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

[lund6771]

I agree with Tony that is at LEAST worth the attempt...

some of the best team contacts I ever established came about EXACTLY by this course...so why not try...what do you have to lose?

The people that really should be making this attempt are the consignor and the auction house...it seems like they will attempt to keep a closed eye from all theses facts, hoping that it wil sell and also not end up in an article in the New Yoor papers

Dave with your strong ties to AMI, can you explain why the glove was not consigned in their auction?...is it by chance that he glove was declined by Denny, so Victor didnt want to run it?..and as a result you dumped it off at the next willing auction house?

[sportscentury]

Dave with your strong ties to AMI, can you explain why the glove was not consigned in their auction?...is it by chance that he glove was declined by Denny, so Victor didnt want to run it?..and as a result you dumped it off at the next willing auction house?

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

[mvandor]

Great debate. So, is this it in a nutshell:

- Maker of glove confirms it IS one he made for Cal (perhaps qualifying it as game issue)

- Most reputable expert on game used gloves gave it a thumbs down as a Cal game used glove as it lacked use characteristics of game used Cal gloves.

- Cal himself in interviews claims all or nearly all of his game used gloves (of which there were few) remain in his possession or the HOF's.

That about it, or did I miss an episode?

[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.

[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%

[camarokids]

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

22.5%

I saw that as well . I think that is a good reason why I have never bid in an auction that has a buyers premium . Probably never will .............

[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]

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...