiate and amateur teams. Its commercial tour of continental scope, visiting Boston and San Francisco, was unprecedented and may be essentially un-repeated. In its final game on November 6, 1869 they defeated the Mutuals of New York, 17-8. Use is consistent with a schedule such as laid out above, and possibly additional seasons of use.

With this degree of use, 3 points were added to the base grade. Although we have not positively identified the exact use and player characteristics of George Wright, we were able to determine this was a game bat and not a trophy bat. First, the accoutrements were added at a later date and did not appear on the bat at the time of manufacture. This was determined by the fact the use appeared underneath their addition. Second, we have examined numerous trophy bats. Typical trophy bats from the period were adorned with silver decorative features. On a trophy bat the handle would have a decorative plug, silver bands were found placed at various intervals throughout the length of the barrel, and plates identifying the year, team, event would be found. This bat had no signs of any of those features ever being present. Examples of trophy bats can be seen on:

Halper Catalog (lot #190) for example of an 1869 trophy bat, page 191
1886 Peck and Snyder Sporting Goods Equipment catalog. Listed as model #’s 248 through 254, the diagram and description read,

“Solid Rosewood bat highly polished, with two beautifully engraved silver plated bands, and a silver plated inscription plate in center. Offered with one band, two bands, engraved inscription plate, plate only.”

After comparison of the George Wright bat to the catalog descriptions of a trophy bat, it is determined this bat DOES NOT match any of the manufacturing characteristics associated with trophy bats issued by Peck and Snyder or the one offered in the Halper sale. Although the Peck and Snyder trophy bat was offered during the 1886 timeframe, its manufacturing characteristics in terms of production details, i.e. use of rosewood which was highly polished, engraved silver plated bands, inscription plate and end cap were consistent with an example we examined dating from 1867. Therefore, manufactured trophy bats were available as far back as 1867, and this was not one of those.

The addition of the accoutrements might indicate to some this was a “trophy” bat. It is the opinion of MEARS the accoutrements were added at an undetermined later date and was not present on the bat when the use occurred. Therefore, MEARS is able to categorize this item as a “game used” bat. After evaluating the degree of use, 3 points were assigned.

Provenance: The evaluation of the provenance fell outside of the area of expertise of the staff at MEARS. The staff of REA brought in respected expert’s JSA and baseball historian John Thorn to evaluate the accoutrements, which were the basis for the provenance. Their independent findings were reasonable and respected. (2 points for attributed provenance)

JSA’s findings:

Newspaper draft with hand written notations by sports writer Tim Murnane:

Boston B.B. Club Property of Mrs. George Wright/ M.T.M. hanging tag: The tag bears a preprinted notation, “Property of” followed by the name “Mrs. George Wright” which JSA concluded the writing was vintage black fountain pen. The exact handwriting could not be attributed to any specific person. Printed above her name, upside down in faded black fountain pen, is an additional notation that reads, “Geo. Wright’s bat from 1869 given by him to M.T.M.” JSA concluded all writing on this tag as vintage. With the verification of the tag as appearing in vintage ink, the writing attributing the bat to George Wright could be deemed original and of the period.

John Thorn’s opinion:

John Thorn examined the two attached ribbons. Item #1. Brooklyn Atlantics, Item #2. Cincinnati Red Stockings. The two ribbons were the finest, most extraordinary and desirable baseball trophy ribbons of the era. Each is the only known example in private hands. These ribbons only could originate from someone directly involved with these teams during this era. Each of these is the first ever seen in private hands.

Final Grade: Even with the challenges faced with the grading of this bat, MEARS is quite confident to award this rare 19th century bat the grade of MEARS A10 based on the evaluation of the bat and the accompanying evaluation of the accoutrements.

MEARS interpretation of the provenance: JSA’s and John Thorn’s findings have been outlined above. Both have deemed the accoutrements are vintage, of the period, and authentic. With their expert findings being recognized in the determination of the validation of the provenance, we can accept attribution via their work to George Wright. What are still left unanswered, are when the accoutrements were added to the bat and by whom. The exact dating and purpose are unknown. Also, examination of the handwritten notes and article by sportswriter Tim Murnane references the exploits of the 1870 team in past tense, thus indicating the notes were penned at a date later than 1870. The exact date of his writing is unknown. Writer Tim Murnane died February 7th, 1917 so the notes had to have been before 1917. For MEARS, provenance must be seen as both reasonable and verifiable. The persons Mrs. George Wright and prominent period sports writer Tim Murnane are considered reasonable figures with respect to ownership and relationship to the bat and surrounding events. The verification for MEARS is based on the supporting work done by JSA and John Thom.

MEARS Conclusion: The bat is deemed to be a very rare, seldom seen 19th century bat which was consistent in terms to length, model, weight, and knob preference of a bat depicted in images as associated with George Wright when compared to the examined cabinet photo which featured him in his Red Stockings uniform. No direct link via established manufacturer production information was made available to aid us in our opinion. Provenance via the accoutrements was examined next. As REA noted, the ribbons themselves are quite rare and would only have originated from someone directly involved with these teams during this era. Independent experts determined the accoutrements are authentic and served as attribution to the teams and events associated with George Wright. The exact time, person, and reason of the assembly of the bat were undetermined. There was not a direct personal link between George Wright himself and the assembly/attachments of the accoutrements. Based on the totality of the circumstances, observations and supporting research and findings, attribution to George Wright is reasonable. With the understanding and combining of the above facts and understanding that “attributed” grading is done with a lower standard which is inherent in evaluating a bat of this type, the bat was awarded the grade of: MEARS A10

Images Used

Examined Bat: circa 1869 period bat attributed to George Wright

Photo 1.) Newspaper draft with hand written notations by sports writer Tim Murnane (JSA)

Photo 2.) Period Cincinnati baseball ribbon (John Thorn)

Photo3.) Atlantic B.B.C. baseball ribbon (John Thorn)

Photo 4.) Boston B.B. Club Property of Mrs. George Wright/ M.T.M. hanging tag (JSA)

Photo 5.) George Wright Red Stockings cabinet photo

RE: 2008 Catalog description:

“Nineteenth-Century Baseball Bat Attributed to George Wright In 1869

The title of this description notes that the offered bat is “Attributed to George Wright In 1869” because it is impossible for us to prove that this is the bat that George Wright used with the Red Stockings in 1869, yet that is precisely what we believe it to be. Offered is a nineteenth-century bat that is decorated by a number of attached items that strongly suggest that this bat was owned by and used by Cincinnati Red Stockings shortstop George Wright during the club’s historic 1869 season. Included among the attached items are two extraordinary circa 1869 baseball trophy ribbons, the first of each we have ever seen in private hands, one for the Atlantics and one for the Cincinnati Red Stockings, which themselves are among the most incredible baseball items we have ever seen from the era. The bat itself is extremely impressive, and is the only nineteenth-century bat that we have ever handled that appears from comparison with photographs to be exactly the type, in terms of design and dimensions, used by George Wright and the Red Stockings in countless photos of the era. Nineteenth-century bats, unlike modern-day bats, had no manufacturing labels or model numbers, and were not stamped with the player’s names on the barrel, thus making it impossible to definitively state, without additional provenance, that a particular nineteenth century bat was used by, or was even issued to, a specific player. That being the case, we can only present our opinion that we believe that the offered bat was used by George Wright in 1869, and describe what we base this opinion on. At the very least, it is a monumental museum-caliber bat dating from circa 1869, identical in style to those used by professional players of the era including the 1869 Red Stockings, and is accompanied by two attached ribbons, the finest, most extraordinary and desirable baseball trophy ribbons of the era, (one Brooklyn Atlantics, and one Cincinnati Red Stockings), that are each the only examples known in private hands, and which could only have originated from someone directly involved with these teams during this era. The bat, measuring 38 inches in length and weighing 37.4 ounces, is very distinctive and is in the classic style of bats from the late 1860s era. The knob features a slight protuberance at the end and the circumference of the handle is only slightly less than the barrel. Very few examples of any baseball equipment other than balls have survived from this era. This is the first bat of this type we have ever had. In addition to the trophy ribbons, the bat has been decorated with additional related period pieces. The most direct association to Wright comes from the property tag attached to the handle by means of string. The tag bears the preprinted notation “Property of” followed by the name “Mrs. George Wright” scripted in vintage black fountain pen. Printed above her name, upside down in faded black fountain pen, is an additional notation that reads “Geo. Wright’s Bat From 1869 Given By Him To M. T. M.” That second notation is extremely important. We believe that the initials “M. T. M.” almost certainly stand for “Michael T. McGreevy.” Michael McGreevy, better known as “Nuf Ced” McGreevy” was the leader of Boston’s famed Royal Rooters at the turn of the century and the game’s most ardent fan. He also owned the legendary 3rd Base saloon, which was the unofficial headquarters of the Royal Rooters. His tavern, however, was no ordinary saloon. McGreevy decorated the bar with all manners of baseball memorabilia and it could rightly be called the first baseball museum. McGreevy often traveled to other cities to secure new pieces for his walls and, as the fame of the tavern grew, he received numerous gifts from players and fans alike. Players were normally honored to have their items placed upon the wall of his tavern and years later, after his death, much of his collection was donated to the Boston Public Library. Today, numerous photos exist of the tavern during its “heyday” (including a number of photographs offered in other lots in this auction) in which one can clearly see the vast amount of baseball material on display. In 1871 the Cincinnati Red Stockings, with George Wright its greatest star, and led by his equally famous brother, Harry, moved to Boston, where they established a new team called the Boston Red Stockings. The Boston Red Stockings were a charter member of the National Association, baseball’s first all-professional league, and were was also an inaugural member of the National League in 1876. They were unquestionably the dominant professional team of the decade and George Wright was the club’s greatest player. After a brilliant career on the diamond, Wright opened a sporting goods store in Boston. Interestingly, the reverse of the tag features a portion of a printed advertisement for Wright’s sporting goods store, “Wright & Gould.” The 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings silk ribbon (7 x 3.5 inches) is affixed to the barrel. This ribbon, issued during the Cincinnati Red Stockings historic 1869 season, remains one of the most incredible finds in the hobby, as the only other known example resides in a museum collection. The white ribbon bears the team name “Cincinnati” printed in red lettering, above which is the team’s unique logo of a bat, belt and base designed in the shape of the letter “C.” The ribbon is attached to the barrel of this bat by means of twenty-two small, vintage nails. Adjacent to the Cincinnati team ribbon is the blue silk ribbon (5.25 x 1.5 inches) of the “Atlantic B.B.C.” (also attached by small, vintage nails, and also the only example, to the best of our knowledge, known in private hands). The Brooklyn Atlantics were one of the top teams in New York in 1869 and, in 1870, were the first team ever to defeat the Cincinnati Red Stockings. All silk baseball ribbons dating from the 1865 to 1875 era are extremely rare, due to both their fragile nature and the fact that they were intended to actually be worn by players, pinned to their uniforms during games. (The game’s elite clubs normally exchanged team ribbons before the game and wore them on their uniforms, a practice which largely ended by 1875.) Few ribbons from this era have survived, let alone from such a prominent team as the Atlantics. Below the ribbons, attached by nails, is a thin strip of white paper bearing the handwritten notation “The Cincinnati Ball Club, Cincinnati, Ohio.” An 1869 newspaper article, recapping the undefeated season of the 1869 Red Stockings, including scores of the games, is attached to the back of the barrel, also by means of vintage nails. The final item appearing on the bat is the handwritten draft of a newspaper article by legendary Boston sportswriter Tim Murnane, which surrounds the center of the bat, regarding the 1869 Red Stockings. The article, handwritten by Murnane and penned in black fountain pen upon a sheet of yellow paper reads “The first time I had the pleasure of seeing the Cincinnati Club play was at the Capatoline grounds Brooklyn in 1870. They had won every game up to this time and many were willing to bet they would go through this second season without meeting a defeat. No club ever received as much notice. Wherever they went they were the lions of the hour.” Affixed to the yellow sheet is a portion of the published article, which includes the last few handwritten lines in published form, as well as additional coverage of that famous game. The bat displays both heavy wear and use along its entire length, including a few tiny chips in the knob, light grain separation on the back of barrel, and a number of small depressions on the back of the barrel as well. Both ribbons show wear, including minor fraying along the borders and a few small tears, but display beautifully. The Cincinnati Red Stockings ribbon alone, in particular, is of such great importance that if it were not attached to the bat, it would all by itself be one of the most extraordinary and major items ever offered relating to the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings. This is a fascinating item and one of the most impressive nineteenth-century baseball display pieces we have ever seen. LOA from James Spence/JSA. LOA from Dave Bushing & Troy Kinunen/MEARS. Reserve $5,000. Estimate (open)”

February 8, 2007

Understanding the Authentication Process: Evaluating a 19th century player bat with attributed provenance

With each item MEARS is asked to evaluate, new circumstances and challenges arise. For the Robert Edward Auction sale event ending April 28th, 2007, MEARS was asked to evaluate and grade a bat attributed to George Wright circa 1869. This bat and player were both historically important as the 1869 Red Stockings are recognized as being the first professional baseball team and George Wright was their star player. With the bat being manufactured during the 1860s with no markings or factory records, it was our job to establish whether the bat could have been made for George Wright. Grading also posed a challenge as the provenance was established via attributed baseball related accoutrements. With several months of research and evaluation and the cooperation of additional independent experts, we were able to make attribution to George Wright and issue a final grade.

RE: circa 1869 bat with accoutrements attributing its ownership and use to George Wright

Introduction:

The above item, Hologram #305800 was submitted on behalf of Robert Edward Auctions for Evaluation and Grading. As part of our evaluation process, we conducted a physical examination of the bat and accompanying decorative accoutrements. The accoutrements consisted of:

1. Newspaper draft with hand written notations by sports writer Tim Murnane (see image)
2. Period Cincinnati baseball ribbon (see image)
3. Period Atlantics BBC baseball ribbon (see image)
4. Boston B.B. Club Property of Mrs. George Wright/ M.T.M. hanging tag (see image)

The dating of the accoutrements were important as it served a point of departure for evaluating and substantiating the provenance which is critical for any attribution to George Wright. The ribbons were examined by John Thorn and the staff of Robert Edwards Auctions and found to be authentic and of the period. MEARS accepted the independent opinion of John Thorn in the capacity of authenticating the baseball specific relics/accoutrements, which aided in the attribution to George Wright. The credentials of John Thorn are listed:

John Thorn

1. Author of Total Baseball: The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia
2. Author of The Hidden Game of Baseball
3. Author of Treasures of the Baseball Hall of Fame
4. Chief Editor Total Baseball
5. Founder of Total Sports Publishing
6. Essayist for the Boston Globe, New York Times, American Heritage, The Sporting News

7. Ken Burn’s 1994 “Baseball” contributor and Senior Creative Consultant
8. 2006 SABR recipient of their highest honor, Bob Davids Award

In the opinion of Robert Edward Auctions,

” In our opinion, John Thorn is the single most knowledgeable and insightful baseball scholar
in the world, and for many reasons, including the fact that he has had the benefit of studying collections at libraries all over the country for so many years, he may be the single most knowledgeable and
accomplished scholar specializing in baseball history to ever live.” …REA

John Thorn was able to authenticate the accoutrements as authentic, but their exact time of placement on the bat was undetermined.

JSA confirmed the writing on the newspaper draft as consistent with the handwriting of sportswriter Tim Murnane and that the hanging “property of Mrs. George Wright” tag and hand written notations was vintage. Dave Bushing conducted the physical examination of the bat to determine the timeframe of issuance and degree of use. Troy R. Kinunen conducted the research and fact verification and authored the final Letter of Opinion. MEARS provided the expertise in regards to the physical examination and grading of the bat while taking into account the opinions provided by the additional experts which allows us to consider the provenance into the assignment of the final grade. The accoutrements were examined independently and seem to substantiate attribution to George Wright by both period and association of individuals involved. Our evaluation concluded the bat was consistent with the style of bat, which would have been used by George Wright during the 1869 timeframe. The 1869 era was examined due to the style of the bat and approximate dating of the accouterments. According to Rob Lifson, the title of the description of the bat as it will appear in the Robert Edward Auction catalog makes note that the offered bat is “Attributed to George Wright in 1869” because it is impossible to prove that this is the bat that George Wright used with the Red Stockings in 1869, yet that is precisely what we believe it to be. –REA

Manufacturer: There is no manufacturers marking present on this bat which specifically connects this bat to George Wright, as this lack of practice would be expected from a bat from this period. The practice of adding player’s name, team, or the company of manufacture was not the norm at this time. Baseball was in its infancy and incorporated major sporting goods companies had yet to be formed, although George Wright did enter the business as Wright & Ditson during the 1880’s and became a pioneer in the industry. Competitor Albert Spalding formed his namesake rival company in 1876.

Bats used by players during this era would be of the hand turned variety with no identifying factory markings. Most were made locally by the area woodworkers. Manufacturing stampings did not begin to appear with any regularity on sporting goods equipment until the 1880s. Therefore, the lack of markings on this bat is consistent with what would have been used during the 1869 period.

Era: The dating range of the issuance of the bat is thought to be from time of 1869-82. This range was estimated based on the style of the bat, notation & hang tag, playing career of George Wright (1869-82) and the understanding of the era’s manufacturing process. Understanding of the manufacturing process supports the attribution of the 1869 (starting date of dating range), which is found on the hand tag and reads,

“Geo. Wright’s bat from 1869 given by him to M.T.M.”

Manufacturer identification (corporate branding) began to appear with more regularity during the early 1880s so the lack of logo was used to establish the end of our dating range (1882). The manufacturing process with lack of corporate branding coincides with the playing career of George Wright. With lack of manufacturer markings, an examination of the style, length, weight, and model (shape) of the bat determine this bat is consistent with the manufacturing practices of bats produced before 1880. The physical dimensions of the bat measured 38” in length and the bat weighed 37.4 ounces at time of examination. Photos of George Wright support the use of a long bat. Weight is unverified, but reasonable for a bat of that length. The style of the bat can be compared to the photograph of the Boston cabinet card of George Wright (see image). Examination of the photo for comparison sake illustrated George Wright holding a bat similar in model and appearance. Note the similarities of the very long, slender bat with round barrel. Also, the cabinet photo illustrates a very small knob with rounded end that is consistent with the examined bat. Judging by the era of this bat by the evaluation of its manufacturing traits, the bat is consistent with the model of bat that may have been used by George Wright during his playing career.

Production Information: For the purpose of grading, there are no chronicled references available for this bat. To our knowledge, there are no factory records available for any bats issued for players for the 19th century. The examination of the manufacturing characteristics and the study of period photography determined our base grade. After our evaluation we then determined the bat was consistent with bats used at the professional level for the 1869-82 timeframe. We also examined catalogs containing images and descriptions of trophy bats (non-game used) to eliminate the possibility of this being one. Provenance was evaluated for completion of the final grade.

Use Characteristics: The bat exhibited use that was evident throughout the length of the bats’ surfaces. Use was evenly distributed on all surfaces of the barrel. Examining the compressions of the grain and indentations to the bat’s surface saw this. The indentations were consistent with use found from handling, traveling, game play, and general storage. When evaluating the use in terms of its effects on the condition of the bat, we found no handle crack, no deadwood, and no other condition problems. Yet, without the lack of any of the above examined condition traits, the bat was still evaluated as having significant use. Although now decorated, it can clearly been seen the use occurred underneath the application of the accoutrements. Use was consistent when compared to other game used bats examined by MEARS. It was our opinion the use was applied in game situations and environments, and not associated with handling and storage wear found on trophy or presentation bats. Handling wear on a trophy bat would be more superficial when compared to a bat known to be game used. This bat exhibited use characteristics closely associated with game action.

Grading: One of the main components of grading is to assign a numerical value, which aids in the comparison of one item to another similar one. Typically grading is conducted while using a blend of production information, use characteristics and player traits. With the bat being manufactured during the 19th century, different grading criteria was applied. Therefore, this bat is being graded based on the similarity in style to the type of bat used during the 19th century. Attribution to George Wright was considered after examining the model of the bat with additional emphasis on the accruements. There is no recorded manufacturer data to support this bat being manufactured for George Wright and the foundation of its attribution lies solely on the provenance. Therefore, MEARS established a grade based on those criteria of style, use, and attribution. The application of our grading system will allow us to evaluate and assign a grade to additional 19th century items if the opportunity arises. Even with the challenges faced with the grading of this bat, MEARS is quite confident to award this rare 19th century bat the grade of MEARS A10 based on the evaluation of the bat and the accompanying evaluation of the accoutrements. The qualification of the bat as “Attributed” is a necessary lower standard inherent in evaluating a bat of this type; appropriate for the evaluation of a bat from this early era attributed to any specific player.

A base grade of 5 points was awarded for the bat comparing favorably in regards to length, model, knob & barrel style to examined photos of players from the period. Additional examples examined include:

– Baseball by Ken Burns. Photo of 1869 Reds with bats, page 22
– A Celebration! By James Buckley, Jr and Jim Gigliotti. Photo of 1869 Reds with bats, page 35

In regards to style, model, & barrel dimensions of bats manufactured to be used during 1869-82, due to the limited and unique nature of this bat, we did not have additional physical bats or production information to compare. Therefore, our awarding of the base grade was conducted by visual comparison to available photos of players from the era. The image of the George Wright cabinet photo was very helpful in determining the style and model of bat preferred by George Wright during his playing career with the Red Sox. The photograph did not verify this as the exact bat when compared to the cabinet photo, but it did allow for style and manufacturing verification. The base grade was awarded for the style/model of bat only. Provenance and attribution to George Wright were addressed in the provenance section. (5 points)

Use: In our opinion, the use was consistent with a full season or move of use and categorized as heavy or significant. George Wright joined the team in 1869. Under the terms of his contract, the season started on March 15th and lasted until November 15th. The professional Cincinnati Red Stockings club played their first game May 4th, 1869 with a 45-9 win over the Great Westerns of Cincinnati. The team won 57 games without defeat, counting only those games against National Association clubs. The Red Stockings played over 70 games in the first season counting games against other collegiate and amateur teams. Its commercial tour of continental scope, visiting Boston and San Francisco, was unprecedented and may be essentially un-repeated. In its final game on November 6, 1869 they defeated the Mutuals of New York, 17-8. Use is consistent with a schedule such as laid out above, and possibly additional seasons of use.

With this degree of use, 3 points were added to the base grade. Although we have not positively identified the exact use and player characteristics of George Wright, we were able to determine this was a game bat and not a trophy bat. First, the accoutrements were added at a later date and did not appear on the bat at the time of manufacture. This was determined by the fact the use appeared underneath their addition. Second, we have examined numerous trophy bats. Typical trophy bats from the period were adorned with silver decorative features. On a trophy bat the handle would have a decorative plug, silver bands were found placed at various intervals throughout the length of the barrel, and plates identifying the year, team, event would be found. This bat had no signs of any of those features ever being present. Examples of trophy bats can be seen on:

Halper Catalog (lot #190) for example of an 1869 trophy bat, page 191
1886 Peck and Snyder Sporting Goods Equipment catalog. Listed as model #’s 248 through 254, the diagram and description read,

“Solid Rosewood bat highly polished, with two beautifully engraved silver plated bands, and a silver plated inscription plate in center. Offered with one band, two bands, engraved inscription plate, plate only.”

After comparison of the George Wright bat to the catalog descriptions of a trophy bat, it is determined this bat DOES NOT match any of the manufacturing characteristics associated with trophy bats issued by Peck and Snyder or the one offered in the Halper sale. Although the Peck and Snyder trophy bat was offered during the 1886 timeframe, its manufacturing characteristics in terms of production details, i.e. use of rosewood which was highly polished, engraved silver plated bands, inscription plate and end cap were consistent with an example we examined dating from 1867. Therefore, manufactured trophy bats were available as far back as 1867, and this was not one of those.

The addition of the accoutrements might indicate to some this was a “trophy” bat. It is the opinion of MEARS the accoutrements were added at an undetermined later date and was not present on the bat when the use occurred. Therefore, MEARS is able to categorize this item as a “game used” bat. After evaluating the degree of use, 3 points were assigned.

Provenance: The evaluation of the provenance fell outside of the area of expertise of the staff at MEARS. The staff of REA brought in respected expert’s JSA and baseball historian John Thorn to evaluate the accoutrements, which were the basis for the provenance. Their independent findings were reasonable and respected. (2 points for attributed provenance)

JSA’s findings:

Newspaper draft with hand written notations by sports writer Tim Murnane:

Boston B.B. Club Property of Mrs. George Wright/ M.T.M. hanging tag: The tag bears a preprinted notation, “Property of” followed by the name “Mrs. George Wright” which JSA concluded the writing was vintage black fountain pen. The exact handwriting could not be attributed to any specific person. Printed above her name, upside down in faded black fountain pen, is an additional notation that reads, “Geo. Wright’s bat from 1869 given by him to M.T.M.” JSA concluded all writing on this tag as vintage. With the verification of the tag as appearing in vintage ink, the writing attributing the bat to George Wright could be deemed original and of the period.

John Thorn’s opinion:

John Thorn examined the two attached ribbons. Item #1. Brooklyn Atlantics, Item #2. Cincinnati Red Stockings. The two ribbons were the finest, most extraordinary and desirable baseball trophy ribbons of the era. Each is the only known example in private hands. These ribbons only could originate from someone directly involved with these teams during this era. Each of these is the first ever seen in private hands.

Final Grade: Even with the challenges faced with the grading of this bat, MEARS is quite confident to award this rare 19th century bat the grade of MEARS A10 based on the evaluation of the bat and the accompanying evaluation of the accoutrements.

MEARS interpretation of the provenance: JSA’s and John Thorn’s findings have been outlined above. Both have deemed the accoutrements are vintage, of the period, and authentic. With their expert findings being recognized in the determination of the validation of the provenance, we can accept attribution via their work to George Wright. What are still left unanswered, are when the accoutrements were added to the bat and by whom. The exact dating and purpose are unknown. Also, examination of the handwritten notes and article by sportswriter Tim Murnane references the exploits of the 1870 team in past tense, thus indicating the notes were penned at a date later than 1870. The exact date of his writing is unknown. Writer Tim Murnane died February 7th, 1917 so the notes had to have been before 1917. For MEARS, provenance must be seen as both reasonable and verifiable. The persons Mrs. George Wright and prominent period sports writer Tim Murnane are considered reasonable figures with respect to ownership and relationship to the bat and surrounding events. The verification for MEARS is based on the supporting work done by JSA and John Thom.

MEARS Conclusion: The bat is deemed to be a very rare, seldom seen 19th century bat which was consistent in terms to length, model, weight, and knob preference of a bat depicted in images as associated with George Wright when compared to the examined cabinet photo which featured him in his Red Stockings uniform. No direct link via established manufacturer production information was made available to aid us in our opinion. Provenance via the accoutrements was examined next. As REA noted, the ribbons themselves are quite rare and would only have originated from someone directly involved with these teams during this era. Independent experts determined the accoutrements are authentic and served as attribution to the teams and events associated with George Wright. The exact time, person, and reason of the assembly of the bat were undetermined. There was not a direct personal link between George Wright himself and the assembly/attachments of the accoutrements. Based on the totality of the circumstances, observations and supporting research and findings, attribution to George Wright is reasonable. With the understanding and combining of the above facts and understanding that “attributed” grading is done with a lower standard which is inherent in evaluating a bat of this type, the bat was awarded the grade of: MEARS A10

Images Used

Examined Bat: circa 1869 period bat attributed to George Wright

Photo 1.) Newspaper draft with hand written notations by sports writer Tim Murnane (JSA)

Photo 2.) Period Cincinnati baseball ribbon (John Thorn)

Photo3.) Atlantic B.B.C. baseball ribbon (John Thorn)

Photo 4.) Boston B.B. Club Property of Mrs. George Wright/ M.T.M. hanging tag (JSA)

Photo 5.) George Wright Red Stockings cabinet photo

RE: 2008 Catalog description:

“Nineteenth-Century Baseball Bat Attributed to George Wright In 1869

The title of this description notes that the offered bat is “Attributed to George Wright In 1869” because it is impossible for us to prove that this is the bat that George Wright used with the Red Stockings in 1869, yet that is precisely what we believe it to be. Offered is a nineteenth-century bat that is decorated by a number of attached items that strongly suggest that this bat was owned by and used by Cincinnati Red Stockings shortstop George Wright during the club’s historic 1869 season. Included among the attached items are two extraordinary circa 1869 baseball trophy ribbons, the first of each we have ever seen in private hands, one for the Atlantics and one for the Cincinnati Red Stockings, which themselves are among the most incredible baseball items we have ever seen from the era. The bat itself is extremely impressive, and is the only nineteenth-century bat that we have ever handled that appears from comparison with photographs to be exactly the type, in terms of design and dimensions, used by George Wright and the Red Stockings in countless photos of the era. Nineteenth-century bats, unlike modern-day bats, had no manufacturing labels or model numbers, and were not stamped with the player’s names on the barrel, thus making it impossible to definitively state, without additional provenance, that a particular nineteenth century bat was used by, or was even issued to, a specific player. That being the case, we can only present our opinion that we believe that the offered bat was used by George Wright in 1869, and describe what we base this opinion on. At the very least, it is a monumental museum-caliber bat dating from circa 1869, identical in style to those used by professional players of the era including the 1869 Red Stockings, and is accompanied by two attached ribbons, the finest, most extraordinary and desirable baseball trophy ribbons of the era, (one Brooklyn Atlantics, and one Cincinnati Red Stockings), that are each the only examples known in private hands, and which could only have originated from someone directly involved with these teams during this era. The bat, measuring 38 inches in length and weighing 37.4 ounces, is very distinctive and is in the classic style of bats from the late 1860s era. The knob features a slight protuberance at the end and the circumference of the handle is only slightly less than the barrel. Very few examples of any baseball equipment other than balls have survived from this era. This is the first bat of this type we have ever had. In addition to the trophy ribbons, the bat has been decorated with additional related period pieces. The most direct association to Wright comes from the property tag attached to the handle by means of string. The tag bears the preprinted notation “Property of” followed by the name “Mrs. George Wright” scripted in vintage black fountain pen. Printed above her name, upside down in faded black fountain pen, is an additional notation that reads “Geo. Wright’s Bat From 1869 Given By Him To M. T. M.” That second notation is extremely important. We believe that the initials “M. T. M.” almost certainly stand for “Michael T. McGreevy.” Michael McGreevy, better known as “Nuf Ced” McGreevy” was the leader of Boston’s famed Royal Rooters at the turn of the century and the game’s most ardent fan. He also owned the legendary 3rd Base saloon, which was the unofficial headquarters of the Royal Rooters. His tavern, however, was no ordinary saloon. McGreevy decorated the bar with all manners of baseball memorabilia and it could rightly be called the first baseball museum. McGreevy often traveled to other cities to secure new pieces for his walls and, as the fame of the tavern grew, he received numerous gifts from players and fans alike. Players were normally honored to have their items placed upon the wall of his tavern and years later, after his death, much of his collection was donated to the Boston Public Library. Today, numerous photos exist of the tavern during its “heyday” (including a number of photographs offered in other lots in this auction) in which one can clearly see the vast amount of baseball material on display. In 1871 the Cincinnati Red Stockings, with George Wright its greatest star, and led by his equally famous brother, Harry, moved to Boston, where they established a new team called the Boston Red Stockings. The Boston Red Stockings were a charter member of the National Association, baseball’s first all-professional league, and were was also an inaugural member of the National League in 1876. They were unquestionably the dominant professional team of the decade and George Wright was the club’s greatest player. After a brilliant career on the diamond, Wright opened a sporting goods store in Boston. Interestingly, the reverse of the tag features a portion of a printed advertisement for Wright’s sporting goods store, “Wright & Gould.” The 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings silk ribbon (7 x 3.5 inches) is affixed to the barrel. This ribbon, issued during the Cincinnati Red Stockings historic 1869 season, remains one of the most incredible finds in the hobby, as the only other known example resides in a museum collection. The white ribbon bears the team name “Cincinnati” printed in red lettering, above which is the team’s unique logo of a bat, belt and base designed in the shape of the letter “C.” The ribbon is attached to the barrel of this bat by means of twenty-two small, vintage nails. Adjacent to the Cincinnati team ribbon is the blue silk ribbon (5.25 x 1.5 inches) of the “Atlantic B.B.C.” (also attached by small, vintage nails, and also the only example, to the best of our knowledge, known in private hands). The Brooklyn Atlantics were one of the top teams in New York in 1869 and, in 1870, were the first team ever to defeat the Cincinnati Red Stockings. All silk baseball ribbons dating from the 1865 to 1875 era are extremely rare, due to both their fragile nature and the fact that they were intended to actually be worn by players, pinned to their uniforms during games. (The game’s elite clubs normally exchanged team ribbons before the game and wore them on their uniforms, a practice which largely ended by 1875.) Few ribbons from this era have survived, let alone from such a prominent team as the Atlantics. Below the ribbons, attached by nails, is a thin strip of white paper bearing the handwritten notation “The Cincinnati Ball Club, Cincinnati, Ohio.” An 1869 newspaper article, recapping the undefeated season of the 1869 Red Stockings, including scores of the games, is attached to the back of the barrel, also by means of vintage nails. The final item appearing on the bat is the handwritten draft of a newspaper article by legendary Boston sportswriter Tim Murnane, which surrounds the center of the bat, regarding the 1869 Red Stockings. The article, handwritten by Murnane and penned in black fountain pen upon a sheet of yellow paper reads “The first time I had the pleasure of seeing the Cincinnati Club play was at the Capatoline grounds Brooklyn in 1870. They had won every game up to this time and many were willing to bet they would go through this second season without meeting a defeat. No club ever received as much notice. Wherever they went they were the lions of the hour.” Affixed to the yellow sheet is a portion of the published article, which includes the last few handwritten lines in published form, as well as additional coverage of that famous game. The bat displays both heavy wear and use along its entire length, including a few tiny chips in the knob, light grain separation on the back of barrel, and a number of small depressions on the back of the barrel as well. Both ribbons show wear, including minor fraying along the borders and a few small tears, but display beautifully. The Cincinnati Red Stockings ribbon alone, in particular, is of such great importance that if it were not attached to the bat, it would all by itself be one of the most extraordinary and major items ever offered relating to the 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings. This is a fascinating item and one of the most impressive nineteenth-century baseball display pieces we have ever seen. LOA from James Spence/JSA. LOA from Dave Bushing & Troy Kinunen/MEARS. Reserve $5,000. Estimate (open)”

Any professional model player’s bat, which survived from the pre 1920 era, should be considered quite rare. Besides the bats themselves being quite scarce, records supporting their professional issuance are just as scarce. Admittedly challenging, an authenticator armed with available information can still render an accurate opinion if the interpretation of available facts is done logically and responsibly. This article will establish:

1. The relationship between Spalding and the major leagues during the era
2. The relationship between Spalding and the Detroit Tigers during the era
3. Photographic support of Spalding bats being used from 1914-19

Opinion Letter Details

February 20, 2007

RE: 1908 circa Ty Cobb Spalding Professional Model Game Bat

Manufacturer: Spalding

Era: Pre-War Hall of Famer

Certification Number: 305711

Final Grade: A6

Manufacturer Characteristics

MEARS was asked to grade and evaluate and offer an opinion on the above-mentioned bat. Based on the dating of the centerbrand (1908), we determined this bat was a professional model and consistent in terms of production specifications with bats issued to Ty Cobb during his playing career. The label description, “SPALDING, Tyrus R. Cobb, AUTOGRAPH” is found on the centerbrand. These are the only markings on the barrel. There is no model stamped on the bat as that was in accordance with the manufacturing process for Spalding at this time. Ty Cobb was the only player to have his signature branded in this fashion during this time frame; all other endorsees of this period were issued with the Gold Medal barrel branding.

The player identifier, “Tyrus R. Cobb” appears in script signature style on the centerbrand of the barrel. This was a unique style for his Spalding wood, as Cobb’s signature appeared on Louisville Slugger professional model bats as “Ty Cobb”.

Examination of the handle shows the bat was manufactured with a small knob and round barrel. Photographic evidence supports the model of this bat. In a dated postcard (image enclosed) of Ty Cobb during 1907, you can clearly see the similarities of the knob and barrel. Ty Cobb definitively used this model of bat during the 1908 timeframe.

The knob is hand turned as indicated by the lack of trademark on the knob and the factory style finish. Store model Tyrus R. Cobb bats was also made available to the general public during this timeframe and this bat should not be confused with the store model examples. These store model bats were found with the Spalding logo stamped into the barrel. Also, this bat was issued in a ½ inch length. Typically store model bats were issued in even lengths such as 32”, 33”, 34” or 35”. So, this bat is not a store model based on the infrequency of store model bats being issued in half-lengths. The hand turned knob and ½ inch length were indicative traits of professional model issuance as compared to their store model counterparts.

Player Model Specifications

Although no Spalding production information is known to exist for this examined bat, its physical manufactured characteristics are consistent with the preferred specifications of factory documented Ty Cobb bats:

Examined bat
Ty Cobb Spalding MEARS #305711 (Small knob/ round barrel & no handle tape)

Length: 34 3/8 inches
Weight: 37.9 ounces

Ty Cobb 1911-16 L/S side written 6-19-28

Length: 34.5 inches
Weight: 35.7 ounces

Ty Cobb 1921-28 L/S side written 6-29-25

Length: 34.125 inches
Weight: 35.7 ounces

Ty Cobb 1921-28 L/S from Luke Sewell

Length: 34.5 inches
Weight: 36 ounces

All four bats compare very favorably in respect to length and weight. The three bats used for comparison are considered in the hobby to be the best of the best in regards to authenticity and their relation to recorded production information. It is this relationship that provides the established metrics upon which a comparison was based and a subsequent opinion formed. With this in mind, it is our conclusion that the factory recorded dimensions of side written Louisville Slugger bat (a known sample) can be used as a basis of comparison on Spalding bats (an offered sample). This bodes well for this bat since the dimensions are nearly identical. The compared measurements are the basis of our opinion.

In addition, MEARS has examined two other Spalding professional model Tyrus R. Cobb bats.

1908 circa Tyrus R. Cobb Spalding #302454

Length: 34.25 inches
Weight: 37.2 ounces

1908 circa Tyrus R. Cobb Spalding #251233

Length: 34.5 inches
Weight: 40.5 inches

This examined MEARS bat compares quite favorably to these two previously examined Spalding Tyrus R. Cobb professional model bats. The same processes and methods were used for those bats as well.

Brief History of the Relationship between Spalding and Major League Baseball

As both a dealer and an authenticator, Dave Bushing has had the opportunity to examine a very small handful of player endorsed bats from the 1908-1920 timeframe. And of the bats that were deemed as professional models, only a small number, (estimated at less than 20) were Hillerich & Bradsby. If the big leaguers weren’t using H&B during that 12-year period, then they must have been using bats manufactured by other companies.

Again, the lack of factory records can be overcome by examining the information that is available. In the Sporting Goods Catalogue of 1912 printed by the department store, “THE FAIR” of Chicago, IL, on page 146 it states,

“Spalding Gold Medal Autograph Bat are exact duplicates of those used by the leading players in both major leagues. The models that have been adopted have been duplicated from time to time as they have required additional bats. In order to satisfy the ever increasing demand for bats of the same models as used by the leading players, we have obtained permission from many of the leading batters of the country to include in our line of high grade bats these Gold Autograph bats, bearing their signature.”

Ty Cobb’s teammate while with the 1912 Detroit Tigers, Sam Crawford, was also an endorsee of Spalding. His autograph model was listed at 35” weighing 40 to 44 ounces. If this bat was one of the models adopted to be duplicated direct from the players game bats, this establishes a link directly between Spalding and the Detroit Tigers.

I would theorize that Spalding beat Louisville Slugger to the punch by adding facsimile signature to the barrel of their bats as supported by the advertisements in these catalogs.

The 1912 A.G. Spalding & Bros. Official dealer catalog provided additional links between major league baseball and Spalding equipment. On page 2, in a full-page ad, it reads:

“Spalding Official National League Ball, Patent Cork Center. No. 1. Adopted by the National League in 1878 and is the only ball used in Championship games since that time…the same ball as used since August 1, 1910, without change in size of cork or construction. Same ball exactly as used in World Series Games of 1910, 1911, and 1912.”

Page 17 provides a further link between player and Spalding products with photographs of William Sullivan of the Chicago White Sox wearing the Spalding No. 5P Body Protector and Roger Breshahan wearing Spalding Leg Guards.

Finally, The 1912 Spalding dealers catalog cement the link between Spalding and the major leaguers. On page 25, it reads,

“SPALDING BASE BALL UNIFORMS- illustrated up to date outfits as worn by players on the teams connected with the National and American Leagues.” Players included:

John McGraw- NL Giants
Frank Chance- NL Cubs
Harry Davis- AL Athletics
Hugh Jennings- AL Tigers
Fred Clarke- NL Pirates
Charles Dooin- NL Phillies
George Stovall- AL Indians
James Callahan- AL White Sox
Roger Bresnahan- NL Nationals
William Dahlen- NL Nationals
J. Garland Stahl- AL Americans
Walter Johnson- AL Americans
Clark Griffith- NL Nationals
Fred Tenney- NL Nationals
Hal Chase- AL Americans
Robert Wallace- NL Americans

This list of players establishes the relationship between Spalding, the American League and the Detroit Tigers.

1. American League Teams (of which Cobb’s Tigers were associated)
2. Detroit Tigers via Hugh Jennings wore Spalding supplied uniforms

For the purpose of this article we only had the 1912 catalogs available but earlier catalogs from the era of 1908 would most likely support the theory.

Photographic Support of Spalding bats being used in the Major Leagues

While researching a related story, LTC Dave Grob brought to my attention the exhibit card featuring Heinie Groh. Judging by the team, Reds, and the style of the jersey, the image could be dated to 1914-19. Louisville Slugger records show that on 9/28/20 Groh signed his contract with Louisville Slugger. Therefore, the dating of the photo supports use by Groh in the major league during the 1914-19 timeframe.

Professional Model Spalding Examples Which Have Entered the Hobby

Spalding was a major supplier of professional model bats during the 1908 to 1920 timeframe. Louisville Slugger was increasing their marketing efforts and beginning to seize market share, but Spalding examples of professional model game used bats still found their way into the market. Following is a list of additional Spalding professional model bats examined by MEARS, which were manufactured in the manner, which denoted professional issuance. Although no photo evidence exists, the Larry Doyle/David Robertson was side written and returned to the Louisville Slugger Factory to have an H&B reproduced. The manufacturing markings of this bat were consistent with the other examined Spalding professional model bats. The unique professional model markings were examined and used to conduct trend analysis for the presence of Spalding bats in the major leagues. Examined were:

1912-25 Frank Chance Spalding MEARS #303556
1914-18 Babe Ruth Spalding MEARS #302482
1908-11 George Stone Spalding MEARS #300067
1910-20 Edd Rousch Spalding MEARS #301338
1914-20 Larry Doyle Spalding/David Robertson MEARS #301396

Player Personal Characteristics

There were several use or player specific characteristics of this bat associated with Ty Cobb. First, the lack of handle tape relative to the dating of the bat. It often cited that Ty Cobb used a unique and specific pattern of tape on his bats. Research shows this is the case, but the practice began to appear with regularity in the teens to early 1920s. Photos show that for this early period of circa 1908, Ty Cobb often was photographed with a bat bearing no signs of tape or pinetar on the handle. Now, lack of tape alone does not serve as a player specific trait, but the lack of it in this instance does not preclude this from being a Ty Cobb bat. The accompanying photos of Ty Cobb in 1907 and the circa 1910 substantiate this observation for lack of tape on his bats from this era.

Another telltale sign of game use, which is consistent with Ty Cobb, is the flattened hitting surface found above the barrel stamping. This occurs from the repeated contact of bat on ball. Only the most deadly and skilled hitters can repeatedly make contact in such a small and concentrated area. Also present is the appearance of cleat marks. The cleat marks appear in a manner and depth consistent with previously examined Ty Cobb bats.

Grading of Ty Cobb Spalding bats

This professional model game bat received the final grade of A6. Regarding the basegrade, 5 full points were awarded for the consistency and specificity relative to comparison with known examples of documented side written Louisville Slugger bats. Also, the hand turned knob and incremental ½ inch metric separated this bat from its store model counterparts. The manufacturing characteristics of this bat from this label period were evaluated and served as the basis for the 5 point base grade.

Use was optimal and the presence of the flattened hitting surface and cleat marks allowed our authenticators to assign 3 full points for optimal and heavy game use.

Negative points were assigned for the following:

1 full point was subtracted for the carved in the knob. The exact meaning and time of placement is unknown. Also, there is slight layer separation on the reverse of the barrel, ½ point was subtracted.
Finally, ½ point was subtracted for the stain on the reverse of the barrel. Final Grade: MEARS A6

Conclusion

Based on the research conducted by MEARS, presented is our evaluation, opinion and grade for this Spalding professional model Ty Cobb Bat. Use of imagery analysis, dealer catalogs, contemporary manufacturers and market trends, as well as Louisville Slugger documented Cobb bats allowed us to render what we feel is an objective and defendable opinion.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen
MEARS

Any professional model player’s bat, which survived from the pre 1920 era, should be considered quite rare. Besides the bats themselves being quite scarce, records supporting their professional issuance are just as scarce. Admittedly challenging, an authenticator armed with available information can still render an accurate opinion if the interpretation of available facts is done logically and responsibly. This article will establish:

1. The relationship between Spalding and the major leagues during the era
2. The relationship between Spalding and the Detroit Tigers during the era
3. Photographic support of Spalding bats being used from 1914-19

Opinion Letter Details

February 20, 2007

RE: 1908 circa Ty Cobb Spalding Professional Model Game Bat

Manufacturer: Spalding

Era: Pre-War Hall of Famer

Certification Number: 305711

Final Grade: A6

Manufacturer Characteristics

MEARS was asked to grade and evaluate and offer an opinion on the above-mentioned bat. Based on the dating of the centerbrand (1908), we determined this bat was a professional model and consistent in terms of production specifications with bats issued to Ty Cobb during his playing career. The label description, “SPALDING, Tyrus R. Cobb, AUTOGRAPH” is found on the centerbrand. These are the only markings on the barrel. There is no model stamped on the bat as that was in accordance with the manufacturing process for Spalding at this time. Ty Cobb was the only player to have his signature branded in this fashion during this time frame; all other endorsees of this period were issued with the Gold Medal barrel branding.

The player identifier, “Tyrus R. Cobb” appears in script signature style on the centerbrand of the barrel. This was a unique style for his Spalding wood, as Cobb’s signature appeared on Louisville Slugger professional model bats as “Ty Cobb”.

Examination of the handle shows the bat was manufactured with a small knob and round barrel. Photographic evidence supports the model of this bat. In a dated postcard (image enclosed) of Ty Cobb during 1907, you can clearly see the similarities of the knob and barrel. Ty Cobb definitively used this model of bat during the 1908 timeframe.

The knob is hand turned as indicated by the lack of trademark on the knob and the factory style finish. Store model Tyrus R. Cobb bats was also made available to the general public during this timeframe and this bat should not be confused with the store model examples. These store model bats were found with the Spalding logo stamped into the barrel. Also, this bat was issued in a ½ inch length. Typically store model bats were issued in even lengths such as 32”, 33”, 34” or 35”. So, this bat is not a store model based on the infrequency of store model bats being issued in half-lengths. The hand turned knob and ½ inch length were indicative traits of professional model issuance as compared to their store model counterparts.

Player Model Specifications

Although no Spalding production information is known to exist for this examined bat, its physical manufactured characteristics are consistent with the preferred specifications of factory documented Ty Cobb bats:

Examined bat
Ty Cobb Spalding MEARS #305711 (Small knob/ round barrel & no handle tape)

Length: 34 3/8 inches
Weight: 37.9 ounces

Ty Cobb 1911-16 L/S side written 6-19-28

Length: 34.5 inches
Weight: 35.7 ounces

Ty Cobb 1921-28 L/S side written 6-29-25

Length: 34.125 inches
Weight: 35.7 ounces

Ty Cobb 1921-28 L/S from Luke Sewell

Length: 34.5 inches
Weight: 36 ounces

All four bats compare very favorably in respect to length and weight. The three bats used for comparison are considered in the hobby to be the best of the best in regards to authenticity and their relation to recorded production information. It is this relationship that provides the established metrics upon which a comparison was based and a subsequent opinion formed. With this in mind, it is our conclusion that the factory recorded dimensions of side written Louisville Slugger bat (a known sample) can be used as a basis of comparison on Spalding bats (an offered sample). This bodes well for this bat since the dimensions are nearly identical. The compared measurements are the basis of our opinion.

In addition, MEARS has examined two other Spalding professional model Tyrus R. Cobb bats.

1908 circa Tyrus R. Cobb Spalding #302454

Length: 34.25 inches
Weight: 37.2 ounces

1908 circa Tyrus R. Cobb Spalding #251233

Length: 34.5 inches
Weight: 40.5 inches

This examined MEARS bat compares quite favorably to these two previously examined Spalding Tyrus R. Cobb professional model bats. The same processes and methods were used for those bats as well.

Brief History of the Relationship between Spalding and Major League Baseball

As both a dealer and an authenticator, Dave Bushing has had the opportunity to examine a very small handful of player endorsed bats from the 1908-1920 timeframe. And of the bats that were deemed as professional models, only a small number, (estimated at less than 20) were Hillerich & Bradsby. If the big leaguers weren’t using H&B during that 12-year period, then they must have been using bats manufactured by other companies.

Again, the lack of factory records can be overcome by examining the information that is available. In the Sporting Goods Catalogue of 1912 printed by the department store, “THE FAIR” of Chicago, IL, on page 146 it states,

“Spalding Gold Medal Autograph Bat are exact duplicates of those used by the leading players in both major leagues. The models that have been adopted have been duplicated from time to time as they have required additional bats. In order to satisfy the ever increasing demand for bats of the same models as used by the leading players, we have obtained permission from many of the leading batters of the country to include in our line of high grade bats these Gold Autograph bats, bearing their signature.”

Ty Cobb’s teammate while with the 1912 Detroit Tigers, Sam Crawford, was also an endorsee of Spalding. His autograph model was listed at 35” weighing 40 to 44 ounces. If this bat was one of the models adopted to be duplicated direct from the players game bats, this establishes a link directly between Spalding and the Detroit Tigers.

I would theorize that Spalding beat Louisville Slugger to the punch by adding facsimile signature to the barrel of their bats as supported by the advertisements in these catalogs.

The 1912 A.G. Spalding & Bros. Official dealer catalog provided additional links between major league baseball and Spalding equipment. On page 2, in a full-page ad, it reads:

“Spalding Official National League Ball, Patent Cork Center. No. 1. Adopted by the National League in 1878 and is the only ball used in Championship games since that time…the same ball as used since August 1, 1910, without change in size of cork or construction. Same ball exactly as used in World Series Games of 1910, 1911, and 1912.”

Page 17 provides a further link between player and Spalding products with photographs of William Sullivan of the Chicago White Sox wearing the Spalding No. 5P Body Protector and Roger Breshahan wearing Spalding Leg Guards.

Finally, The 1912 Spalding dealers catalog cement the link between Spalding and the major leaguers. On page 25, it reads,

“SPALDING BASE BALL UNIFORMS- illustrated up to date outfits as worn by players on the teams connected with the National and American Leagues.” Players included:

John McGraw- NL Giants
Frank Chance- NL Cubs
Harry Davis- AL Athletics
Hugh Jennings- AL Tigers
Fred Clarke- NL Pirates
Charles Dooin- NL Phillies
George Stovall- AL Indians
James Callahan- AL White Sox
Roger Bresnahan- NL Nationals
William Dahlen- NL Nationals
J. Garland Stahl- AL Americans
Walter Johnson- AL Americans
Clark Griffith- NL Nationals
Fred Tenney- NL Nationals
Hal Chase- AL Americans
Robert Wallace- NL Americans

This list of players establishes the relationship between Spalding, the American League and the Detroit Tigers.

1. American League Teams (of which Cobb’s Tigers were associated)
2. Detroit Tigers via Hugh Jennings wore Spalding supplied uniforms

For the purpose of this article we only had the 1912 catalogs available but earlier catalogs from the era of 1908 would most likely support the theory.

Photographic Support of Spalding bats being used in the Major Leagues

While researching a related story, LTC Dave Grob brought to my attention the exhibit card featuring Heinie Groh. Judging by the team, Reds, and the style of the jersey, the image could be dated to 1914-19. Louisville Slugger records show that on 9/28/20 Groh signed his contract with Louisville Slugger. Therefore, the dating of the photo supports use by Groh in the major league during the 1914-19 timeframe.

Professional Model Spalding Examples Which Have Entered the Hobby

Spalding was a major supplier of professional model bats during the 1908 to 1920 timeframe. Louisville Slugger was increasing their marketing efforts and beginning to seize market share, but Spalding examples of professional model game used bats still found their way into the market. Following is a list of additional Spalding professional model bats examined by MEARS, which were manufactured in the manner, which denoted professional issuance. Although no photo evidence exists, the Larry Doyle/David Robertson was side written and returned to the Louisville Slugger Factory to have an H&B reproduced. The manufacturing markings of this bat were consistent with the other examined Spalding professional model bats. The unique professional model markings were examined and used to conduct trend analysis for the presence of Spalding bats in the major leagues. Examined were:

1912-25 Frank Chance Spalding MEARS #303556
1914-18 Babe Ruth Spalding MEARS #302482
1908-11 George Stone Spalding MEARS #300067
1910-20 Edd Rousch Spalding MEARS #301338
1914-20 Larry Doyle Spalding/David Robertson MEARS #301396

Player Personal Characteristics

There were several use or player specific characteristics of this bat associated with Ty Cobb. First, the lack of handle tape relative to the dating of the bat. It often cited that Ty Cobb used a unique and specific pattern of tape on his bats. Research shows this is the case, but the practice began to appear with regularity in the teens to early 1920s. Photos show that for this early period of circa 1908, Ty Cobb often was photographed with a bat bearing no signs of tape or pinetar on the handle. Now, lack of tape alone does not serve as a player specific trait, but the lack of it in this instance does not preclude this from being a Ty Cobb bat. The accompanying photos of Ty Cobb in 1907 and the circa 1910 substantiate this observation for lack of tape on his bats from this era.

Another telltale sign of game use, which is consistent with Ty Cobb, is the flattened hitting surface found above the barrel stamping. This occurs from the repeated contact of bat on ball. Only the most deadly and skilled hitters can repeatedly make contact in such a small and concentrated area. Also present is the appearance of cleat marks. The cleat marks appear in a manner and depth consistent with previously examined Ty Cobb bats.

Grading of Ty Cobb Spalding bats

This professional model game bat received the final grade of A6. Regarding the basegrade, 5 full points were awarded for the consistency and specificity relative to comparison with known examples of documented side written Louisville Slugger bats. Also, the hand turned knob and incremental ½ inch metric separated this bat from its store model counterparts. The manufacturing characteristics of this bat from this label period were evaluated and served as the basis for the 5 point base grade.

Use was optimal and the presence of the flattened hitting surface and cleat marks allowed our authenticators to assign 3 full points for optimal and heavy game use.

Negative points were assigned for the following:

1 full point was subtracted for the carved in the knob. The exact meaning and time of placement is unknown. Also, there is slight layer separation on the reverse of the barrel, ½ point was subtracted.
Finally, ½ point was subtracted for the stain on the reverse of the barrel. Final Grade: MEARS A6

Conclusion

Based on the research conducted by MEARS, presented is our evaluation, opinion and grade for this Spalding professional model Ty Cobb Bat. Use of imagery analysis, dealer catalogs, contemporary manufacturers and market trends, as well as Louisville Slugger documented Cobb bats allowed us to render what we feel is an objective and defendable opinion.

Sincerely,

Troy R. Kinunen
MEARS

When we began working on the grading system, which was no small feat as it morphed into what it is today, one of the biggest dilemmas facing us dealt with the post 1987 jerseys. Everyone is aware that the issuance of large quantities of modern jerseys into the hobby after 1987 is a big issue. How could we address the grading of a pro model shirt, one that was not originally made or intended for the retail store trade, but yet use, sans any provenance, could not be verified or one that was often contrived to help the shirt along. What grade do you put on a game ready or pro stock shirt that was made identical to jerseys worn in the pro circuit but lacking any history or documented use/wear? How do you grade these jersey’s when you know that the factory is making multiples of the stars and these are being given away and many of them are made and tagged exactly like their big brother counterpart? Again, we are not talking about shirts that for some reason, do not warrant an A5 because of problems but of shirts made to exact player specification.

We could also see the writing on the wall. Lets suppose that Brian Gumball obtains a totally legit pro model shirt with no use directly from the team. He proceeds to wear it everyday for two weeks, to work, mowing his lawn, playing in the dirt with the kids, etc. etc. He then submits the jersey for a work up. Every tag, stitch and number matches exactly the pro models made for the major league. In fact, this shirt is made for the major leagues but is waylaid somewhere between the factory and the field. How can you verify the use on this modern jersey’s that come with no provenance and are manufactured in apparent large quantities? We use 1987 as the cut off as it is generally excepted that it is the post 1987 era in which production of pro shirts made to exact player specs and size, of the same material on the same machines by the same people at the same time by the same company only now, production increases to include shirts for sales reps, charities, big wigs, small wigs and maybe a few lunch box specials thrown in as well. A few get to the player but more than a few do not, yet there is technically no difference with regards to manufacture. It is the provenance or venue into the hobby that comes into play. In fact, only the post 87 shirts that match known game worn jerseys qualify for an A5. It is also the reason that you see so few post 1987 superstar jerseys in our report that grade any higher than an A5. Why? Simply because the majority of post 1987 pro model game ready not over the counter shirts we examine come with no direct history or team/player link and per our guide lines, any post 1987 star shirt that does not have a documented history cannot garner anything higher than an A5

When Dan Schmidt of Upper Deck contacted me about a shirt at auction with a MEARS A5 attached but with the term “Game Used/Worn” in the title, I was taken aback. “Do you think it is your (MEARS) responsibility to warn potential bidders on an item that carries a MEARS A5 grade given you cannot provide any provenance or verify the game wear or lack thereof?” My answer is yes and no. When brought to our attention, we placed notice on our website but we are not responsible for the P.T. Barnum of any company. We are responsible for our letters and back them with a money back guarantee. If you buy something with a MEARS letter and you feel the letter and write up do not jive, you need to take that up with the seller. I am not going to waste time or space re-writing the description of an A5 grade in this article as it is readily available on our website in its entirety. A synopsis and in no way complete, it simply states that every aspect of a pro model jersey must match those jersey’s actually documented to have been worn by a particular player. If they do not but are still pro model jerseys not made for mass production and retail sales, then even more points are deducted as a result of these anomalies. Store model shirts altered to look like a pro model will get no grade at all and will be found listed as “Not Gradable” If you see a post 1987 shirt that grades lower than an A5, read every word as there are issues where this jersey misses points at some juncture. Also, if you see a post 1987 shirt with a grade higher than an A5, read carefully as it is rare to find any post 87 shirt grading higher than an A5 unless obtained directly from a reliable and documented source. Remember, the source is only as good as its agent and reputation (sourcing) can go from picture perfect to worth less than the paper its printed on but that is fodder for yet another story.

So to answer Dans question, we are responsible, and that is why we worked so hard at creating the A5 grade on modern jerseys to explain to everyone exactly what it was that you were buying. We do not set pricing, clients do that. But when a client buys something from a dealer or auction, we feel he/she should know exactly what they are buying so that they may feel comfortable with the price. A collection of modern A5 jerseys of the modern stars is a great collection and one that is not only obtainable but is still somewhat affordable. Every piece has its place in the hobby if legit but all pieces are not created equal. Some collectors out there have written “ I would never buy an A5 modern jersey or a team index bat”. That criterion is fine for you but why should you be the judge of another person’s collection. Pricing usually follows grade and a downward sloping grade allows collectors who might never be able to compete with the financial wizards to form a collection at a price they determine. So I say again, everything authentic (not forged or faked) has a place in the hobby at some price for some person even if you feel it’s not up to your high standards. This was another reason for the A5 grade, to inform a buyer of what it is he/she is purchasing and finally setting a bench mark for what is a good example and what is a great example. You decide which you can afford to collect and then set the prices with your bidding or purchase. We at MEARS have done our job with the worksheet and letter, giving you every last detail so that you may make an informed decision.

Dan next asked about the term “minimal use” as it might lead someone astray into buying a shirt that may be advertised with light game use when all we wrote was that it exhibits minimal use with no pretext as to whether that use was a result of a major league game or not. Webster’s refers to the term/word as follows; Minimal adj, minimum, the smallest quantity possible. The lowest degree. Therefore, an A5 post 1987 game jersey ( we do not used the term game used or worn in our titles) that matches all known character traits of a documented jersey, with the minimal use box completely checked, is exactly that. And even if the box for wear/use was marked excessive, the grade might still only be an A5. Why? Because it had nothing linking the shirt to the player other than the manufacturer traits and therefore, the use, regardless of amount, is not verifiable and is not taken into consideration on the final grade of A5. That is unless the shirt has flaws in which case, more points may be taken away. There have been examples of post 1987 jerseys without provenance grading higher than an A5 but these are never stars. They must be commons showing good honest wear for which there would be no motive for deception and no added payoff for the jersey artist. And again, these are reserved for the best of the best absolute commons where all things known are perfect and the use appears legit in all cases.

To conclude, I think the A5 informs and protects the buyer and comes with a money back guarantee to grade as stated and conforms to known game jerseys. Furthermore, if every buyer were to carefully read both the description and the MEARS LOA, they would enter into the agreement with both eyes open saving many disappointments in the future. When your reading a sports item description, do just that , read very carefully, ask for copies of the worksheet and final letter. Get to know what you are buying, why and how much you wish to spend on the example of your choice. Don’t let others make you collecting decisions for you. MEARS has taken out the quess work on your part, you have only to pay the amount of money you feel comfortable in spending knowing full well that the jersey or bat in your collection was exactly as described by MEARS and that you will always know exactly the type of material in your collection. Once armed with these facts, you can make an educated decision as to which pieces best fit into your collection and at what price level you can afford. Nobody wants to pay A10 prices for an A5 example and that was the purpose for grading in the first place, to put everyone on a level playing field I hope this clears up this grade a bit for you. If you have any questions. Please feel free to contact me on our MEARS bulletin board.

Respectfully,

David Bushing

When we began working on the grading system, which was no small feat as it morphed into what it is today, one of the biggest dilemmas facing us dealt with the post 1987 jerseys. Everyone is aware that the issuance of large quantities of modern jerseys into the hobby after 1987 is a big issue. How could we address the grading of a pro model shirt, one that was not originally made or intended for the retail store trade, but yet use, sans any provenance, could not be verified or one that was often contrived to help the shirt along. What grade do you put on a game ready or pro stock shirt that was made identical to jerseys worn in the pro circuit but lacking any history or documented use/wear? How do you grade these jersey’s when you know that the factory is making multiples of the stars and these are being given away and many of them are made and tagged exactly like their big brother counterpart? Again, we are not talking about shirts that for some reason, do not warrant an A5 because of problems but of shirts made to exact player specification.

We could also see the writing on the wall. Lets suppose that Brian Gumball obtains a totally legit pro model shirt with no use directly from the team. He proceeds to wear it everyday for two weeks, to work, mowing his lawn, playing in the dirt with the kids, etc. etc. He then submits the jersey for a work up. Every tag, stitch and number matches exactly the pro models made for the major league. In fact, this shirt is made for the major leagues but is waylaid somewhere between the factory and the field. How can you verify the use on this modern jersey’s that come with no provenance and are manufactured in apparent large quantities? We use 1987 as the cut off as it is generally excepted that it is the post 1987 era in which production of pro shirts made to exact player specs and size, of the same material on the same machines by the same people at the same time by the same company only now, production increases to include shirts for sales reps, charities, big wigs, small wigs and maybe a few lunch box specials thrown in as well. A few get to the player but more than a few do not, yet there is technically no difference with regards to manufacture. It is the provenance or venue into the hobby that comes into play. In fact, only the post 87 shirts that match known game worn jerseys qualify for an A5. It is also the reason that you see so few post 1987 superstar jerseys in our report that grade any higher than an A5. Why? Simply because the majority of post 1987 pro model game ready not over the counter shirts we examine come with no direct history or team/player link and per our guide lines, any post 1987 star shirt that does not have a documented history cannot garner anything higher than an A5

When Dan Schmidt of Upper Deck contacted me about a shirt at auction with a MEARS A5 attached but with the term “Game Used/Worn” in the title, I was taken aback. “Do you think it is your (MEARS) responsibility to warn potential bidders on an item that carries a MEARS A5 grade given you cannot provide any provenance or verify the game wear or lack thereof?” My answer is yes and no. When brought to our attention, we placed notice on our website but we are not responsible for the P.T. Barnum of any company. We are responsible for our letters and back them with a money back guarantee. If you buy something with a MEARS letter and you feel the letter and write up do not jive, you need to take that up with the seller. I am not going to waste time or space re-writing the description of an A5 grade in this article as it is readily available on our website in its entirety. A synopsis and in no way complete, it simply states that every aspect of a pro model jersey must match those jersey’s actually documented to have been worn by a particular player. If they do not but are still pro model jerseys not made for mass production and retail sales, then even more points are deducted as a result of these anomalies. Store model shirts altered to look like a pro model will get no grade at all and will be found listed as “Not Gradable” If you see a post 1987 shirt that grades lower than an A5, read every word as there are issues where this jersey misses points at some juncture. Also, if you see a post 1987 shirt with a grade higher than an A5, read carefully as it is rare to find any post 87 shirt grading higher than an A5 unless obtained directly from a reliable and documented source. Remember, the source is only as good as its agent and reputation (sourcing) can go from picture perfect to worth less than the paper its printed on but that is fodder for yet another story.

So to answer Dans question, we are responsible, and that is why we worked so hard at creating the A5 grade on modern jerseys to explain to everyone exactly what it was that you were buying. We do not set pricing, clients do that. But when a client buys something from a dealer or auction, we feel he/she should know exactly what they are buying so that they may feel comfortable with the price. A collection of modern A5 jerseys of the modern stars is a great collection and one that is not only obtainable but is still somewhat affordable. Every piece has its place in the hobby if legit but all pieces are not created equal. Some collectors out there have written “ I would never buy an A5 modern jersey or a team index bat”. That criterion is fine for you but why should you be the judge of another person’s collection. Pricing usually follows grade and a downward sloping grade allows collectors who might never be able to compete with the financial wizards to form a collection at a price they determine. So I say again, everything authentic (not forged or faked) has a place in the hobby at some price for some person even if you feel it’s not up to your high standards. This was another reason for the A5 grade, to inform a buyer of what it is he/she is purchasing and finally setting a bench mark for what is a good example and what is a great example. You decide which you can afford to collect and then set the prices with your bidding or purchase. We at MEARS have done our job with the worksheet and letter, giving you every last detail so that you may make an informed decision.

Dan next asked about the term “minimal use” as it might lead someone astray into buying a shirt that may be advertised with light game use when all we wrote was that it exhibits minimal use with no pretext as to whether that use was a result of a major league game or not. Webster’s refers to the term/word as follows; Minimal adj, minimum, the smallest quantity possible. The lowest degree. Therefore, an A5 post 1987 game jersey ( we do not used the term game used or worn in our titles) that matches all known character traits of a documented jersey, with the minimal use box completely checked, is exactly that. And even if the box for wear/use was marked excessive, the grade might still only be an A5. Why? Because it had nothing linking the shirt to the player other than the manufacturer traits and therefore, the use, regardless of amount, is not verifiable and is not taken into consideration on the final grade of A5. That is unless the shirt has flaws in which case, more points may be taken away. There have been examples of post 1987 jerseys without provenance grading higher than an A5 but these are never stars. They must be commons showing good honest wear for which there would be no motive for deception and no added payoff for the jersey artist. And again, these are reserved for the best of the best absolute commons where all things known are perfect and the use appears legit in all cases.

To conclude, I think the A5 informs and protects the buyer and comes with a money back guarantee to grade as stated and conforms to known game jerseys. Furthermore, if every buyer were to carefully read both the description and the MEARS LOA, they would enter into the agreement with both eyes open saving many disappointments in the future. When your reading a sports item description, do just that , read very carefully, ask for copies of the worksheet and final letter. Get to know what you are buying, why and how much you wish to spend on the example of your choice. Don’t let others make you collecting decisions for you. MEARS has taken out the quess work on your part, you have only to pay the amount of money you feel comfortable in spending knowing full well that the jersey or bat in your collection was exactly as described by MEARS and that you will always know exactly the type of material in your collection. Once armed with these facts, you can make an educated decision as to which pieces best fit into your collection and at what price level you can afford. Nobody wants to pay A10 prices for an A5 example and that was the purpose for grading in the first place, to put everyone on a level playing field I hope this clears up this grade a bit for you. If you have any questions. Please feel free to contact me on our MEARS bulletin board.

Respectfully,

David Bushing

May 2, 2006

Understanding Collecting

From ancient shrunken heads from warring tribes to modern game used caps of division rivals, man has always had the urge to collect. From the beginning of time to the modern era, many of the reasons have remained the same: displaying of status, personal connection to an item, or habit forming impulses. By understanding the history and psychological reasons of collecting, we can understand why the hobby thrives today.

What is that hunger, that passion, that never-ending quest to collect that is inside us collectors? If you are reading this article, you will have some degree of that hunger. To satisfy that hunger, some gather many similar objects with amassing as many like examples as the goal, some search for that one phenomenal specimen which will separate their collection from the rest, yet others continue to upgrade and improve, never satisfied with what they have in its present state. Collecting is an unquenchable thirst that is driven by deep emotion to continue.

To each collector, his things are unique to him, as is the manner they are acquired. Time, enjoyment, and finances are all unique to the pursuer of objects, and this is what makes the collector and his collection unique. Just as in life, hard work, dedication, resources, intelligence can all influence the accomplishments of a collector. But, also as in life, collecting can be an obsession with the negative effects manifested.

Collecting has been associated with mankind since the dawn of ages. The dictionary defines it as “To bring together in a group or mass; gather.” Collecting can surpass the physical item and advance to a spiritual symbolism. A primitive reason for collecting is to capture the spirit of something. Examples include a totem pole to a Pacific Native American or in tribal culture, capturing the head of a fallen enemy. The current auction environment provides us the ability to capture the spirit of the items we collect and in some instance, capture the spirit of the enemy by taking the prize away from him when we out bid him in the auction setting, thus satisfying subconsciously our primal urges to conquer.

Why do we collect? To a non-collector, it is very hard to convey the reasons. The desire to arrive at flea markets with flashlight in hand at 3:30 A.M., the placement of classified ads WANTED TO BUY, and the hours spent researching, organizing, and re organizing our collections cannot be understood to a “non believer” or in this case a non-collector.

Why?

1. Greed. Some collectors collect just for the idea of making money. Collecting history has chronicled many examples of collectors turned speculator. During the 1980s, fathers and sons bought the hottest rookie cards in bricks of 100, 500, or 1,000. Unopened wax cases were stored in middle-American’s garages and attics. The plan was that Junior would have his college fund paid for by guys named Strawberry, Jeffries, and Canseco. Today Junior has thrown away the 1988 Donruss wax cases and is now living in the attic space that housed these can’t miss investments. Another example of collector’s Greed was the Beanie Babies phenomena. This explains the store’s full of mothers and grandmothers fighting over floppy the fish and Elvis the Eel, or whatever the newly released Beanie Baby was named. People hoarded these bean filled toys with the anticipation of putting their grand kids through college. The visions of profits created a new breed of collector. When the market crashed and Floppy and his friends weren’t worth a hill of beans, these collectors went back to coupon clipping. It has been my experience that when money is the only factor driving your collecting desires, the results are usually very similar to the crash of the Beanie Baby and modern baseball card market.

2. Action. Many collectors like to be a part of the action. They thrive off the excitement of an increase in the market and the fear of a depressed market. These collectors accumulate and sell whenever a profit is present. It is not the monetary gain that interests them, but the ability to purchase more items for which then can wheel and deal. Their collections never grow, but are ever changing. This type of collector has little interest in the historic or personal relationship of their items, and tend gravitate towards the current fad.

3. Desire to Complete. Goal oriented people that collect are most often focused on the completeness of a collection. Presidential autograph collectors aspire to have one of each president that served in the white house. Baseball card collectors strive to complete their 1952 Topps sets. These collectors will only start collections with a finite number of collecting options. Most of these collectors work from checklists and are uneasy and stay away from collections with ambiguous boundaries.

4. Desire to Compete. “Mine is better than yours” is one of the driving motives behind the graded coin and card market. There may be only 2 examples of a 1902 nickel in the world, but the collector with the higher grade may be quick to flaunt the fact that his is a PCGS 8 versus your PCGS 7. These collector types are more concerned about the competition that much of the satisfaction from completing a collection and the personal connection gets lost.

5. Control. The world is a very uncertain place. Economies, politics, your health, your job, and much about the world we live are not in our control. The grind of everyday life is never out of reach. Collecting can be a way to put control into a world that is out of control. As a collector, you can decide what to collect, how to display it, how much to spend, when to buy, when to sell, and dedicate as much or as little of yourself to your collection. This is a direct contrast to the responsibilities dictated by your job, family, and additional obligations. By being in control of your collection, it offers a real escape from what you cannot control.

6. Approval. Many collections are built only after each collecting decision has been approved by the collectors trusted confidant. This confidant could be a reliable dealer or another collector usually in the same field. The need for approval is very strong in these individuals. Each purchase is discussed with the confidant and only if approval is given, will the collector pull the trigger to make the purchase. Collectors with the strong need for approval may miss the deal of the century if left to their own abilities as their lack of confidence can cause a missed opportunity. These collectors focus not as much on their collections, but on the approval obtained from the person they admire. They are using objects to collect approval, which serves a personal and emotional need.

7. Friendships. Many clubs and organizations have been formed to support groups of people interested in the same area of collecting. Automobile clubs, stamp clubs, vintage train clubs, military reenactment camps, and a club for almost every hobby can be found. Clubs allow for collectors to share information, organize, promote trade shows, and create an environment where friendships can grow and flourish. Collectors that seek social bonding as their primary reason for collecting are usually not advanced or as passionate about the objects themselves as their main needs are met via the socialization offered by the friendships developed while collecting.

8. Intellectual Pursuit. Not all collections can be displayed on a shelf or in a lighted cabinet. From before the days of ancient Greece, scholars have collected mathematical equations, famous quotes, and lines of poetry. The same thought processes of collecting apply to this non-object-assembling hobby. Categories are chosen such as derivatives to mathematical problems. Learn as much as you can about your collection. Enjoy the search for knowledge. Money is not goal to this collector.

The environment of the collector influences the obtaining of the item by a collector. These factors that are present when a collector decides to obtain an item or pass on an item include:
How that piece affects the collection? Does it finish a collection? Does it improve his objects; does it grow the collection? Does the item provide a personal or historic bond of the collection to the collector? These are very serious questions to a collector and the answers are part of the enjoyment derived from collecting.

The emotional connection coupled with the collectors’ financial status will determine his ability to add a piece to his collection. For a collector on a budget, the financial confines may dictate the size of the collection. But to a collector of unlimited means, that pursues the same item, the strategy of the above outlined conditions and how each collector prioritizes it will determine ownership of the item.

The Why part of collecting addresses the topical and surface reasons we strive to obtain objects. For whatever reasons are mentioned above cause us to collect, there is a still a connection that occurs between the collector and the object. The connections are grouped into two areas, connection to personal past and connection to historic past.

Personal Past

According to Terry Shoptaugh, instructor at Minnesota State University Moorhead, in the article, “Why Do We Like Old Things? Some Ruminations on History and Memory”, the professor states that collectors collect to remember and relive the past. This has very strong influence in the sports memorabilia business as most collectors I know played Pee Wee football, Little League Baseball, and/or intramural Basketball. We were all the Bo Jackson’s of our time. Just Do It. We did. Collecting allowed us to remember and relive.

The physical object collected served as a reminder that can tangibly link us to our fabled past. By collecting, we can touch the object that links us back in time. Just as Al Bundy did as he donned his Polk High jersey as he countlessly retold the 3 TD high school game story while playing for Polk High on countless episodes of Married with Children. We all have a little Al Bundy in us and our collections prove it.

Since most collectors become serious about collecting in the 40’s and 50’s, it also helps them forget their aging bodies, stress of life, and allows them to remember the romantic days of their youth.

Types of collections that are direct links to a person’s past would include Beer Cans, bumper stickers, and collector’s spoons from vacation destinations. All of these items were obtained in a very personal manner with the experience being very unique to the collector.

Historic Past

Items, which are collected because of the strong connection to the items historic past, are very similar to the reasons collectors seek sports memorabilia and Americana.

Some people have long since moved on from the pain of adolescence and have no need to savor every memory of high school. Collecting for them is not for the purpose of savoring personal memories. But rather, this type of collector thrives to collect objects, which connect the collector to the historic past. Examples include:

Political pins: This field of collecting connects collectors to the thoughts, policies, and politics of the individuals that guided our nation or attempted to. Winner and losers. The ability of those leaders greatly impacted the outcome of our sociological and economic well being. A political button might commemorate the “New Deal” of Roosevelt or remind of us Nixon’s Watergate.

Autographs: Allow collectors to capture the moment of the individuals life. When an autograph collector holds a free frank envelope addressed by the hand of Thomas Jefferson, he is touching an object that for a brief moment in history was handled by a former president. A physical connection occurs which connects the collector to the celebrated person.

Military collectibles. They represent a very strong link to our past. Memories attached to these items range from the Horrors of War, Bravery, and Camaraderie. These artifacts when properly displayed become a reminder and memorial to the soldiers that served. Many bats issued by Louisville Slugger with U.S. Army stamped have crossed my desk. These bats were provided by H&B to the soldiers for use during combat tours oversees. It was Louisville Sluggers way of allowing soldiers to bring a little and important slice of American life with them while abroad. In my recent visit to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. one of my most memorable artifacts was the sword George Washington passed to Congress while relinquishing his control of the Continental army. By the very nature of being free to collect, these items remind us that the conflict is behind us but we should not forget the lessons of war.

Sports Memorabilia. Game worn caps, jerseys, and bats were physically connected to the heroes of our youth. Caps and jerseys were worn and bats swung by the men that some of us consider gods. Pete Rose actually held this bat. Now we can hold the bat that Pete Rose held. Our collections become a direct link to our heroes.

Negative effects of collecting

In this authors opinion, much more positive is derived from collecting that harm. But, in reality, when done irresponsibly, collecting can become an addiction with all of the negative consequences associated. Beware of neglecting your family and friends and letting your collection consume you. Stick to a reasonable budget and do not stretch yourself for the sake of an addition to your collection. Overspending will lead to real financial stress. Be leery of spending too much time surfing the web instead of socializing with your friend and family.

By understanding the reasons why we collect, our hobbies can positively impact our lives and add fulfillment in a way that will be healthy and possible profitable. Collect to enjoy and enjoy your collection.

Troy R. Kinunen

Sources:

Collectors” Their Habits, Their Psychology”. UGAzine www.uga.edu/ugazine.com

Collecting: An Unruly Passion by Werner Mueusterberger, copyright 1994 by Princeton University Press

Why Do People Collect Coins by Tom Becker, www.tombeckeronline.com

Why do People Collect Roman Coin, www.esty.ancient.info/numis/collect.com

Uncovering the History Behind Collecting by Diane Frickle, www.horizonlines.com

May 2, 2006

Understanding Collecting

From ancient shrunken heads from warring tribes to modern game used caps of division rivals, man has always had the urge to collect. From the beginning of time to the modern era, many of the reasons have remained the same: displaying of status, personal connection to an item, or habit forming impulses. By understanding the history and psychological reasons of collecting, we can understand why the hobby thrives today.

What is that hunger, that passion, that never-ending quest to collect that is inside us collectors? If you are reading this article, you will have some degree of that hunger. To satisfy that hunger, some gather many similar objects with amassing as many like examples as the goal, some search for that one phenomenal specimen which will separate their collection from the rest, yet others continue to upgrade and improve, never satisfied with what they have in its present state. Collecting is an unquenchable thirst that is driven by deep emotion to continue.

To each collector, his things are unique to him, as is the manner they are acquired. Time, enjoyment, and finances are all unique to the pursuer of objects, and this is what makes the collector and his collection unique. Just as in life, hard work, dedication, resources, intelligence can all influence the accomplishments of a collector. But, also as in life, collecting can be an obsession with the negative effects manifested.

Collecting has been associated with mankind since the dawn of ages. The dictionary defines it as “To bring together in a group or mass; gather.” Collecting can surpass the physical item and advance to a spiritual symbolism. A primitive reason for collecting is to capture the spirit of something. Examples include a totem pole to a Pacific Native American or in tribal culture, capturing the head of a fallen enemy. The current auction environment provides us the ability to capture the spirit of the items we collect and in some instance, capture the spirit of the enemy by taking the prize away from him when we out bid him in the auction setting, thus satisfying subconsciously our primal urges to conquer.

Why do we collect? To a non-collector, it is very hard to convey the reasons. The desire to arrive at flea markets with flashlight in hand at 3:30 A.M., the placement of classified ads WANTED TO BUY, and the hours spent researching, organizing, and re organizing our collections cannot be understood to a “non believer” or in this case a non-collector.

Why?

1. Greed. Some collectors collect just for the idea of making money. Collecting history has chronicled many examples of collectors turned speculator. During the 1980s, fathers and sons bought the hottest rookie cards in bricks of 100, 500, or 1,000. Unopened wax cases were stored in middle-American’s garages and attics. The plan was that Junior would have his college fund paid for by guys named Strawberry, Jeffries, and Canseco. Today Junior has thrown away the 1988 Donruss wax cases and is now living in the attic space that housed these can’t miss investments. Another example of collector’s Greed was the Beanie Babies phenomena. This explains the store’s full of mothers and grandmothers fighting over floppy the fish and Elvis the Eel, or whatever the newly released Beanie Baby was named. People hoarded these bean filled toys with the anticipation of putting their grand kids through college. The visions of profits created a new breed of collector. When the market crashed and Floppy and his friends weren’t worth a hill of beans, these collectors went back to coupon clipping. It has been my experience that when money is the only factor driving your collecting desires, the results are usually very similar to the crash of the Beanie Baby and modern baseball card market.

2. Action. Many collectors like to be a part of the action. They thrive off the excitement of an increase in the market and the fear of a depressed market. These collectors accumulate and sell whenever a profit is present. It is not the monetary gain that interests them, but the ability to purchase more items for which then can wheel and deal. Their collections never grow, but are ever changing. This type of collector has little interest in the historic or personal relationship of their items, and tend gravitate towards the current fad.

3. Desire to Complete. Goal oriented people that collect are most often focused on the completeness of a collection. Presidential autograph collectors aspire to have one of each president that served in the white house. Baseball card collectors strive to complete their 1952 Topps sets. These collectors will only start collections with a finite number of collecting options. Most of these collectors work from checklists and are uneasy and stay away from collections with ambiguous boundaries.

4. Desire to Compete. “Mine is better than yours” is one of the driving motives behind the graded coin and card market. There may be only 2 examples of a 1902 nickel in the world, but the collector with the higher grade may be quick to flaunt the fact that his is a PCGS 8 versus your PCGS 7. These collector types are more concerned about the competition that much of the satisfaction from completing a collection and the personal connection gets lost.

5. Control. The world is a very uncertain place. Economies, politics, your health, your job, and much about the world we live are not in our control. The grind of everyday life is never out of reach. Collecting can be a way to put control into a world that is out of control. As a collector, you can decide what to collect, how to display it, how much to spend, when to buy, when to sell, and dedicate as much or as little of yourself to your collection. This is a direct contrast to the responsibilities dictated by your job, family, and additional obligations. By being in control of your collection, it offers a real escape from what you cannot control.

6. Approval. Many collections are built only after each collecting decision has been approved by the collectors trusted confidant. This confidant could be a reliable dealer or another collector usually in the same field. The need for approval is very strong in these individuals. Each purchase is discussed with the confidant and only if approval is given, will the collector pull the trigger to make the purchase. Collectors with the strong need for approval may miss the deal of the century if left to their own abilities as their lack of confidence can cause a missed opportunity. These collectors focus not as much on their collections, but on the approval obtained from the person they admire. They are using objects to collect approval, which serves a personal and emotional need.

7. Friendships. Many clubs and organizations have been formed to support groups of people interested in the same area of collecting. Automobile clubs, stamp clubs, vintage train clubs, military reenactment camps, and a club for almost every hobby can be found. Clubs allow for collectors to share information, organize, promote trade shows, and create an environment where friendships can grow and flourish. Collectors that seek social bonding as their primary reason for collecting are usually not advanced or as passionate about the objects themselves as their main needs are met via the socialization offered by the friendships developed while collecting.

8. Intellectual Pursuit. Not all collections can be displayed on a shelf or in a lighted cabinet. From before the days of ancient Greece, scholars have collected mathematical equations, famous quotes, and lines of poetry. The same thought processes of collecting apply to this non-object-assembling hobby. Categories are chosen such as derivatives to mathematical problems. Learn as much as you can about your collection. Enjoy the search for knowledge. Money is not goal to this collector.

The environment of the collector influences the obtaining of the item by a collector. These factors that are present when a collector decides to obtain an item or pass on an item include:
How that piece affects the collection? Does it finish a collection? Does it improve his objects; does it grow the collection? Does the item provide a personal or historic bond of the collection to the collector? These are very serious questions to a collector and the answers are part of the enjoyment derived from collecting.

The emotional connection coupled with the collectors’ financial status will determine his ability to add a piece to his collection. For a collector on a budget, the financial confines may dictate the size of the collection. But to a collector of unlimited means, that pursues the same item, the strategy of the above outlined conditions and how each collector prioritizes it will determine ownership of the item.

The Why part of collecting addresses the topical and surface reasons we strive to obtain objects. For whatever reasons are mentioned above cause us to collect, there is a still a connection that occurs between the collector and the object. The connections are grouped into two areas, connection to personal past and connection to historic past.

Personal Past

According to Terry Shoptaugh, instructor at Minnesota State University Moorhead, in the article, “Why Do We Like Old Things? Some Ruminations on History and Memory”, the professor states that collectors collect to remember and relive the past. This has very strong influence in the sports memorabilia business as most collectors I know played Pee Wee football, Little League Baseball, and/or intramural Basketball. We were all the Bo Jackson’s of our time. Just Do It. We did. Collecting allowed us to remember and relive.

The physical object collected served as a reminder that can tangibly link us to our fabled past. By collecting, we can touch the object that links us back in time. Just as Al Bundy did as he donned his Polk High jersey as he countlessly retold the 3 TD high school game story while playing for Polk High on countless episodes of Married with Children. We all have a little Al Bundy in us and our collections prove it.

Since most collectors become serious about collecting in the 40’s and 50’s, it also helps them forget their aging bodies, stress of life, and allows them to remember the romantic days of their youth.

Types of collections that are direct links to a person’s past would include Beer Cans, bumper stickers, and collector’s spoons from vacation destinations. All of these items were obtained in a very personal manner with the experience being very unique to the collector.

Historic Past

Items, which are collected because of the strong connection to the items historic past, are very similar to the reasons collectors seek sports memorabilia and Americana.

Some people have long since moved on from the pain of adolescence and have no need to savor every memory of high school. Collecting for them is not for the purpose of savoring personal memories. But rather, this type of collector thrives to collect objects, which connect the collector to the historic past. Examples include:

Political pins: This field of collecting connects collectors to the thoughts, policies, and politics of the individuals that guided our nation or attempted to. Winner and losers. The ability of those leaders greatly impacted the outcome of our sociological and economic well being. A political button might commemorate the “New Deal” of Roosevelt or remind of us Nixon’s Watergate.

Autographs: Allow collectors to capture the moment of the individuals life. When an autograph collector holds a free frank envelope addressed by the hand of Thomas Jefferson, he is touching an object that for a brief moment in history was handled by a former president. A physical connection occurs which connects the collector to the celebrated person.

Military collectibles. They represent a very strong link to our past. Memories attached to these items range from the Horrors of War, Bravery, and Camaraderie. These artifacts when properly displayed become a reminder and memorial to the soldiers that served. Many bats issued by Louisville Slugger with U.S. Army stamped have crossed my desk. These bats were provided by H&B to the soldiers for use during combat tours oversees. It was Louisville Sluggers way of allowing soldiers to bring a little and important slice of American life with them while abroad. In my recent visit to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. one of my most memorable artifacts was the sword George Washington passed to Congress while relinquishing his control of the Continental army. By the very nature of being free to collect, these items remind us that the conflict is behind us but we should not forget the lessons of war.

Sports Memorabilia. Game worn caps, jerseys, and bats were physically connected to the heroes of our youth. Caps and jerseys were worn and bats swung by the men that some of us consider gods. Pete Rose actually held this bat. Now we can hold the bat that Pete Rose held. Our collections become a direct link to our heroes.

Negative effects of collecting

In this authors opinion, much more positive is derived from collecting that harm. But, in reality, when done irresponsibly, collecting can become an addiction with all of the negative consequences associated. Beware of neglecting your family and friends and letting your collection consume you. Stick to a reasonable budget and do not stretch yourself for the sake of an addition to your collection. Overspending will lead to real financial stress. Be leery of spending too much time surfing the web instead of socializing with your friend and family.

By understanding the reasons why we collect, our hobbies can positively impact our lives and add fulfillment in a way that will be healthy and possible profitable. Collect to enjoy and enjoy your collection.

Troy R. Kinunen

Sources:

Collectors” Their Habits, Their Psychology”. UGAzine www.uga.edu/ugazine.com

Collecting: An Unruly Passion by Werner Mueusterberger, copyright 1994 by Princeton University Press

Why Do People Collect Coins by Tom Becker, www.tombeckeronline.com

Why do People Collect Roman Coin, www.esty.ancient.info/numis/collect.com

Uncovering the History Behind Collecting by Diane Frickle, www.horizonlines.com

One of the most important pieces of information that we at MEARS can render a client on any given game used item is the worksheet. This is like a used automobile 60-point checklist used in evaluating the item that has been submitted with the final grade based on this checklist. This is done in a manor so that each and every piece is evaluated identically with no point missed, hence a uniform method of evaluation for each and every piece. In this article and in the next two articles, I will take each worksheet line by line and explain the manner and significance of each point. One article for bats, jerseys and finally items such as gloves, hats, etc. The following is a formal explanation of the bat worksheet and all points examined.

DATE OF EXAMINATION: this is self-explanatory, we date the sheet on the day it is evaluated.

SUBMITTED BY: this is the person who shipped the item and is being billed for the service. It also affords accountability in that if a submission does not receive a favorable evaluation and the piece turns up in the hobby with a hologram sans a description, we can check to see if the item is being correctly represented and who is responsible.

HOLOGRAM NUMBER: This is important in that each piece receives a MEARS hologram and that number is recorded on the worksheet and this is the number that is permanently recorded in the population report and enables us to search by item number whether the piece is indeed the one recorded.

PLAYERS NAME: Read this title carefully as the title or player name recorded on the top of each sheet is the item that is being evaluated. We evaluate the listed item and then grade it as titled. For instance, if the title reads Mickey Mantle Team Index bat, the final grade relates to this title. If it reads Mickey Mantle Pro model or game bat, then the final grade also reflects that title. This is very important, as the title is the item that is being graded. You can have an A8 index bat or an A8 game bat, the grade will be printed as an A8 so the title is the difference, often measurable in terms of retail value so read title carefully. The MEARS guarantee applies to this title and the following evaluation of the listed item.

STAGE OF CAREER: There are seven boxes, the one pertaining to the item is checked off. They are as follows: PLAYER-COACH-FUNGO-OLD TIMERS-POST CAREER-STORE MODEL-BARNSTORMING. A post 1921 Joe Jackson game bat would be marked BARNSTORMING. A 1950-60 era Mantle game bat would be marked PLAYER. A Post 1960 Jackie Robinson pro model would be marked POST CAREER. If a STORE MODEL, FUNGO, or known COACHES ERA BAT, they will be so marked.

MANUFACTURE: this is the maker of the item such as Hillerich & Bradsby, Adirondack, Spalding, etc.

PROFESSIONAL MODEL CENTER LABEL BAT DATING: Here, each era or spread of label dating such as an H&B 125 model from the 1917-21 era, etc is listed and the appropriate box is checked off once the dating period of the bat is established.

MODEL NUMBER LOCATION: Three boxes are PRE MODEL NUMBER found on all H&B bats prior to 1943. KNOB; found on all H&B bats after 1945 and on all post 1946 Adirondack models. BARREL; found on all H&B bats after 1975 and on all Rawlings model bats. Odd makers such as Sam Bats, Mizuno, Hanna Batrite , etc will have their model numbers found on either the knob or barrel if applicable and will be so marked.

MODEL NUMBER: This is the number found as mentioned above such as M110, K55, S100, 94X, etc.

PLAYERS NAME: Again, rather self-explanatory, the name of the player found stamped or imprinted on the bat.

BAT ISSUED DURING: REGULAR SEASON, WORLD SERIES, ALL STAR, BARNSTORMING, OLD TIMERS, SPRING TRAINING, OR BATTING PRACTICE. Most WORLD SERIES, OLD TIMERS AND ALL STAR bats will be factory stamped as such. BARNSTORMING is a bat not found in records while the player was active in organized baseball. BATTING PRACTICE AND SPRING TRAINING will usually have some id such as BP written on the knob or a bat documented as having entered the hobby having been issued in spring training and not making it to the regular season.

YEAR USED: only marked if it can be dated to a single season.

SPECIAL EVENTS/TEAM MARKINGS: This is where we denote an All Star or World Series stamp, an Old Timers stamp, a specially marked play off bat or a team name on the barrel such as Chicago White Sox.

THE BAT WEIGHS: this is the current recorded weight on a digital scale in ounces.

THE BAT MEASURES: this is the actual length of the recorded bat in inches.

KNOB STYLE: REGULAR, such as a K55 or M110, SMALL such as found on a Paul Waner bat or an H117 Hornsby model, MEDIUM, a not often found category, larger than a K55 but smaller than a Sam Bat Barry Bonds or Hack Wilson model such as a thick knob K44. LARGE would be a Barry Bonds Sam Bat and FLARE would be a Clemente U1, no real knob at all.

KNOB STYLE: (2) STANDARD (smooth knob), HANDTURNED (rasped end) or FACTORY STAMPED (such as a model number stamped on end or as found with markings on Hanna Batrite with 1930 patent date or Zinn Beck or Spalding with their logo)

BARREL STYLE: round, flat or cupped. Again, this is self-explanatory.

WOOD: ASH (most common wood used for bats), WHITE or BLACK HICKORY (found mostly on pre war game bats), MAPLE (recent surge in popularity due to strength of wood and popularized by Barry Bonds) OR BEACHWOOD (almost never found).

FINISH: This is the finish found on the bat such as FLAME BURNED (dark streaks in wood where heat tempered), STANDARD, ROSE (pink color/hue), BLACK LACQUER, NATURAL (finish), TWO TONE (handle and barrel are different finishes), BROWN, and UNFINISHED (no stain or varnish applied).

MATCHES FACTORY RECORDS: Either personal or team/index records as they are found, either specific or as an index team order.

PROVENANCE: This applies to the documented source that is included with the bat submission such as an LOA from a batboy, player, family member, coach, scout, auction, or team.

LOA: Just a line to explain above provenance.

VAULT MARKED: Used by H&B prior to model numbers to record (by placing a stamped letter/number reference on bats returned to the factory) a model returned by a player for duplication or to be added to the Louisville vault/tool room as a model for future bats. May be found on bats other than H&B bats if submitted to H&B.

SIDE WRITTEN: As above, when a bat was returned to H&B prior to model numbers, the player who returned the bat was often recorded in grease pencil on the side of the bat.

LATHE MARKS: Found on the end or ends of a bat as removed from lathe having been hand turned.

PLAYER CHARACTERISTICS: under this heading, the physical use traits are recorded and evaluated such as:

Game use: either light, medium, moderate, heavy, significant, or none. This is based on the event such as regular season or a specific event in which the game use is evaluated. Lighter use is expected on All Star, World Series, or Home Run or Hit bats than is expected on bats used thru out the regular season. (one of the most important features of a worksheet in that points are given based on use)

Ball Marks: these are either the lifted ink marks or round dents caused when the bat meets a high-speed baseball.

Stitch Marks: The actual impressions left on the bat by the seam of the baseball

Bat Rack Marks: The long marks left on the bat having been drawn from a bat rack, either in color such as red or green or long scratches.

Handle Crack: Type and length of crack.

Nails: on barrel or handle.

Deadwood: layering and wood separation due to use and or dryness

Cleat marks: usually sharp pointed dents in the barrel of a game bat such as those made famous by Ty Cobb.

Handle preparation: Handle tape or the remains of such.

Pine Tar: found on the handles of game bats, usually post war bats.

Autographed: by the player or team.

Grain Examination: Swelling (wood swells and is crushed from contact with ball), Scoring (grooves cut in barrel or handle by player for better grip or hitting surface), Boning (signs of the finish of bat being bone rubbed for hardness), checking (surface checking from use or age) and Professional Grade (highest quality wood grain).

PLAYERS UNIFORM NUMBER APPEARS ON KNOB, BARREL OR BOTH: either the player who was issued bat or another player number.

On the back of each worksheet is a large section for comments followed by silhouettes of the front /back and both ends of the bat used to draw in any specific marks or problems. To the right of this area is the explanations as to what points are subtracted from the bat based on problems such as missing pieces, deadwood, chipped knob, gouges, water stains/damage , incorrect player number, no factory records, etc Or, on the plus side, points added for side writing, pinpointed factory records, player specific traits (such as Clemente’s familiar 21, Duke Sniders handle tape), All Star and World Series marked bats, Photographic evidence, vault marks, or shipping labels.

THE TALLEY

This is the final arrangement of numbers given and added up for the end score or grade based on the base grade of +5 for a factory recorded bat with points added based on use (light +1, Medium +2, or Heavy +3), then additional points added or subtracted based on attributes or negatives. This results in the final grade of the listed item. This final grade reflects the attributes of the titled and evaluated item and shows one exactly how the overall grade was tallied . It is then signed by the person or persons reviewing the bat.

I hope this helps eliminate any confusion as to how the worksheet is used. We are currently upgrading the 2006 worksheets to cover even more minutia and to further clarify each and every aspect of the grading and evaluation process. If you have any input, favorable or otherwise, we are always willing to consider well thought out ideas on how to improve what we feel is the best system for evaluating game used equipment. Until next time, David Bushing

One of the most important pieces of information that we at MEARS can render a client on any given game used item is the worksheet. This is like a used automobile 60-point checklist used in evaluating the item that has been submitted with the final grade based on this checklist. This is done in a manor so that each and every piece is evaluated identically with no point missed, hence a uniform method of evaluation for each and every piece. In this article and in the next two articles, I will take each worksheet line by line and explain the manner and significance of each point. One article for bats, jerseys and finally items such as gloves, hats, etc. The following is a formal explanation of the bat worksheet and all points examined.

DATE OF EXAMINATION: this is self-explanatory, we date the sheet on the day it is evaluated.

SUBMITTED BY: this is the person who shipped the item and is being billed for the service. It also affords accountability in that if a submission does not receive a favorable evaluation and the piece turns up in the hobby with a hologram sans a description, we can check to see if the item is being correctly represented and who is responsible.

HOLOGRAM NUMBER: This is important in that each piece receives a MEARS hologram and that number is recorded on the worksheet and this is the number that is permanently recorded in the population report and enables us to search by item number whether the piece is indeed the one recorded.

PLAYERS NAME: Read this title carefully as the title or player name recorded on the top of each sheet is the item that is being evaluated. We evaluate the listed item and then grade it as titled. For instance, if the title reads Mickey Mantle Team Index bat, the final grade relates to this title. If it reads Mickey Mantle Pro model or game bat, then the final grade also reflects that title. This is very important, as the title is the item that is being graded. You can have an A8 index bat or an A8 game bat, the grade will be printed as an A8 so the title is the difference, often measurable in terms of retail value so read title carefully. The MEARS guarantee applies to this title and the following evaluation of the listed item.

STAGE OF CAREER: There are seven boxes, the one pertaining to the item is checked off. They are as follows: PLAYER-COACH-FUNGO-OLD TIMERS-POST CAREER-STORE MODEL-BARNSTORMING. A post 1921 Joe Jackson game bat would be marked BARNSTORMING. A 1950-60 era Mantle game bat would be marked PLAYER. A Post 1960 Jackie Robinson pro model would be marked POST CAREER. If a STORE MODEL, FUNGO, or known COACHES ERA BAT, they will be so marked.

MANUFACTURE: this is the maker of the item such as Hillerich & Bradsby, Adirondack, Spalding, etc.

PROFESSIONAL MODEL CENTER LABEL BAT DATING: Here, each era or spread of label dating such as an H&B 125 model from the 1917-21 era, etc is listed and the appropriate box is checked off once the dating period of the bat is established.

MODEL NUMBER LOCATION: Three boxes are PRE MODEL NUMBER found on all H&B bats prior to 1943. KNOB; found on all H&B bats after 1945 and on all post 1946 Adirondack models. BARREL; found on all H&B bats after 1975 and on all Rawlings model bats. Odd makers such as Sam Bats, Mizuno, Hanna Batrite , etc will have their model numbers found on either the knob or barrel if applicable and will be so marked.

MODEL NUMBER: This is the number found as mentioned above such as M110, K55, S100, 94X, etc.

PLAYERS NAME: Again, rather self-explanatory, the name of the player found stamped or imprinted on the bat.

BAT ISSUED DURING: REGULAR SEASON, WORLD SERIES, ALL STAR, BARNSTORMING, OLD TIMERS, SPRING TRAINING, OR BATTING PRACTICE. Most WORLD SERIES, OLD TIMERS AND ALL STAR bats will be factory stamped as such. BARNSTORMING is a bat not found in records while the player was active in organized baseball. BATTING PRACTICE AND SPRING TRAINING will usually have some id such as BP written on the knob or a bat documented as having entered the hobby having been issued in spring training and not making it to the regular season.

YEAR USED: only marked if it can be dated to a single season.

SPECIAL EVENTS/TEAM MARKINGS: This is where we denote an All Star or World Series stamp, an Old Timers stamp, a specially marked play off bat or a team name on the barrel such as Chicago White Sox.

THE BAT WEIGHS: this is the current recorded weight on a digital scale in ounces.

THE BAT MEASURES: this is the actual length of the recorded bat in inches.

KNOB STYLE: REGULAR, such as a K55 or M110, SMALL such as found on a Paul Waner bat or an H117 Hornsby model, MEDIUM, a not often found category, larger than a K55 but smaller than a Sam Bat Barry Bonds or Hack Wilson model such as a thick knob K44. LARGE would be a Barry Bonds Sam Bat and FLARE would be a Clemente U1, no real knob at all.

KNOB STYLE: (2) STANDARD (smooth knob), HANDTURNED (rasped end) or FACTORY STAMPED (such as a model number stamped on end or as found with markings on Hanna Batrite with 1930 patent date or Zinn Beck or Spalding with their logo)

BARREL STYLE: round, flat or cupped. Again, this is self-explanatory.

WOOD: ASH (most common wood used for bats), WHITE or BLACK HICKORY (found mostly on pre war game bats), MAPLE (recent surge in popularity due to strength of wood and popularized by Barry Bonds) OR BEACHWOOD (almost never found).

FINISH: This is the finish found on the bat such as FLAME BURNED (dark streaks in wood where heat tempered), STANDARD, ROSE (pink color/hue), BLACK LACQUER, NATURAL (finish), TWO TONE (handle and barrel are different finishes), BROWN, and UNFINISHED (no stain or varnish applied).

MATCHES FACTORY RECORDS: Either personal or team/index records as they are found, either specific or as an index team order.

PROVENANCE: This applies to the documented source that is included with the bat submission such as an LOA from a batboy, player, family member, coach, scout, auction, or team.

LOA: Just a line to explain above provenance.

VAULT MARKED: Used by H&B prior to model numbers to record (by placing a stamped letter/number reference on bats returned to the factory) a model returned by a player for duplication or to be added to the Louisville vault/tool room as a model for future bats. May be found on bats other than H&B bats if submitted to H&B.

SIDE WRITTEN: As above, when a bat was returned to H&B prior to model numbers, the player who returned the bat was often recorded in grease pencil on the side of the bat.

LATHE MARKS: Found on the end or ends of a bat as removed from lathe having been hand turned.

PLAYER CHARACTERISTICS: under this heading, the physical use traits are recorded and evaluated such as:

Game use: either light, medium, moderate, heavy, significant, or none. This is based on the event such as regular season or a specific event in which the game use is evaluated. Lighter use is expected on All Star, World Series, or Home Run or Hit bats than is expected on bats used thru out the regular season. (one of the most important features of a worksheet in that points are given based on use)

Ball Marks: these are either the lifted ink marks or round dents caused when the bat meets a high-speed baseball.

Stitch Marks: The actual impressions left on the bat by the seam of the baseball

Bat Rack Marks: The long marks left on the bat having been drawn from a bat rack, either in color such as red or green or long scratches.

Handle Crack: Type and length of crack.

Nails: on barrel or handle.

Deadwood: layering and wood separation due to use and or dryness

Cleat marks: usually sharp pointed dents in the barrel of a game bat such as those made famous by Ty Cobb.

Handle preparation: Handle tape or the remains of such.

Pine Tar: found on the handles of game bats, usually post war bats.

Autographed: by the player or team.

Grain Examination: Swelling (wood swells and is crushed from contact with ball), Scoring (grooves cut in barrel or handle by player for better grip or hitting surface), Boning (signs of the finish of bat being bone rubbed for hardness), checking (surface checking from use or age) and Professional Grade (highest quality wood grain).

PLAYERS UNIFORM NUMBER APPEARS ON KNOB, BARREL OR BOTH: either the player who was issued bat or another player number.

On the back of each worksheet is a large section for comments followed by silhouettes of the front /back and both ends of the bat used to draw in any specific marks or problems. To the right of this area is the explanations as to what points are subtracted from the bat based on problems such as missing pieces, deadwood, chipped knob, gouges, water stains/damage , incorrect player number, no factory records, etc Or, on the plus side, points added for side writing, pinpointed factory records, player specific traits (such as Clemente’s familiar 21, Duke Sniders handle tape), All Star and World Series marked bats, Photographic evidence, vault marks, or shipping labels.

THE TALLEY

This is the final arrangement of numbers given and added up for the end score or grade based on the base grade of +5 for a factory recorded bat with points added based on use (light +1, Medium +2, or Heavy +3), then additional points added or subtracted based on attributes or negatives. This results in the final grade of the listed item. This final grade reflects the attributes of the titled and evaluated item and shows one exactly how the overall grade was tallied . It is then signed by the person or persons reviewing the bat.

I hope this helps eliminate any confusion as to how the worksheet is used. We are currently upgrading the 2006 worksheets to cover even more minutia and to further clarify each and every aspect of the grading and evaluation process. If you have any input, favorable or otherwise, we are always willing to consider well thought out ideas on how to improve what we feel is the best system for evaluating game used equipment. Until next time, David Bushing

The jersey inspected is attributed to being issued to be worn by Rogers Hornsby. The jersey was issued as a road gray pinstripe version to be worn during the course of the regular season. The jersey is manufactured from heavy gray flannel wool blend material. The jersey is the 6-hole button down style. The buttons have been replaced with vintage examples.

Rogers Hornsby played one year for the Boston Braves, 1928. By examining the style and verifying his one year with the Boston Braves, it can be determined that his is his 1928 Boston Braves road jersey. This 1928 Boston Braves road jersey is designed in a style worn by the Braves from 1926-28. (Mark Okkonen, Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century, p 141-145.)

The style matches the following references:

1. Titled “Rogers Hornsby pitching horseshoes versus Babe Ruth”
2. Getty Image #U160728P-A
3. Getty Image #U161084P-A
4. Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century by Mark Okkonen, Page 145.
5. The Story of Baseball: A Complete Illustrated and Exciting History of America’s National Game. John M. Rosenburg, Random House 1966.
6. Picture History of Rogers Hornsby, Boston Braves, 1928, page 80.

Rogers Hornsby played on year for the Boston Braves, 1928 and this can be confirmed by any number of sources. By examining the style and verifying his one year with the Boston Braves, it can be determined that this jersey possesses all the characteristics you would expect to see in a Rogers Hornsby 1928 Boston Braves road jersey.

This is the earliest known Rogers Hornsby playing career jerseys found in the MEARS database. Other Hornsby jerseys include:

1932 Cubs Home
1932 Cardinals Home
1933 Cardinals Home
1936 Browns Home

The jersey is similar in consistency of materials to other examples of Major League jerseys we have examined.

Other period Boston Braves jersey in the MEARS database are:

1924 Boston Braves Road (Horace Partridge Manufacturer)
1930 Boston Braves Road (Horace Partridge Manufacturer)

These examples are consistent as examples both before and after this shirt, permitting some sort of trend analysis.

Manufacturers Characteristics

Horace Partridge manufactured the jersey and Horace Partridge is known supplier of Boston Braves uniforms for early 1920’s through 1950’s. The style of manufacturers tag can be found in examples as early as 1918 and as late as the early to mid 1930’s.

BRAVES appear on the front of the uniform in 3” red on navy felt stitched letters. The top of the “V” wraps around the 2nd button on jersey front.

Regarding the size of the jersey, no size tag is present. Size tags were not standard on jerseys from this period so the lack of one is not an issue. The measurement across the chest is 24” which equates to roughly a size 48.

The jersey also exhibits a under arm air vent system designed to cool the players during games played during the heat of summer. Each underarm is factory designed with a 6 hole reinforced stitched ventilation system. The holes are manufactured into a diamond shaped swatch of material, which connects the underarm sleeves to the body of the jersey.

Another feature of this jersey is the convex tail opening, which joins the side seam gusset and is attached with a reinforced triangular patch of black leather material. Also the bottom convex tail is hemmed with a reinforced seam.

The key identifier to this jersey is the player name found in the collar. The name “Hornsby” is sewn in red thread on a 1.5 ”x 3” cream colored square cloth patch. The square cloth patch is sewn through the inside neck with straight stitched white thread.

The piping of this jersey includes Tri Braid neck piping. A double row of piping flanks the front button flap panel. A 9 ½” section of piping is missing from that area.
The sleeves contain a single braid of gray trim.

No player’s uniform number is found on this jersey nor should there be, as the Braves did not add them until the 1932 season. (Mark Stang, Baseball by the Numbers, page 620.)

The interior construction consists of double reinforced stitched gusset seam, which connects to the underarm 6-hole ventilation system.

Condition

Wear is consistent with use from one major league season. The jersey does not exhibit excessive use or thinning of fabric associated with being used for additional seasons or minor league use. There are 6 pin hole size holes scattered throughout the uniform, which does not affect the quality or appearance of this jersey.

Inside the neck is a small grouping of rust colored spots. Again, this does not affect the appearance or quality of this jersey.

By reversing the jersey and studying the inside, signs of puckering of the manufacturers tag and the Hornsby name identifier are present. Another positive sign attributed to game wear. Even wear found when examining the neckline.

Overall superb all original condition (with exception of replaced period buttons) with no alterations present.

The jersey inspected is attributed to being issued to be worn by Rogers Hornsby. The jersey was issued as a road gray pinstripe version to be worn during the course of the regular season. The jersey is manufactured from heavy gray flannel wool blend material. The jersey is the 6-hole button down style. The buttons have been replaced with vintage examples.

Rogers Hornsby played one year for the Boston Braves, 1928. By examining the style and verifying his one year with the Boston Braves, it can be determined that his is his 1928 Boston Braves road jersey. This 1928 Boston Braves road jersey is designed in a style worn by the Braves from 1926-28. (Mark Okkonen, Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century, p 141-145.)

The style matches the following references:

1. Titled “Rogers Hornsby pitching horseshoes versus Babe Ruth”
2. Getty Image #U160728P-A
3. Getty Image #U161084P-A
4. Baseball Uniforms of the 20th Century by Mark Okkonen, Page 145.
5. The Story of Baseball: A Complete Illustrated and Exciting History of America’s National Game. John M. Rosenburg, Random House 1966.
6. Picture History of Rogers Hornsby, Boston Braves, 1928, page 80.

Rogers Hornsby played on year for the Boston Braves, 1928 and this can be confirmed by any number of sources. By examining the style and verifying his one year with the Boston Braves, it can be determined that this jersey possesses all the characteristics you would expect to see in a Rogers Hornsby 1928 Boston Braves road jersey.

This is the earliest known Rogers Hornsby playing career jerseys found in the MEARS database. Other Hornsby jerseys include:

1932 Cubs Home
1932 Cardinals Home
1933 Cardinals Home
1936 Browns Home

The jersey is similar in consistency of materials to other examples of Major League jerseys we have examined.

Other period Boston Braves jersey in the MEARS database are:

1924 Boston Braves Road (Horace Partridge Manufacturer)
1930 Boston Braves Road (Horace Partridge Manufacturer)

These examples are consistent as examples both before and after this shirt, permitting some sort of trend analysis.

Manufacturers Characteristics

Horace Partridge manufactured the jersey and Horace Partridge is known supplier of Boston Braves uniforms for early 1920’s through 1950’s. The style of manufacturers tag can be found in examples as early as 1918 and as late as the early to mid 1930’s.

BRAVES appear on the front of the uniform in 3” red on navy felt stitched letters. The top of the “V” wraps around the 2nd button on jersey front.

Regarding the size of the jersey, no size tag is present. Size tags were not standard on jerseys from this period so the lack of one is not an issue. The measurement across the chest is 24” which equates to roughly a size 48.

The jersey also exhibits a under arm air vent system designed to cool the players during games played during the heat of summer. Each underarm is factory designed with a 6 hole reinforced stitched ventilation system. The holes are manufactured into a diamond shaped swatch of material, which connects the underarm sleeves to the body of the jersey.

Another feature of this jersey is the convex tail opening, which joins the side seam gusset and is attached with a reinforced triangular patch of black leather material. Also the bottom convex tail is hemmed with a reinforced seam.

The key identifier to this jersey is the player name found in the collar. The name “Hornsby” is sewn in red thread on a 1.5 ”x 3” cream colored square cloth patch. The square cloth patch is sewn through the inside neck with straight stitched white thread.

The piping of this jersey includes Tri Braid neck piping. A double row of piping flanks the front button flap panel. A 9 ½” section of piping is missing from that area.
The sleeves contain a single braid of gray trim.

No player’s uniform number is found on this jersey nor should there be, as the Braves did not add them until the 1932 season. (Mark Stang, Baseball by the Numbers, page 620.)

The interior construction consists of double reinforced stitched gusset seam, which connects to the underarm 6-hole ventilation system.

Condition

Wear is consistent with use from one major league season. The jersey does not exhibit excessive use or thinning of fabric associated with being used for additional seasons or minor league use. There are 6 pin hole size holes scattered throughout the uniform, which does not affect the quality or appearance of this jersey.

Inside the neck is a small grouping of rust colored spots. Again, this does not affect the appearance or quality of this jersey.

By reversing the jersey and studying the inside, signs of puckering of the manufacturers tag and the Hornsby name identifier are present. Another positive sign attributed to game wear. Even wear found when examining the neckline.

Overall superb all original condition (with exception of replaced period buttons) with no alterations present.

To help understand the authentication process, this week MEARS is going to share with our members the evaluation of a circa 1929-30 St. Louis Cardinals jersey.

To begin, jerseys are collected for many reasons, favorite teams, players, years, and style, to name a few. Auctions highlight prices realized from the jerseys of mega stars of the game such as Ruth, Gehrig and Mantle, which are collected because of the individual achievements accomplished by these players. I know of collectors trying to collect players from the 1955 Dodgers, 1957 Braves and 1982 Brewers. Fellow MEARS member Dave Grob collects flannel jersey styles from each Major League team. One benefit of this hobby is that it allows us to pursue whichever collecting course we choose. This 1929-30 St. Louis Cardinals jersey should be celebrated and collected based on pure design, color scheme, and scarcity of style.

Background history of the 1929 and 1930 St. Louis Cardinals

The St. Louis Cardinals played 152 games during the 1929 season and won 78 games, lost 74 games, and finished in fourth position. Notable players on this team included Grover Alexander and additional HOFer’s Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley, and Frankie Frisch. The Cardinals improved greatly during the 1930 season and the Cardinals found themselves with a record of 92 wins and 62 losses. With this record they finished first in the National League. The World Series found them pitted against the 1929 World Champion Philadelphia A’s. The Cardinals still had their core players in Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley and Frankie Frisch, however, that year Grover Cleveland was gone and Dizzy Dean was added to the staff. Also, future Hall of Famer and Wisconsin native Burleigh Grimes made his debut with the Cardinals.

The World Champions proved too strong and Jimmy Foxx and the A’s won the World Series in 6 games. Sy Johnson appeared in two games and compiled a 7.20 ERA.

Although the jersey can be pinpointed to have been issued during 1929-30 due to its unique style, there is no team applied player identifier present to attribute the jersey to a specific player. Included is a pair of pants marked “Sy Johnson.” Sy played for the Cardinals from 1926-33; therefore he would have worn this style of jersey during the 1929-30 time frame. Again, since there is no identifier on the jersey, one would have to assume Sy wore the jersey based on the accompanying marked pants.

Written inside the jersey is the name “Halick.” A search of the www.baseballalmanac.com and www.baseballlibrary.com reference web sites could not find a player by the name of Halick listed as playing for the St. Louis Cardinals. It was common practice for teams to issue jerseys to other players that appeared in spring training or non-roster players. With the Cardinals changing the jersey style in 1931, it is plausible that a player named “Halick” was issued the jersey for a try out with the team. Therefore with “Halick” hand written inside the jersey, it must be assumed it was issued to be worn by a player with that name.

To begin the evaluation, we compiled our data using our “Jersey Grading and Authenticating Official Worksheet.” This serves as our guide that ensures that we examine each jersey using the same methods and steps in a consistent manner. The worksheet is broken down in main evaluation headings, which include:

Jersey Physical Description
Manufacturer Data
Team Lettering & Numbering
Tagging Examination
Wear Characteristics

Physical Description & Manufacturer Data of Jersey Style

The examined jersey was issued as a home ½ length button down style. Manufactured from heavy gray flannel wool blend, this jersey was issued with 4 pearl buttons. All of the buttons are original. This style was designed to be worn by the Cardinals for the years 1929-30. The previous year’s style was the single bird found in conjunction with home pinstripes. In 1931 the home jersey was similar in style but the sleeve patch was not issued. This can be verified via the Baseball Hall of Fames jersey style reference titled “Dressed to the Nines” uniform database.

This is the first circa 1929-30 St. Louis Cardinals with Sainz manufactures tag found in the MEARS database.

Other archived period St. Louis Cardinals jersey’s found in the database include:

1926 St. Louis Cardinals Road Grover Cleveland Alexander (Rawlings/Leacock)
1930 St. Louis Cardinals Home Smith (Spalding)
1931 St. Louis Cardinals Home Flowers (Rawlings)
1931 St. Louis Cardinals Home Mize (Rawlings)

The jersey is similar in consistency of materials to other examples of Major League jerseys we have examined.

By studying the range of manufactures of jerseys issued by the Cardinals from 1926-1931, trend analysis shows 4 different manufactures who supplied the team jerseys during that time frame, Rawlings/Leacock, Spalding, Rawlings, and Sainz.

Team Lettering, Numbering, and Sleeve Patch

The most visually appealing aspect of this Cardinals jersey is the large colorful embroidered double ‘birds on bat’ chest logo with wrap around “Cardinals” C. With the bright red coloring and large and prominent placement, this jersey ranks in my opinion as one of the most visually appealing jerseys made.

To further accentuate the embroidery and style, the jersey is trimmed with Cardinals red front, sleeve and neck piping. All of the piping is 100% original and complete.

No player’s uniform number is found on this jersey nor should there be, as the Cardinals did not begin adding them until the 1932 season. (baseball-reference.com)

A hand cut “St. L” felt patch was sewn on the left sleeve. The patch appeared to be all original with signs of slight fading.

Tagging Examination

The manufacturers tag was found in the collar and factory applied with a straight stitch. This was the first example of this tag we have examined. The details of the tag read, “J.M. Sainz & Co., St. Louis, MO, SAINZ, Sunshine Line, Athletic Goods of Quality.” The tag is all original and unaltered.

Wear Characteristics

The jersey exhibits light to moderate wear and is consistent with issue to a pitcher having limited game action to be worn for at least one or two Major League seasons. There is no fading present. The wear is consistent with player and position. No excessive or negative wear traits are present. There are also what appear to be small blood spot stains on the front of the jersey, which does not affect the overall beauty or appearance.

Conclusion

With possible issue for the 1930 World Series, this beautiful two-year style St. Louis Cardinals jersey should appeal to collectors of Cardinals memorabilia, and jersey collectors that appreciate the vibrant multi color embroidery of the ‘2 birds on bat’ front design with ‘St. L’ shoulder patch. All original examples of flannel jerseys from this period are always exciting discoveries and the staff of MEARS always looks forward to updating our database, which we were able to do with the addition of the SAINZ tag to our archives.

To help understand the authentication process, this week MEARS is going to share with our members the evaluation of a circa 1929-30 St. Louis Cardinals jersey.

To begin, jerseys are collected for many reasons, favorite teams, players, years, and style, to name a few. Auctions highlight prices realized from the jerseys of mega stars of the game such as Ruth, Gehrig and Mantle, which are collected because of the individual achievements accomplished by these players. I know of collectors trying to collect players from the 1955 Dodgers, 1957 Braves and 1982 Brewers. Fellow MEARS member Dave Grob collects flannel jersey styles from each Major League team. One benefit of this hobby is that it allows us to pursue whichever collecting course we choose. This 1929-30 St. Louis Cardinals jersey should be celebrated and collected based on pure design, color scheme, and scarcity of style.

Background history of the 1929 and 1930 St. Louis Cardinals

The St. Louis Cardinals played 152 games during the 1929 season and won 78 games, lost 74 games, and finished in fourth position. Notable players on this team included Grover Alexander and additional HOFer’s Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley, and Frankie Frisch. The Cardinals improved greatly during the 1930 season and the Cardinals found themselves with a record of 92 wins and 62 losses. With this record they finished first in the National League. The World Series found them pitted against the 1929 World Champion Philadelphia A’s. The Cardinals still had their core players in Jesse Haines, Jim Bottomley and Frankie Frisch, however, that year Grover Cleveland was gone and Dizzy Dean was added to the staff. Also, future Hall of Famer and Wisconsin native Burleigh Grimes made his debut with the Cardinals.

The World Champions proved too strong and Jimmy Foxx and the A’s won the World Series in 6 games. Sy Johnson appeared in two games and compiled a 7.20 ERA.

Although the jersey can be pinpointed to have been issued during 1929-30 due to its unique style, there is no team applied player identifier present to attribute the jersey to a specific player. Included is a pair of pants marked “Sy Johnson.” Sy played for the Cardinals from 1926-33; therefore he would have worn this style of jersey during the 1929-30 time frame. Again, since there is no identifier on the jersey, one would have to assume Sy wore the jersey based on the accompanying marked pants.

Written inside the jersey is the name “Halick.” A search of the www.baseballalmanac.com and www.baseballlibrary.com reference web sites could not find a player by the name of Halick listed as playing for the St. Louis Cardinals. It was common practice for teams to issue jerseys to other players that appeared in spring training or non-roster players. With the Cardinals changing the jersey style in 1931, it is plausible that a player named “Halick” was issued the jersey for a try out with the team. Therefore with “Halick” hand written inside the jersey, it must be assumed it was issued to be worn by a player with that name.

To begin the evaluation, we compiled our data using our “Jersey Grading and Authenticating Official Worksheet.” This serves as our guide that ensures that we examine each jersey using the same methods and steps in a consistent manner. The worksheet is broken down in main evaluation headings, which include:

Jersey Physical Description
Manufacturer Data
Team Lettering & Numbering
Tagging Examination
Wear Characteristics

Physical Description & Manufacturer Data of Jersey Style

The examined jersey was issued as a home ½ length button down style. Manufactured from heavy gray flannel wool blend, this jersey was issued with 4 pearl buttons. All of the buttons are original. This style was designed to be worn by the Cardinals for the years 1929-30. The previous year’s style was the single bird found in conjunction with home pinstripes. In 1931 the home jersey was similar in style but the sleeve patch was not issued. This can be verified via the Baseball Hall of Fames jersey style reference titled “Dressed to the Nines” uniform database.

This is the first circa 1929-30 St. Louis Cardinals with Sainz manufactures tag found in the MEARS database.

Other archived period St. Louis Cardinals jersey’s found in the database include:

1926 St. Louis Cardinals Road Grover Cleveland Alexander (Rawlings/Leacock)
1930 St. Louis Cardinals Home Smith (Spalding)
1931 St. Louis Cardinals Home Flowers (Rawlings)
1931 St. Louis Cardinals Home Mize (Rawlings)

The jersey is similar in consistency of materials to other examples of Major League jerseys we have examined.

By studying the range of manufactures of jerseys issued by the Cardinals from 1926-1931, trend analysis shows 4 different manufactures who supplied the team jerseys during that time frame, Rawlings/Leacock, Spalding, Rawlings, and Sainz.

Team Lettering, Numbering, and Sleeve Patch

The most visually appealing aspect of this Cardinals jersey is the large colorful embroidered double ‘birds on bat’ chest logo with wrap around “Cardinals” C. With the bright red coloring and large and prominent placement, this jersey ranks in my opinion as one of the most visually appealing jerseys made.

To further accentuate the embroidery and style, the jersey is trimmed with Cardinals red front, sleeve and neck piping. All of the piping is 100% original and complete.

No player’s uniform number is found on this jersey nor should there be, as the Cardinals did not begin adding them until the 1932 season. (baseball-reference.com)

A hand cut “St. L” felt patch was sewn on the left sleeve. The patch appeared to be all original with signs of slight fading.

Tagging Examination

The manufacturers tag was found in the collar and factory applied with a straight stitch. This was the first example of this tag we have examined. The details of the tag read, “J.M. Sainz & Co., St. Louis, MO, SAINZ, Sunshine Line, Athletic Goods of Quality.” The tag is all original and unaltered.

Wear Characteristics

The jersey exhibits light to moderate wear and is consistent with issue to a pitcher having limited game action to be worn for at least one or two Major League seasons. There is no fading present. The wear is consistent with player and position. No excessive or negative wear traits are present. There are also what appear to be small blood spot stains on the front of the jersey, which does not affect the overall beauty or appearance.

Conclusion

With possible issue for the 1930 World Series, this beautiful two-year style St. Louis Cardinals jersey should appeal to collectors of Cardinals memorabilia, and jersey collectors that appreciate the vibrant multi color embroidery of the ‘2 birds on bat’ front design with ‘St. L’ shoulder patch. All original examples of flannel jerseys from this period are always exciting discoveries and the staff of MEARS always looks forward to updating our database, which we were able to do with the addition of the SAINZ tag to our archives.