Frank Thomas HOF rookie game worn cap

[Roady]

3. Getting the cap signed again: It's your cap, and of course you should do what YOU want with it. If it were mine, I'd keep it as is. Given the assumption that this is Thomas's rookie cap and he has already signed it, probably around the time it was worn, I think it's perfect. You have a vintage signature on a vintage, worn cap, and the signature is on the place I prefer on a cap: underneath the brim. (I like game worn items to appear, for display purposes, exactly as they left the field, while placing any autographs in places that wouldn't have been seen by those watching the game, such as underneath the brim of a cap or down by the tags on a jersey. Different collectors have different preferences concerning this, and your preference is the one that counts for your item.) Overall, I think putting a modern signature on an item like this would detract from its vintage feel.

After reading this post, I am going to change my mind on getting re-signed. I though it would be good to have a signature on the top of the brim with game used but I have agree with this post. It is perfect the way it is.

[stasman]

I agree Roady. I think I'm going to keep it as is too. Especially after the 2 examinations and many positive feedbacks on GUU about the auto.

[Steeleraddict]

When I compare the images. Especially the two in post 56 vs 68, like someone prev stated the "O" on the front "sox" looks a little off to me.

Is the image in post 56 suppose to be the same as yours? Meaning the one he wore in his rookie season in that very last series where they only wore all black. I want to get the facts straight. When compared to the closeup of your cap here's what i would look at....

In the "stock" or real image (for lack of better term)
1. In the stock photo the bottom point of the O appears to be on the seam or slightly to the left. In yours the bottom point of the "O" (or the bottom peak) looks to be to the right of the seam/thread.
2. In the stock photo the point of the O at the 8 o'clock position also appears to be to the left of the seam. Yours looks as if it is right on the seam or slightly to the right of the thread making up the seam.
3. The entire "O" in the real photo looks to be more to the left , where your right edge is def more to the right of the seam. But hard to tell the other points and edges without more closeups. With the thread of the seam is more clear.

Again I have no dog in this fight so won't speculate...ie. On the amount of wear in six days? Or if the sig is real because they are both subjective.
But objectively I would target the placement of the "O" as previously mentioned. Did the two experts comment on this? Maybe post different closeups of your cap to compare. I hope it's legit

[stasman]

No. Those images were undated in a Franks early career. I just posted them as similar caps. I am still trying to find a close up of him in the last 6 games showing the right side of his cap. The pictures I posted are not photo match.

[Chess2899]

You guys are 100% right in leaving the autograph where it is. I have a rookie jersey but wasn't thrilled on where he signed his autograph at the time 27 years ago because I am a perfectionist at times and want my autographs in a certain place. Also, his autograph looked different in his rookie year than later on. I briefly contemplated having him resign this year but then realized that it would mess up the originality of his rookie jersey and signature.

I believe your Thomas auto is authentic. Pay the extra money and get a picture with you and him holding his rookie cap (DNA). He will confrim the auto. When you get home, put it in a very safe place. You will have the picture if you want to see it everyday.

[Steeleraddict]

My bad. Could have sworn someone compared the fronts to photo match. And said the "O" was off. And that they were being compared.regardless...

I would leave it alone, enjoy it, cherish it. And I wouldn't get another sig on a GU cap. Get a pic with him and hopefully he can confirm it.MLB has old games but I doubt if the definition is there.

[akrover]

My bad. Could have sworn someone compared the fronts to photo match. And said the "O" was off. And that they were being compared.regardless...

I would leave it alone, enjoy it, cherish it. And I wouldn't get another sig on a GU cap. Get a pic with him and hopefully he can confirm it.MLB has old games but I doubt if the definition is there.

I said that the O's were off. But that picture of Thomas could be from later on. The OP's hat being a match to that photo would have been gravy, but it's not matching in no way makes it bad. That's not what I was saying. Just that it wasn't a match. And, where the photo isn't dated, I guess a match wouldn't even conclusively prove it was a rookie hat. But, someone will find some pics of those last rookies series'. Why wouldn't we all be hoping the hat is real? I certainly hope it is!

Another thought, where those hats were brand new before the end of the season (and became beyond extremely popular iirc), is it possible they wore hats with the 90/91 tags the following spring? Or early into the next season? Where they only wore them two series, maybe there were hats left over from the original order? And, where this hat shows such good use, maybe it was briefly carried over? Just thinking out loud...

[stasman]

All good points.. The tagging in the hat was from 89-90. Per BPH's the clubhouse employee retrieved it from the dugout floor and then had Thomas sign it. I would think that would have occurred at the end of the 90 season and that Thomas would start the 91 season with a fresh clean hat with 91 tagging in it.

[salukidave]

Instead of paying to have your moment with the Big Hurt at the upcoming Sun-Times show, you might want to wait. They'll be plenty of other opportunities to show the hat to Frank. At the very least, he should be at Soxfest for years. Plus he's opening a sports bar in Berwyn.

While it would be great to get a photo of Frank with the hat, I wouldn't take his word on anything concerning a piece from 24 years ago., at least not as the last word.