Baseball memorabilia is a highly specialized sub-category of militaria collecting that poses many challenges ranging from availability of artifacts to resources that can be used to facilitate authentication. The two most challenging types of baseball militaria that pose considerable struggles for sourcing are with baseballs and bats. Though a handful of game-used military bats have surfaced over the years, I have only been successful in securing a small number of them for my collection.
In a few collectors circles, discussions surrounding methods for determining factors and features for what constitutes military or service team equipment. Unlike issued military gear (uniforms, weapons, tools and equipment) that has procurement markings that are applied either via labeling, stenciling or engraving, sports equipment can be and often is unmarked. Considering that during World War II sports equipment wasn’t procured through government contracts or appropriations, a large and unknown percentage of the gear was distributed and disseminated to the troops without being marked. It is highly likely that gloves, balls, catchers’ protective equipment and bats were commonly lacking indicative military (U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S.M.C, etc.) or government marks (U.S.). As this was the case, aside from provenance directly connected to a piece, all of this equipment is relegated to simply being specific-period sports equipment.
Much of the equipment sent to the troops did receive markings that are can be a bit of a challenge to understand (especially in the area of gloves). Regarding baseball bats, inconsistencies abound in terms of both applied military or government-esque markings and with the varying brands and models that were distributed. Although bats made by Hillerich & Bradsby dominated the market during the 1940s, their brand wasn’t the only one finding its way to the combat-theater diamonds and domestic-base fields as examples of other makers could be seen in the hands of ball-playing GIs from makers such as A. J. Reach, Wilson, Goldsmith and Spalding. Other considerations must also be made for brand subsets as Hillerich & Bradsby catered to different markets such as professionals, collegiate, little leagues and amateurs for their products. Aside from the well-known Louisville Slugger models (which had both professional and consumer variants), Hillerich & Bradsby also manufactured the H&B branded bats which were a lower grade and inexpensive offering (see: Louisville Slugger Bat Dating Guide at KeyManCollectibles.com). Considering that equipment originated from various sources (purchased on behalf of the troops through the Professional Baseball Fund, the Bat and Ball Fund, the USO, etc., donated by minor league teams or even produced and donated by the equipment manufacturers themselves), collecting and verifying military-use (without the aforementioned military markings) can pose an authentication challenge for collectors.
For my own collection, military-used bats have been difficult to acquire due to the limited numbers that have come to market since I have been on the hunt. The first piece that I was able to acquire wasn’t a BASEball bat but rather a WWII H&B model 102 Soft-Ball bat with a U.S.N. stamp (1940s softball bats had significantly smaller barrel diameters than their baseball counterparts) with a taped handle. The condition, though used is excellent showing no signs of rot or grain separation. After a minor cleaning and coating the bat with linseed oil, the bat looks fantastic. It took several years before I was able to land my second bat, this time an actual baseball model, which turned out to be a rather rare Ted Williams signature H&B version (see: Ted Williams: BATtered, Abused and Loved) which is a welcome addition to the collection, especially after giving it a slight restoration.
Recently, another bat that came by way of a fellow baseball and (new) militaria collector is a Louisville Slugger Model 102 Soft Ball bat with a simple U.S. stamp. This particular bat arrived with a fairly heavy-handed in-process restoration (the finish was removed and the wood had been sanded smooth). Thankfully, the stamped brands were still very apparent (if not slightly softened from the finish removal and resurfacing) prompting me to apply a few liberal coats of linseed oil. With the new finish applied, the grain of the wood was intensified and the appearance was greatly enhanced. Within the span of a few months, my military baseball bats collection tripled though two of the three were softball pieces.
In the last few weeks, yet another piece surfaced that looked to be a fantastic fit in several aspects: condition, player endorsement, military markings and bat model. Similar to the Ted Williams bat already in my collection, this piece also carried the H&B brand but with a Model 14 designation. The best part of all was that the price was right. Aside from the lengthy shipping time, I was elated when the package arrived intact. When I removed the stick from the box, I observed that the condition was in a bit worse state than had appeared in the seller’s photos. On the face of the barrel (opposite the brand and markings), there is some grain separation with a layer of the wood pulling away leaving a very apparent crevice. Also not visible in the photos is a missing wedge section from the knob which, for a 75 year-old and well-used bat is fairly minor. The brand and the stampings are somewhat shallow and appear to be either worn or perhaps sanded during an older restoration attempt. Despite these minor aesthetics issues, the bat will clean-up nicely and look exceptional with a liberal coating of linseed oil.
Having mentioned in a smattering of articles over the years that my teams are the Dodgers and Red Sox, it should make sense that the endorsement on this new acquisition (as with the Ted Williams bat) features a prominent Boston slugger who was nearing the end of his storied career during World War II. By the start of the 1942 season, 34 year-old Jimmie “Double X” Foxx was suffering from a broken rib that he sustained during spring training which nagged him throughout the season. By June 1, “The Beast” (as he was also known) sold to the Chicago Cubs by the Red Sox much to the disappointment of the Boston faithful. Foxx appeared in 70 games for the Cubs but his production was greatly diminished (as compared to his career) prompting him to announce his retirement at season’s end. In 1943, Foxx spent the year away from the game, spending time with his new wife and her two children before volunteering for military service only to be rejected due to a medical condition. Instead of Jimmie Foxx finding his way into an armed forces uniform and serving overseas, his name traveled the globe to far away diamonds on signature gloves and endorsed bats such as this one.
With the Red Sox represented in my collection with two endorsed models from these legendary (and Hall of Fame) hitters, the hunt is on for a WWII service team Dodgers bat.
Under the darkened late-January skies in a prototypical winter downpour, the for putting pen to paper for this article was taking shape as the anticipation of the day’s impending announcement of the 2019 Baseball Hall of Fame voting results was swirling in my head. This off-season’s hot stove league has been relatively cool in terms of the big names that had become available following the commencement of free agent market. With so much to write about, I am wondering why today’s topic kept rising to the surface.
Several weeks ago, a fellow baseball memorabilia collector discovered bat that he would otherwise have ignored (for his own collection) until he looked closely through the grime and extensive wear and abuse to discover three black-foil stamped letters positioned just above the imprint of a ball-player’s signature. With consideration of the bat’s abused state and a previous bat restoration project in mind, my friend chose to send this particular piece of lumber my way. Additionally, the vintage bat that my colleague found had significance and would be a perfect augmentation to the baseball militaria that I collect.
During World War II, there was an incredible undertaking by several organizations to raise money in order to provide special services to give the troops basic creature comforts that would otherwise have been unavailable. United States citizens (taxpayers) were financially responsible to properly train and outfit soldiers, sailors Marines, airmen and Coast Guardsmen with uniforms, weapons, toiletries and to feed them while they performed the duties of defeating enemy forces. Utilizing precious resources for recreation or entertainment was not part of the financial responsibilities of the American people though such activities were truly needed in order to maintain the morale and well-being of the troops.
From December 7, 1941 through September 2, 1945 (VJ-Day), more than 16 million Americans served in the United States armed forces (Army, Army Air Forces, Navy, Marines and Coast Guard) which accounted for more than 11-percent of the nation’s population (73 percent of those served overseas). The need for morale-boosting and recreation of the troops was considerable. World War II was entering into its golden era during which the game was reaching its pinnacle as the pastime of Americans. Though other sports were certainly part of the recreation offerings, baseball was central. GIs could carry gloves and a ball in their rucksack or sea bags, have bats and other equipment stored aboard their ships, inside their tanks or aircraft and have them accessible for a pickup game or just to have a catch between operations or training cycles.
The numbers of bats, balls, gloves, mitts, catcher’s protective kits and bases distributed throughout the European and Pacific Theaters and domestically is staggering. Washington Senators owner, Clark Griffith reprised his WWI efforts in fund raising (“The Base Ball Fund” used to purchase baseball equipment for the troops). Just four Pearl Harbor was attacked, Griffith rekindled the program and began fund raising and negotiating for discounted equipment pricing with Spalding, Wilson and Goldsmith makers of balls and gloves and with Hillerich & Bradsby (makers of Louisville Slugger bats). By the end of that December, Griffith raised $25,000 from the American and National Leagues, the Baseball Writers Association and from Commissioner Kennesaw Mountain Landis’ MLB discretionary fund and a subsequent order for 18,000 balls and 4,500 gloves and mitts was placed. The “Baseball Equipment Fund” (also often referred to as the “Professional Baseball Fund”) raised enough money to purchase more than 280,000 baseballs and nearly 45,000 bats by the end of 1943. Griffith’s effort wasn’t the only game in town. Aside from funds being raised by professional athletes, celebrities, companies and even civic leaders donated both money and privately sourced baseball equipment. Sporting Goods manufacturers donated equipment and uniforms to the armed forces as did dozens of minor league teams.
By the war’s end, the numbers of balls, bats and other related equipment would reach into the millions. Unfortunately, not all of the pieces used by GIs were specifically marked beyond the original brands or stamps placed by the manufacturer. Those that did receiving some sort of imprinting make connecting these pieces to the armed forces quite simple (save for the counterfeiters that have flooded the market with doctored baseballs. See: Faked Military Baseballs). With 45,000 bats shipped overseas through 1943, one can easily extrapolate that upwards of 100,000 bats (of not more) were used across both combat theaters and domestically throughout the war. One would imagine that the availability of game-used military bats to be significant and yet, marked examples are somewhat scarce.
In the world of sports memorabilia collecting, game used item are obtained at a premium value as opposed to the more traditional pieces. With auction prices being realized for baseball memorabilia that are attributed to the game’s greats yielding dollar figures with six and seven digits, the idea of obtaining such treasures is but a passing thought or a fantasy for most collectors. In a few instances, baseball militaria memorabilia (with player attribution and provenance) is experiencing a similar, though less significant, effect. In the last 24 months, a post-World War II baseball uniform group that was attributed to Herb Bremer, a three-season utility infielder and catcher for the legendary “Gashouse Gang” of the St. Louis Cardinals, sold for at auction for more than $2,500. A little more than three years earlier, the Navy jersey that belonged to Bremer’s Cardinals teammate, netted nearly $17,000 proving that Hall of Fame provenance garners greater interest and value.
As mentioned previously, in early 2018, I received a 1950s Louisville Slugger store model (I.e. non-professional) bat that bore the endorsement (I.e. facsimile signature) from one of my favorite ball players who also happened to have served during WWII, Ferris Fain. The bat was heavily worn and virtually all of the black foil had been worn out of the shallow stamped markings (professional models have a burned-in brand). Since the bat wasn’t a particularly valuable piece, I opted take the route of restoration so that the wood and the stampings would display well and so that people could discern the specific model of bat. The Fain bat looks fantastic and will look great with any baseball memorabilia showing. Regardless of my efforts with the Fain lumber, the pursuit of a game-used military baseball bat continues.
In the arena of game used bats, there is a substantial line of demarcation between what professional ball players use (within the professional game) and what was seen on diamonds during World War II for service members playing on unit teams or in recreational games. Unfortunately, there is no documentation available to shed light on the models of bats that were distributed to troops. It is very possible that professional ball players found themselves withdrawing store model bats from the dugout bat racks during games played in overseas and combat theaters. However, it is just as likely that the stars of the game (such as DiMaggio or Ted Williams) were still able to receive their preferred bat models while serving during the war.
When I opened and retrieved from the box that shipping box this most recent treasure, I was astonished to see this wretched and predominantly disfigured piece of lumber that, more than 70 years ago resembled a bat. Though the black foil markings were heavily worn, the signature of the bat’s endorser, belonging to Navy Pre-flight Chapel Hill Cloudbusters’ left fielder, Ted Williams practically leapt off the tattered surface of the wood at me. Rather than bearing Hillerich and Bradsby’s markings of a Louisville Slugger brand model, this particular bat was marked with the “H & B” center brand indicating that it was an inexpensive store model of lower grade than the aforementioned Ferris Fain bat in my collection. Not only did the H&B models carry a lower retail price but they were made with lower grade materials. Based upon specifics within the brand markings that were used on these models for a 20-year span beginning in 1932, it is easy to assume that the bat was used during WWII with the additional “U. S. N.”
As I assessed the dozens upon dozens of gauges, cracks and the grain separation due to moisture damage (with a bit of rot), it was very apparent why my colleague sent this bat to me rather than to retain it within his own collection. In examining the battle scars one can draw the conclusion this bat was used to swing at sizable rocks (rather than baseballs) that created dents and divots in the bat’s surface. At the end of the barrel, the wood blackened as the result to prolonged exposure to water which also resulted in the decay and erosion of the softer cellulose material between the wood-grains. The center brand was in acceptable condition despite all of the wear and damage but the player’s endorsement signature had been severely and negatively impacted.
Understanding the scarcity of these bats, the decision to stabilize and preserve the bat in its present condition was simple. Taking into account the bat’s game use and historic value (in the context of use during WWII), the approach of doing no harm during the restorative process kept the effort minimal. There would be no sanding or wood filling and no attempts to mask any of the damage. The goal was to decrease the wood decay while working to make the bat a little more presentable. Incorporating grade #0000 super fine steel wool (as the only abrasive material) combined with judicious amounts of Goo Gone and elbow grease, my work began to cut through the years of grime (and some spilled paint) revealing the beauty of the dark wood as it began to emerge.
Moving slowly while taking care to avoid removing any of the remaining black foil markings in the brand, a few hours had elapsed and I began wiping off the steel wool and Goo Gone residue. The rough areas had been rendered smooth and the bat looked considerably improved. For nearly two weeks, the residue from the cleaner dried which showed that the wood was in serious need of preservation with the wood grain revealing a significant need for some sort of sealing. Seeking to maintain the natural look of the wood and to avoid detracting from the aged aesthetics, I opted to apply linseed oil to the entire surface. For the first two applications, the bat absorbed the oil like a thirsting man in the desert in desperate need of water. After the third linseed oil application, I left the bat to dry for a few hours before rubbing down with a soft cloth to remove any unabsorbed residue and to bring out a little bit of a shine. While the results of the preservation are were pleasing, the bat would never be the centerpiece of a collection.
- KeyMan Collectible Louisville Slugger Dating Guide
- WWII Professional Equipment Fund (KeyMan Collectibles)
Last week I mentioned (see: My First Baseball Militaria At-bat; I Lead-off with the Marine Corps) that I was preparing for a public showing of my collection of baseball militaria at a local minor league ballpark. As a brief follow-up (ahead of an upcoming article about that experience) I should say that the experience and reception was incredible and a great success! Since I am on the subject of reviewing my recent open ended articles that may have left some readers wondering, I did have a great experience with my first restoration of a vintage baseball bat (read: Nothing To Write? I Think I’ll Just Restore a Vintage Bat, Instead).
In recent years, I connected with a few groups of fellow baseball memorabilia collectors with the idea that I wanted to learn from and share my own information among a gathering of others who have a wealth of knowledge. Sharing with and drawing from others who have been collecting for decades longer and in areas that I hadn’t previously committed much energy has served me well and opened my eyes to the extent of passion that others possess. In terms of collecting bats, I only had a smattering of pieces of lumber that I either acquired in anticipation of obtaining a player’s signature or that I landed while working at the aforementioned minor league ballpark, decades ago. Though my scant collection included some game-used wood from players who never went far with their professional careers, it was fun to have their bats (which were signed at one point since I obtained them). The other sticks in my collection were vintage store-model (they look very similar to what professional players receive from manufacturers but are sold in sporting goods stores for amateur use or autographs) bats.
Last year, I obtained an early 1950s store model, Ferris Fain signature bat that had seen a lot of use and abuse. In addition to the heavy wear, accumulation of dirty grime and house paint spills, the bat had extremely faint manufacturer’s stamps and the player’s signature mark was nearly impossible to see. Professional model bats (for game use) have deep and distinct, burned-in markings that are quite difficult to obscure with use and time but the same is untrue for these lightly-marked store-purchased pieces of lumber. Rather than the burned-brands, thes Louisville Sluggers have foil-stamped (the stamps are subtle) marks that get worn or rubbed off with use. By no means am I a vintage bat expert but I have some excellent resources to draw from. In terms of Hillerich and Bradsby (maker of the most famous brand, Louisville Slugger), this reference is very detailed in providing information to discern age and models of ‘Slugger bats.
Store model bats, though sought after by collectors, are quite affordable and can be great display pieces when shown with other items (jerseys, caps, gloves, autographed photos, cards, etc.) when costly game-used bats are unavailable or unobtainable. Player-signature store model bats were made bearing the autographs of the more prevalent stars of the game. Some signature models were continued far beyond the career years of players that transcended the game. However, with some of the more mercurial stars like Fain whose career burned brightly and faded quickly due to his all-out style of play and propensity for injuries (and fighting), signature bats are considerably more scarce. Scarcity doesn’t necessarily drive demand or values upward as they do for well-knowns such as Mantle or Williams (with store-model bat production in orders of magnitude far above Fain models) however, for collectors like me, landing one of his bats in any condition is a bit of a boon. In terms of baseball militaria, a Fain signature (store model) bat would not be a part of any collection as he wouldn’t have had such a bat made for him until he was established in the major leagues in the years following his wartime service in the Army Air Force.
When I brought this bat home and shared it among my fellow collectors, the reception for such a beat-up old stick was mixed with one collector (whom I greatly respect) offering the suggestion of unloading it in favor of one in better condition. The recommendation was that my bat wasn’t worth any restorative effort. Taking this input with a grain of salt, the collector also gave me guidance on how I should proceed and the careful steps that I should take along with the products that I should use in order to protect the patina and signs of use while cleaning it up.
Removing the grime
This bat was quite darkened by usage and years of handling and storage (no doubt in someone’s garage among the paints and garden tools). The surface was heavily oxidized to a dirty gray hue and had a variety of stains and markings from various objects that made contact with the bat. Soaking a small area of a paper towel with Goo Gone, I began to gently massage the handle of the bat exercising a bit of caution and hesitancy as the dirt began to slightly dissipate on the wood’s surface. Moving around the handle and downward (towards the barrel), I continued to wet the paper towel and lift away the dirt a little bit at a time. After nearly an hour, I completed the entire surface and noted that very little was removed despite the appearance of the nearly blackened paper towels that I had been using. After a few more hours of working the bat and noting only slight improvements (while absolutely none of the paint was removed), I decided that something more aggressive than paper was required to cut through the years of soiling.
Needing something with a bit more abrasive power, I grabbed a section of 0000 steel wool, wetted it with the Goo Gone and repeated the cleaning cycle. The steel wool began to peel away the layers of dirt with relative ease leaving a warm, aged color to the wood while retaining the usage markings and indentations in tact. The paint required a bit more attention but was no match for the fine grit of the steel pad.
Restoring the Foil Stamps
Fortunately with store-model Louisville Slugger bats, the brand and signature markings can be distinguishable even if the black foil (which resembles the burned-in brand has faded or been worn off. Since none of the black foil remained on my bat, I decided to replace it with something indelible and that would hold up to the final step in the restoration process (reconditioning the wood surface with oil). Any novice restorer might be convinced that locating an extra fine tipped pen (to re-trace the near-needle-thin lines) would be well-suited for such a task. However, ink would be problematic when met with linseed oil. If one were to forego the oil-reconditioning, the ink would be subject to oxidation and fading with time. What my fellow collector recommended was to use a pen that, instead of paint as its medium, acrylic black paint would be used to fill in the stamps and markings. The challenge that I faced in seeking a paint pen marker was to locate one with an extra-fine head and unfortunately, the best option was a 1.5mm tip. I used the Molotow ONE4ALL Acrylic Paint Marker, 1.5mm and a boatload of patience.
At my age, free-hand tracing of fine lines required the use of ample light and magnification to be able to see the original markings. Using a jeweler’s magnifying lamp afforded me with the best opportunity to carefully guide the pen through each stamped indentation. For those who are not familiar with the mechanics of paint pens, they can be quite a challenge as they require depressing of the tip (in order to draw the paint downward) which can be a bit messy and cause more paint to flow onto the bat’s surface than intended. I recommend using a newspaper to press the tip of the pen to the desired paint-saturation. I spent a few hours, stopping to rest my eyes and hand at intervals and to allow the paint to dry and avoid transferring it to my hand and to other areas of the bat.
Once the painting was done on both the brand and the signature stampings, I didn’t like the crispness of the paint. I also had a few spots where I was unable to keep the pen tip within the lines. I followed the painting with careful and deliberate application of dry steel wool removing the over-painted areas and the shiny paint surface to match the used and aged condition of the bat.
All that remains with the restoration of the Ferris Fain bat is to carefully apply linseed oil to properly treat the surface of the wood. Looking through my wood finishing supplies I see that I am lacking in linseed oil which will leave this Fain bat unfinished at present.
With the changes in my employment, my pursuit of artifacts must also change as I am actively seeking a new position to bring my expertise, knowledge and experience to bear for a new employer. After contracting for for the last several months, I believe that I am ready to settle down with an employer and to give them my undivided attention (seeking follow-on employment while working is not something that I want to be a part of my daily routine). In terms of my research and writing, I believe that I will be able to commit some of my free time to work on some of my outstanding projects and perhaps bring some of them to a close.
What is odd is that when I sat down to write an article about military baseball, I drew a blank as I searched for a subject. I looked back at my previous articles and saw that I was following the influx of artifacts and as the mailbox grew silent, a mental block appeared and cut me off from the ideas that had previously been swirling around within my mind. Oddly, I am incapable of coming up with a topic even at this very point. Imagine writing a 2400+ word essay one week and having literally nothing to discuss the next.
While preparing for an upcoming public showing of part of my militaria collection over the last few days, I have been gathering all of the World War I pieces that I own, some of which were inherited from two of my uncles who served during the Great War. While sorting through containers of stored century-old artifacts, I have viewed several pieces of my military baseball collection and was reminded (at each encounter with a piece) that there was yet another opportunity for researching, writing and photographing a piece for this site. Yet today, I can’t recall a single item.
Even as I was discussing a possible public showing of my military baseball artifacts (in conjunction with an upcoming Armed Forces Day event) with a representative from our local Pacific Coast League team, I recalled that there was a specific piece that I wanted to document and photograph for an article to be published here. That idea has also faded from my consciousness.
As I recall each of these situations where ideas were stirring within my mind over the last week and yet the ideas have long since dissolved, I suppose that the best option for me today is to take a momentary pause and spend time with my wife and children, watch a ballgame or two and continue my job search. I even have some artifact preservation and restoration work that has been in the queue for quite some time. I have been meaning to breathe new life into a 1950s Ferris Fain signature Louisville Slugger bat that was used (and abused). While I am not a bat collector, per se, I do like to have pieces that have some correlation to what I do collect. Since Fain was such a prominent figure on the U.S. Seventh Army Air Force team (a team mate of Joe DiMaggio and Joe Gordon) during World War II prior to his nine-season major league career (with the Athletics, White Sox, Tigers and Indians) crushing two back-to-back batting titles (1951 and ’52) before ending his career following a string of injuries.
This bat, produced by Hillerich and Bradsby (famous bat makers notable for the Louisville Slugger bats that are commonplace throughout the sport), was made in the 1950s during the height of Fain’s career. Based upon the Hillerich & Bradsby oval center brand design, my Fain signature bat dates from a period between 1948-1964 as indicated by the very faint yet visible “REG. U.S. PAT. OFF.” that is centered beneath the oval. It is through deductive reasoning and speculation that I am dating the bat to the early 1950s.
By 1955, Fain’s production was dramatically tailing off along with his playing time. Ferris was an All-Star for five consecutive seasons (1950-54), only to be traded to Detroit in the off-season of 1954. By mid-season of 1955, he was released and signed by the Indians eight days later. He was released by Cleveland in November of 1955, signaling the end of his major league career. Fain found himself back in the Pacific Coast League in 1956 with the Sacramento Solons appearing in only 70 of the team’s 168 games. Based upon Ferris Fain’s career trajectory, I may be stating the obvious in suggesting that no further Louisville Slugger bats bore his name after the 1955 season (it is my assumption but it is possible that they continued manufacturing his bats for an additional season).
Though this artifact has only an associative connection to military baseball (due to Fain’s service before he had his own signature bat), it is still a piece that I enjoy having in the collection. I am taking some steps to restore certain aspects without removing the signs of age in order to make the bat more display-friendly. With that, I am pushing the keyboard aside, taking out some cleaning cloths, steel wool and a bottle of Goo Gone and begin to carefully remove the grime and dried paint to see what I can uncover for the next restoration steps.