The Wisden Forum (www.wisden.club)

Can anyone tell me why the #5 leather Wisden for 2011 would be so special

Coming to an auction site near you

Presumably it was going to be allocated to Mohammed Amir? There were only four Cricketers of the Year in 2011 as the fifth choice was no longer sustainable.

Copy numbers 1 to 5 each year have always been presented to that years’ Cricketers of the Year. Copy numbers 6 to 150 are sold (the 2016 edition was priced at £280) with collectors having first option each year on their regular copy number.

However in 2011 Wisden only named Four Cricketers of the Year. At the start of the Cricketers of the Year section in the 2011 edition, Wisden stated that:
“The editor of Wisden 2011 originally chose five Cricketers of the Year, as normal. However, the findings, shortly before this book went to press, of the ICC´s independent tribunal made the selection of one of the five unsustainable. As a result, only four players have been instated.”

And in the preface the editor, Scyld Berry, wrote:
“This year, for the first time, Wisden has four Cricketers of the Year. Originally I selected five, in accordance with custom. Serious allegations of corruption were then made against one of them, and subsequent events rendered his selection in my opinion unsustainable. Since 1890, five has always been the number of the Cricketers of the Year, except when a player has been so colossal as to be honoured on his own, such as WG Grace in 1896. It is sad to break this tradition, but I considered that an exception was unavoidable this year, and it points up the realities that confront the modern game.”

It is widely assumed that Mohammad Amir would have been the 5th Cricketer of the Year in 2011, but Wisden has never confirmed this.

sustainable, the word of the day

So where has #5 come from Chris?

The owner is top secret but it is for sale,

http://www.wisdenauction.com/detail.asp?id=190039

Chris,

Will the owner be revealed to the winner of the auction?

Charles

One of the conditions of sale is confidentiality, whether the winner is deemed to be different to not telling the general public I'm not sure , but I can't promise anything.

Good luck with the bids , this has to be one of the most unique books we've listed. Shame I can't bid.

It can't be "most unique", Chris. It's either unique or it isn't. However, that's not why I'm posting. I'm posting because all the spculation about Amir is just that: speculation. What I think is that Wisden were going to name me as one of the five cricketers of the year. However, they probably felt that the fact I hadn't played any cricket that year might make naming me as being unsustainable. In the absewnce of any statement to the contrary from Wisden, I can (and will) say that I was destined for the fifth spot and put COTY after my name. Cool. And don't let's see people like Richard or Mike trying to claim that fifth spot. In fact, when I come to think of it, the book is rightfully mine. So, perhaps you'd send it on, Chris, and we'll say no more about it.

_________________
Master of Cleeshay COTY (1911)

Hi Simon,

You best bid so you can own your book

The Most unique is more "out of all the unique things listed ever, this is at the top of the list , or close" but English has never been my strong point.

Re COTY , you can only win it once so I cant see how you'd win it in 2011

Ah, but Chris, I hadn't won it before, which is why I was probably getting the 2011 award! I shall take a principled stand and not bid for something that is rightfully mine! Perhaps I should start a movement!?

That is outrageous! A man with your talent, Wisden should hold their heads in shame.

2010 was a great year for me (again) but I would have turned down the award in protest against the shameless money-grubbing which was rife at the time.

By the way, what sort of site is it which resorts to using generic images of high value books? How is the purchaser supposed to judge the actual condition of the book without genuine pictures? Can you imagine the furore there would be on here if JJ did this with one of his ebay listings?

Never let it be said that I'm not prepared to stir it up if given half a chance.

Also, have you ensured that this isn't a money-laundering scam?

I hear Pablo Escobar was a particularly prominent member of the Columbian National Team and was known to have been building up an impressive collection of cricket memorabilia as a hedge against the seizure or his cash assets when the prosecutors caught up with him.

Yeah apologise for no pictures, im under the control of the seller as I dont have it with me, but being just 5 years old and in a slip case etc etc id be surprised if there were any problems, id certainly not do it if it were 1911.

Wasn't it Pablo that pipped Simon to #5 in 2011?

He was a great exponent that season with the reverse sweep, usually though with a machete.

Is that why it is called Short Leg?

What year was this then?

A bit harsh, Chris. You could have at least made it less than 105 years ago!

Rats I have a gap

1910 - yes
1911 - no
1912 - no
1913 - yes

_________________
Guru Mahesh Trivialus Gelbukanack
The Battrum of Lindisfarne
Lawside sorceror's apprentice
Owner of the 1863

Christies sale could solve that, Mike.

Your collection seems to have mirrored mine. I'd have a nice run and then something earlier would come up so I'd buy it and then I would take ages creating lots of smaller gaps giving me the opportunity to build small runs. That way, it felt like I was making progress when, using your example, I picked up a 1911 and then perhaps a 1912 to give me the 1910 - 1913 run even though there was another gap to 1920 still to fill.

Does that make sense?

Oh absolutely. I tend to buy a Wisden serendipitously when a good deal comes up. This means I do have odd gaps. The really sad thing is that I have all the gaps in my head and have typed this direct from memory:

1979 to 1884
1886 to 1893
1895
1897
1899 to 1900
1902
1908
1911 to 1912
1914
1917
1919 to 1920
1932 to 1933
1936
1939 to 1942
1945

_________________
Guru Mahesh Trivialus Gelbukanack
The Battrum of Lindisfarne
Lawside sorceror's apprentice
Owner of the 1863

Great scope there to close things up with just a couple of purchases. A 1945 gives you everything back to 1943, for instance so there are lots of opportunities to make big inroads with a judicious bit of ebaying.

Good hunting!

Back on topic, I see the price of #5 has reached £620.

Is such a premium really justified just for a low number written in the book? After all, it's not as if it has actually belonged to a famous cricketer (or has it?).

Now if we had some real information on its provenance ........

It is one of a kind, so it is very hard to value.

It is only the price of 2 2016s though.

1995 sold in half an hour for £2200.

If anyone needs any leather years please say as ill split my spare set up now. I have a few wants but will have a few years left.

I'm trying to think of something suitable to say. I hadn't realised I'd won in 1911, buy will accept it nonetheless.

_________________
Master of Cleeshay COTY (1911)

And he never mentioned my name even once in that article! Shameful. I shall write to the Press Complaints Commission (if it still exists)!

_________________
Master of Cleeshay COTY (1911)

I prefer Mint to Tainted....

http://www.espncricinfo.com/pakistan/co ... 69932.html

Oh absolutely. I tend to buy a Wisden serendipitously when a good deal comes up. This means I do have odd gaps. The really sad thing is that I have all the gaps in my head and have typed this direct from memory:

1979 to 1884
1886 to 1893
1895
1897
1899 to 1900
1902
1908
1911 to 1912
1914
1917
1919 to 1920
1932 to 1933
1936
1939 to 1942
1945[/quote]


I try to keep my gaps in my head, thats why I have 2 1918's . . . .And Chris kindly sent me a pic of the 1902 I had bought when I was considering buying another

Hi Mr G ,are these your gaps your you collection? Im guessing the latter but thought you had an 1898 HB.(with P&P )

No those are mikes I think (I was quoting him, but misleadingly deleted some of his post).
Mine are 1864-79 and 1901 and 03 (I think). Im not entirely happy with my Edwardian softbacks as some have had some "work" done which wasn't declared by the vendors some of whom should know better.
But don't get me started.

Yep, they were. Slightly fewer gaps now though.

Like Grimble I have a few in my collection that I bought in the early days that on reflection wouldn't buy now, but hey we all get better at things

Mike

_________________
Guru Mahesh Trivialus Gelbukanack
The Battrum of Lindisfarne
Lawside sorceror's apprentice
Owner of the 1863