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

[CollectGU]

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

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.

[ChrisCavalier]

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

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]

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

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

[CollectGU]

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

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.

[ripkengamers]

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

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%

[TNTtoys]

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

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.

[camarokids]

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

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

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=28270&viewitem=&item=170159249676&_trksid=p3907.m29

[CollectGU]

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

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...

[kingjammy24]

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

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.

[mvandor]

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

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?

[sportscentury]

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

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

[allstarsplus]

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

Last week I contacted a key person within Cal's organization and got this message:

Unfortunately, with Cal working the NLCS for TBS and his preparation for his China trip at the end of the month, I don't anticipate myself speaking with him before this particular auction concludes.

The email then gave this gentleman's opinion which was insightful. I asked if I could Post the email on the Forum and got this email:

Good Morning Andrew:

Since the information I provided was more of a result of my own personal knowledge and has little or nothing to do with the work I do at XXXXXXXXXX, I don't want anyone to incorrectly assume that it's their (or Ripken Baseball's) position as well.

If you found any passage in my previous email that you found useful, let me know & perhaps I'll just add it to the thread under my name.

Thanks for asking, XXXXXXXX

[3arod13]

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

Tony-

Let me address your post:

do you ever have anything positive to say than just pounce on people with your negative comments

I make quite a few "positive" posts on this Forum, and often provide insight and assistance to fellow collectors on an array of subjects, i.e, tagging, patches, etc. I'm not sure if I "pounce" on people, rather, point out incorrect information posted in error and related.

Contacting the Orioles and getting it straight from Cal himself would be better than anyone else's opinion, no matter who they are. Yes, this would be a good thing to do and/or attempt

Tony, that's a grand idea! Since you surfaced this, please advise what success you have once you make the calls or emails to Cal and the Orioles.

I look forward to your update on this issue.

Howard Wolf
hblakewolf@patmedia.net

Howard,

Not my place to make that call. It's not my glove. However, if the owner makes the effort, I'm sure it will be successful.

I realize you provide many positives to this forum, however, you do at times come across harsh.

Nothing personal. Just didn't see anything positive you were adding with your response. Mainly negative, that's all.

I do take back "do you ever have anything positive to say than just pounce on people with your negative comments." Meant only on occassion.

Don't want a war of words. With that said,

Regards, Tony

[mr.miracle]

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

Howard,

Just curious, do you ever have anything positive to say than just pounce on people with your negative comments.

Yes, I like to believe that people are willing to help without having to gain from it.

Contacting the Orioles and getting it straight from Cal himself would be better than anyone else's opinion, no matter who they are. I have talked to Denny numerous times and am aware of his knowledge. My point was, this will continue to go on and on. With that said, coming from Cal Jr. would end this...period.

Yes, this would be a good thing to do and/or attempt.

Regards, Tony

If anyone is able to contact the Orioles and is sucssesful at accomplishing anything please let us know. I do happen to have Asst. VP of Operations Jim Duquette's cell phone number and have talked to him on several occassions but he was not with the team when Cal was there. He could perhaps point me to someone who was however I am going to try to contact someone I know who was an Orioles bat boy and club house attendant during Cal's final season's in Baltimore. Maybe if he takes a look at the glove he will have an idea since he is very well versed in Cal's game used bats. I will let everyone know if and when I find out anything.

[3arod13]

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

Tony,

I appreciate all of your posts, and all of the positive contributions that you've made to GUF. But I must ask: Is there really a need to make a personal attack on Howard? And to do so in such a completely baseless manner? Honestly, it's irresponsibe, if not downright silly. Do you have any idea how many people Howard has publicly helped with Phillies, Mariners, Orioles, Trailblazers, etc., etc., items on GUF? And how many times has Howard been quick to hop on here and provide good words in support of a dealer or collector (as recently as a few days ago when he praised Joe Esposito of B&E Collectibles). I understand that you are upset that Howard believes that your suggestion is unrealistic, but let's be reasonable (and civil).

As for your suggestion, I, for one, would love it if Ripken himself were to comment on this glove. However, I don't believe that this would resolve all issues (for example, the issue of how 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; certainly, this issue cannot be resolved by Cal Ripken Jr., as it has nothing to do with him). But, again, I'm all for Ripken commenting on this glove (if someone actually has the know-how and power to make this happen).

It would also be helpful if Chris Ivy would comment. Again, I am surprised that he has not offered an explanation.

Best,

Reid

Reid,

It doesn't bother me at all whether Howard agrees or disagrees with my comments. That's not an issue at all.

To say that it wouldn't do any good to contact the Orioles for help because they wouldn't have an interest it in, or to say Cal Jr. can't offer and or say anything more than what others has said, to me is negative and actually not true. I've done this many times, and teams and players were willing to help. From what I know, Cal Ripken Jr. is a great guy and if he was aware of all this, I'm sure he would help.

You're correct in that I didn't need to be so direct in my statement. However, I have made posts and/or responded to posts and he has made comments that I felt were harsh and rude. I could go back to earlier posts where I even stated that in the past.

Sometimes, just like with email, it's difficult to tell attitude and tone.

No harm intended.

Regards, Tony