The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

[Rob L]

A $100,000 will get you Ripken's first road jersey. Ouch!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Cal-Ripken-Jr-First-road-jersey-game-used-1981_W0QQitemZ250304926482QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item250304926482&_trkparms=72%3A1156%7C39%3A1%7C66%3A2%7C65%3A12%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14

[allstarsplus]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

A $100,000 will get you Ripken's first road jersey. Ouch!

http://cgi.ebay.com/Cal-Ripken-Jr-Fi...d=p3286.c0.m14

The attached letters are very cool. The Lord Baltimore Cleaners!

[kingjammy24]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

http://www.lelands.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=57072

"..tail tagging from "Rawlings [size] 44" blooming a "Set 1 1981" flag tag above another reading "2 Inch Extra Length." A very, very observant eye will catch that the nameplate on back has been team-reinforced with white thread, giving the plate a slight ripple effect. This is particularly noteworthy as this same effect is visible on the 1982 Topps Traded card, leading us to believe that Cal is wearing this very jersey in that photo."

2 different 1981 ripken road jerseys, both claiming to be the one pictured on the 1982 topps card. (the ebay ad is wrong. there is no 1981 topps ripken card. ripken's first card came in 1982).

lelands' had 2" of extra length, the ebay one has 3".



rudy.

[Vintagedeputy]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

Has anyone noticed that the P in Ripken is a slightly larger font then the rest of the letters? Is it just me?

[bigtime59]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

Has anyone noticed that the P in Ripken is a slightly larger font then the rest of the letters? Is it just me?

Not only that, but all the letters appear to be too tall and too thin, and take up too much of the nameplate.

[buc]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

Sometimes you guys are a little too accusatory or question things that should not be questioned. For goodness sake, the e-bay auction has a letter from the curator of the Ripken Museum who actually displayed this jersey. Leland's states it "leads them to believe" it is the 1982 Topps jersey, not that it IS the jersey. I'm not saying I would (could) pay $100,000 for the jersey, nor am I claiming it is Ripken's first jersey or the jersey on the 82 Topps, but definitely a very early jersey from Ripken. Could it be his first? Could it be the one pictured? None of us truly know the answer to that question.

[cincy13]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

I agree Buc, it seems that when an item is expensive, some of the members here try to discredit the item; maybe it makes them feel better.

[Rob L]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

I agree Buc, it seems that when an item is expensive, some of the members here try to discredit the item; maybe it makes them feel better.

Uuummm. Ok. It's refreshing to hear that some would plunk down $100,000 without fully researching and questioning an item's authenticity.

[buc]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

I'm not saying it is worth that (or anywhere even close to it,) but after reading the letters on the auction, it is apparent to me that the jersey is real. That was what I was talking about.

[kingjammy24]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

buc & cincy13:

are either of you the seller of the ebay jersey?

anyway, i never implied the ebay jersey wasn't good. i only meant to post that there are 2 jerseys out there that claim to be the one on the topps card. that's it. oddly, both of them have different customizations. as well, both of them are set 1 from an era when set numbers actually meant something.

"For goodness sake, the e-bay auction has a letter from the curator of the Ripken Museum who actually displayed this jersey."

i don't mean to sound condescending but whoop-dee-!#*-doo. the curator of the ripken museum. where did he acquire the jersey from? how long has he been collecting 80s oriole gamers? how about this provenance:

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=15007

a letter from joe namath and everything that turned out to be worthless. do you know how many world-class museums and preminent scholars are fooled by forgeries in art and antiquities?

""The Getty Kouros was offered, along with seven other pieces, to The J. Paul Getty Museum in Malibu, California in the spring of 1983. For the next twelve years art historians, conservators, and archeologists studied the Kouros, scientific tests were performed and showed that the surface could not have been created artificially. However, when several of the other pieces offered with the Kouros, were shown to be forgeries, its authenticity was again questioned. In May of 1992, the Kouros was displayed in Athens, Greece, at an international conference, called to determine its authenticity. The conference failed to solve the problem; while most art historians and archeologists denounced it, the scientists present believed the statue to be authentic. To this day, the Getty Kouros' authenticity remains a mystery and the statue is displayed with the date: "Greek, 530 B.C. or modern forgery".

the getty museum, which is one of the most highly esteemed museums in the world, spent 12 yrs trying to determine authenticity. teams of scientists, archeologists, and art historians couldn't determine whether it was good or not. maybe they should've called the curator of the ripken museum who, apparently, is an infallible genius.

"..after reading the letters on the auction, it is apparent to me that the jersey is real."

i'm sure many people thought the same about the namath helmet and countless other items with "rock solid" provenance that later turned out to be garbage. the mantle glove and carew glove with letters from the athletes themselves that only showed that their memories were a little hazy. if you honestly purchase items based solely on provenance then this is going to be a long, hard hobby for you.

rudy.

[buc]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

No, I'm not the seller, nor do I know or have any affiliation with him. And the letter from the curator of the Museum is just one of the many letters that accompany the jersey as stated in the auction. I can't make out all the fine print on the letter from the assistant equipment manager, but I can make out enough to see that the jersey was basically "thrown together" to have jerseys for Ripken to wear.
Again, I don't think it is anywhere near worth what the seller is asking for it, but I do feel it to be real and I think the letters of provenance on this one are pretty solid.
You reference the Namath helmet and the piece of art. Anyone who looks at pictures can tell the Namath helmet was not real. I'm sure Namath did not care what he wrote. Jack Dempsey gave away the ring bell to one of his famous title fights to three different people, claiming to each that the bell was the original bell used at the fight. I don't know and don't care if this jersey was the one used in the picture, and I don't believe the seller should claim it to be either without proof, but I do think it is an authentic jersey worn by Ripken. That was my only point.

[Danny899]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

I agree Buc, it seems that when an item is expensive, some of the members here try to discredit the item; maybe it makes them feel better.

No! That NEVER happens here!!! This forum??

[Danny899]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

I'm not saying it is worth that (or anywhere even close to it,) but after reading the letters on the auction, it is apparent to me that the jersey is real. That was what I was talking about.

Buc,
You're not the only one who feels that the jersey is good. Don't get caught up with the theories that one letter or number being slighty smaller or larger than another means that a jersey is not authentic. Again, intelligent, informed collectors realize that slight deviations in a jersey's lettering, fonts and tagging do not mean it's not authentic. Lastly, I don't think Rudy was saying that the jersey wasn't authentic, rather he was was only indicating that only 1 jersey could be the one on the card. Buc and Cincy also bring up valid points reference this jersey. They certainly don't need to be the seller of the jersey to post their opinions here regardless of their views contrasting others.

[aeneas01]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

I agree Buc, it seems that when an item is expensive, some of the members here try to discredit the item; maybe it makes them feel better.

i don't think this statement is fair - there have been many high end items (read: expensive) over the years that never drew sharp criticism from any forum member - nor were they discredited. a maynard helmet and elway jersey come immediately to mind...

[Rob L]

Re: The $100,000 Ripken Jersey

anyway, i never implied the ebay jersey wasn't good. i only meant to post that there are 2 jerseys out there that claim to be the one on the topps card. that's it. oddly, both of them have different customizations. as well, both of them are set 1 from an era when set numbers actually meant something.

rudy.

Hey Rudy,

Just curious, Ripken only played 20 games that season. As you stated, Set numbers meant something in the early 1980s. Would an order for two jersey at one time be considered one set (ie. from the same order)? It's interesting that the two 1981 jerseys both have the same set number but different dimensions. It sure would be cool to be able to actually match one of the jerseys to the Topps card.