Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Chat about Equipment Info

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:40 am

the tools of the trade are mere tools in the hands of average user's. jerry was not your average user thus his tools are held to a higher level of respect because of what he produced with them.

and the fact is that irwin would have got Rosebud had Jerry paid cash for it. The GDP were not "Whoring" themselves for the money, but felt they owned them as an organization and they were not Jerry's to will away. Had they indeed paid for them, they would still own them and never given the ones paid with cash back to irwin. so his will was honored only because they had no proof they were paid for by GDP. jerry was not known for his business or legal background.

another fact is that irsay, while he DOES OWN AND POSSESS Tiger, cannot erase the fact that jerry garcia owned that guitar. so it WILL always be known as JERRY GARCIA'S TIGER owned by Jim Irsay. NOW, Irsay can do what he wants, that's a given, but there are consequencs in his choice. much like his fathers to remove a team from a city. he can never remove the love for the fact Jerry owned and played it exclusively for almost 11 years. that said, he can respect or disrepect the followers of that instrument after all he does now own it and that choice is solely his. this is not in anyway a religious statement or meant to compare the 2 as the same, but had he bought the "shroud of jesus" would it be his? NO it would not, it would always be the shroud of jesus OWNED by whomever. this statement is only used to make a point and the point is, when you own something with significant value to people, you owe those people the respect they rightfully deserve when you made the purchase. it comes with the sale. you should not horde it for your own doing or pleasure. he didn't buy a new car off the lot, he bought tiger which many deadheads hold in high esteem. so mr irsay has the choice of respecting or disrespecting the deadheads that love that instrument, but rather chooses to disrespect most of them that wish to at least see it in public for all to view the masterpiece it is.

peace,
waldo
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
User avatar
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:52 am

a foundation should be started with the sole purpose of retrieving these instruments from the private collectors that own them now. donations, concerts or whatever would produce more then enough to buy them back as well as preserving them. if enough money could be made i would imagine the foundation could also continue into something like the dream they always had for the museum. The Terrapin Station Foundation should be started and i for one would have no problem spending my free time starting that endeavor with you fred!

what a truly great sentiment to show our love for a band like no other, who else is on board?!?

peace,
waldo
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
User avatar
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby jdsmodulus » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:10 pm

I would do whatever I could!!! I have been thinking about this for awhile!
jdsmodulus
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1252
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 2:12 pm

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Mick » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:22 pm

Waldo:

Before I continue, I just want to make sure we are straight here. I am not saying you are "wrong", nor do I claim that I am "right", I obviously just see this from a completely different perspective than you, and I think the conversation is interesting, and so far, civil. If I piss you off in any way, let me know, and I will stop, because that isn't my intention.

waldo041 wrote:The GDP were not "Whoring" themselves for the money, but felt they owned them as an organization and they were not Jerry's to will away. Had they indeed paid for them, they would still own them and never given the ones paid with cash back to irwin. so his will was honored only because they had no proof they were paid for by GDP. jerry was not known for his business or legal background.


I disagree here. I was, and am, totally supportive of what happened with the sound boards being removed from the download-for-free sites so that they could continue to sell their content through vehicles like Dick's Picks and the likes. In other words, wanting to get paid for your performances, your efforts, your creativity and the saleable post-performance products is not whoring out your art in my opinion. Chasing after an old guitar because someone you played with made it famous and you know it's worth a pile of bucks, regardless of what your old friend wanted to happen to the guitar as well as the dire straits that a guy who enabled your success in the first place was in has definitely crossed a line somewhere. Maybe you think "whoring out their art" is too strong, and maybe it is, but at the very least, the whole lot of them should be embarrassed and ashamed of their actions on the whole Jerry's guitars issue. And like I said, whether they are embarrassed or not, THEY made it a money thing. Maybe none of them are very good business men, but you don't exactly need a Harvard MBA to figure out that something that has a perceived value is going to go to the highest bidder if it is made a money thing. If they really claim they didn't see that one coming, then they are truly the fool that Gordon Gecko said this about "A fool and his money are lucky enough to get together in the first place."

he can respect or disrepect the followers of that instrument after all he does now own it and that choice is solely his.


I just don't see this one this way. I don't see how keeping the guitar for himself is disrespectful to others. He bought it, it's his, simple as that.

This is not in anyway a religious statement or meant to compare the 2 as the same, but had he bought the "shroud of jesus" would it be his? NO it would not, it would always be the shroud of jesus OWNED by whomever.


Well, as long as you went religious.....you said

as i stated previously, if you have the money to buy the world, is it it really yours to do what you will with it?


My response would be "If you sold your soul to the devil, would it be his to do with what he wants?"

Of course, the answer is yes. The parallel to reality is that if you were dumb enough to sell one guy the whole world, then you more or less get what you deserve. Kind of a "you make your bed, now you sleep in it". This is not out of the realm of reality either. Economists view many middle eastern countries as places where the average person in the populace has sold their political influence for state-supported benefits. A lot of westerners view this as an abomination, but from a finance standpoint, it really isn't the worst thing. I don't think it is smart from a long-term use of natural resources point of view, but that could lead us into a completely different discussion

this statement is only used to make a point and the point is, when you own something with significant value to people, you owe those people the respect they rightfully deserve when you made the purchase.


I just don't see it that way. In fact, someone earlier in the thread talked about Mr. Irsay's "entitlement", but this statement comes across as an attitude of entitlement much more than anything I have seen Mr. Irsay do. Sure, I would love to see Tiger again in person. I would love even more to hold and/or play it. But I sure don't feel Mr. Irsay "owes" me anything.

Mick
Last edited by Mick on Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mama Mama many worlds I've come since I first left home.
Mick
Jerry
Jerry
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Northern NJ

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Crazy 9.5 Fingers » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:23 pm

It's a great idea but realistically, what collector is going to part with a guitar he paid nearly a million for? You better come at him with at least an offer of double what he paid. Probably triple to even have a shot. Assume that Irsay would have gladly paid double what he ended up paying for Tiger. I wouldn't expect any sense of altruism to be part of the equation.
There are only two mantras. Yum and yuk. Mine's yum.
User avatar
Crazy 9.5 Fingers
Senior Member
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:14 pm

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated FOUNDATION

Postby gr8fullfred » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:34 pm

Oh here is how to start the foundation.

1) Find a deadhead attorney (maybe in San Francisco) to create the foundation file the IRS paperwork
2)once started maybe the boys could donate $1 per ticket sold to the foundation.
3)Other highprofile deadheads might be persuaded to donate some money upfront (Walton,Hornsby, John Scher just examples) to get the ball rolling.
4)What serious deadhead would not donate $10.00 to save the tiger foundation?
5)A concert for the benefit of the save the tiger foundation?
6)Relix mag could get on board and help us as could the festival scene
7)A table like the green peace booth a the shows?

Seriously how could we not raise a couple of million dollars this way?

Anyone seriously interested in this please contact me and we can seriously discuss the possibilities

Fred
User avatar
gr8fullfred
Jerry
Jerry
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Mon Dec 21, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:53 pm

i completely agree to disagree!

but you should know that just like mr irsay's ownership of the instrument. GDP felt they owned the instruments and if they were paid for with GDP money then they were not Jerry's to individually will away. that said, wolf and tiger were found to have been paid for with cash from jerry, thus with no proof of ownership by the GDP, they could not claim ownership and without it they had no case. so, they had to honor the will and release only those instruments they could not claim as being paid for by the organization. if it were about the money, believe me they would have never given him wolf and tiger, but rather rosbud and wolf jr. jerry was a huge part of the grateful dead BUT was not the sole owner of it. therefore his wishes to give back all the irwin instruments to irwin in his death was not his right to do, but since they did find out that cash was paid for and witnesses step forward to testify to that, they had to partially honor his will as they had no proof of ownership of wolf and tiger. that has NOTHING to do with the high price they would have fetched in an auction. it is and was a legal matter that jerry produced with his request in his will. and the GDP had every right to persue the matter and should not be berated for it. it was a mistake on both ends, jerry not understanding that the ones paid for by GDP were not his to will and by the GDP for not ensuring that GDP actually purchased them or not. in the end the right outcome was made from that point, i agree. but i do not agree that irsay should do whatever he wants with it simply because he purchased it, although he can because he does owns it, doesn't really make it right in my opinion. as you already know. but i digress and can only hope that he chooses to display it, and do not wish to document it any furthur. although it would have been great, this disagreement has me realize that i really don't like what he has chosen to do with it, and should not support him in my documenting it further or even continue persuing it for that matter. he has the money and can do it himself, if he wanted to. i have enough info out there already on it anyway. i'd rather spend my time in trying to get it out of his hands. and truly believe we could raise 10 million if we had to to get it back, that is if he'd sell it. but something tells for the right price he will.
peace,
waldo
Last edited by waldo041 on Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
User avatar
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby waldo041 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:57 pm

oh i almost forgot to add this!

GO DREW BREES AND THE SAINTS! ! !

peace,
waldo
"Tone is in the instruments. Technique in the hands. Do what you will." ~ quote from some guy at the TGP forum
User avatar
waldo041
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 10:58 am
Location: Indiana

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby keirweir » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:11 pm

waldo041 wrote:oh i almost forgot to add this!

GO DREW BREES AND THE SAINTS! ! !

peace,
waldo



Dito..
Horseface is going down!
User avatar
keirweir
Senior Member
 
Posts: 879
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:27 am
Location: Assachusetts

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Mick » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:32 pm

waldo041 wrote:i completely agree to disagree!


As do I!

but you should know that just like mr irsay's ownership of the instrument. GDP felt they owned the instruments and if they were paid for with GDP money then they were not Jerry's to individually will away. that said, wolf and tiger were found to have been paid for with cash from jerry, thus with no proof of ownership by the GDP, they could not claim ownership and without it they had no case.


I understand how someone could "feel" that they own the instruments, and I am not saying that digging into the issue to clarify what belongs to whom is wrong in any way. I just think the whole thing was so horribly mishandled by GDP that I was disgusted at the time, and my disgust has faded little over the intervening years. Clearly, GDP tried to grab ownership of ALL of the guitars, even though they had no proof of ownership of two of them, and there was apparently evidence showing that they didn't have any claim whatsoever to them. (Quick note there: I admit to not having much of a recollection of the "testimony" that Jerry paid for Tiger and Wolf with cash out of his pocket, but I remember thinking at the time that I didn't view it as particularly credible.) It sure seemed like GDP was in a way-big hurry to hash this out in public too, until the public opinion turned ugly against them (they seem to make that mistake a lot).

so, they had to honor the will and release only those instruments they could not claim as being paid for by the organization. if it were about the money, believe me they would have never given him wolf and tiger, but rather rosbud and wolf jr. jerry was a huge part of the grateful dead BUT was not the sole owner of it. therefore his wishes to give back all the irwin instruments to irwin in his death was not his right to do, but since they did find out that cash was paid for and witnesses step forward to testify to that, they had to honor his will as they had no proof of ownership of wolf and tiger. that has NOTHING to do with the high price they would have fetched in an auction. it is and was a legal matter that jerry produced with his request in his will. and the GDP had every right to persue the matter and should not be berated for it. it was a mistake on both ends, jerry not understanding that the ones paid for by GDP were not his to will and by the GDP for not ensuring that GDP actually purchased them or not.


I strongly disagree here. The fact that Tiger and Wolf had to be pried out of those folks' hands shows that it IS about the money to them. Clearly, Tiger was the most valuable of the guitars, and therefore, the one they fought hardest over. It appeared to me to have little or nothing to do with what was "right" or what Jerry wanted, GDP just took a position that all the guitars were theirs and were ready to mobilize the full resources of their organization to deny a basically bankrupt Doug Irwin of what Jerry promised him. Whether or not a court would have viewed the other guitars as belonging to GDP we will never know since this was technically settled out of court, but I don't think the case that the guitars belonged to GDP simply because they paid from them is as clear as others seem to view it, especially in light of the astonishing lack of records (which I don't believe BTW) of how such things were handled. Suffice it to say that IF an band member EVER had an instrument that was paid for by GDP who subsequently sold it and kept the proceeds (as opposed to refunding those proceeds to GDP), GDP's claim of ownership of Jerry's guitars would be void. Additionally, Phil once said that GDP buying the instruments was a "tax strategy". Let's put those two together for a minute and play "what if": what if one of the members sold an instrument and kept the proceeds, and that this was likely to be discoverable in an investigation, how much of a hurry would I be in to go to court over Jerry's guitars? If that prior transaction is discovered, I will not only lose all of the guitars, I'm gonna have some tough questions to answer to the guys in the suits from the IRS. There is usually a really good reason why a large, well-funded entity will settle a case against a defenseless individual like this out of court. I'm not saying this is the reason, as I am sure I could dream up a dozen more and none of them would be based on a single fact, but I'm just not buying the "we really FELT they were our guitars" story.

in the end the right outcome was made from that point, i agree.


Not surprisingly, I don't agree. I would have rather have ALL the facts about how the purchase of instruments was handled at GDP. I would rather have ALL the facts about who did what with the instruments that were purchased for them by GDP. I would rather have ALL the facts about whether or not a band member's pay was impacted in any way as a result of spending company money on instruments, or anything else for that matter. I would like to review all of that information, and probably a whole lot more, before I would be willing to make an infomed judgement on whether Mr. Irwin did or did not get screwed in the end.

but i do not agree that irsay should do whatever he wants with it simply because he purchased it, although he can because he does owns it, doesn't really make it right in my opinion. as you already know. but i digress and can only hope that he chooses to display it, and do not wish to document it any furthur. although it would have been great, this disagreement has me realize that i really don't like what he has chosen to do with it, and should not support him in documenting it or even continue persuing it for that matter. he has the money and can do it himself.


Well, I don't know if I should be happy or sad about this. Suffice it to say, I never intended to irritate you or piss you off in any way. If I have done that, I'm sorry.

Mick
Mama Mama many worlds I've come since I first left home.
Mick
Jerry
Jerry
 
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Northern NJ

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Jon S. » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:42 pm

The issue, ultimately, is one of legality versus decency/upstandingness. No one here appears to have accused the Irsay family of illegalities with respect to Tiger or the Colts. (Edited to be "softer.")
Last edited by Jon S. on Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.
"For me, I think the only danger is being too much in love with guitar playing. The music is the most important thing, and the guitar is only the instrument." Jerry Garcia
User avatar
Jon S.
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1372
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 12:34 pm

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby Rusty the Scoob » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:04 pm

Regardless of the legal ownership of the the guitar of Jerry vs. GDP, it's Jerry who gave it it's real value beyond just the original purchase price.

Still, I'm on Waldo's side. If Irsay really cared about Tiger instead of just his ability to posess it he would want it studied and documented.
User avatar
Rusty the Scoob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2297
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 5:28 am
Location: Concord, MA

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby strumminsix » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:23 pm

Rusty the Scoob wrote:If Irsay really cared about Tiger instead of just his ability to posess it he would want it studied and documented.


This is the rub. I have to wonder if Irsay doesn't get 100 requests a month to study and document the instrument.

Waldo, market yourself, homey. Figure out a way to get Irsay's ear so that he knows once you show up he can just say no to other requests as you will do it fully!
User avatar
strumminsix
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6645
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Chicago

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby tcsned » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:38 pm

strumminsix wrote:
Rusty the Scoob wrote:If Irsay really cared about Tiger instead of just his ability to posess it he would want it studied and documented.


This is the rub. I have to wonder if Irsay doesn't get 100 requests a month to study and document the instrument.

Waldo, market yourself, homey. Figure out a way to get Irsay's ear so that he knows once you show up he can just say no to other requests as you will do it fully!

You might have to become a Colts season ticket holder :lol:
User avatar
tcsned
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:50 pm
Location: Blacksburg, VA

Re: Jerry's Tiger in Sports Illustrated

Postby mttourpro » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:42 pm

What a thread...just a couple (cynical) thoughts

As for making a "foundation" to somehow get it back, I hate to say it, but I don't think the GD or the GDP really gives that much of a shit or they'dve been sure to never let what happened occur in the first place. I think it was and likely still is all about the allmighty dollar. They'll never make that effort as some folks on here hope for.

As for who owns that guitar, I think Jerry would be bummed in a big way if he knew what was gonna happen. I think he wouldda strongly disapproved and that it was likely the last thing he'd have wanted to see for Tiger.

Just MHO.
http://www.thecausejams.com

let your life proceed by its own design....
User avatar
mttourpro
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1260
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:45 pm
Location: pittsburgh, pa

PreviousNext

Return to Grateful Dead Equipment Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests