Let’s see: last year sold at auction for $3,000,000 + .
This year: the world’s most expensive paperweight.
Anyone have an guess what it’s worth now?
I’ll trade you this McGuire 70th home run ball, and his 67th for your Barry Bonds 73rd homer ball…
In retrospect, one would think twice about buying that ball. Then again, in retrospect, people would do a lot of junk. Who knew the record would be broken just three years after it was set? That’s right, no one.
Actually, considering that there were two contenders for it that year, plus plenty of potential contenders, the odds of that record standing for long were pretty slim. I thought it was dumb when some bozo paid $200,000 for it in '98. Three million is just plain stupid.
Am I mistaken to remember that Scott McFarlane, of Spawn fame, was the chump who paid out that much for the erstwhile HR-record ball?
Yeah it was the spawn guy but isn’t his name Tod?
Wait a minute, wait a minute…how is Mark McGwire’s SEVENTIETH home run ball worth so much in the first place? Everyone knows that it was the 62nd…and only the 62nd…that’s really worth something. That’s because it broke a record previously thought unassailable. (You could also make a case for Sammy Sosa’s 62nd, since technically it broke the record as well; he was just unfortunate that one person outdid him.)
Yes, three million is way too much for the 70th…as it would have been for the 69th, 68th, 67th, etc. 62 is the one that matters. The rest are just gravy.
His name is Tod, and I’m sure right now he’s very very sad.
–Cliffy
I too shared this belief. Apparently it isn’t the case. I asked through an acquaintence in the sports memorabilia market in Houston whether the record breaker or final record setter was the big ticket item. He told me it was the final ball that always sold for more. My inquiry was based on Hank Aaron’s all-time HR record. I thought 715 would have been the more valuable as we all remember the footage of him hitting that one (the poor guy who charged the field will forever be remembered as the guy in the ascott). Yet, it is the 75)ish ball that holds the greater value.
I was suprised. Who remembers seeing #70 by Mac? Who remembers watching #62? Yet, it is 70 that is worth more on the market. Of course, Todd owns most of them anyway.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by watsonwil *
**
[QUOTEI asked through an acquaintence in the sports memorabilia market in Houston whether the record breaker or final record setter was the big ticket item. He told me it was the final ball that always sold for more. My inquiry was based on Hank Aaron’s all-time HR record. I thought 715 would have been the more valuable as we all remember the footage of him hitting that one (the poor guy who charged the field will forever be remembered as the guy in the ascott). Yet, it is the 75)ish ball that holds the greater value.**[/QUOTE]
I’ve wondered this myself, so I’m glad to see this thread. I’m not sure your Hank Aaron analogy is a good one, though; #715 went into the Braves bullpen (retrieved by a Braves pitcher named Tom House, IIRC), so it was probably returned to Hank, and never found its way onto the open market.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by jsc1953 *
**
Probably. But I think he was just giving me an estimation of what would happen if both balls wnet on the market.
(And I may be mistaken, but isn’t there a famous ball that someone caught in the bullpen but wouldn’t give it to the hitter. I seem to think that might have been Hank Aaron’s FINAL HR. He snuck into line at a Hank Aaron signing to get the ball autographed. The incident was spoofed on Arliss.)
Of course, Bonds had a good statement. When asked by his son if they were going to try to get the ball, he said [paraphrase] “that thing is probably on eBay by now” [/paraphrase].
The reporters ask him if he had anything to say to the man who caught it. He replied “Congratulations.”
I hate it when Mulit-millionaires get indignant when some poor schlub in the bleachers who had to pay 3 times the face value of the ticket wants to make some money. I give some credit to Barry.
{sniff…sniff…}
Smells like a locker room in here.
I’m gonna knock this one out of the park, and over to IMHO.
I don’t see why people assume it was an investment. I think he’s just a baseball fan and wanted the ball. He’s got all the money he’ll ever need.
I think $3,000,000 is too much, but it still was the ball that set the new record.
I imagine Ruth’s #60 or Maris’s #61 would still be valuable for a baseball fan, regardless that those are no longer the records.
Worst investment ever? Hardly. I’d rather have that than 3 mil worth of Yahoo bought in March of 2000.
Haj
Or how about some Iridium bonds?
Epistaxis - Good point. Anyone who spends three million on a ball, no matter how famous, isn’t looking for a profit. Believe it or not, there are some people out there who just want a piece of history and are willing to pay big bucks for it.
Hey, as a prominent member of the comic book industry, Tod McFarlane should know as well as anyone else how often these kind of “investments” fail to pan out.
Actually, I don’t think McFarland was looking to make a profit on the ball. He just wanted it. Afterwards, he put it on display and I suspect he’ll donate it to the Hall of Fame at one point.
I see the point of the posters saying it’s not an investment, it’s a piece of history". Still, it seems that even by those standards, it’s more likely to be a footnote than a enduring milestone.
Also re comparisons to Aaron’s and Ruth’s balls:eek:, didn’t MLB as of late put some sort of “official seal” on the ball to discourage fraud? And what happens when a player who’s gunning for the big record fouls one off into the stands. Whats to keep the recipient of an “official sealed” ball from trying to pass it off as the real deal?
The balls put in play when Bonds came to bat had both a sequential serial number, and an invisible mark (proof of authenticity). The plate umpire kept track of the number, so a foul ball would be known to be bearing the incorrect number.