Strange Wording on Team LOA

[bigtruck260]

OK - so there is this bat that I have been looking at for an hour or so. The only reason I looked at the auction more closely is because the seller (in my opinion) has sold some "interesting" items in the past...

However, this item seems legit and comes with a Cardinals LOA. Upon closer inspection, the bat is an Aramis Ramirez model X Bat that is being sold as a Pujols gamer.

This is the puzzling part. In the NOTES section, the wording goes like this:

"it is assumed by the clubhouse attendants that this bat was used by Albert Pujols"

ASSUMED? ASSUMED? How about - "according to the clubhouse staff, this bat was used by Albert Pujols...I don't understand how they could sell something as potentially valuable as a Pujols gamer and ASSUME that Albert used it...in the PLAYOFFS no less.

Are teams mandated to used the word assumed? Here is the link....

http://cgi.ebay.com/ALBERT-PUJOLS-GAME-USED-BAT-ST-LOUIS-CARDINALS-COA_W0QQitemZ200163025848QQihZ010QQcategoryZ60596Q QssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

[stlbats]

I remember when the Cardinals were selling these bats. The one I saw was a black SAM bat that was a Ramirez model used by Pujols. This is not uncommon. They were asking $750 for the SAM. Sometime in 2006 Ramirez and Albert exchanged some bats. I am sure Jeff Scott can elaborate on this some as well.

Jason

ripken8@bellsouth.net

[Birdbats]

Albert Pujols used this model of Max Bat (not X-Bat and not Sam Bat) from August 22 to August 29, 2006, a total of 22 plate appearances. Those dates followed a weekend series in Chicago, where Pujols apparently received the bat from Ramirez. I remember when Albert was using the bat -- you could read the model line, but the writing below (player/team name) wasn't visible on television. It wasn't until I saw this bat in the Authentics Store at Busch that I was certain it was a Ramirez model (note how the names are darkened).

Pujols used four different brands of bats in the post season, but none were Max Bat. This was not used during the NLCS with the Mets or in any other post-season game. I can't honestly remember when I saw the bat in the Authentics store, but if the seller's story is accurate, it would have to have been during the World Series. Seems to me it was in the store prior to that.

I could research that with the manager of the Authentics Store, but it's hardly worth it. This seller's word means little to anyone who has followed his sales. He's been responsible for some of the worst fake Pujols autographs and phony memorabilia I can recall. If you're not familiar with him, just read through this thread about the "worst bat forgery ever." http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=9339&highlight=pujols

Now, to the original question about the wording on the LOA. When bats go from the clubhouse to the retail folks, the clubhouse guys will share their knowledge with the retail manager, especially as it relates to bats that don't match players' normal lumber. I can remember a Pat Burrell bat that had 5 on the knob, but the clubhouse guys knew it was used by Albert and not Burrell, who also wears 5. Without this "inside" knowledge, the retail manager wouldn't have any idea about such bats. Usually, the wording on the LOAs, which are not written by the clubhouse guys, is more specific. However, during 2006 when Vicki Bryant signed the letters, perhaps she was more comfortable saying "assumed," a nod to the fact that she didn't have first-hand knowledge the Albert actually used it. (That's similar to how MLB calls jerseys "issued" instead of "used" unless the authenticator actually sees the shirt come off the player's back.) She was just erring on the side of caution, I suppose. Certainly not standard language for an LOA, but I don't consider it suspicious.

[bigtruck260]

Thanks Jeff - I had not seen the word ASSUMED on a Cards LOA yet, though I have only purchased a limited amount of overpriced bats from the team store.:D Thanks for sharing. I trust the bats was used by Albert...

I think that the seller's wording and the LOA kind of crossed each other up. This guy used to be (JDaddy05) and for a while, he was selling an average of a Pujols bat every week...of course, all were fakes. Glad you said it first.

Thanks again for the info Jeff. I think it makes more sense now...

[stlbats]

The black Ramirez SAM bat the Cardinals had for sale, I saw at the Winter Warm Up in 2006, or was it 2005? one or the other.

Jason

ripken8@bellsouth.net

[CollectGU]

Albert Pujols used this model of Max Bat (not X-Bat and not Sam Bat) from August 22 to August 29, 2006, a total of 22 plate appearances. Those dates followed a weekend series in Chicago, where Pujols apparently received the bat from Ramirez. I remember when Albert was using the bat -- you could read the model line, but the writing below (player/team name) wasn't visible on television. It wasn't until I saw this bat in the Authentics Store at Busch that I was certain it was a Ramirez model (note how the names are darkened).

Pujols used four different brands of bats in the post season, but none were Max Bat. This was not used during the NLCS with the Mets or in any other post-season game. I can't honestly remember when I saw the bat in the Authentics store, but if the seller's story is accurate, it would have to have been during the World Series. Seems to me it was in the store prior to that.

I could research that with the manager of the Authentics Store, but it's hardly worth it. This seller's word means little to anyone who has followed his sales. He's been responsible for some of the worst fake Pujols autographs and phony memorabilia I can recall. If you're not familiar with him, just read through this thread about the "worst bat forgery ever." http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=9339&highlight=pujols

Now, to the original question about the wording on the LOA. When bats go from the clubhouse to the retail folks, the clubhouse guys will share their knowledge with the retail manager, especially as it relates to bats that don't match players' normal lumber. I can remember a Pat Burrell bat that had 5 on the knob, but the clubhouse guys knew it was used by Albert and not Burrell, who also wears 5. Without this "inside" knowledge, the retail manager wouldn't have any idea about such bats. Usually, the wording on the LOAs, which are not written by the clubhouse guys, is more specific. However, during 2006 when Vicki Bryant signed the letters, perhaps she was more comfortable saying "assumed," a nod to the fact that she didn't have first-hand knowledge the Albert actually used it. (That's similar to how MLB calls jerseys "issued" instead of "used" unless the authenticator actually sees the shirt come off the player's back.) She was just erring on the side of caution, I suppose. Certainly not standard language for an LOA, but I don't consider it suspicious.


Jeff,

Getty images show Pujols using this model Max bat when he hit a grand slam against the Mets on August 22nd. It is safe to assume that this is the bat used to hit the grand slam during the Met game?

Thanks,
Dave

[Birdbats]

Jeff,

Getty images show Pujols using this model Max bat when he hit a grand slam against the Mets on August 22nd. It is safe to assume that this is the bat used to hit the grand slam during the Met game?

Thanks,
Dave

Don't know that I'd say it's "safe," but I think it's a reasonable assumption. We know Albert used a Ramirez model... we know he started using a Max Bat with the same finish after a series in Chicago... and we know he used that bat for a week. The only real question is, did he get more than one bat from Ramirez on that trip to Chicago? On the surface, I think it's reasonable to assume the grand slam bat and the bat on eBay are one in the same... but it's impossible to say with certainty.

[bigtruck260]

I noticed that it sold for $450.

Actually, I am kind of sad that I did not make an offer...though the thought of giving this seller any of my money makes me cringe. He has offered one Pujols bat of the 20 he listed last year.

Dave

[sportscentury]

I noticed that it sold for $450.

Actually, I am kind of sad that I did not make an offer...though the thought of giving this seller any of my money makes me cringe. He has offered one Pujols bat of the 20 he listed last year.

Dave

Dave,

In case you (or anyone) is interested, I noticed that this seller offered this bat in at least two previous eBay auctions, prior to the most recent auction in which it sold for $450. See:

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewListedItems&userid=wearingitagain&sort=3&page=2&rows=25&since=30&rdir=0

Best,
Reid