Upper Deck credibility

[Birdbats]

I think Upper Deck has always enjoyed a certain amount of credibility among collectors. But after seeing this card, the company has lost almost all credibility with me:



I can cut collectors some slack because not everyone knows about sites like this one. But, a company like Upper Deck should know by now that Pujols does not and has not used Mizuno bats in Major League games. The back of the card says, "On the front of this card is a piece of memorabilia that has been certified to us as having been used in an official Major League Baseball game." If it was used, it wasn't used by Pujols.

Some poor soul paid $800 for this card on eBay:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260360519054&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1123

If Upper Deck is hacking up Mizuno Pujols bats and calling them game-used, you have to wonder about the other "game-used" pieces they're putting on their cards. I guess if I can take any comfort from seeing this, it's knowing that a legit Pujols bat wasn't destroyed and glued to cardboard.

Maybe Upper Deck should stick to the autograph business, where they can witness signatures in person. Interestingly, Pujols currently is under contract to UDA. Maybe their reps should ask him about Mizuno bats the next time they get together. I know multiple people who have asked Albert about this, including the head of his foundation, and the answer has always been the same -- he has not used Mizuno in a regular season game.

For the record, I have one photo of Pujols using a Mizuno bat. It was taken during spring training 2001 and the bat was a Ray Lankford model. No photo has ever surfaced to contradict Pujols' claim about using Mizuno during the regular season.

[gameu08]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

is it possible to piece together a game used bat using baseball cards?

just a thought mike

[bigtruck260]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

Hey Jeff!

It's not the first time I have seen something from UD that was pasted to a card that was probably never used in a game ...note this Edmonds store model bat card.

I am guessing that baseball card collectors are probably more interested in the rarity of their card. I mean, for the price some of these cards reach, you could by 2-3 WHOLE game used bats of some players. In this instance, I have seen WHOLE Mizuno (BP used and listed) for less than $800.

I no longer put much stock in cards. They are becoming to diluted and uninteresting...it's no longer about pulling the players you like - it's been more about seeing a dude on the floor of Target bending packs and even opening some - to get a card like this one...Instead of keeping it as a treasure, it's listed immediately on eBay. There, off my soapbox.

[David]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

UDA's in person autograph system is top notch, but in other areas they've made some mistakes. They've made mistakes in areas where they gather memorabilia from other sources (ala bats and old autographs).

[otismalibu]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

Let's just say I don't lose any sleep worrying that UDA has destroyed any historic jerseys in their little swatch card program.

This little swatch was worn by HOFer...

Sure it was.

And I just bought some Elvis hair from BRSZ.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

"Upper Deck has changed their practice of using materials that they certify as being "Worn" by the player depicted on the front of the card. The changes in wording on the backs of the cards now make it less clear as to how the materials were used, or if it had been worn by the player or anyone at all.

• EXAMPLE: Steve Nash card 2004... (Back of card) "On the front of this card is an authentic piece of a jersey WORN by Steve Nash as a member of the Dallas Mavericks in an NBA game".

• EXAMPLE: Jermaine O'Nealcard 2006 Exquisite...(Back of card) "On the front of this is a piece of memorabilia that has been certified to us as having been USED in an NBA game".

Upper Deck also has removed from the front of the cards the word "Jersey" in game used cards. Upper Deck no longer acknowledges exactly what kind of material it is that they have inserted in the card, nor how it was used, and has eliminated the wording that it was actually worn by the player pictured on the front of the card."

the new language seems to be an effort for upper deck to absolve themselves. it's gone from "this is game worn" to "someone told us this is game worn".

as i understand it, in acquiring pieces from the secondary market, the card companies had no expertise so they depended on "experts".

unfortunately, i think some of these experts saw it as a golden opportunity to flip dubious pieces, at a premium, to a completely unknowledgable buyer. it must be a dream for someone who's gone around marketing themselves as a "foremost expert on everything" to land the biggest, stupidest, richest fish out there: a card company with more money than brains, without a clue as to authenticity or even market prices, willing to accept anything you give them and lacking any ability to question any of it. i think that explains why some of these card pieces, like the pujols mizuno, are so egregious.

while we're on this particular topic and upper deck, here's an interesting tale of dave bushing acquiring a glove for upper deck that didn't turn out as advertised: https://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_...ad.php?t=16205

"The Upper Deck trading card company paid $34,500 for the glove that September day in 1999, then awarded it to the winner of a promotional contest, who in turn placed the glove in a 2001 Robert Edward Auction sale. It turned up again in a 2002 auction conducted by MastroNet..Doug Allen says he asked the buyer to return the glove in 2003, after a knowledegable collector who had been reviewing old catalogues notified the company about a potential problem...After determining the glove wasn't manufactured until the 1950s, MastroNet says it reimbursed its customer...To anybody who knows anything about gloves, it's black-and-white," Clevenhagen says. "This glove was made in the '50s."
Upper Deck spokesman Don Williams says the company relied on Bushing's expertise before it bought the glove. Bushing, who also bid on behalf of the company when it spent $332,500 at the Halper sale for a Ty Cobb jersey, assured the company the glove was genuine, Williams says. "We acted on the advice of Bushing and Sotheby's."
"These guys aren't qualified," Esken says. "They spend more time marketing themselves as experts than doing research."

in all seriousness, are there any glove collectors who view dave bushing as a "glove expert"? what made upper deck think bushing knows about gloves? (had they gone to someone who genuinely knows about gloves like esken they would've avoided the whole mess). and apparently six-figure ty cobb jerseys? glove expert, jersey expert, bat expert, vintage flannel expert. whatever it takes to pay the bills i guess. i wonder if he can deduce the source of my dog's arthritis. i'm betting for the right price he'd say he could.

rudy.

[allstarsplus]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

Go back to the archives and see how many Pujols Mizuno bats have been questioned before. I remember these bats all over eBay. I think Rob Steinmetz set everybody straight on these so I know it has been discussed.

I don't know if Upper Deck is to blame if they bought it from a source that has been certified to UD as having been used in an official Major League Baseball game, but they could certainly do a better job of due dilligence.

I think Eric started a thread on many of the questionable "game used" cards. Throw that one in the pile.

[thomecollector]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

I agree totally. I have a perfect example of the UD card trickery. I have a 2007 Game Used Jim Thome Negro League uniform. They put out a bunch of cards picturing the uniform with swatches of what are supposed to be from the uniform. Turns out they are not. They are from some jersey pants worn at some point. I read the back of them, and learned of the generic wording they now use. So I sold the whole set. Except the autos'.

[Nnunnari]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

Who cares? This is a good thing, they're not cutting up legitimate game used items. This should make everybody happy.

[xpress34]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

While your on the topic of 'questionable origin' of items, I feel this is as good a time as any to bring up a piece I noticed recently - and I literally almost laughed my @$$ of the chair...

I was watching an internet clip of some so called 'expert' at either GAI or PSA/DNA or whoever and they were talking about the authenticity of an autograph on a ball...

Their 'expert' reason for claiming it to be false had nothing to do with what League President was on the ball - or whether the Spalding or Reach Logo had one or two rings around it (all basic identifiers of the years a ball was made) - but rather that it had been (and I have to put this in BOLD) MACHINE STITCHED not hand stitched.

Again, I bring up my prior association with Rawlings and I ask - who here knows how many balls a machine can stitch in an hour? A FAST worker in Costa Rica can stitch all 108 stitches by hand in about 8 minutes or so... so they can make roughly 7 - 8 balls an hour.

A machine can stitch - 0... that's right ZERO balls an hour... there is not a machine made that can stitch the unique 'v' pattern on a ball while rolling it through a figure eight pattern... part of it is because the cover (other than a light coat of glue to hold it in place for stitching) is only 'attached' to the ball where the thread is 'anchored' in the core and then again where the final stitches are put back through giving the ball it's continuous seam appearance.

I use to stitch 3 balls a night at the Making the game booth to show how they're made.

So yes, there are a LOT of so called 'experts' out there that wouldn't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground.

- Chris

[Rboitano]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

I seen a Erstad bat card that was a LVS with no model number, clearly a promo bat that they had cut up and put into little cards. Makes me wonder why people collect cards these days, the cards have no character.

[xpress34]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

So if Upper Deck is just buying stuff to make GU cards, I'm sitting on a GOLD MINE...

I had mentioned I won this item in another thread, but here are pics of the actual item!!!

A Rawlings Baseball Uniform Flannel Sample book from 1951!!! If I was like some of the guys making their fake patch cards and such on eBay, I could make a fortune! Each swatch is about 6.5" x 4" - meaning I could make approx 24 - 1" x 1" squares per swatch... x 22 swatches = 528 squares!!!

Actually, these is a VERY cool piece and now that it has been disassembled and scanned, it's going into the showcase...

With no further ado - the pics:

The Cover



Inside Cover:



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 1 :



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 2:



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 3:



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 4:



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 5: (with old Hang Tag)



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 6:



Home White & Road Pearl Grey 7:



Yale Grey 1 & 2:



Yale Grey 3 & 4:



Pearl Grey w/ Pinstripes & Steel Grey:



White w/ Pinstripes 1 & 2:



Hope you all enjoy!!!

- Chris

[jppopma]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

I had also hear rumors before that back when Upper Deck was using the real jerseys, that they would just trim the jersey. Good news to know they were not detroyed, bad news if you pick up a jersey claimed to have been "trimmed by the player". This would make sense when you think of how many 1x1 swatches you can cut out of a jersey, compare to how many of these limited number jersey cards were being produced.

Now it seems overly produced to get the jersey cards. They may as well use Zubaz jerseys so that everything will be four color, with patches all over it. And then have one player wear the size 64 thing for two seconds and cut it into 1,000's of pieces of "player worn memorabilia". I know it's an extreeme, but who knows it could be even further than that.

[sammy]

Re: Upper Deck credibility

An update on Upper Deck items.

http://www.autographalert.com/news.html