Cal Ripken Fielders Glove Bought for a "Song" on eBay

[kingjammy24]

The Rawlings "Guru" Mr. Clevenhagen himself has endorsed the glove, as well as glove expert Joe Phillips, however, the doubters continue to call this glove fake. Why?

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

hey howard

i thought the question was whether ripken USED it or not. clevenhagen only said he issued it to cal. i don't think there's any doubt that it was sent to ripken. it's a legit "game issued glove". however, it's not being sold simply as a "game issued" glove. clevenhagen would have no clue whatsoever as to whether ripken used it (unless ripken told him specifically). it's being sold as "game used" and given that ripken has said he has all but 2 of his game-used gloves, it presents a bit of a problem.

rudy.

[sportscentury]

Guys,

I've been trying to follow this thread. When Dave first won the glove, I thought it was good and that he had snagged a great piece at an incredible price. I really have little idea as to what the truth is at this point. But, it does seem clear that there are several critical questions that have yet to be fully answered.

First, as I understand it, Denny Esken evaluated the glove and said it is not authentic because it has the wrong lining. One question is: Does Denny's evaluation that the glove is not authentic mean that it is not even a real game issued Ripken glove because it has the wrong lining? Or, does Denny's evaluation that it is not authentic mean that it was not game used by Ripken because, although the glove may have been made for Cal, Cal would never have used it because it has the wrong lining? This, I believe, is an important distinction. Perhaps Dave has a real Ripken game issued (but not game worn) glove - - and, to take it a step further, perhaps Ripken did use it briefly to try out a glove with the unusual lining. Denny's knowledge of such things is incomparable, in my opinion, so clarifying the game issued/game used ambiguity would seem to be essential.

Second, I've never heard of anyone ignoring Esken's evaluation of a glove in light of a different evaluation provided by Clevenhagen or any other glove authenticator. It seems clear that Heritage knew of Esken's rejection of the glove. Was Clevenhagen ever notified of Esken's evaluation? If not, why didn't anyone (including Heritage) inform him? If so, did Clevenhagen discuss the glove with Esken? I would think that Clevenhagen would discuss the glove with Esken if he was asked to evaluate a glove that he knew Esken had rejected (although maybe this is a bad assumption). My understanding is that these guys have known each other for a long time.

Third, does Clevenhagen's letter mention that Esken rejected the glove? If so, does it state how and why Clevenhagen came to a different conclusion? If not, does Heritage (who clearly is aware of Esken's evaluation) include this information as part of full disclosure in the auction description? Certainly, there must be an ethical duty to include this information on Heritage's part, no? I would hate to think that this is a case of shopping around until you find an "authenticator" who will pass the item in question. [As an aside, I never realized Clevenhagen authenticated gloves until this Ripken glove appeared in Heritage Auctions - at least I've never before seen a Clevenhagen authentication letter.]

Answers to these questions may be very helpful.

Reid

[CollectGU]

Reid,

Bob knew Denny's opinion on the glove about the lining and came to his own conclusion after inspecting it. Bob made the gloves for Rawlings at that time and said the lining and everything else about the glove was correct and if the guy making them says this why is there a need for any further disclosure?

Regards,
Dave

[sportscentury]

To Dave:

You stand to make a lot on the glove, and I realize that adding the information I suggested may get in the way of this. So while I appreciate your assessment that it is not ethically necessary to provide full disclosure, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out your obvious conflict of interest. If Heritage does not want to fully disclose the expert evaluations of the glove, then good for them and good for you. I was just raising what I thought was a clear ethical issue for folks to consider. Clearly, Heritage and you are 100% satisfied with the opinions of Clevenhagen and Philips, and that is up to your personal preference. Others may not be so easily satisfied, though.

To everyone:

After my last post, I got an email from Denny Esken asking me to call him. I hadn't talked to Denny in several months, mostly because I don't collect all that much any longer and Denny and I have had less to discuss. But it was good to talk with him. He wanted to clarify some of the issues that folks have raised in this thread. What I am about to state is based on statements of fact that Denny shared with me. Denny stated that:

1) The glove was made to Ripken's specifications but it is unlikely that Ripken ever saw it.

2) The glove can only be from 1999 because it (a) has four dots, (b) has the traditional Rawlings label (circle R) without the registration mark, (c) has the deer-tan cowhide with butterscotch lining (which Ripken found to be too soft and did not like), and (d) has the late 1990s embroidery font. Denny said that this is not his opinion, but rather a fact, based on this combination of factors.

3) He rejected the glove because (a) he has seen many of these from 1999 and doesn't believe that Ripken used any of them, never mind most or all of them, and (b) it doesn't have any of the typical signs of Ripken's game use (specifically, the web is very tight, the pocket has grease and not traditional oil, and overall game use is not typical of Ripken's game used gloves).

According to Denny, he has shared all of this information with several of the parties mentioned in this thread. He asked me to post this information to clear things up, and in the interest of providing this information to GUF readers (and in the interest of doing Denny a favor, as he has been great to me and many other collectors over the years), I told him that I would oblige.

Please understand that I am not a glove expert by any means, but am only passing along this information. I know that there are people who will find this post helpful, and others who will attack the contents of the post. Please excuse me if I refrain from getting into arguments and debates about this glove as I have no interest in doing so. Forum moderators can contact Denny to confirm his evaluation if they like.

Best,
Reid

[CollectGU]

To Dave:

To everyone:

1) The glove was made to Ripken's specifications but it is unlikely that Ripken ever saw it.

2) The glove can only be from 1999 because it (a) has four dots, (b) has the traditional Rawlings label (circle R) without the registration mark, (c) has the deer-tan cowhide with butterscotch lining (which Ripken found to be too soft and did not like), and (d) has the late 1990s embroidery font. Denny said that this is not his opinion, but rather a fact, based on this combination of factors.

3) He rejected the glove because (a) he has seen many of these from 1999 and doesn't believe that Ripken used any of them, never mind most or all of them, and (b) it doesn't have any of the typical signs of Ripken's game use (specifically, the web is very tight, the pocket has grease and not traditional oil, and overall game use is not typical of Ripken's game used gloves).


Best,
Reid

Reid,

Denny never had this glove in his hands physically. He gave his opinion over the phone. He never touched this glove, so I don't understand how he can ascertain that it is grease and not traditional oil and that the web is very tight...

Regards,
Dave

[allstarsplus]

Reid,

Bob knew Denny's opinion on the glove about the lining and came to his own conclusion after inspecting it. Bob made the gloves for Rawlings at that time and said the lining and everything else about the glove was correct and if the guy making them says this why is there a need for any further disclosure?

Regards,
Dave

I think Dave has done excellent due dilligence and he purchased the glove in the shape it is in.

I think the Clevenhagen letter should be enough to say it is at the least "game issued".

The only question I believe is whether Cal put the oil on the glove and can it be photomatched.

I am not a glove expert, but the outside of the glove looks clean---maybe too clean and the inside has the one area of oil and the webbing is clean with little wear on the leather. The leather looks stiff but maybe that is just the pictures.

You be the judge:

[sportscentury]

Dave,

If what you say is true, then you should ask Denny this question directly, although he told me that he already explained all of the issues with the glove to you on the phone. I'm not sure how well you know Denny or how familiar you are with the depth of his expertise, but I imagine that there is a lot that Denny can tell from photos (he has provided me with amazingly detailed, completely correct evaluations of gloves based solely on scans/photos in the past).

Best,
Reid

[RobSteinmetz]

For what it's worth, I was with Denny at this year's National in Cleveland and I did see him examine the glove at Heritage's booth. Perhaps that is where he was able to get a good enough look to ascertain that the glove had grease in the palm and not oil (and a tight web). On a side note, I've always been amazed at Denny's ability to rattle off characteristics of game used gloves over the phone that he can't see (that I'm holding in my hand) from memory. Often times, he describes the entire glove to me before I even have a chance to open my mouth. I think that comes from a combination of a near photographic memory and a lifetime of studying game used gloves like no one else on earth. He's the man.

Best,

Rob

[allstarsplus]

he was able to get a good enough look to ascertain that the glove had grease in the palm and not oil (and a tight web).

Grease????? This is getting more bizarre by the minute.

Here is what Heritage states on their website:

Heritage Auction Galleries: Our Mission ...
To be the world's most trusted and efficient marketplace and information resource serving owners of fine art, collectibles, and other objects of enduring value.


Our Values ...
Integrity — Honesty and fairness must define every facet of our business.
Transparency — We embrace clarity and freedom of information, so that our clients, partners and coworkers can make informed, confident decisions.
Teamwork — We collaborate with coworkers on important tasks and projects, and freely share credit for our successes among all who contribute their efforts and ideas.
Respect — We foster a culture of mutual respect for each other, our business partners and our clients.
Efficiency — As tangible demonstration of that respect, we seek every opportunity to help our clients, partners and coworkers save valuable time and resources.
Passion — We know that through our focus and dedication, Heritage's services, products and innovations will someday enrich the lives of millions of people, both financially and psychologically.
Excellence — We understand our assignments and goals, and deliver them accurately, on time, within budget, and exceeding expectations, while setting the bar ever higher to accelerate improvement.
Expertise — We cherish knowledge and never stop studying and learning, because our success depends upon providing the best possible advice to our clients.
Innovation — We continually invent ways to make our services and products more accessible and useful to clients, even when we render our successful products obsolete by creating better ones.
Flexibility — We are creative and flexible when helping clients, coworkers and partners address unusual problems and needs.
Client-First Mentality — We create positive experiences for every internal and external client we serve.
Inclusion — We champion the value of each individual's knowledge, skills, abilities and ideas.
Long-Term Perspective — We strive to make careful decisions and win-win agreements with clients and partners, knowing that any sustainable relationship must benefit all of its participants.

[Carlevv]

Wow you guys are putting in some work on this one. Great stuff all around.