Money Grubbing Shitheads Slice and Dice a Piece of History

In an age where we are deluged with media, it is almost impossible to convey the status Babe Ruth had in his time. Take Michael Jordan, Larry Bird plus Wilt Chamberlain all rolled into one, toss in Barry Bonds and Mark M[sup]c[/sup]Guire, then add Tiger Woods just for fun. Only then would you begin to approach the immense popularity that Ruth enjoyed. The Bambino’s status as a cultural and sports icon remains to this day. No one has yet to eclipse Ruth’s .847 batting average. To further elaborate, it is an un-numbered jersey from the earliest times of Ruth’s career and baseball in general.

One must also consider the popularity of radio broadcast baseball before the last mid-century. Again, you would have to combine numerous current top television shows like ER, Survivor and (aptly) American Idol to obtain similar audience numbers. People would crowd around the radio (equivalent to a television back then) and breathlessly follow an announcer’s play-by-play of the game. Anyone from the television generation will be almost entirely unable to comprehend this notion.

My mention of the da Vinci codex is to illustrate valid methods of redistributing intact works to better enhance public awareness. I make no effort to equate precise value. Just as (I’m sure) the collector quoted in the linked article who made mention of the Declaration of Independence did not intend to either. Seeing this part of America’s collective cultural memory carved up like a lunchtime ham bodes ill for our future as a nation. Sadly, collectors and fans will snap up these now worthless fragments. Their willingness to participate in the plunder of America’s legacy does not speak well of what future generations shall inherit from today’s attitudes. The shards of needlessly destroyed artifacts are poor substitutes for a coherent vision of history.

In closing, I’ll add that I find it extremely telling how other people like myself who could give a rip about organized sports have nonetheless chimed in about how wrong this is.

I’m afraid you’ll have to help me out, and point out where i said that you should feel the same way that i do. As far as i can tell, i and the others who don’t care very much about the shirt have just been pointing out the reasons why we don’t; i’ve never suggested that everyone does or should bfeel the same way.

On the other hand, i’ve been told by at least one person in this thread that they are “surprised and ashamed” by my attitude. Maybe it’s you lot who are taking this too seriously, and should learn to “deal with” other people’s attitudes.

sorry, Zen - I misremembered your line.

In any event, I still don’t share your anguish about a uniform once worn by somebody, even if that somebody is Babe Ruth.

Once again, I feel I must point out the fact that the “appeal” of the original DoI is a logical one: it is the ultimate reference for the ideas contained therein. Transcription errors can occur when copying documents. Bias can creep into any analysis. Without a primary reference, it becomes almost impossible to sort out what was actually put into writing. Sort of like the whole “grapevine” thing: when we start seeing “purple monkey dishwasher” in analyses of the DoI, we may suspect there are problems with those analyses. Look, for example, at the many complaints about the KJV (or any other) translation of the Bible. Most scholars prefer to look to the original documents to determine what was written.

If these original documents are lost, then the effect is much greater than simply losing on old piece of paper. We lose a point of reference, as well. Comparing Babe Ruth’s jersey to the Declaration of Independence is comparing apples to antelopes.

Rhum Runner, I am not saying, “Think of the children.” I am saying, think of the people who would want a chance to see an artifact like that-and now cannot.

Oh, and if that’s your opinion of Fred Rogers, you don’t know jack squat! The man did more than just a TV show-come to Pittsburgh sometime, and you’ll see what historical importance he has to our community!

Yet, a hundred years or more from now, it maybe have significance. You just don’t know that, wring.

Hell, we had old, mass-produced toys from the fifties at the Heinz, yet I still had to handle them with gloves and pack them in enough foam to fill a car trunk. Old toys, newer than that jersey, and yet, they’re valuable. Imagine that. I’d dare say that this jersey would have been more valuable than the toy train I helped pack and move.

So why did I bother being so careful?

Go visit a museum. The vast majority of artifacts are, well, garbage.

One museum displays a piece of the hull from the Titanic. Why? It’s just a hunk of rusted metal.

so we should save everything, Guin? I’d say most emphatically not. (although you might think I agree if you saw my office)

Some things seem to have significance 'cause they’re just old. I understand that (to a point- archelogical digs and so on), other stuff 'cause of what it is (DoI).

but a sports figures’ jersey??? come on. I understand, for example that folks attach significance to ‘the’ ball that won ‘the big game’. but I just cannot for the life of me find significance to one team jersey, wherein the guy had (probably) dozens of 'em (to differentiate it from, say, the gowns worn by First ladies at inaugeral balls, which don’t interest me personally in the least, but at least it’s a ‘oneoffakind’ thing).

Should we run over to India to see if we can find one of Mother TEresa’s old habits???

Dude, you forgot the stepladder.

well, now, you see, a couple of thousand museums can have the “Here’s a swatch of one of Babe Ruth’s jersey” display! It’s a ‘win-win’ for all!

:smiley:

I think it’s just a shirt but I’ll echo lieu: I obviously think the sum of 2100 swatches of a sports jersey does not equal an intact one. Before you cut it up, there’s some intrisic value (however small). After cutting up, it’s just a rag. I think I’d throw it away if I got it, I hate that kind of stuff. Really, who gives a shit about a tiny piece of cloth?

Actually, Ruth’s best year batting average was .393 (.342 for his career). This number you’re referencing here is his best year’s slugging percentage.

And it was surpassed, in 2001, by Barry Bonds with a .863 slugging percentage. Though Ruth does still have, by far, the best career slugging percentage at .690 (#2, Ted Williams, is more than .050 behind).

Always a pleasure to have my lack of interest in sports confirmed by outside sources. Not that factuality is a bad thing, mind you.

[

[sup]EMPHASIS ADDED[/SUP]
The only point I was trying to make is that the man has a record that is still standing nearly one hundred years later. I doubt that few, if any, other athletes in recorded history will be able to make such a boast. Technically, neither could Babe, seeing as how he’s quite dead, but the point remains.

I find it hard to believe that Ruth was any more famous then Jordan, let alone all those other combined into him.

Has nothing to do with the thread though.

Okay, World Eater. Do you seriously think that 100,000 people will file by Jordan’s coffin or line the route of his burial cortege? The modern celebrities I cited will be fortunate if that many people combined show up when they all take their respective dirt naps.

Sure why not?

I would say Jordan is perhaps one of the top 5 most recognized people on the planet.

I’d have to disagree - Jordan may be more recognizable from his picture, but Babe Ruth’s name is known far and wide (hell, the man has a candy bar named after him!) Neither of the sports greats, though, would be in the top 5, IMHO. I’d go with George Washington, Robert Reagan, Diana of Wales, Elizabeth Taylor, and Brittany Spears (gag).

Actually, there is great dispute over the candy bar.[

The rest is shrouded in the sweet, sweet (Sierra) mists of time.

Well, if a fragment of the Titanic is still a historically valuable artifact, then a fragment of Babe Ruth’s jersey ought to still be a historically valuable artifact, no? So why are we arguing?

History… yes, it’s historical.

And until Donruss made this decision there is absolutely no way that a 12 year old kid with a passion for baseball could ever have owned a piece of that history.

Yes, yes many if not most of the pieces of this jersey are going to make their way back to sports fans with too much money and not enough sense who buy them for inflated prices on e-bay.

But if just one piece ends up in a kids hands who has just as vast an appreciation for Babe Ruth as Zenster claims to, then I’m happy with it.

Guinastasia, yes, it’s the destruction of an artifact, but there are two more identical to it under the proper preservation in museums.

But what if one of these ends up int the hands of a young Guinastasia wanna be? What if owning this historic artifact is the inspiration that drives them to become a world renouned historian (even a sports historian) themselves?

Maybe sometimes history doesn’t need to be perfectly preserved for the ages. Maybe sometimes it can be a good thing for a piece of history to be cut up into pieces and sent out into the hands of Joe Average.

I have an adults appreciation for Babe Ruth. I respect what he did on the baseball field and marvel at the sensation he created in a nation. But I’m not going to be buying baseball cards in hopes of owning a piece of history or making a killing on E-Bay.

Though when they go on sale I might just go down to my local sports/collectable store to watch the frenzy… and see how many fuzzy haired kids are in competing with the grown ups to buy a chance at owning a piece of Babe Ruth’s shirt.

Who knows… maybe the next Babe Ruth has been born, and he will tape that piece of shirt inside his locker, giving it a good luck rub before heading to the dugout.

The door has been opened, this piece of sports history is going to be on it’s way to anyone who wants to pay a couple of bucks to try and own one.

:confused:

Yes they can. The article clearly states that there are two other museums with intact jerseys. How is it that people can’t see this artifact?

Someone also mentioned (paraphrasing here) that they were interested in knowing how many of said jerseys would have to be around before they stopped being sacred. That was my thought too.

Every one here up in arms about the shirt would hate Johnny Rotten. He once purchased a lot of clothes worn by celebrity musicians. He placed them on a manaquin…
the torched the whole thing.

His feelings were that it’s silly to idolize clothing or something merely it was worn by a celebrity.

I am inclined to agree. That Jim Morrison’s famous leather pants no longer exist (as an example) does NOT take away from his music at all.

So what if they aren’t in a museum (or hard rock cafe). It’s just clothes.

Put me down as incredibly jealous. Im pretty sure I’d sell my first born for one of those. Well, Id sell the rights to name him/her. If you have any Lennon artwork, then Ill give up my first and second born.