Opinion: What is considered a player's first big league jersey?

[LastingsMilledge85]

Hi, I just wanted an opinion on what actually qualifies as a player's first big league jersey. Would it be the first jersey they wore in their first invitation to big league spring training, or the jersey they first wore on the day of their MLB debut?

[cubsWSchamps]

Taking out Minor league jerseys?

Id say reg season jersey, because usually its not garunteed theyre gonna make the team outta ST

[Fnazxc0114]

I would want the jersey the player wore on their big league debut. ST jerseys have very little value in my opinion.

[spartakid]

I would want the jersey the player wore on their big league debut. ST jerseys have very little value in my opinion.

+1

[shaunharr]

Definitely the jersey they wore for their MLB Debut

[cohibasmoker]

If a player signs a Professional Baseball contract, the first team they are assigned after they sign their contract.

Just an opinion,

Jim

[Dach0sen0ne]

I'd say the jersey they wear in their professional debut. It's when their professional stats start to count towards career totals. Just my opinion.

[Birdbats]

I could make an argument for either spring training or regular season. In the case of Albert Pujols, one of the most expensive jerseys I've seen sold was from the 2000 Arizona Fall League, worn prior to his first official spring training in the major league camp. It was an official Cardinals jersey with Pujols on the back and #36 front and back. I'm sure his first #68 jersey from 2001 spring training also would attract a hefty price. But, I'm equally sure the jersey he wore in his first regular-season game would be the most expensive of all.

Value aside, the question is, what's his first big league jersey? Does a player wear a "big league" jersey during spring training (assuming he's in the major league camp and not the minor league camp)? Absolutely. It's not a minor league jersey or something generic -- it's a big league jersey. Years ago, it might be a hand-me-down... but today, at least with the Cardinals, there is absolutely no difference between the spring jersey and the regular-season jersey (except maybe the presence of a year flag below the tag).

Flipside -- it's not a big league jersey unless it's a big league game, and spring games are mere exhibitions. So, a player's first big league jersey would be the one worn on opening day. Or, if he didn't play opening day, would it be the jersey he wore his first time in the field or at-bat? Hmm...

Certainly, the question is open to debate. Collectors are entitled to their own opinions, just as they are about whether uncracked bats are better than cracked ones, or whether game-used jerseys should be signed or not. If you want to call a guy's first spring training jersey his first big league jersey, you're not wrong. Nor would you be wrong calling his first regular-season game jersey his first big league jersey.

Though it strays from the original question in this thread, I do have a question for those who say spring training jerseys "have very little value": What exactly makes a jersey valuable? Is it the jersey itself? The fact it was worn by a certain player? Or the date it was worn? Personally, unless it was worn during a milestone game, I think the date is by far the least important of the factors. It strikes me odd that a shirt worn April 24 has value, but the exact same kind of shirt worn by the same guy on March 24 has "little value." I have a spring training Pujols home jersey with team LOA that is just hammered -- pilling, puckering, sweat stains under the pits, cut tails, etc. He probably wore it for every spring training home game in 2007. Does that have "little value" compared to, say, a jersey he wore once during a jersey-off-the-back promo? Just offering that for debate. I also could debate home vs. road vs. alt jerseys, but that's an entirely different can of worms.

[xpress34]

I could make an argument for either spring training or regular season. In the case of Albert Pujols, one of the most expensive jerseys I've seen sold was from the 2000 Arizona Fall League, worn prior to his first official spring training in the major league camp. It was an official Cardinals jersey with Pujols on the back and #36 front and back. I'm sure his first #68 jersey from 2001 spring training also would attract a hefty price. But, I'm equally sure the jersey he wore in his first regular-season game would be the most expensive of all.

Value aside, the question is, what's his first big league jersey? Does a player wear a "big league" jersey during spring training (assuming he's in the major league camp and not the minor league camp)? Absolutely. It's not a minor league jersey or something generic -- it's a big league jersey. Years ago, it might be a hand-me-down... but today, at least with the Cardinals, there is absolutely no difference between the spring jersey and the regular-season jersey (except maybe the presence of a year flag below the tag).

Flipside -- it's not a big league jersey unless it's a big league game, and spring games are mere exhibitions. So, a player's first big league jersey would be the one worn on opening day. Or, if he didn't play opening day, would it be the jersey he wore his first time in the field or at-bat? Hmm...

Certainly, the question is open to debate. Collectors are entitled to their own opinions, just as they are about whether uncracked bats are better than cracked ones, or whether game-used jerseys should be signed or not. If you want to call a guy's first spring training jersey his first big league jersey, you're not wrong. Nor would you be wrong calling his first regular-season game jersey his first big league jersey.

Though it strays from the original question in this thread, I do have a question for those who say spring training jerseys "have very little value": What exactly makes a jersey valuable? Is it the jersey itself? The fact it was worn by a certain player? Or the date it was worn? Personally, unless it was worn during a milestone game, I think the date is by far the least important of the factors. It strikes me odd that a shirt worn April 24 has value, but the exact same kind of shirt worn by the same guy on March 24 has "little value." I have a spring training Pujols home jersey with team LOA that is just hammered -- pilling, puckering, sweat stains under the pits, cut tails, etc. He probably wore it for every spring training home game in 2007. Does that have "little value" compared to, say, a jersey he wore once during a jersey-off-the-back promo? Just offering that for debate. I also could debate home vs. road vs. alt jerseys, but that's an entirely different can of worms.


+1

I'll even throw another 'wrench' into the works if you will...

I have two jerseys which should help make my point (and highlight some of Jeff's).

The 1st is Matt Holliday's ST 2000 Jersey. It is his 1st 'Big League' Jersey (IMO) because it was his 1st MLB Spring Training (meaning he was invited to MLB Camp - not Minor League Camp) and even he Rockies 2000 'Guide' states as much on Matt's information page. Matt didn't make his MLB Debut until April 16, 2004 (he was signed in July of 1998) - 4 years later. To me, this jersey is significant as his number (84) in ST 2000 shows where his placement was in the pecking order at that time for the Rockies. I'm pretty certain that many if not most of the guys wearing numbers 50 something to 83 are probably no longer in baseball (MLB or MiLB) so it also shows that early stats, draft position, etc are not always right.

Matt is a rising star and this jersey is definately rarer than any Regular Season Rockies jerseys he has worn and it has NOT been altered or passed down and it has Rockies LOA/COA to serve as provenance as well.

The 2nd is Michael McKenry's MLB Debut Jersey from 2010. It is truly his 1st 'Big League' Jersey, because McKenry has now had PAs, ABs and even started a game at the MLB level, yet previously he had not received an MLB invite to ST - just MiLB - so his 1st MLB ST jersey will come AFTER his MLB Debut.

I think WHEN the player's 1st MLB ST is in relation to their MLB Debut is a significant factor in determining value, etc.


Just my .02

- Smitty

[rj_lucas]

I would expect anything with a ‘first’ in it to command a premium, whether it’s a first Spring Training jersey or first jersey worn in a regular season game. I suppose it’s a bit of a subjective issue when comparing one first to another.

I’m familiar with the Pujols AFL jersey Jeff mentioned :) and while one could argue whether or not it represents Pujols’ first ‘major league’ jersey, as his first Cardinals jersey there’s a significant historical premium associated with it.

The real challenge (and value) can be in proving that an item was actually the ‘first’ of its kind. In the case of the Pujols jersey, for example, I think a lot of the value can be attributed to the documentation surrounding it e.g. only one home/road jersey issued, photo matched, featured on rookie cards, etc.

These days, you can count on MLB to do the heavy lifting for you, a la Stephen Strasburg or Bryce Harper. Every first will be tracked. But the further back you go, the tougher it can be to build your case.

Rick
rickjlucas@gmail.com

[sellingmygamers]

Everyone has a great opinion but I have to agree with Rick and the "first". I think someones first minor league jersey, someone's first spring training jersey, someones first mlb jersey, first hit/g.s./stolen base jersey could all help in value of their jersey's over a regular mass produced MLB gamer. I think the minor league jersey's (IMO) should be worth more with the right LOA's as there is usually only one home and one away jersey per # per year at the least but usually more.
Just my 2 cents

Cheers