Satchel Paige “69” Jersey Patch Photo Match!

[Juan Gris]

While doing one of my nightly eBay searches, I came across a beautiful Satchel Paige 4/4 National Treasures card with an intriguing patch. I was 99% sure I knew what the “69” on the patch signified (insert joke here) and immediately made an offer… after barely waiting for a response from the seller I broke down and hit the Buy It Now option.



Over the years I’ve been pretty good with photo matching my game used items such as bats and batting helmets. Searching through the usual places, I came to this Robert Edward Auctions listing for a "1969 Satchel Paige Atlanta Braves Game-Used Road Jersey": https://robertedwardauctions.com/au...l-paige-atlanta-braves-game-used-road-jersey/



Thankfully, the website has several high definition photos of the jersey, including a closeup of the strip tag located in the collar which reads “65 40 69”. Those numbers came from Paige wearing uniform #65 in a size 40 during the 1969 season. I didn’t see the photo match the first time around because of the tear between the “40” and “69”, but when I closely compared an image from the REA auction photo to the card patch, they are a conclusive match.



This jersey sold for $22,800 in 2018 and I’d be interested to know how many pieces Panini is holding back for future releases. The jersey fabric looks exactly like what they used for the 2020 Diamond Kings Satchel Paige game used cards which makes sense because the photo and team name are attributed to his 2-year tenure (1968-1969) with the Atlanta Braves.

Photo matching a card patch to any specific jersey, let alone something 50 years old and this historic, blows my mind. This will be staying in the PC forever.

 

[MrMet]

Very cool, and great detective work!


Sent from my iPhone using Freedom Card Board mobile app

 

[Randy Shields]

Congrats! That is a great jersey card and I concur, great detective work as well! No doubt about it that that is the same number from that Jersey. Nice Job!!

I can't help but wonder though since they're numbered to 4 if two of the other 4 have the numbers 40 and 65. That wouldn't account for all 3 of the remaining cards that are out there, but it would be interesting to see them!

I'm sure that you'll be keeping an eye out for them though!

 

[dano7]

That is amazing!!!!

 

[Juan Gris]

Very cool, and great detective work!


Sent from my iPhone using Freedom Card Board mobile app

Thank you, sir!

Congrats! That is a great jersey card and I concur, great detective work as well! No doubt about it that that is the same number from that Jersey. Nice Job!!

I can't help but wonder though since they're numbered to 4 if two of the other 4 have the numbers 40 and 65. That wouldn't account for all 3 of the remaining cards that are out there, but it would be interesting to see them!

I'm sure that you'll be keeping an eye out for them though!

Thanks! I was going to suggest they tried to cut the rest of the tag into 3 pieces but that would leave the 2/4 with almost nothing in the patch window. Not sure I'd go after any of the remaining 3 but I definitely hope to see how they turned out.

That is amazing!!!!

Thanks, dano!

 

[mrmopar]

Could just be the image qualities, but it appears the tag was slightly "restored" before being inserted into the card. I would agree that the other two numbers should pop up on low print run cards at some point.

 

[Juan Gris]

Could just be the image qualities, but it appears the tag was slightly "restored" before being inserted into the card. I would agree that the other two numbers should pop up on low print run cards at some point.

How exactly do you restore a 50 year old jersey patch to be inserted into a card? The strip tag was torn to the left of the 6 (moving up from the bottom) and was peeling back when the auction house camera took a high definition photo much farther away than my scanner took an image of the card. The 6 in the auction photo wasn't flat but when you lay something out, even a 69, it may look slightly different...

If you're talking about the tiny bits of jersey flotsam stuck to the dark blue numeral chain-stitching in the auction photo... I'm guessing it was bits of fluff sticking after they unpacked the jersey for a photo. Whatever wasn't stitched down fell off.

I did compress the original images so they would load easier for everyone but I understand the question. Maybe this different image helps:

 

[mrmopar]

Yes, mainly that large light blotch right in the middle of the 6. Whatever it was, it is gone now. It also looks cleaner/darker than the jersey shot. Not saying this is what happened, but it looks like someone inked in the numbers to make them stand out more. Of course, again lighting and image quality could be causing all of the issues I am seeing.

 

[Shaggy]

Awesome pickup! Love the card!

 

[Juan Gris]

Yes, mainly that large light blotch right in the middle of the 6. Whatever it was, it is gone now. It also looks cleaner/darker than the jersey shot. Not saying this is what happened, but it looks like someone inked in the numbers to make them stand out more. Of course, again lighting and image quality could be causing all of the issues I am seeing.

"It looks like someone inked in the numbers to make them stand out more."

I'm going to pack up my bags and be done with this board if this accusation stands. That is the most outlandish **** I've seen in years. You're telling me that I or Panini inked in the numbers on a Satchel Paige patch when I can easily photo match it to a specific jersey at different angles, in different lighting. The lighter fabric on top of the numbers doesn't pour out of the stitching, it sticks to it. I can't believe I need to explain this about the first photo matched jersey I've ever seen to a card but here we are.

Awesome pickup! Love the card!

Thanks, Shaggy. I'm trying to find a reason to stay.

 

[mrmopar]

Man you are sensitive. I am not now, nor was I ever accusing you (or anyone else for that matter) of anything. Not sure why you are reacting this way. However, feel free to depart if that is how you feel and go ahead and blame me if you need a scapegoat.

I assume you bought it as we see it. I simply stated that it looked to me like the numbers are more pronounced on the card vs the jersey. Could Panini have done this? Hell yes, they could have. If you trust card makers to be above board, then you are naive. I also stated it might be the angle, lighting, photo quality or any other number of reasons why something doesn't look exactly the same from two images.

 

[Juan Gris]

I am not now, nor was I ever accusing you (or anyone else for that matter) of anything. Not sure why you are reacting this way...

Okay...........

Not saying this is what happened, but it looks like someone inked in the numbers to make them stand out more.

And then you continue to throw shade on a card with a pedigree. It makes total sense for Panini to doctor a small patch from a jersey they bought for $22,800 in the fall of 2018 so they can start rolling out the fakes in 2019 National Treasures. They're really playing the long game, going out of their way to beautifully frame a patch on a cleanly designed card so you can chime in here with your wisdom.

 

[deaconblues63]

Fantastic card.

I was going to ask about the white blotches too, but luckily I read the rules where we can only say “Congratulations” or Great card” or else Juan is going to pack his bags and leave forever. What a drama queen.

Mrmopar asked a legitimate question in a polite manner and admitted that there were a multitude of reasons that might be causing this.

This is a discussion board. You can’t always dictate the direction a discussion goes. What you can dictate is your response. I wish yours had been as measured and polite as mrmopars.

Best of luck in finding that board where people only say “Great card, Juan” and “Congratulations Juan.” Send me a link when you find it.


Sent from my iPhone using Freedom Card Board

 

[WCTYSON]

Great card, Juan!

Congratulations Juan!

 

[gamecockfanatic]

oh well...may as well ...i too was wondering if therewas any chance this was possibly a different tag...i didnt think panini (or anyone else) had touched it up , and didnt think it was merely fluff or whatever , but i thought the patch on the jersey had a little more wear (especially the thin part on the 6) and wondered if there was POSSIBLY more than one of those jerseys in existence...

but i too am sorry if ive offended you ...if indeed it is the exact same patch , that's wonderful...if not , you know , it really does not diminish the card OR the jersey in any way...

 

[Shaggy]

Would the 69 be scribbled on all his jerseys he wore in 69. It could be the same uniform guy that did each one and his hand writing is the same on each.

I don't think this 69 tag is from the same jersey that was auctioned off, but from a different one he had worn that same year. This is what I get from both pictures. Not that the 69 on the card is the same as the 69 on the one auctioned off.

Edit: looking over the 2 pics you posted Juan, it could be the same patch but they may have done some cleaning it to get the numbers darker.

It doesn't kill the cards value at all as it's an official Panini card. I think it strengthens it seeing you found a game used jersey that has the same 69 writing.

 

[Randy Shields]

Wow, this went sideways quick.

Jaun, I don't think mrmopar meant any malice or criticism of you or the tag here, rather just questioning the fact that the pics of the numbers from the auction and the numbers on your card look cleaned up and darker, moreso of the number 6. But I think in doing so maybe you took this personally because your proud of your pick-up and the work you put into it to prove it is a conclusion match from the auctioned jersey itself. I don't believe he meant any harm and I do think your being a little too sensitive about legitimate opinions or questions being put forth for this reason. I mean this is a messageboard and people will always question things and offer up varying opinions on any given subject or topic. That's stating the obvious but it's also fair.

So for what it's worth this is my take. That tag from the auction or any tag for that matter is like a fingerprint. If you look at the chain-stiching on the numbers 6 and 9 and look carefully at their exact shape, size and distance between them from every aspect of each number it is 1000% the exact same tag taken from the jersey that was purchased. Furthermore if you look at the stitching on the strip-tag to the jersey itself from every aspect, again it's a 1000% match. Also you have to remember that these numbers were hand stitched so no 2 numbers will ever look exactly the same. Just look at the 6 in the number 65 on that same strip-tag and compare it to the number 6 in the number 69 in question here. They don't look the same at all because again their hand stitched.

Looking at those comparisons this is without a doubt the exact same strip-tagged 69 that came from that jersey and definitely not from any other jersey. There's just no doubt about that.

So the question here is why are the chain-stitched blue numbers darker on the card then they are from the auction? I don't believe for a second that those numbers were inked in. For one, that would be a blatant alteration. Two, there would be 2 different colors on those numbers because there's absolutely no way that they could match the exact color of the original chain-stitching fabric that was used so long ago. And 3, what would be the reason for it? I mean why would you alter a game-used jersey at all? To compromise the integrity of an authentic game-used jersey in any way shape or form, especially one of such a historical nature of this Satchel Paige simply does not make any sense whatsoever. There's simply nothing to gain from it. It's an absolutely awesome piece of history here and to tamper with that in any way shape or form would be completely ludicrous at best.

From what I see here it's quite obvious that the material used for the blue chain-stitched letters are much more structurally sound then the material used for the strip-tag which is the case in most all older jerseys. This is also quite obvious because the strip tag was easily torn between the numbers 40 and 69 and as well it should be because this is a gamer and the constant moving of this strip-tag from Satchel's using it on a regular basis would have caused that.

I think the white that everyone is seeing from the auction photo is simply fluff from the strip tag that stuck to the blue chain-stitched numbers -again from it's movement of being used a lot by Satchel.

So it's just my guess but I think there a two possibilities here.
One is that someone "may" have simply used some tape or some other method to simply pull some of the fluff off, but not all, from the dark blue chain-stitching and the surrounding strip-tag material which now makes those numbers appear darker. If they did that I don't think it constitutes as an alteration or compromises the integrity of the jersey per say, but I'm sure some may have differing opinions on that. This is just my opinion. Did they have to or did they need to do that "IF" in fact that's what they did? Again, imo, no they certainly did not and I'm not exactly sure why they would see a reason to, but again I stress "IF" in fact that's what they did.

The other possibility is they simply flattened the patch out when they inserted it into the card, and Juan's much more high definition scan shows the patch more truly as it actually is than how it appears pictured in the original auction scan. The scan from the auction even when blown up appears to be quite a bit more fuzzy than Juan's scan.

Or, perhaps it's a combination of both?

I don't know for sure but what I do know is that with Juan having it in hand, that he is the only person here who can truly elaborate on what is the most likely scenario concerning this tag, and for that reason I have no reason to doubt him if he says there's been nothing done to the tag.

In any case this is a Great card, a Great piece of history and Juan, you should be very proud of this card and the work you put in to verify it.

The End.

This book goes on sale starting tomorrow at Amazon, Barnes & Noble and at other fine retail stores wherever books are sold!

 

[Juan Gris]

Mrmopar asked a legitimate question in a polite manner and admitted that there were a multitude of reasons that might be causing this.

This is a discussion board. You can’t always dictate the direction a discussion goes. What you can dictate is your response. I wish yours had been as measured and polite as mrmopars.

He didn't ask a question he made a statement of opinion and I defended my research on the card. I wasn't expecting him to pat me on the back and say it's the greatest card known to man but he said zero positive things about the card, the research or the post. That's what gave me pause about going to the trouble of posting here in the future. Mrmopar has a great collection and I usually enjoy reading his posts.

oh well...may as well ...i too was wondering if therewas any chance this was possibly a different tag...i didnt think panini (or anyone else) had touched it up , and didnt think it was merely fluff or whatever , but i thought the patch on the jersey had a little more wear (especially the thin part on the 6) and wondered if there was POSSIBLY more than one of those jerseys in existence...

but i too am sorry if ive offended you ...if indeed it is the exact same patch , that's wonderful...if not , you know , it really does not diminish the card OR the jersey in any way...

No offense taken! I totally get that it's hard to compare 2 different pictures of the same thing taken years apart in different lighting, the latter being taken after the sliver of patch was removed and placed into a card.

Edit: looking over the 2 pics you posted Juan, it could be the same patch but they may have done some cleaning it to get the numbers darker.

It doesn't kill the cards value at all as it's an official Panini card. I think it strengthens it seeing you found a game used jersey that has the same 69 writing.

I appreciate the post. The strip tag was in rough shape when Panini measured it to fit the card but I'm guessing they either used a lint roller or their fingers just brushed off the "fluff" on top of the stitched numerals when they were working to make the bottom left of the 6 uncurl and lay flat.

 

[gamecockfanatic]

From what I see here it's quite obvious that the material used for the blue chain-stitched letters are much more structurally sound then the material used for the strip-tag which is the case in most all older jerseys. This is also quite obvious because the strip tag was easily torn between the numbers 40 and 69 and as well it should be because this is a gamer and the constant moving of this strip-tag from Jackie's using it on a regular basis would have caused that.

I think the white that everyone is seeing from the auction photo is simply fluff from the strip tag that stuck to the blue chain-stitched numbers -again from it's movement of being used a lot by Jackie.

just a quick reminder...not jackie robinson, but satchell paige...the description on the old auction notes that while the jersey being sold did not contain paige's name , research showed he was the only member of the braves' coaching staff to wear number 65 during the 1969 season....it goes on to say that due to the excessive wear , it was almost certainly one used by a minor league affiliate after paige was through with it...

 

[metallicalex777]

Awesome pickup @Juan Gris ! And great job with your sleuthing as well, that is part of the fun of this hobby with some of the material pieces some of us collect. I'm not if sure if you saw one of my Satchel Paige patch posts years back, but I got (and still have) a patch piece of his also from Panini that I traced back to a Hunt Auctions jersey I found. You can see that thread here if you like: https://www.freedomcardboard.com/fo...s-and-a-possible-jersey-auction-match.144089/

In my opinion, I think you found the jersey yours came from. What I like to see is the similarities in the threading details. Awesome add to your collection, and don't forget...For that era of Paige he was a player and coach that year