zackmak
New Member, Must Send First
Card companies have a tendency of putting a jersey swatch (or stick, glove, etc piece) on cards without stating from what team/year it's from.
Actually, that's more the norm than not.
It's also more the norm that the memorabilia piece shown matches the athlete's jersey/era depicted on the actual card.
What I'm NOT a fan of, though, is when a memorabilia swatch doesn't match what is depicted on the card.
Even though I'm sure most times it's obvious to the average holder of the card what team/era the actual piece is from, it doesn't make the card more appealing, in my opinion.
But sometimes the game-used swatch is so unclear as to where EXACTLY it came from, that it leaves the card holder more annoyed.
But it could ALSO offer some cool potential!
The reason for this thread is to focus on Gretzky, and specifically on one of his cards.
Regarding game-used sticks...when a person or company buys one, I can't believe EVERY stick is marked or advertised with an exact date/game that it was used in. Sometimes just the year is indicated. Or not at all.
On that note, then, if an Easton silver stick was sold as a game-used Gretzky stick used in 1996, how can anyone prove with 100% that it wasn't used by him in a St. Louis game? (photo proof shows he used Easton during his Blues playing days)
The 2014-15 UD Masterpiece St. Louis art card, which has a swatch of an Easton Aluminum stick...who's to say that it cannot be a St. Louis stick (no different than someone can also say it could be from a game in LA or NY)? The back of the card only says that it was used by Gretzky.
Shouldn't the possibility of this being a St. Louis stick on a St. Louis Gretzky card make the card highly desirable?
And can't we - with all things considered - simply take that specific card at face value (i.e. a gu Easton stick on a St.Louis Gretzky card implies that it's a St. Louis gu stick) and treat it as such? Especially since it's the only one to date?
Aside from the idea that Upper Deck would PROBABLY have announced it on the card that it was from a St. Louis stick (since it would be a much-sought after card)...there's also the blatant fact that Upper Deck doesn't always announce where a gu swatch is from.
Or, there's always the possibility that they bought a game-used Gretzky Easton stick from somewhere/someone with the believability that it was authentic...but without the seller being able to confirm what team/year it was from. Hence, it could be from when he played in either St. Louis, LA, or NY.
Actually, that's more the norm than not.
It's also more the norm that the memorabilia piece shown matches the athlete's jersey/era depicted on the actual card.
What I'm NOT a fan of, though, is when a memorabilia swatch doesn't match what is depicted on the card.
Even though I'm sure most times it's obvious to the average holder of the card what team/era the actual piece is from, it doesn't make the card more appealing, in my opinion.
But sometimes the game-used swatch is so unclear as to where EXACTLY it came from, that it leaves the card holder more annoyed.
But it could ALSO offer some cool potential!
The reason for this thread is to focus on Gretzky, and specifically on one of his cards.
Regarding game-used sticks...when a person or company buys one, I can't believe EVERY stick is marked or advertised with an exact date/game that it was used in. Sometimes just the year is indicated. Or not at all.
On that note, then, if an Easton silver stick was sold as a game-used Gretzky stick used in 1996, how can anyone prove with 100% that it wasn't used by him in a St. Louis game? (photo proof shows he used Easton during his Blues playing days)
The 2014-15 UD Masterpiece St. Louis art card, which has a swatch of an Easton Aluminum stick...who's to say that it cannot be a St. Louis stick (no different than someone can also say it could be from a game in LA or NY)? The back of the card only says that it was used by Gretzky.
Shouldn't the possibility of this being a St. Louis stick on a St. Louis Gretzky card make the card highly desirable?
And can't we - with all things considered - simply take that specific card at face value (i.e. a gu Easton stick on a St.Louis Gretzky card implies that it's a St. Louis gu stick) and treat it as such? Especially since it's the only one to date?
Aside from the idea that Upper Deck would PROBABLY have announced it on the card that it was from a St. Louis stick (since it would be a much-sought after card)...there's also the blatant fact that Upper Deck doesn't always announce where a gu swatch is from.
Or, there's always the possibility that they bought a game-used Gretzky Easton stick from somewhere/someone with the believability that it was authentic...but without the seller being able to confirm what team/year it was from. Hence, it could be from when he played in either St. Louis, LA, or NY.
