(I almost posted again to let you know that the ‘sweetie pie’ was used 'cause I didn’t feel like scanning up to see your screen name, I didn’t mean anything by it).
now, to your point:
:rolleyes: it was a team jersey. big deal. one of probably a half dozen or so he had, and wore in rotation. One just like (only a different size/number) all the other ones in his team.
sorry, I still am not getting that this particular piece of cloth has any real significance, except to rabid sports nuts.
Well, whether or not you “get it”, it does. I’m not a sports nut, Zenster isn’t a sports nut, I’m guessing Guin isn’t painting her face for the World Series. And yet we all feel it has significance and that it was better in one piece.
Why is a book more important that a shirt?
Zenster mentioned he was a sports nut.
but I digress.
I pointed this out already:
The shirt is only important to people because of who owned it. The book has importance, a place in history 'cause of itself.
and not every book has importance. I dare say that an ‘original’ harlequin romance of 1980 has no more significance (except to it’s author) than any other random piece of paper.
you’ve not answered my questions - why not save his undershirt??? his socks? his bowler hat that he wore to the stadium each day?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zenster *
**Again, anyone who knows me should be fully aware of how little enthusiasm I have for organized sports, especially professional sports.
I’ve got nothing about Babe Ruth, or baseball. He can have his very own museum (assuming he doesn’t already) for all I care; heck, he probably deserves ones. But that doesn’t change the fact that there is nothing intrinsicly valuable about this jersey. It is not different from the ones already in existence. It is not terribly different from those of his teammates, which were probably scrapped unceremoniously. The shirt has nothing whatsoever to do with our culture. Baseball and Babe Ruth are what contributed to our culture. Celebrate the man, and his achievements, not his freakin’ clothes.
I am not blind to the importance of artifacts in discovering our history or linking us to our cultural past or whatever other phrases one might want to come up with in order to explain why this shirt is put on such a pedestal (or, rather, why it apparently should be). I just don’t see that any of them apply to this shirt. Babe Ruth is not some mystery figure about which we little. We have tons of information about him, and this particular pice of clothing adds squat to that picture. It has sentimental value to people for whatever reason, and little more. UNLIKE the first-edition books or the Declaration of Independence that have previously been mentioned. The original DoI is important because it is the original. If there is any conflict about what was really said in the document, we can point to the original: just read it for yourself. Same thing with the first edition books. Often, authors modify their thoughts based on a variety of factors in subsequent editions; the first edition shows the historical root of those thoughts which were made public. There is nothing special about this Babe Ruth jersey aside from the fact that, like several others, he wore it. This is akin to collectors wanting a piece of some rock star’s smashed guitar just because, you know, he played it!
Again, I don’t see anything historical about the jersey. You want to claim sentimental value, fine. But then you also have to realize that not everyone shares the same sentiments about, well, anything.
I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that would need this difference explained.
I’ve aleady answered about his socks. His undershirt and bowler were not worn during the game. It’s not part of the game. Sports fans love jerseys. The buy them and wear them all the time.
The reason you don’t see shirts of other players on his team is exactly the same as the reason a first edition of the Harlequin romance writer you mentioned isn’t of value. Which leads me to believe that on some level, you do understand Babe Ruth and things associated with his game being of importance.
So what would you do with Shakespeare’s pen? Do you think they should get some boxes and pack up Ernest Hemingway’s crap and sell the house?
Shakespere’s pen? how on earth would we know? and no, I don’t think so. ditto Hemingway.
but original manuscripts, yep.
the jersey is merely something he wore while he was doing something important.
By all means, forgive me for my insolence. I will help you. Some reasons people have given for thinking Babe Ruth’s jersey is useless is because it adds nothing to history. You can learn nothing from it. So what can you learn from a first-edition book that you can’t learn from it’s 100th printing?
Darwin’s Finch has just added comments suggesting that a 1st edition book may contain different text than reprints. That sounds good to me. But can it possibly be that all collectors of 1st edition books are reading them and checking against later editions to note any differences? Or could it be that they’re very enthusiastic about certain authors and ~gasp!~ are sentimentally collecting valuable copies of their books because it’s just really a neat thing to have?
So are you saying that Hemingway’s house in Key West is a ridiculous waste? Have you been? How about the Ford and Einstein estatesin Ft. Myers Florida? If you haven’t you’re mssing out. They’re very cool.
Bottom line, people love cultural figures, both recent and ancient, and want to be able to have some connection with them. People know his stats and his story by heart, but they also want something tangible. Since trotting out his bones is out, fans of Babe Ruth must settle for his jersey. No, it’s not particularly educational (although it does show the different style of uniform used at the time, which is sort of interesting), but good lord, to not understand why a shirt is of more value than a pile if 1 inch squares of unrecognizable fabric is just obtuse. I’m not saying that it’s a holy relic or that shirts should replace books in schools and libraries throughout the land. But since there are only three of them, perhaps chopping one up is not in the best interest of the fans of today or of future generations. This suggestion is not that much of a stretch of the imagination.
Sorry, Edison, not Einstein!
I’m with you and Guin and Zenster here, DeskMonkey, and I’m also no sports fan.
Look: It’s a combination of things that make this an interesting part of history–the fact that the Babe wore it (look at how big it is, look at the style of the shirt, look at how long the arms are, etc.). The style and cut of the shirt is interesting as well. (I dabble a little in sewing, so I love to see clothing and costumes and inspect the cut and the seams, etc.) As has been mentioned before, such an item is interesting on many levels. And it was Babe Ruth’s. He’s so famous that even I (a totally non-sports fan) knows about him.
Sure, there are other shirts out there that were made at the same time, that are just as old, but they ain’t Babe Ruth’s.
I don’t know how else to explain it. People assign value and interest to things all the time. But, when it comes right down to it, they are just things. An old moldy book is a thing, that you either value or you don’t. If the information on that book is readily available elsewhere, why should the old moldy book hold any value? 'Cause it does, that’s all. And same here. ::shrug::
I daresay that there will be people who would value Babe Ruth’s jersey (intact, in a museum) far more than some old moldy book or old moldy document. Good thing that such apathy about things like old moldy books and old moldy documents is not universally adopted.
I also think that the shirt shouldn’t be cut up. There are only 3 in existence. That is a pretty small number. Cut one up and have a fire at the Baseball Hall of Fame and you are down to one. Not to mention, it would be kind of nice if one was at the Smithsonian. Baseball is a very big part of America to many people. They don’t just see it as a sport, but as one of things that makes us who we are.
Lastly, anyone who thinks these cards are going to go for a dollar a pack hasn’t bought baseball cards in quite a while. I don’t think any cards sell for a dollar anymore. With something like this in the packs, my guess is that they sell for at least $3-5 a pack. If every 15th pack has one of these swatches, someone is going to make a hell of a lot of money on something that belongs in a museum, IMO.
I’m back with my so-called cite to address the economics of the issue - the opinion of a friend who is in the sports memorabilia business.
In response to the question of “What’s in it for Donruss / how can they make money at this?” he says
so yah, looks like it is a money grab for Donruss.
Well, firstly, who the fuck are you to be ashamed for me? You don’t like my opinion, that’s your right, but you have no claim to be ashamed on my behalf.
Secondly, i’m well aware that history is more than just archaeology; i made that quite clear in my previous post. And i also concede that people attach cultural value to items like Ruth’s shirt, and that the cultural significance of such items helps give people a sense of community, or of attachment to the past, or whatever. I don’t deny the significance of such artifacts.
Furthermore, i think the people who cut the shirt up are selfish morons who are more interested in their own gain than in any cultural significance that the shirt might have. I just don’t see that the cutting up of this shirt is the end of the world. It’s not like the memory of Babe Ruth is short of historical memorials and museums and websites and books and other cultural sites.
And what Darwin’s Finch said, too.
You’re absolutely correct. I’ve been to see the original Declaration, and i admit to a certain thrill in seeing such an important document right there in front of me. But if i were given the choice of destroying the document itself, or the principles and ideals that it represents, then that piece of paper would be burning in no time. While the original is interesting enough, its the ideas contained within that have the most significance for me.
Same with the book-burning analogy that so many people are torturing to death. If a few lunatic whack-jobs decide to hold their own little book burning in the center of their town, then, apart from the waste of resources, i don’t care too much as long as the stuff they’re burning is available elsewhere. If, however, such a burning destroys all copies of a particular book so the ideas represented inside are lost forever, then that is a real tragedy.
This is a rather interesting argument from someone who was making such a strong case for intellectual and other property rights in a recent thread. After all, the idea of ownership in a capitalist society extends to Babe Ruth’s baseball shirt as much as it does to your paintings, and just because you and a few other people feel that the shirt is more valuable in a museum does not mean that the current owner of that shirt is obliged to agree with you.
There are plenty of arguments that can be made for preserving an item such as this shirt, but if you’re someone who believes in the sanctity of private property and the rights of a person to do what they will with their possessions, then it seems a bit hypocritical to be telling other people what they should and should not be doing with somoething that they own. How would you like it if someone walked into your house and started pointing to your stuff and telling you that it must be removed to a museum and that, despite the fact that you paid for it, you had no right to deprive the American public of access to it?
Can you point out the LOGICAL fallacy of my argument? I maintain the difference in destroying the DoI and the jersey is a matter of DEGREE, not KIND. Whether " the government would do something" to protect the DoI is immaterial. The government has no more LOGICAL (as opposed to emotional) reason to protect a privately-owned copy of the DoI than it does a collectible Care Bears Lunchbox.
No, you are wrong. Your approach is, if I understand it correctly, that all items are of equal historical value. You claim that there is no logical difference between preserving the DoI and a lunchbox. That simply is not the case. My used toliet paper, for example, is unlikely to be of any use to future historians, and certainly does not belong in a museum. More over, even if I were famous, my used toliet paper would still not be of value to historians. The difference between the original DoI and used toliet paper is not simply an emotional one, nor is the decision to preserve one and not the other.
The same holds true for lunchboxes. The fact that the Smythsonian may have a large collection of lunchboxes does not elevate the preservation of lunchboxes to the same level as the DoI. I feel confident that in the event of a crisis, every possible effort would be made to preserve the DoI, not so much with the lunchbox. That decision would not simply be emotional.
You are presenting a straw man argument, namely that if you are against the preservation of Babe Ruth’s jersey (or more accurately, not upset about its owner cutting it up) then you cannnot logically be in favor of the preservation of the DoI.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a book, a shirt, a painting or whatever.
It’s a historically significant item. It’s rare. It was destroyed so that someone could make a profit.
That’s fucked up.
BTW, check your usage of “straw man.”
It’s just something that some long-dead famous guy touched years and years ago. There’ve been a million similar things made, many of them direct replicas) since then. Hell, the hard-core fans probably have one that’s practically indistinguishable from the original. Everyone who gives two shits about it already knows what it looks like and probably could tell you every details about it from memory.
So, I’d have to say I’m all for smashing David and selling the chunks on eBay.
Look folks, just cuz you don’t care, don’t mean other people don’t. You choose to draw the line at a famous ballplayer’s jersey. We don’t. It’s not that hard to deal with. Really.