thoughts on possible photomatch please

[markize]

I would like to get some opinions on a possible photomatch. the bat is a D' Angelo Jimenez model bat used by Alfonso Soriano in 1999. the picture with the comparison photo is from a baseball card i have, and is also found on gettyimages. thanks to the photomatch king (Kyle Hess of course) for creating the comparison picture. i am photoshop illiterate so I inlisted a professional. the match is based on the grain that starts almost at a point on the edge of the center brand, and extends to the barrel end of the bat. it squares/rounds off at the end. it passes right on the bottom edge of the "GUNUINE R205" stamp. here are the pics. thanks all.

mark

[yanks12025]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

I say no, i dont see the mlb logo in the photo.

[markize]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

the MLB logo is there, it is just very hard to see it due to the pic being blown up. it has distorted the image, and made it grainy. it is above, and to the left of where the ball is. there is a dark black looking line. that is actually where "major league baseball" is stamped below the logo. here is another pic, less blown up. some of the better pics on getty have the getty watermark over it.

mark

[markize]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

just wanted to bump this up......anyone have any opinions? There is also a dark section of the grain between where the name is stamped, and where New York Yankees is stamped. Please throw your .02 at me. I would appreciate it.

mark

[suave1477]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

Markize for you I really do wish this was a photomatch, but it is not.

I was going to say the same thing as the other member as the one in the photo is missing the logo. But if you feel you can see it with your pictures I will say "ok"

But the dark line in the photo where you say it says Major League Baseball, it's just a black line.
Major League Baseball on your bat is way to light that it matches the logo. One wouldn't stand out from the other.

Last but not least........ which makes it a definite not photo match, if you follow the wood grain in the photo around the name it makes almost a complete perfect oval to where his hand is. Yours the oval keeps going down to nearly the handle.

[kingjammy24]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

just wanted to bump this up......anyone have any opinions? There is also a dark section of the grain between where the name is stamped, and where New York Yankees is stamped. Please throw your .02 at me. I would appreciate it.

mark

mark

your eyes are likely as good as anyone elses here. if you can't tell, then others probably can't either. if noone can tell, then it's probably not a match. a photomatch is like a great meal: it's immediately self-apparent. if it isn't immediately self-apparent, then it's probably not a photomatch. it's not to say that your bat isn't the bat in the photo. it's simply to say that the photo isn't conclusive. a photomatch links an item with a photo conclusively. you shouldn't need to squint or infer or turn the photo 38 degrees and then view it from 20 feet away. you shouldn't need to tell someone that a "dark black looking line" is the MLB stamp because it's that difficult to see. the MLB stamp should be apparent. not some fuzzy blob that by spatial inference might be the MLB logo.

as for matching a single wood grain, i've seen many bats share a single wood grain. even two. a player can receive 200 bats in a season. amongst 200 bats, it's easily possible that 2 will share a similar woodgrain on a barrel. i've been trying to match a blonde LVS of mine for years now and have come close many times but no cigar. in many instances i found 2 or 3 similar woodgrains but would then find one that didn't match.

there've been some great photomatches posted on this forum and some lousy ones. in all of the great ones, it was conclusive and apparent within a few seconds of looking at the photo. noone doubted it and noone needed any second opinions because it was obvious. a photomatch shouldn't necessitate that you squint really hard and convince yourself that one fuzzy blob seems to match another even fuzzier blob so therefore it must be a match. it should be undeniable, clear, and evident. if in doubt, then it's inconclusive and if it's inconclusive then it's not a photomatch.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

truthfully, you can't even be 100% certain if the bat in the photo is even a louisville slugger. that's how distorted it is. sure it looks like its probably a louisville slugger but i wouldn't bet my life on it. you can't see any of the logos clearly and we're talking about a single, blurry woodgrain.

a part of me wishes people would stop stretching things to such degrees to force a match. it's gotten to where it's not so much photomatching but "fuzzy blob matching". we can barely see these blobs. we haven't done any work to see if they're the identical size or shape even. but they're all similarly blobbish in appearance and roughly in the same location, give or take several inches, so we'll just go ahead and make the leap and infer they're the same. a photomatch is supposed to be infallible. 100%. conclusive. rock solid. how can you achieve a rock solid conclusion using blurry photos and matching fuzzy blobs? mark, none of that is directed at you. it's directed at the "fuzzy blob matching" militia out there that seems to spit out photomatches in 5 minutes. photomatches aren't supposed to inspire doubt.

rudy.

[Capital-Sports]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

I just don't see it...

[markize]

Re: thoughts on possible photomatch please

thanks all. Differing opinions are better than none at all.

Mark