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

[kingjammy24]

it essentially seems to be boiling down to a clevenhagen vs. esken issue. if clevenhagen is correct, then the glove is at a minimum, a legit game-issued glove that was specifically intended to be given to ripken for game use. if esken is correct, then the glove is not even a game-issue or ripken-spec model. given that i've never spoken to either, it's difficult to know whose opinion carries more weight. on one hand, clevenhagen made the thing. i'm not sure how you improve on that. of course, this entirely depends on clevenhagen having an excellent memory and being an upstanding, diligent, detail-driven guy. if he is, then i really fail to see how his opinion doesn't trump eskens'. clevenhagen is the one who personally speaks directly to ripken about his gloves. he's the one who gets all of the details from the players first hand. he's the one who knows what's going on in the rawlings glove dept. in other words, all of clevenhagen's knowledge is first-hand. it isn't derived from interpreting things, second-hand knowledge, data, etc. let's say, hypothetically, that esken said the lining is "wrong". does that conclusively mean it's bad or could it be that on that particular glove ripken called clevenhagen and told him he wanted to try a new lining or clevenhagen ran out of a certain material on that day and just substituted it with a comparable material. would esken have been privy to any of that? was esken privy to the private conversations between ripken and clevenhagen? does esken know that, if indeed the lining is wrong, that the substitution wasn't intentionally done by clevenhagen?

of course, if on the other hand clevenhagen is absent-minded, careless, and forgetful, then i can see why his opinion wouldn't carry weight even if he did make it. i don't know clevenhagen so i don't know how much weight his opinion carries. either he's more knowledgeable than esken given that he personally discusses these gloves with the players and he, not esken, knows exactly what goes on every single day in that room at rawlings. or, depending on his personality traits, he can barely be depended on for even the most basic of glove info.

reid's said that "only one is truly an expert in my and many other people's opinion: Denny Esken". reid, you must have some inside knowledge about clevenhagen to have excluded him from your list of "true experts". i'm curious, what is it about clevenhagen that prevents him from being a "true expert" on the gloves he makes?

"Heritage has repeatedly asserted that the glove is a Ripken game used glove in light of all of the expert opinions that do not support this claim"

simply because clevenhagen refrained from commenting on possible game use shouldn't be interpreted as an opinion from him on the matter either way. he didn't support the claim but he also didn't deny it. in fact, the letter simply never addressed it. to further assume the reasons why clevenhagen didn't address the issue of game use is nothing but conjecture.

for the most part, when things are called "game used" it's simply a matter of the specs matching up and use being evident. clevenhagen says the specs match up. anyone can see there's use. whether it's legit use or contrived is apparently an issue. regardless, i'm guessing that's why heritage is calling it game used. whether the specs match up or not is really a question that only clevenhagen can answer. i don't believe esken can say because, as i said, he has no idea if ripken called up clevenhagen and asked him for some modifications. has esken discussed this particular glove with ripken? maybe the glove doesn't match up to ripken's typical gamers (although if ripken himself claims he has all of his gloves except 2, i'd be curious to know how esken became so intimately familiar with ripken's gloves), but it isn't rare for players to request small changes. it's difficult to believe that esken has been privy to all of the changes that players have discussed with clevenhagen. if ripken calls up clevenhagen and asks for a "hot pink fun fur" inside lining, does esken know about that? or does he automatically assume the glove with the pink fun fur lining is wrong?

rudy.

[CollectGU]

Lund,

I don't know if Dave will answer your questions, though I would be interested in his responses. I can tell you that, unless AMI wanted to use a different glove "expert" (as Heritage has chosen to do) or use no glove authenticator at all, they would not be able to list the Ripken glove in any capacity. The reason? Denny flat-out rejected it. He is adamant that Ripken never used it, and he believes that it is highly unlikely that it ever even made it to Ripken for him to look at. I don't know how decision making at AMI is done (in fact, it has perplexed me for years), but I know that Denny rejects a lot of gloves that are submitted to AMI, and I believe that AMI, based on these rejections, simply refuses to list them (which is to their credit). Folks here know that I would never again do business with AMI, for a multitude of reasons, but I have always acknowledged their strength in the glove authentication department (i.e., Denny). AMI knows that if Denny says a glove is not good (and Denny rejects a lot of bad gloves), then it needs to be sent back to the consignor. If I am wrong about this, someone from the AMI inner circle is welcome to correct me, but this is my confident belief based on my conversations with Denny.

Best,
Reid

Reid,

I chose not to put AMI in an uncomfortable position by asking them to run with a Celevenhagen letter since Denny didn't like it, and that's who they use. I don't know if they would or wouldn't run with it because I never asked...I instead chose to use the auction house that uses Clevenhagen and has done so in the past. Isn't this getting a bit monotonous with you everyday explaining that Denny doesn't like it, you value his opinion, you don't value you Clevenhagen's blah..blah..blahh...We understand where you stand, can we move on from the broken record yet...

[camarokids]

The glove has been listed on ebay , link below..........

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/...ksid=p3907.m29

[TNTtoys]

The glove has been listed on ebay , link below..........

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/...ksid=p3907.m29

HA is just broadening their channels for their high end items... listing on ebay as well as their own auction site means more potential bidders -- it is common practice with them.

[ripkengamers]

The glove has been listed on ebay , link below..........

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/...ksid=p3907.m29

Did anyone take a gander at the buyer premium !!!!

22.5%

[CollectGU]

it essentially seems to be boiling down to a clevenhagen vs. esken issue. if clevenhagen is correct, then the glove is at a minimum, a legit game-issued glove that was specifically intended to be given to ripken for game use. if esken is correct, then the glove is not even a game-issue or ripken-spec model. given that i've never spoken to either, it's difficult to know whose opinion carries more weight. on one hand, clevenhagen made the thing. i'm not sure how you improve on that. of course, this entirely depends on clevenhagen having an excellent memory and being an upstanding, diligent, detail-driven guy. if he is, then i really fail to see how his opinion doesn't trump eskens'. clevenhagen is the one who personally speaks directly to ripken about his gloves. he's the one who gets all of the details from the players first hand. he's the one who knows what's going on in the rawlings glove dept. in other words, all of clevenhagen's knowledge is first-hand. it isn't derived from interpreting things, second-hand knowledge, data, etc. let's say, hypothetically, that esken said the lining is "wrong". does that conclusively mean it's bad or could it be that on that particular glove ripken called clevenhagen and told him he wanted to try a new lining or clevenhagen ran out of a certain material on that day and just substituted it with a comparable material. would esken have been privy to any of that? was esken privy to the private conversations between ripken and clevenhagen? does esken know that, if indeed the lining is wrong, that the substitution wasn't intentionally done by clevenhagen?

of course, if on the other hand clevenhagen is absent-minded, careless, and forgetful, then i can see why his opinion wouldn't carry weight even if he did make it. i don't know clevenhagen so i don't know how much weight his opinion carries. either he's more knowledgeable than esken given that he personally discusses these gloves with the players and he, not esken, knows exactly what goes on every single day in that room at rawlings. or, depending on his personality traits, he can barely be depended on for even the most basic of glove info.

reid's said that "only one is truly an expert in my and many other people's opinion: Denny Esken". reid, you must have some inside knowledge about clevenhagen to have excluded him from your list of "true experts". i'm curious, what is it about clevenhagen that prevents him from being a "true expert" on the gloves he makes?

"Heritage has repeatedly asserted that the glove is a Ripken game used glove in light of all of the expert opinions that do not support this claim"

simply because clevenhagen refrained from commenting on possible game use shouldn't be interpreted as an opinion from him on the matter either way. he didn't support the claim but he also didn't deny it. in fact, the letter simply never addressed it. to further assume the reasons why clevenhagen didn't address the issue of game use is nothing but conjecture.

for the most part, when things are called "game used" it's simply a matter of the specs matching up and use being evident. clevenhagen says the specs match up. anyone can see there's use. whether it's legit use or contrived is apparently an issue. regardless, i'm guessing that's why heritage is calling it game used. whether the specs match up or not is really a question that only clevenhagen can answer. i don't believe esken can say because, as i said, he has no idea if ripken called up clevenhagen and asked him for some modifications. has esken discussed this particular glove with ripken? maybe the glove doesn't match up to ripken's typical gamers (although if ripken himself claims he has all of his gloves except 2, i'd be curious to know how esken became so intimately familiar with ripken's gloves), but it isn't rare for players to request small changes. it's difficult to believe that esken has been privy to all of the changes that players have discussed with clevenhagen. if ripken calls up clevenhagen and asks for a "hot pink fun fur" inside lining, does esken know about that? or does he automatically assume the glove with the pink fun fur lining is wrong?

rudy.

Rudy,

I think that this was the most objective post so far.

[CollectGU]

Dave,

Two of your posts have already been edited in this thread (one of them was completely removed) for ONCE AGAIN violating GUF rules. Clearly, you have no respect for this forum, its members, or its moderators.

Try as you might, though, this thread will not be derailed onto another topic. It will remain on topic: the Ripken glove sham. It is not a matter of one authenticator versus another. NO authenticator that Heritage or you can find will say that this glove was game used by Ripken, yet Heritage continues to say that it is Ripken's game used glove. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true. Your responses are bordering on desparation at this point. I'm willing to take this as far as you like. I look forward to your response and I thank you for helping to bring as much attention to this issue as possible (seriously, your posts are a terrific help!).

Best,
Reid

Reid,

It's obvious to all readers here that you are not objective on this glove(as evidenced by your not recognizing the maker of the glove as an expert or that the fact that the glove shows obvious signs of wear including the oiled palm trait of Cal's). I am also not objective as I am the owner. The most objective post on this subject ahs been Rudy's and Mvandor's.

[content edited]

Regards,
Dave

[ChrisCavalier]

Please keep in mind the following forum rule when making posts:

It is expected that all posts are to be created with a sincere attempt to benefit the hobby. Any posts which the Administrator deems as a personal attack or an attempt to unnecessarily discredit others will be subject to the administrative rules of the forum.

The objective of the forum is to help educate each other in a positive environment. I understand there are some differences of opinion here but please make sure the forum rules are observed when posting.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Sincerely,
Chris

[CollectGU]

Reid,

I am no longer going to discuss the glove with you on the forum as this back and forth childish bickering is bringing no value to the collecting community and it's obvious we both lack objectivity. We both seem to be regurgitating the same arguments overe and over. The readers know where we stand ad nauseum. This will be my last post to you on this subject. I believe that Rudy's post covers the subject objectively and will leave it at that:

it essentially seems to be boiling down to a clevenhagen vs. esken issue. if clevenhagen is correct, then the glove is at a minimum, a legit game-issued glove that was specifically intended to be given to ripken for game use. if esken is correct, then the glove is not even a game-issue or ripken-spec model. given that i've never spoken to either, it's difficult to know whose opinion carries more weight. on one hand, clevenhagen made the thing. i'm not sure how you improve on that. of course, this entirely depends on clevenhagen having an excellent memory and being an upstanding, diligent, detail-driven guy. if he is, then i really fail to see how his opinion doesn't trump eskens'. clevenhagen is the one who personally speaks directly to ripken about his gloves. he's the one who gets all of the details from the players first hand. he's the one who knows what's going on in the rawlings glove dept. in other words, all of clevenhagen's knowledge is first-hand. it isn't derived from interpreting things, second-hand knowledge, data, etc. let's say, hypothetically, that esken said the lining is "wrong". does that conclusively mean it's bad or could it be that on that particular glove ripken called clevenhagen and told him he wanted to try a new lining or clevenhagen ran out of a certain material on that day and just substituted it with a comparable material. would esken have been privy to any of that? was esken privy to the private conversations between ripken and clevenhagen? does esken know that, if indeed the lining is wrong, that the substitution wasn't intentionally done by clevenhagen?

of course, if on the other hand clevenhagen is absent-minded, careless, and forgetful, then i can see why his opinion wouldn't carry weight even if he did make it. i don't know clevenhagen so i don't know how much weight his opinion carries. either he's more knowledgeable than esken given that he personally discusses these gloves with the players and he, not esken, knows exactly what goes on every single day in that room at rawlings. or, depending on his personality traits, he can barely be depended on for even the most basic of glove info.

reid's said that "only one is truly an expert in my and many other people's opinion: Denny Esken". reid, you must have some inside knowledge about clevenhagen to have excluded him from your list of "true experts". i'm curious, what is it about clevenhagen that prevents him from being a "true expert" on the gloves he makes?

"Heritage has repeatedly asserted that the glove is a Ripken game used glove in light of all of the expert opinions that do not support this claim"

simply because clevenhagen refrained from commenting on possible game use shouldn't be interpreted as an opinion from him on the matter either way. he didn't support the claim but he also didn't deny it. in fact, the letter simply never addressed it. to further assume the reasons why clevenhagen didn't address the issue of game use is nothing but conjecture.

for the most part, when things are called "game used" it's simply a matter of the specs matching up and use being evident. clevenhagen says the specs match up. anyone can see there's use. whether it's legit use or contrived is apparently an issue. regardless, i'm guessing that's why heritage is calling it game used. whether the specs match up or not is really a question that only clevenhagen can answer. i don't believe esken can say because, as i said, he has no idea if ripken called up clevenhagen and asked him for some modifications. has esken discussed this particular glove with ripken? maybe the glove doesn't match up to ripken's typical gamers (although if ripken himself claims he has all of his gloves except 2, i'd be curious to know how esken became so intimately familiar with ripken's gloves), but it isn't rare for players to request small changes. it's difficult to believe that esken has been privy to all of the changes that players have discussed with clevenhagen. if ripken calls up clevenhagen and asks for a "hot pink fun fur" inside lining, does esken know about that? or does he automatically assume the glove with the pink fun fur lining is wrong?

rudy.

[allstarsplus]

Reid,

It's obvious to all readers here that you are not objective on this glove(as evidenced by your not recognizing the maker of the glove as an expert or that the fact that the glove shows obvious signs of wear including the oiled palm trait of Cal's). I am also not objective as I am the owner. The most objective post on this subject ahs been Rudy's and Mvandor's.

[content edited]

Regards,
Dave

Dave - I was going to "side" with you until you wrote what I highlighted in red. Read Rob's post that Esken said the oil was grease and who says the obvious signs of wear are authentic???? Have you seen a "real" Ripken gamer? How can you compare your oil/grease markings to the ones pictured from Getty and other sites? How can you explain the firm leather in the webbing which doesn't seem consistent with the other signs of wear?

Cal is now aware of this glove. Let's hope we get his spokesperson to Post.

Have you looked at the auction? No bidders on the HA.com website for this "Platinum" item.

I personally put the bulk of the blame on Heritage for not stating all the facts.

I now add Heritage to the list of auction houses that I have serious doubts about. Not to divert, but read about the Jordan 1992 jersey.

Andrew