Authentication Issues - Help Needed

[mikeroseny]

Hello Everyone,

I will apologize in advance for the length of this post. However, I believe this matter relates to one of the most important issues facing the sports collectible hobby and is an extremely important topic to examine if you collect game used equipment. I hope you will take the time to read this post and offer your advice. As background, I was actively involved with a few other people in buying and selling game used sports memorabilia for two years and I believe there are some major issues that need to be addressed regarding third-party item authentications, conflicts of interest, and the policies of some auction houses that sell these items. I will recount my story to you with factual information and hope you can help me determine the appropriate next steps. While I think the full story in critical to the hobby, I have outlined the key points in bold for those who don’t have the time to read the entire post.

From 2003 to 2005, I was involved with Mr. Christopher Cavalier in actively buying and selling in the game used memorabilia market. As an aggressive buyer of memorabilia at the time, Mr. Cavalier was often contacted by various interests in the hobby hoping to develop relationships with him and sell him merchandise. On October 28, 2004, Mr. Cavalier was contacted by Steve Jensen of Vintage Authentics about a Tris Speaker bat. The bat was graded an SCDA 5 and was authenticated and graded by Dave Bushing and Troy Kinunen who were at SCDA at the time. The bat was offered to us for $15,000. We passed on the offer because we did not think the bat was of a quality that warranted the price.

Then in February of 2005, Mr. Cavalier was approached once again by Steve Jensen of Vintage Authentics about a Tris Speaker bat that was, according to Mr. Jensen, “the nicest Speaker bat ever graded”. Mr. Jensen further explained that the bat was graded a ‘7’ by MEARS (this authentication was also done by Dave Bushing and Troy Kinunen who had left SCDA and were now working for MEARS). Mr. Jensen also added that the bat could possibly receive an ‘8’ since there was supposedly a Speaker lathe bat MEARS possessed that “matched the specifications” of the one we were being offered. The bat was offered to us at $23,200 under the condition that the bat would be consigned to Vintage Authentics for their next auction.

Given we had done business with Mr. Jensen before, we trusted Mr. Jensen’s description of the bat. We discussed the specifics of the bat and decided that, although there was a small amount of downside risk, the opportunity to invest in such a scarce bat would make it a risk worth taking. That is, assuming the bat was legitimate, we thought it would likely sell in auction for at least our buy price with the potential to go higher if the right collectors were made aware that the bat was in auction. Trusting Mr. Jensen’s description of the bat, as well as MEARS grading system, we proceeded to consummate the deal with Vintage Authentics and consigned it to them for their July 2005 auction. We were never made aware of the fact that this was the same bat we passed on in October 2004 and that it had been upgraded by MEARS after supposedly finding a lathe bat that “matched this bat’s specifications”.

While I am aware that some forum members will say you cannot trust an LOA and “need to do your own homework”, please remember that at the time a forum like this one did not exist and we trusted both MEARS and Vintage Authentics “Opinions” regarding game used items. We were also aware of MEARS’ “money back guarantee” so down-deep we felt there was no risk to us if the bat was later found to be improperly graded.

As it turns out, the bat was placed in Vintage Authentics’ July 2005 auction with an opening bid of $5,000. Those familiar with auctions know opening bids are typically set at a percentage of what the house believes the item should sell for. In addition, openings bids are generally not set too high as auction houses typically do not want to discourage bidders from placing an opening bid. While we weren’t overly concerned at the start of the auction, with two days left in the auction we noticed that the bat only had one bid. At that point, we knew the collecting community was not showing interest in it for some reason.

At the time we thought maybe the auction simply wasn’t well promoted. Therefore, assuming we didn’t see any additional bidding, we resigned ourselves to buying back the bat with the intention to consign it in a future auction. Though we originally bought the bat directly from Vintage under the condition that we put it in their auction, we had to buy it back from Vintage’s auction for a closing bid of $6,050 (there were only two other bids placed in the entire auction besides ours). Notably, we also had to pay Vintage the 15% buyer’s premium which cost us another $908.

While we considered what to do next with the bat, at that point we could not dismiss the fact that only two other bids were placed on a Tris Speaker bat that was the “highest Speaker bat ever graded” (knowledgeable bat collectors know a genuine Speaker bat with that grade should have fetched $25,000 or more at the time of the auction). Though we further considered the possibility that the auction wasn’t well promoted, it seemed less plausible when we noticed other bats in the auction seemed to garner reasonable prices. Given bidders were not showing interest in the Speaker bat, we felt maybe there was something about the bat we were not aware of. At that point, we did some additional research on the bat.

The result of our research led us to some major questions about the authentication and the first of two correspondences we had with the people at MEARS. Given I am trying to be completely accurate in the recounting of events, here is an exact excerpt outlining the questions we asked MEARS in our first email to them on October 6, 2005. In addition, given MEARS’ highly publicized “money back guarantee” we expressed that we felt entitled to a refund based on the inappropriateness of the grade. Here is the excerpt outlining our concerns:

1. Your grading criteria for an “A7” is as follows:

“A7 thru A6: Authenticated bat with evaluated use and noted player characteristics

Factory production details of the bat has been compared to known records and have been determined to match recorded length (+/- 1/4”), weight (+/- 1 to 4) ounces, model, and correspond with proper labeling period from point in examined players career. (5 points base grade)

Use characteristics & player traits have been examined and player use has been found to be lite or medium. Player traits may be present but no additional points are awarded. (Add 1 to 2 point use grade)

In cases where this grade was obtained because of points subtracted, those reasons will be clearly noted on the enclosed “Bat Grading and Authenticating Official Worksheet.” (Up to 4 points subtracted for negative use, see Negative Traits chart below).”

In addition, under point (f) of your letter of opinion of this bat you state “originally graded A5, points added since lathe bat shows shorter bats ordered, no record for this era exist so lathe is best known evidence of orders”.

Quite frankly the statement that “…no record for this era exist” is incorrect. There are two specific references from the Hillerich & Bradsby records which show bats ordered by Speaker during the 1917-21 labeling period. Speaker ordered bats on 09-15-1920 that were 35 inches in length and 40 ounces in weight and bats on 06-18-1921 that were 35 inches in length and 40-41 ounces in weight. According to these records, the bat in question -- with a length of 32.5 inches and a weight of 33 ounces – certainly does not meet your criteria for the bat to be “compared to known records and have been determined to match recorded length (+/- 1/4”), weight (+/- 1 to 4) ounces, model, and correspond with proper labeling period from point in examined players career”.

2. Regarding the weight of the bat, in addition to the two orders during the 1917-21 period mentioned above, the lightest bat Speaker ordered according to the Hillerich & Bradsby records was 35 ounces which occurred on 05-14-1925 which was made of his 9-21-1923 bat. Speaker was also consistently shipped 37-ounce bats from 02-20-1926 to 03-05-1927, and once in 1928 and 1929. In addition, one shipment on 05-29-1929 references Jimmy Foxx model bats shipped to Speaker weighing 36 to 38 ounces. Otherwise, from 1920 to 1929, all Speaker bats according to the Hillerich & Bradsby records were 38 ounces or more. Thus, even later in his career when you would expect Speaker to order lighter bats as he got older, there is no precedent of Speaker ordering any bats that would allow a 33 ounce bat to meet your criteria for the bat to be “compared to known records and have been determined to match recorded length (+/- 1/4”), weight (+/- 1 to 4) ounces, model, and correspond with proper labeling period from point in examined players career”.

3. Apparently, the authenticators of the bat placed a great deal of emphasis on a lathe bat of greater than 33 inches that has the following notation “Speaker ? 24, make 33” K48L”. Why is this lathe bat given so much emphasis in the authentication process when: a) there are Hillerich & Bradsby factory records of bats ordered by Speaker in the 1917-21 period, and b) there is no mention of this lathe bat on the back of Tris Speaker’s record card? With the previous information, along with the fact that the lathe bat likely is from 1924, it definitely seems inappropriate to place 33 inch bats into the hands of Speaker from 1917-21.

4. To compound the problem, even if 33 inches was an acceptable length for Speaker bats from 1917-21 (which is not acceptable as per the points above), this bat is only 32 ½” and does not meet your criteria “to match recorded length (+/- 1/4”)”.

While we were hoping this issue would be handled by Dave Grob, unfortunately in our opinion, we were told that this was an “operational issue and outside of [his] purview”. One week later we received an email from Troy Kinunen which I am cutting and pasting here so as to be perfectly accurate:

“In our opinion and based on a combination of factors such as our research, experience, and interpretation of all available information, the bat was awarded the grade of A7. The discovery of the lathe bat suppeforted our opinion. Our published criteria serves as a guide for the basis of our grades and we always encourage collectors to ask specific questions when the criteria may need clarification.

Your knowledge of game used and graded bats is well documented and I would encourage you to ask more specific questions before placing bids in future auctions.

Dave Grob is involved in the policies of MEARS, I am responsible for the business activities and upon the a second review, the grade still stands.

Troy”

About one month later we did receive a more detailed response that MEARS has already posted on their site’s bulletin board. Troy’s response, which is in the latter part of the post, can be found with the following link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1151316750/TRIS+SPEAKER+BAT...+IMPORTANT+%21 (http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1151316750/TRIS+SPEAKER+BAT...+IMPORTANT+%21)

At this point, though we still did not agree with MEARS’ opinion, it was clear MEARS was not interested in providing a refund. Thus, we had to decide what to do with the bat given our investment. It was at this point that we sent the bat to Sothebys to see if they would be willing to put it in their auction. We first called Sothebys to make sure they were very clear about the bat’s history and told them to let us know if they had any questions once they received it. After they received the bat, we received a call from Dan Imler at Sothebys saying they were not willing to auction it. Mr. Imler gave the following two reasons: 1) Sothebys used both MEARS and PSA/DNA for their authentications and John Taube (of PSA/DNA) was reluctant to authenticate the bat based on its unusually small size; and 2) Sothebys offers a five-year refund policy. As such, Sothebys has the final say in what items they put in their auction (that is, they will not auction any item they are not comfortable with offering to the public).

We were also told that John Taube had not physically seen the bat but had it described to him by Mr. Imler. At that point we sent the bat to John Taube of PSA/DNA for formal review and authentication. The result was the following Letter of Authenticity:

1308

In addition, at the time of the PSA/DNA authentication, John Taube called Dave Bushing and asked to see the actual lathe bat but Bushing refused saying he did not want to ship it to him for fear of being lost. Notably, hand-written notes by Bushing indicate the lathe bat itself is actually 34 ¾ inches, not 33 inches.

After receiving the PSA/DNA letter, we then sent the bat to Mike Specht of Global Authentications. While we were aware of the importance MEARS was giving to the lathe bat, Mr. Specht, among other things, questioned the hand-written notations on the lathe bat, specifically the reference to a model number. In his opinion, which Vince Malta later concurred with, the reference to a bat’s model number would not have referred to anything used in Speaker’s playing career since models numbers were not in use at the time and would not be found on bats until well after this bat’s label period. In our minds, this was just another dagger in the theory that the bat we had could ever have made it into Speaker’s hands during his playing career. Here is the complete letter from Mr. Specht:

1309

At that point, we then re-contacted MEARS on June 19, 2006 asking them to reconsider their position in light of all the evidence in this matter. We were hoping Dave Grob could handle the matter but we were once again told this was an issue he was not “empowered to resolve on [his] own as it falls outside of [his] authority as the Policy Director”. We later received an email from MEARS which included, among other things, the following response, “MEARS has not changed its position on this matter. Our policy when we offer opinions is designed to ensure that the person(s) buying an item is getting what we believe it to be and the reasons why. In this case, various and varying opinions from PSA and Global, do not make our findings and letter inaccurate or wrong.”

Last, but certainly not least, Mr. Cavalier also had a conversation with Vince Malta two weeks ago at the National Convention where they both had the bat in their possession. Mr. Malta also had all of Tris Speaker’s records with him. According to Mr. Malta, this bat does not match any known records for Speaker and that Speakers’ records consistently show him ordering only 35” bats during that era. He also noted that, although the LOA states this bat was 33”, this bat was only 32 ¼ inches (a ¾” discrepancy is not acceptable even for a 33” bat). Further, when asked, Mr. Malta stated that these are objective facts and not anything that can be attributed to an “Opinion”.

At this point, I believe we have a few options. Notably, we already decided to contact Vintage Authentics since they had publicly declared that “Ultimately, the responsibility lies with [them] as an auction house to provide quality and authentic merchandise and [they] are 100% committed to doing so." Unfortunately, when we contacted Vintage they told us they stood behind MEARS’ opinion and that they felt they had no fiscal responsibility given they use MEARS for their authentications and MEARS offers a money back guarantee if there are any problems. They also said they would be willing to resell the bat for us outside of their auctions and that they would split anything above the price we initially paid for the bat. We responded by telling them we had no interest in trying to resell a bat that, in our opinion, was never used by Tris Speaker.

The last point I want to make here is that we were never told throughout this entire ordeal that Dave Bushing (one of the bat’s two authenticators) and Steve Jensen (the one supposedly “brokering” the bat to us) were both previous owners of the bat. We only found out about this fact through the MEARS post mentioned above. In my opinion, this fact should have been divulged to us prior to our purchase given the potential conflict of interest.
That brings us to the point of my post. Currently, I believe we have a few options which include: 1) trying the case in a court of public opinion; 2) pursuing legal means such as adjudication in the courts or arbitration; 3) soliciting other examples of proven mis-graded items and pursuing a class-action suit or its equivalent. It is also my understanding that, although MEARS (as per their website) may want any court proceedings to be conducted in Milwaukee, any officer of their company can be served if they are present in another state, thus, forcing the venue to a different location. It was never my intention to open this matter for broad discussion. Indeed, I believed MEARS or Vintage Authentics would stand by their policy when presented with the information they may have missed in their initial review of this item. I would be the first to acknowledge their actions if they stepped up and corrected this situation in the past or future. Sadly, this has not been the case to date.

Thus, my question to the collecting community is this…what would you do in my situation? I look forward to hearing your opinions and any insights you may have.

Sincerely,

Mike Rose

[kingjammy24]

mike,

incredible post! thanks very much for taking the time and effort to write it. i don't think it serves any purpose here to rehash my personal opinion of bushing so let's get to the meat of the matter. (let me preface things by saying i'm not a lawyer and my opinion should not be construed as legal advice).

in soliciting opinions regarding your future course of action you gave 3 options. your first is to "try the case in a court of public opinion". i'd offer that if you want to see real results, this option is the slow boat to china. the effect of public opinion on certain individuals in this hobby seems negligible. your well-founded complaint is one in a litany that bushing has received over the past several years. in my experience, i can't recall taube, malta, caravello, specht, or any of bushing's peers receiving a fraction of the criticism that he has. bushing, on the other hand, seems to be a regular defendant in the court of public opinion and, in my opinion, the verdicts seem to have little effect.

a second option is a class-action suit. i'm unsure if your specific grievance and the others against bushing are similar enough to be able to be included in a class-action suit. aside from qualifying, the time and effort necessary to find and coordinate all of the plaintiffs may prove overly difficult.

your third option is to have the matter either arbitrated or adjudicated in a court of law. i'm unsure if such an arbitration would be legally binding or if it would simply result in the arbitrator merely offering "advice" to both parties. if mears/bushing is so firm in their stance, then having the matter arbitrated may not actually result in much. from your post, it seems they have little genuine interest in arriving at a mutually acceptable resolution which is the basic premise behind arbitration.

having the matter adjudicated is a different story. if it were me, i would take this last option. again, i'm only offering my personal opinion and don't intend for anything to be construed as legal advice. personally, i believe you've got an excellent case on several levels and i'm basing this on formal education in these matters. terms like "negotiating in bad faith" and "negligence" swirl in my head. you may also want to ask your counsel their opinion of collusion.

at any rate, seeing as how i'm not a lawyer or bat expert, i'm sorry i can't be of more assistance. if you're serious about getting a real conclusion to this matter, then legal action may be your best bet. unfortunately, your story didn't surprise me in regards to bushing/mears. i've the utmost respect for taube, malta, and specht and have never found a bad thing to say about any of them. posting about bushing, on the other hand, would give me carpal tunnel.

best of luck mike! let me know how it all turns out.

rudy.

[stbarton]

I am a very small time collector, but I have observed through the years that there is an enormous amount of politics that goes on in a business that is suppose to be a hobby and be fun and it has turned into a back stabbing business. We have all these so called experts and none of them agree on anything unless it lines their pockets. At the National in Anaheim I went up to an auction house to gain an opinion on a jersey because I was not sure of it orgin and was immmediately told they were not interested in the jersey. I wasn't even interested in selling it. I won't name the company but it starts with an "M".

What I find interesting with the Tris Speaker bat is that it seems clear that its was never used by him and yet the money back guarantee is not being honored. Well if these experts are so good how do you miss a Phillies Steve Carlton jersey where the name plate has been restored?

The bottom line for me is throw all these letters of authenticty out the window because no matter who issues them, there is another expert that can dispute it.

[CollectGU]

What good is a money back guarantee if you can't collect on it. Besides this Speaker bat, I know a fellow collector who bought a mis-dated Arod rookie bat (actually from 97'). Mears stated that they would offer to pay the collector the difference between an Arod rookie and a 97' but never did...

[trsent]

Dave Bushing has responded to the same original post over on the MEARS forum:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/thread/1155333479/Tris+Speaker+Bat+Follow+Up+-+Important

[CollectGU]

Dave Bushing is sticking by his grade, but I would like to hear from the forum bat experts on this issue, and their thoughts on a 7 grade received...

[both-teams-played-hard]

Though we originally bought the bat directly from Vintage under the condition that we put it in their auction, we had to buy it back from Vintage’s auction for a closing bid of $6,050 (there were only two other bids placed in the entire auction besides ours). Notably, we also had to pay Vintage the 15% buyer’s premium which cost us another $908.

Don't tell the judge about the shill bidding.

[trsent]

Don't tell the judge about the shill bidding.

I do believe some states allow the consignor of an item to bid on their own consignment, as long as all fees are properly paid. I heard this is passing conversations over the years, so it would be neat if someone found a state by state log of which states allow for consignees to bid on their own item.

[mikeroseny]

Let me address the "shill bidding" comment right away. Shill bidding is a practice that is intended to deceive others bidders by pushing up the price in an auction in an attempt to make other bidders think there is more interest in an item than there really is. In this case, given our belief from what we were told that this bat was "the nicest Speaker ever graded", we were willing to pay the current auction price for the bat since we thought it was worth much more at the time. Therefore, like any other bidder in the auction, we placed our bid and "won" the item. Again, like any other bidder in the auction, we also paid the buyer’s premium when we won the item.


Please explain to me where we attempted to deceive anyone else in the auction. Vintage Authentics allowed us to place the bid as any other bidder would do provided we abided in the rules the same way as other bidders. There was no intention to deceive anyone. We simply thought, at the time, the bat was worth much more than what other bidders in the auction were willing to pay at the time.

[trsent]

Mike, I do not know what is legal in the state Vintage Authenticates is located in, I was just stating I know some states all you to bid on your own items and some states do not.

I guess in the state of California it is not allowed, because you cannot bid on your own item on eBay. I wonder who can help us with this topic?

In another topic, Mike, will you be addressing Dave Bushing's latest post on the MEARS forum?

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1155394303/Question+for+Mike

[JimCaravello]

In response to CollectGU's post -

"Dave Bushing is sticking by his grade, but I would like to hear from the forum bat experts on this issue, and their thoughts on a 7 grade received..."

I am not qualified to grade this bat, as I have handled very few pre-30 Louisville Slugger bats as a collector. I also am not a formal authenticator. What I can tell you based on ALL the posts I have read on both GUU and the MEARS site is the following:

You have three very qualified Bat Authenticators ( Taube, Specht and Malta ) who are primarily in agreement on their opinion on this bat - which is that they don't feel Speaker used it or they are unwilling to grade the bat. You have MEARS grading this bat a "7" which is a very high grade for a bat the other three don't even want to touch.
This bat is 32.25" long and its a complete liberal stretch for MEARS to continue to call this a 33" bat. They had tape measures in those days and the idea that the barrel end was shaved / sanded to reduce the weight is ludicrous. You wouldn't shave a bat by 3/4" to reduce weight. You would saw that much lumber off and then it wouldn't be a 33" bat anymore - would it?? Troy's comments on the MEARS site ( BUYER: To compound the problem, even if 33 inches was an acceptable length for Speaker bats from 1917-21 (which is not acceptable as per the points above), this bat is only 32 ½” and does not meet your criteria “to match recorded length (+/- 1/4”)”. KINUNEN: Again, this is taken out of complete context. Bats were hand sanded and bigger discrepancies occurred, especially on bats from the deadball era as weight was just as important as length. We felt that in this instance the bat fell within the acceptable range. ) Troy's comments are a complete stretch for this particular bat..................In addition, based on MEARS own scale, there should be a 3 point deduction as the bat does not match factory records for the period. A post era lathe bat is not what I would call matching factory records.......

This lathe bat can best be traced to 1924 based on what is inscribed on the bat. If no records exist that show 32.25" bats during the 1917-1921 period for Speaker ( never mind 33" bats ), its again a very liberal stretch to assume that the Speaker bat in question was used by Speaker as no 33" bats or 32.25" bats are shown for him during this time period and the fact the lathe bat was produced after the bat in question.
One of the best comments on the MEARS site is from one of Troy's original posts when the Buyer questions the weight of the bat and Troy mentions that bats can lose weight over time - but the real tell tale comment of how liberal these guys grade is the following comment by Troy - Experience tells us that you cannot solely base an evaluation on 6 ledger entries. Tris Speaker played in 2,789 games, not including exhibitions. He had 10,195 at bats. He played from 1907-1928, which spanned the dead ball era, and the lengths and weights of bats varied greatly. Again, our experience tells us that you cannot base a decision on 6 orders found in Louisville’s ledgers listing only the weights of the bats. BUT - YOU CAN BASE A DECISION ON ONE POST PERIOD LATHE BAT AND NOTHING ELSE IN THE RECORDS?? WHERE IS THE LOGIC IN THIS??
As mentioned above, I am certainly not qualified to grade this bat myself.

It appears that most of Bushing's responses in the last day or so revolve around auction practices and bidding and he has not addressed the facts of the original post - nor the opinions of the other Bat Authenticators.

Relative to Mike's first question -

What should you do? Mike - you should take this to a higher level and seek legal remedies. I am not a lawyer and don't know protocol, but it seems the boys at MEARS have gone way beyond being liberal graders of game used equipment - they flat out missed this one completely. I thought the Yaz bat that we questioned last weekend that was pulled from Vintage's current auctions after I e-mailed them was bad - this makes that one seem like a slight oversight!

Lastly - I used a 34" bat when I was in the 7th grade! My height and playing weight were similar to Speaker's when I was in high school playing baseball and to think the Speaker would use a bat that was 32.25" in length during this time period - is a complete joke..........even in the deadball era...............

Jim

[BoneRubbedBat]

As it stands right now, you are in the posession of a bat you purchased in the August 11, 2005 Vintage Authentics auction. It was purchased knowing very well what it was (obviously). Transactions that occurred prior to this have little to no bearing on the current status of the bat. MEARS offers Letters of Opinion. The letter of opinion that is currently associated with the Speaker bat did not come at a cost to the auction consignor (you), the auction house (VA), or the buyer (you).

I forsee the only legal foot you have to stand on is the discrepancy in length (32.25 vs 33 inches). You may have purchased a misrepresented bat. If you pursue legal action against the auction house on the grounds of misrepresentation and win, they will most likely turn around and bring legal action against the consignor (you) for submitting a misrepresented item to their auction, since the auction description came from the information provided to them by you.

Ultimately, and unfortuneately, I think this will end up as an expensive case of "do your homework EXTENSIVELY prior to purchasing an item of this magnitude."

[mikeroseny]

(as posted on MEARS)

Hello Mr. Bushing,

Given your numerous questions, I will obviously need to make more than one post to reply. Let me start with a comment and a question. First, you seem to suggest that the question of whether or not we were going to lose money on this bat "seems to be at the heart of this issue". Just to be clear, that is not the issue at all. As in most financial transactions there is potential for gain or loss, and indeed we had lost on some items previously. The real issue here is whether or not this bat deserves the grade it was given by MEARS.

Keep in mind, we like many others in the hobby put great stock in MEARS’ 100% money-back guarantee. The price paid for an item is meaningless (retail or less than retail, $1,000 or $100,000). Our understanding, as communicated in many venues by MEARS, was if an item was misgraded by them or found to be non-authentic, they would make it right. If all we were interested in was making money, we would have accepted Vintage's offer to resell the bat to someone else in order to recoup our investment. Put simply, the issue is whether or not this bat was misgraded and misrepresented and whether MEARS intends to honor their policy.

That leads me to my question. You stated in one of your post that "I sold this bat as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker for a fairly nominal sum which the buyer submitted for a grade of A5 due to a length that had previously been unsubstanciated (sic) for Speaker. That was the last time I had any financial interest in the bat and the person we sold it too (sic) knew I was the owner."

Notably, after the bat was graded by you at SCDA, the resulting LOA (and any additional supporting documentation) would be the only thing any potential future buyer would have to determine whether or not this bat was a legitimate bat used by Speaker. I am attaching both the original LOA for this bat where you graded it an A5 as well as the supporting documentation you provided the person who bought it from you. Please explain to me how any person reading this LOA, along with the supporting document you produced, could possibly conclude that this was a "game issued Tris Speaker bat" with a "length that had previously been unsubstantiated for Speaker".

1326

1327

While I look forward to your reply, I think any logical thinking person already knows the answer..that is, your Letter of Authenticity that calls it a "Tris Speaker Game Used Bat" and supporting documentation you also provided in no way presents the bat in the way you claim. After hearing your response to this question, I will be happy to further discuss the legitimacy of your A7 grade as well.

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com

[trsent]

Interesting point a few posts up by BoneRubbedBat.

Based on the last sale of this bat, wouldn't that mean MEARS, if requested to buy the item back, would be liable for the final auction price from the Vintage Authentics auction? ($6050?)

I would think that was the last sale of the item on public record.

I just think if you go to a court of law and show the item was consigned to an auction house and sold for a price, will the court go back to a previous sale price as the actual price or will they use the last public sale price?

Then again, where does the MEARS line for a money back guarantee come into play? I could sell a vintage bat with a MEARS letter to someone for $100,000.00 and have them find the item not to be authentic and MEARS to show the last known sale of a similar item was at $20,000.00. How can any price be justified?

I know Troy is traveling this weekend, it will be nice to hear his response on Monday.

[trsent]

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/

The discussion over this bat has quite a few replies on the MEARS forum. I would recommend reading over there in the topic: "Tris Speaker Bat Follow Up - Important" for more details on this subject.

[MSpecht]

I have been following this thread since it was originally posted, and have also followed the corresponding thread on the MEARS website. In my opinion, in reviewing all of the information (both relevant and irrelevant) and opinions presented to date, there is one glating omission: the complete, specific, documented H & B factory records for Tris Speaker himself.

First, a little background. As you are aware from previous posts in this thread, in May, 2006 this bat was referred to Global Authentication by Michael Rose, whom I had never met, to provide authentication services. In addition to providing personal authentication services, I also contract my services to Global Authentication in the area of professional model game used bats, and I was the direct recipient of this bat, mailed directly from John Taube following his examination and subsequent Letter of Opinion on the bat. At that time there had been several opinions and authentication services performed on this bat. I was, at the time, in possession of a variety of information put forth by several people, including people that clearly have significant expertise in the professional model game used bat arena, such as Dave Bushing and John Taube, as well as input from Dave Grob and Troy Kinunen. I had been aquainted with all of those people at various times over the past 30-plus years, with the exception of Troy Kinumen, through the purchase, sales, and authentication of professional bats, and regard each as someone I could pick up the phone and call at any time.



Second, a word about professional model bat authenticators. As I have detailed in previous blog postings on the GUU site, bat authenticators did not really exist until the mid-to-late 1990's when a significant amount of factory records were released by H & B largely through the efforts of Vince Malta and Bill Riddell. Over the next few years, the available information from H & B expanded, but was basically in the hands of a very few people. Thus, the professional model bat authenticator was born...a person who had access to information and records that 99% of collectors did not have. Since that time, a significant amount of research has taken place and alot of information has been freely given out through this website and others.

Here is the basic question -- if the 'professional' authenticators all have basically the same information by this time, what is the difference between them? Why would there be any disagreement at all between them? It comes down to this: existing factory records are, during different eras, less complete than others, and the documentation is, at times, open to interpretation. Throughout the records here are references made, notations scratched, and directions given that have seemingly no additional reference points. There are sometimes found to be errors in annotating a year or in filling in shipping records out of sequence. There is no exact science to this, and that is one of the main reasons H & B was reluctant to allow wholesale distribution of the factory records. In their words, "We're in the business of making bats, and never intended these records for collector use."

An authenticator has no more ability to logically make sense out of a series of records as does anyone else, provided all have the same information. True, a person who has handled, say, 50 game used professional model Willie Mccovey bats may have more insight into McCovey personal use characteristics than someone who hasn't,but, basically, the records speak for themselves. The differences in authenticators lies in their liberal or conservative interpretation of documented records, and their ability to reach logical, reasonable conclusions based on those documents.

That leads us to the Tris Speaker bat in question.

Here are the three objective facts known about this bat: 1) The bat has H & B professional model labeling consistent with the 1917-1921 labeling period;. 2) The bat is 32.25 inches in length; 3) the bat weighs between 32 and 33 ounces.

That is it. All else is subjective opinion.

Given that, let's look at the authentication process.

First, the labeling identifies this as a professional model. There is disagreement whether the bat is made of professional quality wood, but that is somewhat subjective and the opinion based on years of handling bats from the period. I opine in the Letter of Opinion I prepared for Global Authentication that the bat appears to be a professional model bat of the period.

Second, the length of this bat is 32.25 " by John Taube's and the current owner's measurements. I measured the bat at between 32.25 inches and 32.37 inches. Dave Bushing has it at 32.5 inches in the MEARS Letter of Opinion dated 8/11/05.

Third, the weight of this bat is, as weighed by all parties, "a little over 32 ounces".

With this objective information in hand, what references are found in Tris Speaker's factory records? Below is a listing of all orders that are known to exist for Tris Speaker. Any added notations are referenced from additional factory records as indicated:

TRIS SPEAKER

9/15/20; His Model / 40 oz. NOTE: Old Tris Speaker diagram at 35"
6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above
6/3/22 Cleveland BBC Model sent in for Speaker / 39 oz. NOTE: unknown length
4/27/23 His Cleveland BBC 6-3-22 / 39-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
7/18/23: Sheeley Model 36" Use large Sisler-Cuban / 40 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 36"
8/21/23: Earl Sheeley Auto on End Cuban Wood Model sent in / 40-41 oz NOTE: unknown length

4/15/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: This Speaker model is not diagrammed in H & B
records and is of unknown length
5/6/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
5/14/25:His 8-21-23/ 35 ounces NOTE: unknown length as above
6/6/25: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood Model/ 38-39 oz. NOTE: unknown length as above
2/20/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/7/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/15/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood/ 37 ounces: NOTE: unknown length as above
6/11/26: His Old Speaker/ 37 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 35"
5/14/27 Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE: only two Hornsby model bats are known diagrammed, both at 35"

6/16/27: Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE as above 35"
7/9/27 : HornsbyAuto on End, Model sent in: / 38 oz NOTE: as above, 35"
3/12/28: His 7-9-27/ 38 ounces NOTE: as above, 35"
4/5/28: Hornsby/ 38-39 oz. NOTE as above, 35 "
7/27/28: His Auto on end Model sent in/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length
5/2/29: Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 to 38 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
8/10/29 Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 37 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
1930: His Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 & 38 oz NOTE: diagram at 35"
1933: His 7-27-28/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length

There are three diagrammed bats in Speaker's records. These bats were used as indexed bats and generally came with a specified length. In other words, if you ordered a Jimmie Foxx model 22-21-28 it would automatically come to you in its indexed length of 35" unless you specified a different length, and the variation would be the weight ordered. The three diagrammed Speaker bats are the Old Tris Speaker diagrammed at 35". the Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28 model diagrammed at 35", and a Paul Waner model. The Waner model is not specified, but in Waner's index there are eleven diagrammed bats as his index bats, four of which likely overlap Speaker's playing career as follows: His (Waner's) 6-22-27 diagrammed at 34", Old Tim Hendrix diagrammed at 35.75", Large Sisler diagrammed at 36", and Hornsby diagrammed at 35-36". It is unknown which of these bats is referenced specifically.

So what does this all mean? Well, out of 24 specific documented orders, length is referenced on 7 of them (12 if you include the orders of Hornsby models that likely are 35" in length), and all seven documented re3ferences are 35 or 36 inches in length. . The length of this bat, 32.25 inches, is so dramatically uncharacteristic of Speaker's KNOWN existing records, that it is extremely unlikely that it was manufactures for Speaker's professional use. When the weight is factored into the equation, this bat is between 7.4 ounces and 8.4 ounces lighter than any order documented within the bat's labeling period.

You be the authenticator, as now you have all the existing documented information on Tris Speaker's personal H & B factory records. Is this bat a professional model bat? With the proper labeling intact, I agreed that it appears to be a professional model bat. That is in agreement with a recent Dave Bushing post on the topic, and John Taube's email to MEARS and Vintage Authentics dated 7/7/06 in which he states " we would grade the bat as a pro model Speaker with no reference to use by the player."

And that's the heart of the matter. Unfortunately, with the grading system in use by MEARS, an A7 grade implies , to the average collector, that there is a strong liklihood that the bat was used by the specific player named in a professional game. That is not the case, in my opinion, with this bat, The dimensions of this bat are so dramatically uncharacteristic of Speaker's documented ordering patterns, both in length and weight, that it is impossible to authenticate this bat as manufactured for the professional use of Tris Speaker. That is also the opinion of John Taube, who, in the referenced email, indicated that he would likely grade the bat between a 3 and 4 depending on use and condition, as "the light weight removes this bat from any of the bats ordered by Speaker during the referenced labeling period, "

OK, thats it for documented records, what about other considerations? Dave Bushing is in possession of a 34.75 inch lathe bat with side-writing that indicates "Speaker ______ 24. make 33" K48L" In a recent post Dave offered that I stated that "a model designation means a player who retired in 1928 could not have used such a bat." That is a misreprentation of my comments. Model numbers were assigned to bats earlier than when they were first stamped on the bats themselves. However, the reference to Model K48 L would not be relevant to the period of the subject bat (1917-1921) as this model was first made for Red Kress whose career spanned from 1927 to 1946. There is a model number on the end of the 34.5" lathe bat that is filled withwhite paint, S194. According to Dave, Model S194 became model K48L.. However this , too, would have occurred sometime after 1927 and could have occurred 10 or 15 years later.

To follow such reasoning, you would have to believe that it is likely, or probable, that a bat modeled for Speaker sometime during his playing career (possibly 1924 based on the side-writing) and eventually referenced as S194, then re-referenced as model K48L (at the earliest in 1927 and possibly not until the early 1940's) is, in some manner, tangible evidence that Tris Speaker used a 32.25" bat during the period 1917-1921. Isn't it just as likely, probably more so, that the 34.75" lathe bat, reasonably consistent with Speaker's ordering pattern, was vaulted and subsequently, when Red Kress ordered the model sometime during his playing career, he tweaked it a bit and it became "His Speaker __/__/24 , and eventually redesignated K48L ? In my opinion, and the opinion of others I that the writing "make 33" K48L" has alot to do with Red Kress and very little to do with Tris Speaker.

Neither I, nor Dave, nor John, nor Troy, nor Vince knows for certain the meaning of this bat, just as noone knows the absolute, 100% accurate records of every model bat used by every Major League player during any player's career. The most we can do is review the records as they exist, make as informed and logical assumption as possible, and present that to any potential buyer as an opinion. It is difficult for me to reasonably suggest that the 34.75" lathe bat, with a notation that is not definitive,can negate the existing factory records and be used to definitively place the bat in Tris Speaker's hands during his playing career,
which I believe a grade of A7 certainly does. This bat does not match existing, documented factory records of the 1917-1921 labeling period, or the remainder of Speaker's playing career (1922-1928) or Speaker's post career.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[mikeroseny]

Hello Everyone,

Okay, now I am thoroughly confused. Dave Bushing stated on the MEARS website that, regarding this bat, John Taube told him "He cannot guarentee (sic) what grade it will be because he stated to me that it has not been submitted." I have to presume that Mr. Bushing is not aware that this bat was sent directly to John Taube and Mr. Taube wrote a certified PSA/DNA "Letter of Authenticity" on this bat dated June 6, 2006 (Certification Number D62859). While I included it in my initial post, I will repost it here so there is no confusion:

1335
1336

Notably, Mr. Taube’s LOA states that PSA/DNA believes "the bat is an authentic pro bat with use that cannot be attributed to Speaker". We have also verified this opinion directly with Vince Malta. In fact, Mr. Malta has confirmed that this bat, in his opinion, does not match known documented factory records for Speaker. This is consistent with Mike Specht’s LOA from Global Authentication.


At the end of the day, the issue is this…both the authenticators from PSA/DNA and Global Authentications are clear there is no way they would claim that this bat matches Tris Speaker’s known documented factory records. I encourage everyone to read Mike Specht’s post in this thread (post #16) so you can familiarize yourselves with Tris Speaker’s records and make your own conclusions.


Accordingly, MEARS’ criteria for bats graded A6 and A7 states the following:


"A7 thru A6: Authenticated bat with evaluated use and noted player characteristics

Factory production details of the bat has been compared to known records and have been determined to match recorded length (+/- 1/4"), weight (+/- 1 to 4) ounces, model, and correspond with proper labeling period from point in examined players career. (5 points base grade)
.

The lengths and weights recorded in Speaker’s known factory records obviously do not fall within these criteria. In the MEARS worksheet, the 5 point base grade was given to this bat with an explanation that this was "pre" known factory records. Unfortunately, the details of the factory records, as outlined by Mike Specht in his post, were not included in the MEARS Opinion Letter or worksheet. Simply put, while we believe this may have been an oversight on the part of MEARS, we definitely would never have purchased the bat if it had been disclosed that this label period was not "pre" factory records and that this bat does not match the existing known documented records known for Tris Speaker.


Sincerely,

Mike Rose

[b.heagy]

This is a sad story. I am no expert on game used bats. My words are only my opinion and feelings on this matter. Given the information provided by Mike Rose, The LOA and the known factory records of this bat provided by Mike Specht as well as the bat in Mr Bushing's posession, in my mind it is almost if not impossible to deem this bat Tris Speaker's actual game used bat. The only way to do so - is to have some kind of rock solid provenance, like a letter from the Speaker estate stating that this was his bat that he used in a professional game of baseball. I have to say that I have had dealings with Dave Bushing and he had TREATED ME EXTREMLEY WELL when other people in the hobby were trying to misinform me of what I thought and indeed had. I feel very bad for Mike Rose and Chris Cavalier. I feel that something needs to be done for these two gentlemen. I would be interested in the thoughts from Steve Jensen of Vintage Authentics since he had offered the bat to Mike and Chris. I hope this all turns out well for ALL parties involved. Even if a full refund cannot be given for the purchase price that Mike and Chris paid. I feel that there should be some kind of offer on the table and that the bat needs to get out of circulation until further proof can be obtained. Just my quick 2 cents.

[JimCaravello]

Just a bump so more people can read Mike Specht's incredible - well thought out - and factual post. Mike - thanks for taking the time to post all that info...........Jim

[thrush29]

Hello,

Fascinating post and I hope this question isn't to far off topic, after reading I am curious to know everyone’s opinion on the following: If the bat is not a true gamer than what is it? Is it an all around fraud that someone made in their basement or could it be a store bought bat from that era that was modified, or is the bat that another professional player from that era had made and used, or is it a game model bat for him that he never used, etc....?

Thanks,
David

[jboosted92]

Hello,

Fascinating post and I hope this question isn't to far off topic, after reading I am curious to know everyone’s opinion on the following: If the bat is not a true gamer than what is it? Is it an all around fraud that someone made in their basement or could it be a store bought bat from that era that was modified, or is the bat that another professional player from that era had made and used, or is it a game model bat for him that he never used, etc....?

Thanks,
David

Thats the thing...this is a gamer. NOT A STORE MODEL.

It can be only 1 of 2 things, either another Pro ordered a tris speaker bat, or Tris speaker did. And from what I learned, ordering PRO MODEL bats of other players really didnt become more common until post 1920..

IMO.. this is Tris Speakers bat. In fact, even those 34 inch 34 ounce Ruth Bats, may even be RUTH's bats. He got like 200+ some years, chances are they werent all replica's

If I had the $6050, id snatch it in a heartbeat

[kingjammy24]

perhaps it's due to my complete lack of knowledge about bats, but i don't understand how bushing stated that he "sold this bat as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker" and then in 2004, according to the LOA, he formally authenticated the bat as a "Tris Speaker game used bat".

he sold it as "game issued" and later authenticated it as "game used"?

like i said, my confusion is probably because i don't really know much about bats. perhaps it's common for ballplayers to rise from their graves and play a few innings.

rudy.

[jboosted92]

perhaps it's due to my complete lack of knowledge about bats, but i don't understand how bushing stated that he "sold this bat as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker" and then in 2004, according to the LOA, he formally authenticated the bat as a "Tris Speaker game used bat".

he sold it as "game issued" and later authenticated it as "game used"?

like i said, my confusion is probably because i don't really know much about bats. perhaps it's common for ballplayers to rise from their graves and play a few innings.

rudy.

Thats why GUU gets critisism, because of sarcasm like that.

and if you READ any of the posts, you would have seen that originally the bat was authenticated as "issued" PRIOR to the discovery of a much shorter speaker LATHE bat that was found.

[kingjammy24]

jboost: at first i wondered how the discovery of a lathe bat could take a game-issued bat (which by definition shows no use) and magically add visible game use and turn it into a game-used bat. but now, i think part of the issue (for me) was in the semantics. ie: it's possible to have a bat that was game-issued to speaker and at the same time game-used by kress. interesting! never thought of how an item can be both game-issued and game-used at the same time. thanks very much!

at any rate, my apologies for getting off the real issue which is that mears said it was pre-factory records but apparently, as shown by mike specht, there were indeed factory records that show years worth of orders, the apparent patterns of which cannot seem to able to be matched to this bat. additionally, had these records been presented along with the fact that the speaker bat matches no logical pattern within them, then mike rose would not have gone ahead with the purchase.

going forward, let's try not to muddy the issues by deriding an entire forum of over 1000 members based on my comments alone. my comments are my own. the opinions i express solely represent myself and i've always been accountable for them. back to the real issues ..

rudy.

[sportscentury]

never thought of how an item can be both game-issued and game-used at the same time.

Hi, Rudy...

Semantic nuances aside, I think most bat collectors view game used bats as game issued bats with game use (very generally speaking). In this general sense, all game used bats are both game issued and game used. Sometimes, even when there are signs of game use, a collector, dealer, or authenticator will represent the bat as game issued, so as to be on the conservative side.

Disclaimers: I hope this response is not misconstrued by anyone to be a strict rule of terminology; I also do not intend to take sides in the Speaker bat debate by posting this note - rather, I post this only as a point of clarification.

Reid

[kingjammy24]

reid:

very interesting. strange even. all of the bat dealers i've seen sell what they refer to as "game used bats". i assumed the entire issue was identical to jerseys; if it was issued but not used, it's game issued. if it was issued and used, it's game used. crazy! like i said, i know nothing of bats or the crazy people who collect them. i'd like to learn some of the basics and so i enjoy reading specht's and caravello's posts.

by the way, despite your best efforts, i've managed to interpret your post as a firm declaration of what side you support in the Speaker bat debacle and i have to say i'm very disappointed. you won't fair well in the new regime.

:cool:

rudy.

[sportscentury]

reid:

very interesting. strange even. all of the bat dealers i've seen sell what they refer to as "game used bats". i assumed the entire issue was identical to jerseys; if it was issued but not used, it's game issued. if it was issued and used, it's game used. crazy! like i said, i know nothing of bats or the crazy people who collect them. i'd like to learn some of the basics and so i enjoy reading specht's and caravello's posts.

by the way, despite your best efforts, i've managed to interpret your post as a firm declaration of what side you support in the Speaker bat debacle and i have to say i'm very disappointed. you won't fair well in the new regime.

:cool:

rudy.

Rudy,

Now I understand better that you are just kidding around. I must have misinterpreted your earlier posts and thought some clarification would help. I guess I've been working too hard and haven't been getting enough rest.

Cheers,

Reid

[mikeroseny]

Hello Everyone,

The real issue here remains that the MEARS documentation claimed this bat as "pre" factory records and thus awarded the bat the 5 base points (and the subsequent overall "7' grade). However, per Mike Specht's post (post #16 in this thread), there were indeed factory records that we feel clearly (and consistent with the included opinions provided by PSA/DNA and Global) cannot be matched to this bat.

Further, while this may have been an oversight on the part of MEARS, we definitely never would have purchased the bat if it had been disclosed that this label period was not "pre" factory records and that this bat did not match the existing known documented records for Tris Speaker Per the attached portion of the worksheet created by MEARS, and the associated note, one can see the existing records for this label period were disregarded. It is our belief, that any buyer would warrant a refund on an item that was misgraded in this way.

1345
1346

Thanks for keeping this on topic and for the suggestions thus far.

Sincerely,

Mike Rose

[jboosted92]

Hello Everyone,

The real issue here remains that the MEARS documentation claimed this bat as "pre" factory records and thus awarded the bat the 5 base points (and the subsequent overall "7' grade). However, per Mike Specht's post (post #16 in this thread), there were indeed factory records that we feel clearly (and consistent with the included opinions provided by PSA/DNA and Global) cannot be matched to this bat.

Further, while this may have been an oversight on the part of MEARS, we definitely never would have purchased the bat if it had been disclosed that this label period was not "pre" factory records and that this bat did not match the existing known documented records for Tris Speaker Per the attached portion of the worksheet created by MEARS, and the associated note, one can see the existing records for this label period were disregarded. It is our belief, that any buyer would warrant a refund on an item that was misgraded in this way.

1630
1631

Thanks for keeping this on topic and for the suggestions thus far.

Sincerely,

Mike Rose


What about years 1917, 1918, 1919. If there were records for those years NOT matching, then you would have a point

[JimCaravello]

JBoosted - your logic is flawed. Why would you award 5 Points for this bat if it doesn't match factory records? Just because, there are no specific records for the years you mentioned, you just can't assume this bat has to be from one of those years - especially when the ordering patterns of Speaker tell you that he never ordered a bat in this length.......Jim

[jboosted92]

JBoosted - your logic is flawed. Why would you award 5 Points for this bat if it doesn't match factory records? Just because, there are no specific records for the years you mentioned, you just can't assume this bat has to be from one of those years - especially when the ordering patterns of Speaker tell you that he never ordered a bat in this length.......Jim

you award 5 points, because it is a Signature 125 model, hand turned pro model,

thats the scale

How do you explain that PSA/DNA WILL authenticate the bat now?

[b.heagy]

PSA has already evaluated the bat, see post # 17. clearly states it is a pro model bat but CANNOT attribute use to Tris Speaker. That is the key. There is a very large dollar difference between Tris Speaker pro model with no attributes and Pro Model Game Used with Rock solid attributes.

[JimCaravello]

JBoosted - Bill is correct - also, in case you missed it, this quote is from Mike Specht's post above..........

That is also the opinion of John Taube, who, in the referenced email, indicated that he would likely grade the bat between a 3 and 4 depending on use and condition, as "the light weight removes this bat from any of the bats ordered by Speaker during the referenced labeling period, "

A grade of 3 or 4, is a far cry from a 7. Mike Rosen would not have bought the bat with a grade that low....

Jim

[mikeroseny]

---as posted on MEARS
Mr. Bushing,

Less than two weeks ago (August 5th) you created a post titled “more” in response to Dave Grob’s post titled Recent Hobby Rumblings. Here is a direct excerpt from it:

“This is why we strive as hard as humanly possible to be 100% perfect and we use the same method to investigate each and every piece with an ever expanding date base that is second to none. Through the efforts of a great team, we have exceeded to a point unheard of less than two years ago yet errors will happen and most of them, we will catch ourselves and inform the hobby and do everything we can to make it right. If you want to build a better mouse trap, get off your duff and do it but an armchair quarterback serves no usefull(sic) purpose. If you see something we missed, contact us and we will remedy the situation.”

I am 100% in agreement with you that we all make mistakes. In the case I have outlined previously, an examination of the factory records makes it clear that this is a real example of where something was missed. The reason I contacted MEARS twice previously on this issue prior to making my post was because I believed MEARS would respond in a manner consistent with what you outlined in your statement above. I truly believed the organization would recognize that this item had been misgraded and then, either on their own or in concert with Steve Jensen at Vintage Authentics, correct the situation. Specifically:


Known, documented factory records for this label period do exist and are in conflict with this bat’s characteristics.
The length of this bat is not within the tolerances you set relative to the factory records.
The weight of this bat is out of the tolerances set by your organization for other bats known to be ordered by Speaker during this label period.
Supporting documents follow, but in this case it is clear this one was an “error.”. In your own words I’m simply asking that you “make it right” …I’m asking that you “remedy the situation.”

Sincerely,

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com

[JimCaravello]

I have a couple of questions for everyone to consider for a moment......

Let's say I stumble into a Speaker bat from 1921 that matches perfectly to factory records. Let's assume it matches the specific record posted by Mike Specht above in Post #16:

6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above

Let's assume this bat is 35" and weighs 40 ounces. Let's also assume that the bat has fairly light use and that its clearly a hand turned professional model bat. Let's for a moment say we all feel good about this bat being from the 1921 order referenced above.

Let's also assume I send this bat to MEARS. Based on their grading criteria, they will give this bat an A6 - which consists of 5 points for the base grade and 1 point for the use on the bat.

Now - my questions are as follows:

( 1 ) Wouldn't you much rather own my A6 bat that matches factory records exactly?

( 2 ) How can you justify grading the Speaker bat in question higher with an A7 grade with the facts we know; basically that it does not match factory records and its 32.25" in length and is so far off anything that Speaker is shown to have used in his records?? Basically, where is the logic in grading the Speaker bat in question higher than my Speaker bat?

I would love to hear some feedback on this............Jim

[trsent]

I would like to know what Vintage said when they were asked to take this item back as a return, which I assume must have happened somewhere in this great debate.

[kingjammy24]

hi mike,

i have a couple of questions for you about this matter but regarding a slightly different aspect. (let me preface them by saying i ask them completely earnestly.)

1) after this experience, would you base future purchases on a mears grade?

2) would you use them to authenticate items in the future?

i ask because i'm curious what effect (if any) an incident like this has on the collector(s) involved.

mike and chris, i commend you for sticking to your guns, deciding not to accept a raw deal and having the fortitude to see it through.


i'll leave off, quoting myself, from a post made long before this debacle.

"Let me..say it behooves them more to ..ignore the grade. To refrain from giving it any real weight or consideration...The grades can't do any harm if noone takes them seriously".

rudy.

[trsent]

Troy has posted a reply about this issue on the MEARS forum that many should find interesting:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1155754031/Speaker+bat

[kingjammy24]

Mike S. & Jim C:

I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread and learning a lot. Troy recently posted a reply and I was curious if you two could share some insight on a couple of points that have confused me.

"For the period of 1917-21, examine cases of known game used professional model bats that are not supported by factory records. With the logic provided by GAI and PSA, these known professional model bats could not be authentic due to lack of factory records. Taking the logic offered against the MEARS authenticated Tris Speaker bat, you would not be able to authenticate most pre 1930 game used bats, as very few of these bats match actual factory records."

My first point of confusion; Up until now I thought that GAI/PSA's logic was that this bat wasn't attributable to Speaker because it didn't come close to matching any sort of pattern within the known factory records, not because records don't exist as Troy states. Where has my understanding failed?

"For Tris Speaker, establish that professional model bats were made during the period of 1921-31, also in the 33" legth
For the period of 1917-21, establish that professional model Louisville Sluggers bats were produced for contemporary stars like Shoeless Joe Jackson made in identical 33" lengths."

My second point of confusion: What is the relevance of a 33" bat? The speaker bat in question has been measured by Vince Malta as being 32.25". Mike Rose offers that it's 32.5". Amongst bat experts, is 1/2" or 3/4" typically considered irrelevant?

Bushing has indicated that the lathe bat is 34 3/4". Given that this Speaker bat is 33" and the lathe bat is supposed to add support to it, (1 3/4" longer), I'm confused by how much deviation is considered acceptable by bat experts/collectors? Is 3/4" or 1" splitting hairs?

thanks very much,

Rudy.

[MSpecht]

H Rudy

I have also enjoyed reading, posting, and researching on this thread, although not the circumstances that led to it. The thread would have been much more enjoyable if it had been generated as a "What if..." type of roundtable discussion between collectors and authenticators.

That being said, I have followed the posts on both MEARS site and Game Used Universe, and I have seen the most recent post by Troy Kinunen where he details the research he is about to undertake. I will be the first to credit Dave Bushing, Dave Grob, and Troy on the quality and depth of their research on numerous topics within the bat collecting hobby, and the information base within the hobby to which they have contributed. I am looking forward to the results of that research, and will be reviewing many of the same records myself over the next several days.

Basically, as I said before, the role of the authenticator is to collect as much information as exists, incorporate whatever experience and knowledge he has garnered over the years, and make a reasoned, logical, informed conclusion. The final, and equally important step in the process, is to lay it all on the table in front of the collector, and let him accept or reject your analysis.

Collecting data is the easy part of the process. The differences between authenticators and, for that matter, collectors, is the reasoning process and the application of logic that leads to to an opinion. That, too, is what brought us to this point, and which will be the subject of future posts on both sites I am sure.

One unfortunate thing that has occurred in this thread is the blind comments some people have made that are stated as fact in previous posts. One post opined the validity of the subject Speaker bat by referencing the discovery "of a much shorter lathe bat." That is not accurate. The lathe bat that is of interest here is, according to Dave Bushing, 34.75 inches, or acceptably close to Tris Speakers existing known documented ordering patterns ( + 1/4" ). Another post also stated that, in some years, Babe Ruth."got like 200+ bats." Again, the existing records don't support that statement. In the years for which documented records are available for the number of bats shipped to Ruth for his professional use, 1930 to 1935, he received the following numbers of bats for his professional use: 27, 48, 56, 32, 28 (which include 16 bats shipped for the 1934 Tour of Japan), and 24 bats, respectively. Did the company turn out more Ruth bats than that? Absolutely, but by 1940, when the company was manufacturing 2 million bats a year, only about 40,000, or about 2 %, were for professional use by professional players. That is not relevant to this discussion, but serves as an illustration of how statements are made without basis in fact.

To (finally) provide short answers to your questions, Rudy:

1) the deviation of + 1/4" is acceptable to most authenticators, including the most conservative.

2) The relevance of a lathe bat (modeled at least several years after the latest possible production date of the Speaker bat) measuring 34.75 inches, to a Tris Speaker bat that is 32.25 inches in length, a difference of 2 1/2 inches, has not been established at this time.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com (Jackitout7@aol.com)

[jboosted92]

I have a couple of questions for everyone to consider for a moment......

Let's say I stumble into a Speaker bat from 1921 that matches perfectly to factory records. Let's assume it matches the specific record posted by Mike Specht above in Post #16:

6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above

Let's assume this bat is 35" and weighs 40 ounces. Let's also assume that the bat has fairly light use and that its clearly a hand turned professional model bat. Let's for a moment say we all feel good about this bat being from the 1921 order referenced above.

Let's also assume I send this bat to MEARS. Based on their grading criteria, they will give this bat an A6 - which consists of 5 points for the base grade and 1 point for the use on the bat.

Now - my questions are as follows:

( 1 ) Wouldn't you much rather own my A6 bat that matches factory records exactly?

( 2 ) How can you justify grading the Speaker bat in question higher with an A7 grade with the facts we know; basically that it does not match factory records and its 32.25" in length and is so far off anything that Speaker is shown to have used in his records?? Basically, where is the logic in grading the Speaker bat in question higher than my Speaker bat?

I would love to hear some feedback on this............Jim

Your argument here is that how they constitute the grade. They add 3 points for heavy use, and 1 for light use.

Say you have a ty cobb bat with black tape cleat marks..etc.. but light use.. A6

or Cobb bat with no cleat marks, no tape, but heavy use... A8.

Now you might say, "EXACTLY..thats my point"

Well not really, its a scale, its a MEARS scale. you have to look at the sum of the numbers, and how they were created if you agree/disagree with the MEARS system. I would blame the auction house for not disclosing the process more than THIER scale. Its their company...their scale.

If you concerned that the "average" collector (and what average collector spends thousands on bats..) then its the consumers job to understand what an A* means...

[ChrisCavalier]

Hello Everyone,

While this thread has obviously brought up many questions that collectors would like answered, I felt it was incumbent on me to make sure we are all very clear on the only issues that I believe need to be addressed by MEARS at this point:

· The certification documentation stated this was “pre” factory records when there are, in fact, known, documented factory records that exist.

· This bat does not “match factory records”.

We have stated numerous times that we realize everyone makes mistakes and we feel this is simply an “error” in the authentication process. However, while I cannot speak for other collectors, there is no way we would have ever purchased the bat if we had known factory records existed and that this bat did not match them…period.

It is really that simple.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier

[BoneRubbedBat]

This quote by Mike Specht is one of the best I have ever read regarding authenticators:


...the role of the authenticator is to collect as much information as exists, incorporate whatever experience and knowledge he has garnered over the years, and make a reasoned, logical, informed conclusion. The final, and equally important step in the process, is to lay it all on the table in front of the collector, and let him accept or reject your analysis.

The breakdown in the final part of the process is where this entire situation manifested itself. By purchasing the item (twice), the buyer has virtually accepted the associated analysis.

MEARS formed and offered their opinion on an item, and the buyer failed in their responsibility to perform their own due diligence. This would not even be an issue if money had not been lost on the ensuing auction attempt. If it had sold for $30K, we sure wouldn't be hearing about it.

Regardless of how the bat was "graded" (which seems to be the sticking point in this discussion) it will be highly unlikely a consensus will ever be gained when it comes to the usage/issuance of bats from this era. I have hundreds of sidewritten bats in my collection. I guarantee that records do not exist in any written form for the majority of these bats. These bats ARE the factory records.

Very few questions in our hobby have finite answers. This holds true in the medical field also. After I send a patient to the surgeon for surgical evaluation, if they want a second surgical opinion, they sure better do it before they get the procedure done because you can't really put a gallbladder back in......

Know what you're getting into.

Mr. O'Keefe will have a field day with this one.

[trsent]

Know what you're getting into.

Mr. O'Keefe will have a field day with this one.

I love the first line that I quoted. Do your homework we always say on this forum.

The second line that I quoted, isn't that Rudy's buddy?

[kingjammy24]

marcus,

i think we can agree that mike shouldn't have relied on the mears' opinion and should've instead done his own due diligence prior to purchasing. however, isn't due diligence a 2-way street? shouldn't mears also have performed it's due diligence?

your analogy of a medical opinion is a good one. let's say, for example, that a patient goes to a doctor for an opinion on preventing lung cancer. the doctor fails to do the necessary research and as a result he tells the patient to take up smoking. the patient then follows his doctor's misinformed opinion and develops lung cancer. obviously the patient should've done more research. however, does that negate the fact that the doctor failed to do their due diligence? is that example not the very definition of negligence on the part of the doctor? does the blame lie entirely with the patient? is the doctor completely absolved of any responsibility? we both know the patient would easily win a malpractice suit indicating the legal system clearly views the doctor as having a high degree of responsibility.

mike failed in his due diligence and i'm sure he blames himself. however, this in no way negates mears' responsibility to perform their due diligence (for which they were paid). i believe this is the gist of mike and chris' argument. they said it was pre factory records when in fact, factory records existed. is there no blame whatsoever for negligence resulting in a faulty opinion? if that's the case, then millions of doctors will be overjoyed to know they can stop paying malpractice insurance.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

jim c & jboost:

jim, ultimately i think jboost is right in that it's a proprietary system and so it can be anything mears wants or doesn't want it to be. if troy wants to assign 30 pts because an item has the scent of curry on it, then that's completely his choice. there really isn't much to say against it because it's their perogative. (i once read their entire grading system for jerseys and, without sounding the least bit hyperbolic, after an hour my head was in a knot. i couldn't understand the logic behind 60% of it. however that's nothing against mears. they've come up with something they like. it may not make any sense to me but that's irrelevant. the mears system has no onus to be logical to me. it's like going to disneyland. if you're going to go, you have to suspend your expectation of reality. you can't blame disney that the idea of flying elephants makes no sense. it's their park and enjoyment of it requires you to pretend. if you refuse to pretend and therefore have a bad time, then it's not their fault.)

i also agree with jboost in saying that if you're going to base anything off a mears grade then it's your responsibility to understand exactly how it works. of course you could just choose not to base anything off the grades and save yourself the trouble of understanding them. :)

rudy.

[trsent]

Rudy, when you are ready to offer a view of MEARS not based on your bias against them, I personally will respect it.

If there is an issue, I have been told that Mike and Chris have been notified by MEARS what the contact information is for the proper courts to file their case. I am beginning to believe there is not a case, as a letter was written and they are standing behind their grade and if there was a case why wouldn't it have been filed already?

If there was an issue with the grade, why was this topic addressed after the seller was disappointed with the price they realized at an auction house? This is the same auction house that privately sold the item to them.

MEARS has justified their grade (which you do not have to agree with and Troy is still doing more work over his findings) and the owner of the item is still not satisfied. So the next step is to go to court or attempt a public attack on MEARS if that will give them satisfaction.

From my conversations over this dispute with my private attorney, he told me that he believes even if MEARS lost a case in court, they would then be responsible for the last sale price of the item, which I believe was $6050.00 plus buyers premium.

[sportscentury]

Forum readers, a couple of things:

One issue that seems to be lost in this debate is that of consignors bidding on their own items in Vintage Auctions. I have not yet bid with Vintage, though I have seen many nice items in their auctions and would certainly consider bidding in their future auctions. Still, I didn't realize that any major auction house allowed consignors to bid on their own items. This has me curious.

Another question I have is: Mike and Chris, you had to pay Vintage the buyer's premium on top of your $6000+ winning bid (buy-back price), correct? Did you also have to pay the consignor's percentage? It seems like Vintage has made out pretty well in all of this (and perhaps this is perfectly fine - just an observation) and it would be nice to know what they are doing to help resolve things for everyone.

Reid

[ChrisCavalier]

Forum readers, a couple of things:

One issue that seems to be lost in this debate is that of consignors bidding on their own items in Vintage Auctions. I have not yet bid with Vintage, though I have seen many nice items in their auctions and would certainly consider bidding in their future auctions. Still, I didn't realize that any major auction house allowed consignors to bid on their own items. This has me curious.

Another question I have is: Mike and Chris, you had to pay Vintage the buyer's premium on top of your $6000+ winning bid (buy-back price), correct? Did you also have to pay the consignor's percentage? It seems like Vintage has made out pretty well in all of this (and perhaps this is perfectly fine - just an observation) and it would be nice to know what they are doing to help resolve things for everyone.

Reid
Hello Reid,

We were allowed to place the bid as any other bidder would do provided we abided by the rules the same way as other bidders. Given there was no intention to deceive anyone, we didn't see any problem with that policy. Once the item is consigned, we felt it would be available to the highest bidder assuming all bidders followed the same rules. As mentioned, at the time, we felt the price for this Speaker bat (based on the way the bat was presented to us) was being sold for an incredibly low price. Thus, we bought it at the closing price on the same terms as anyone else in the auction. Further, because the bat failed to achieve a market price that would have been in line with a "A7" Speaker bat, we realized there was quite possibly something awry with this bat's certification. Absent retaining possession of the bat, we would not have been able to investigate this further. And yes, we paid both the buyer's premium and the consignment fee.

Please let me know if that answers your question.

Sincerely,
Chris

[sportscentury]

Hello Reid,

We were allowed to place the bid as any other bidder would do provided we abided by the rules the same way as other bidders. Given there was no intention to deceive anyone, we didn't see any problem with that policy. Once the item is consigned, we felt it would be available to the highest bidder assuming all bidders followed the same rules. As mentioned, at the time, we felt the price for this Speaker bat (based on the way the bat was presented to us) was being sold for an incredibly low price. Thus, we bought it at the closing price on the same terms as anyone else in the auction. Further, because the bat failed to achieve a market price that would have been in line with a "A7" Speaker bat, we realized there was quite possibly something awry with this bat's certification. Absent retaining possession of the bat, we would not have been able to investigate this further. And yes, we paid both the buyer's premium and the consignment fee.

Please let me know if that answers your question.

Sincerely,
Chris

Hi, Chris:

I understand. I wasn't questioning your bid as you were clearly following the auction house's policies and allowances. I'm just not familiar with this type of allowance is all. For example, I had a truly remarkable Hank Aaron game used/signed 1973-75 L.S. bat that I consigned to Mastronet. When the auction opened, I was devastated to find that Mastronet decided to list TWO Aaron 1973-75 gamers in the same auction. The other one had a much nicer write-up than mine and I knew that I was doomed. I had paid top dollar for my Aaron and there was no way that it could compete in this auction with the other Aaron given how different the descriptions of the two Aaron bats were. So, I wanted my Aaron bat back, of course. Well, I was not allowed to withdraw it. Also, I was not allowed to bid on it, as I was the consignor (which I believe is the norm with major auction houses). In the end, the other Aaron bat went for big dollars and mine went for what felt like peanuts. I lost a bundle and it still makes me ill to think about it. If I had consigned it with Vintage instead, I understand that I could have bid on it in order to try to buy it back. So, I was curious about Vintage's policy that you can bid on your own items because, based on my understanding (which perhaps is more of a misunderstanding on my part and I welcome forum members to correct me if it is), it is the hobby/industry norm among major auction houses that consignors cannot bid on their own items. This is all I was asking.

More generally, I guess I'm confused as to where Vintage stands in this whole situation.

Thanks, as always, for your prompt and clear responsiveness.

Reid

[ChrisCavalier]

Hello Everyone,

As we have already stated, at this time we believe there are only two questions that need to be answered. They are:

1) Are there factory records relating to this bat?
2) Does this bat match factory records?

However, given the recent comments regarding buyer responsibility, I believe it might help to clarify a few things. I have seen the comment “Do your own homework” which has, rightfully so, become a mantra on this site. Personally, I am thrilled that the hobby has moved in that direction and that Game Used Universe has played such a large role in making that happen. However, please remember that a year and a half ago Game Used Universe and Game Used Forum did not exist.

I think it is fair to say the work of those involved with Game Used Universe, coupled with Vince Malta’s efforts, have given the general collecting community access to information they never before had available to them. Only a few years ago the factory records were known by only a select few and most of the collecting community didn’t have access to them. In fact, the standard protocol for collectors only a few years ago was to trust the information they were given by recognized authorities. If an authentication firm with the factory records said it “matched factory records” how would the average collector ever know? The fact of the matter is, at that time, they didn’t. That is the situation here. At the time we did what most of the collecting community did. We trusted the professional opinion.

Unfortunately, in this situation, the authentication information provided by MEARS failed to disclose there were factory records for Tris Speaker that could provide perspective on this bat and, as Mike Specht’s post clearly shows, this bat does not match those records. The fact that there are factory records is not a matter of “Opinion”, it is an objective fact. The factory records have been identified. The statement on the authentication document that “no record for this era exist” is objectively incorrect. You cannot attribute that to “Opinion”.

I think one other point needs to be clarified regarding the chain of events outlined in Mike Rose’s initial post. Prior to the bat being sold in auction, we never physically measured the bat. We accepted what was stated in the authentication documents regarding the length. We also had no input whatsoever in the writing of the auction description. It was only after buying the bat back that we, and the other authenticators, physically measured the bat. It was only then that we found out this bat was only 32 ¼ inches.

In addition, I would also like to address the comment that “If it had sold for $30K, we sure wouldn't be hearing about it.”Though I believe unintended, I think that comment is a little ambiguous. First of all, if the bat had sold for $30K, as per our previous post, we may never have realized the possibility that something may have been amiss in the authentication. However, let us look at that comment from another angle. As per Mike Rose’s first post, when we re-contacted Vintage Authentics they said they trusted MEARS opinion and felt they could still sell the bat outside of auction for at least what we paid for it. If the only issue here was our financial interest we would have disregarded the concern that the bat did not match factory records and let it be sold to someone else. The fact of the matter is, we felt the grade was not warranted given the error we identified and we were not interested in offering it to anyone else at the price we paid.

Once again, the issue here is that we believe there was simply an error in the authentication process. As stated, we believe people are human and these things will happen. All we are asking is that the situation be “made right”. However, that being said, I also have to say that there is error in the logic and deductive reasoning in the statement “I am beginning to believe there is not a case, as a letter was written and they are standing behind their grade and if there was a case why wouldn't it have been filed already?” While it was always our hope that this would not have to go to the courts, we believe the information we have gained with the help of the collecting community and a more thorough review of the MEARS documentation has actually supported the potential for litigation.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier

[MSpecht]

Here is one more observation, as I feel that the previous post needs to be explained a bit. Several contributors to this thread have indicated that the buyers "didn't do their homework," and accepted the authentication blindly.

Well, that is not entirely true in my opinion. Think back two years ago. What did you have as available resources to exercise "due diligence?" When you saw a bat (or other collectible for that matter, but bats are the issue here) in auction, and the bat was represented as having been authenticated by PSA, SCD, MEARS, John Taube Sports, Vince Malta, Mike Specht or whomever, what was the proces to further your comfort level with the bat?

Hopefully the auction house or seller made a copy of the LOA (Opinion Letter of Authenticity) available -- but the truth was that the LOA was almost never printed in a catalog auction, and only one or two on-line auctions ever had any link to the LOA available along with the item description. But, if you were able to read the LOA, then what?

If the LOA said "matches known factory records," what was your next step ?? Pretty much, there was no next step. Were you aware of what factory records the LOA was talking about? Did you have any idea of which authenticators actually had copies of these factory records? If you did knew, were you able to call up John Taube or Dave Bushing or Vince Malta or Bill Riddell, or me or two or three others on our cell phone and ask, "Errr, by the way, can you tell me what the factory records were for Ted Williams in 1957, and did he use a 34 inch W183 ?"

No. The truth is there was no easily available or accessible source for the average collector, or even many high-end collectors and dealers, to use for verification, if they even knew what records were available, who had "the records."

The best one could do is be aware of the reputation of whoever authenticated a particular item, and enter into a "relationshiip of trust" with that person. If the LOA stated "matches factory records," the "relationship of trust' decreed that, somewhere, there were actually records that were in the possession of the authenticator that matched the item. Unfortunately, the commonly issued LOAs, including the worksheets used by some authenticators, generally did not specify what records an item matched, so there was really no help there...you were forced to accept that statement on trust. Look through the library of LOA's archived on both the Game Used Universe site and the MEARS site, where the two largest libraries of LOA's are available, and see what I mean.

In this matter, it was stated on a worksheet dated 8/22/05 that the Speaker bat was "pre-factory records, " which pretty much means to me that there were no known factory records in existance for the period that the subject bat was manufactured. So, with that document, how many of you would have telephoned Dave Bushing and asked, "Hi Dave. I have an LOA of yours that states there are no known factory records for this bat. Does that mean there are no known factory records for this bat?"

Given Dave's reputation in many areas of authentication, no collector would have had any reason to even consider making such a call.



The object of this post is simply to remind everyone that, until the development of Game Used Universe (the genesis of which was, in fact, this specific transaction), there was no source of accurate information pertaining to factory records available to collectors to confirm or refute the information offered in a companion LOA.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[mikeroseny]

More than a week ago Troy announced on the MEARS website that he planned to do an abundance of research...While the additional research proposed may be beneficial to the hobby in general, it does not address the specific issue that needs to be answered here. That is, if A) MEARS was negligent by not disclosing that factory records exist (and this bat does not match them), and B) that we (as buyers) were misled in the information presented to us when we were deciding whether or not to purchase the bat.

There are only two questions that need to be answered at this point (neither of which are included in Troy's list). They are:

1) Do factory records exist relating to the Tris Speaker bat in question? (the MEARS certification documents claimed there were none)

2) Does this bat match those records?

If they would be so kind as to answer the two questions above this issue could be very easily resolved.

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com

[trsent]

More than a week ago Troy announced on the MEARS website that he planned to do an abundance of research...While the additional research proposed may be beneficial to the hobby in general, it does not address the specific issue that needs to be answered here. That is, if A) MEARS was negligent by not disclosing that factory records exist (and this bat does not match them), and B) that we (as buyers) were misled in the information presented to us when we were deciding whether or not to purchase the bat.

There are only two questions that need to be answered at this point (neither of which are included in Troy's list). They are:

1) Do factory records exist relating to the Tris Speaker bat in question? (the MEARS certification documents claimed there were none)

2) Does this bat match those records?

If they would be so kind as to answer the two questions above this issue could be very easily resolved.

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com (mikeroseny@yahoo.com)

Mike, so why post your questions on here on a public forum and not address your questions to Troy directly at MEARS?

Is this really about your issues or just to try to smear the MEARS name because you feel wronged in this situation? I would think by now you would have filed suit in the proper court system if you really feel you have been wronged.

If I am understanding you correctly, the letter states there are no bat shipping records for this item available, which is correct, even if some other bat shipping records have been made public?

Then again, you have not addressed my question to you previously about why Vintage will not take a return on this item and they can deal with MEARS directly. You must have attempted to return it to where you bought the item (and then consigned it to them immediately afterwords) at some point.

Then again, if you really want out, I'll gladly offer you the $6050.00 plus buyers premium that was the last price the item sold for and what MEARS would be liable for in a court of law if taken to that step so I can save you legal fees.

[stkmtimo]

Then again, if you really want out, I'll gladly offer you the $6050.00 plus buyers premium that was the last price the item sold for and what MEARS would be liable for in a court of law if taken to that step so I can save you legal fees.

Joel,
This is a completely serious question that you may have already answered, so please forgive me if you have. Are you employed and/or compensated in any way by MEARS? The only reason I ask this is because I'm not sure what interest you would have in covering MEARS by offering Mike that type of money that MEARS could be liable for if taken to court.

Thanks,
Tim

[trsent]

As of August 26, 2006, 12:30PM Central Standard Time, I, Joel Marc Alpert, have not been paid by MEARS or am a compensated employee of MEARS for anything of any nature.

I just offered to buy the bat for the last public sale price, thus saving the owner the court costs they may incur which will only find them receiving $6050.00 from in the end if they win because that was the last known public sale price of the item in question.

I have noticed my posts have been ignored by Mike Rose throughout the history of this thread, which makes me wonder if he has just given up and he wishes to publicly embarrass MEARS over this situation. Needless to say, I have spoken to MEARS about the issue and they are standing behind their work.

I am also curious, since Mike Rose has posted his problems with MEARS in this whole situation, what was the response from Vintage Authentics when Mike asked for a return of his original purchase price since Vintage didn't disclose that the bat was the same bat he originally offered Mike for a much lesser price and that it had a new revised grade, which as mentioned in the worksheet?

Notice, my concerns are now growing because Vintage is not using MEARS anymore and they have no reason to protect their relationship with MEARS. Any possible link to how this arose just after Vintage stopped working with MEARS?

[GameBats]

Hi Joel,

I've been reading through the posts and am trying to digest all the info. What is your opinion on the Mears grade based on all the information available? Do you agree with the final grade?

Thanks,
John

[trsent]

Hi Joel,

I've been reading through the posts and am trying to digest all the info. What is your opinion on the Mears grade based on all the information available? Do you agree with the final grade?

Thanks,
John

John, do I agree? Based on what they have told me their determinations were I agree. It will be interesting to find what Troy finds in his research that he has promised on the MEARS forum.

[GameBats]

Joel,

Thanks for the reply. I would like to believe MEARS has some concrete facts to support their findings. Hopefully they will post them. I don't believe wishful thinking has any place in the authentication process.

John

[mikeroseny]

Joel,


I must admit, I think your entire posts pretty much asks questions we have already addressed (not to be insulting, but most of your posts on this string fall into this category). I rarely have responded directly to you, because my perception is you are the "voice of MEARS," so my preference has been to keep this directed more between the parties with input from the collecting community. However, in case it wasn't clear, let me respond to each comment again:


Mike, so why post your questions on here on a public forum and not address your questions to Troy directly at MEARS? Is this really about your issues or just to try to smear the MEARS name because you feel wronged in this situation?


These exact questions were also posted directly on the MEARS site. In addition, we had multiple correspondences with MEARS where they rejected our request to handle this situation privately. It was only at that point that we sought more input to determine the appropriate next steps.

I would think by now you would have filed suit in the proper court system if you really feel you have been wronged.


As previously mentioned, it was always our hope that we would not need to take this court. However, absent an attempt from MEARS to make the situation right this seems to be the only alternative.

If I am understanding you correctly, the letter states there are no bat shipping records for this item available, which is correct, even if some other bat shipping records have been made public?


Let us make sure we are clear on what we are talking about. The MEARS documentation stated that this was "pre" factory records and that "...no record for this era exist so lathe is best known evidence of orders." Our question is whether or not shipping records for this era do exist and, if so, does this bat match those records. The MEARS grading criteria awarded points based on the bat matching factory records. If there were indeed records for this bat then MEARS should have disclosed that fact in their documentation. In fact, as per the previous posts on this thread, when we bought this bat the factory records were not available to the general collecting community and there was no way for collectors to know whether or not bats actually matched them. I think we can all agree, as per Mike Specht's post on this thread, that factory records do indeed exist for Speaker from that era and that this bat does not match them.

Then again, you have not addressed my question to you previously about why Vintage will not take a return on this item and they can deal with MEARS directly. You must have attempted to return it to where you bought the item (and then consigned it to them immediately afterwords) at some point.


As we have already stated, Vintage said they feel they have no responsibility for a refund since they used MEARS for the authentication and MEARS offers a "buyback" gaurantee if anything was done in error. Further, they offered to resell the bat for us for at least the price we paid but, given the error we identified, we did not want some other collector to end up with a bat we feel is clearly misgraded.

Then again, if you really want out, I'll gladly offer you the $6050.00 plus buyers premium that was the last price the item sold for and what MEARS would be liable for in a court of law if taken to that step so I can save you legal fees.


Joel, do you truly believe this bat warrants an A7-grade?

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com

[MSpecht]

Again, following the course this thread has taken over the past week or so, I feel there are a few basic pieces of information that bear restatement:

1) There are known, documented factory records for Tris Speaker which do exist and which cover the period from 9/15/20 through1933 which include a portion of the LOA's documented label period of this bat. The phrase "pre- factory records," "no records for this era exist," or any other similar phrase is not accurate with regards to this bat.

The documented records can be found in post #16 of this thread. Here is a very abbreviated recap: "...out of 24 specific documented orders, length is referenced on 7 of them (12 if you include the orders of Hornsby models that likely are 35" in length), and all seven documented references are 35 or 36 inches in length. . The length of this bat, 32.25 inches, is so dramatically uncharacteristic of Speaker's KNOWN existing records, that it is extremely unlikely that it was manufactures for Speaker's professional use. When the weight is factored into the equation, this bat is between 7.4 ounces and 8.4 ounces lighter than any order documented within the bat's labeling period."

2) MEARS has previously responded to the questions posed by Mr. Rose. Troy Kinunen's point-by-point response can be found in a link contained in post # 1 of this thread. Currently, Mr. Kinunen has promised additional research on this specific bat. I have always lauded the entire MEARS team of Kinunen, Dave Bushing, and Dave Grob publicly on the quality of their research. In this matter, however, I would have thought (or hoped, if I had been a potential buyer) that the research would have been complete if it concerned the raising of the grade of a bat that Dave Bushing "... sold (this bat) as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker for a fairly nominal sum which the buyer submitted for a grade of A5 due to a length that had previously been unsubstanciated for Speaker..." from an A5 grade worth only a very nominal sum to an A7 grade which increased its value many times over. Regardless, I look forward to the results of continued research.

I am, however, a bit confused with several of the research areas outlined by Troy Kinunen, specifically those below:

-- For Tris Speaker, establish that professional model bats were made during the period of 1917-21, also in the 33" length

-- For the period of 1917-21, establish that professional model Louisville Sluggers bats were produced for contemporary stars like Shoeless Joe Jackson made in identical 33" lengths.

-- Establish that lathe bats can be used as an exact substitute to factory records.

These areas of additional research apparently focus on establishing 33 inches as a valid length of some bats, made for some players, sometime during the period 1917-1921. I am missing the relevance of documented 33 inch bats for some players (of which there are some) to the authentication of a 32.25 inch bat (well beyond the accepted + 1/4" variance ) as possibly game-used by Tris Speaker. Also, research to establish the use a lathe bat, apparently produced in 1924 at the earliest, which measures 34.75 inches "as an exact substitute for factory records" to authenticate a 32.25 inch bat manufactured for Tris Speaker's professional use between 1917-21, should make interesting reading.

3) This bat is actually 32.25 inches in length. This is an objective fact. The problem here is that the Vintage Authentics auction description (written exclusively by Vintage Authentics using the MEARS documentation) claimed that the bat at auction was 33 inches. Now whether or not Vintage believed the bat was 33 inches based on the MEARS documentation (which seems ia bit ambiguous) is a question for Vintage Authentics. However, the objective fact of the matter is the bat purchased by, and shipped to, the current owners is only 32.25 inches. Regardless, this was an inaccurate representation that had significant bearing on the issues surrounding this bat, and can only be viewed as either negligent or fraudulent on the part of the entity writing the auction description, as you wish.

4) I guess one of the more confusing issues surrounding this situation for me is the refusal of the auction house to 'step up to the plate' in this matter. Unless I am really missing something here (possibly), or am really a bad businessman (probably), I just don't get it. Follow along :

Vintage Authentics has a bat that they purchased from Dave Bushing for what Dave refers to as a "nominal" price. They offer the bat to a group of investors (Mike Rose, Chris Cavalier and possibly others) who have spent over several hundred thousand dollars with Vintage Authentics prior to that point. The representations by Vintage Authentics, including the MEARS certifications, induce the group to buy what is billed as "the best Speaker bat ever" and consign it to Vintage's auction.

Now, fast forward to the post-auction chaos
.
Why, in the midst of a significant amount of controversy and clear disagreement between several established authenticators, wouldn't Vintage Authentics just accept the bat back and return the pre-auction purchase price of the bat since they owned the bat prior to the purchase by Mike Rose's group.??? What would be their loss ???? According to Dave Bushing, Vintage only paid a "nominal" amount when they originally bought the bat from him. Vintage therefore would only have a "nominal" amount of money out of pocket and they would have the bat back in their possession. Instead, they refused to accept any responsibility in the confusion surrounding the bat, pointed the finger at MEARS ("We pay them to do our authentications as they have a money-back guarantee.") and, (listen closely, this is the part I really don't understand) totally alienated a group of people that have been a TOTAL CASH COW for them for quite some time, and would likely have continued to be a TOTAL CASH COW for them for years to come, just to protect the "nominal" amount they had paid Dave Bushing for the controversial bat in the first place.

Huh ??? All I know is that if I ever had a goose that laid Golden Eggs, the last thing i would do is serve him up for dinner.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com (Jackitout7@aol.com)

[trsent]

Why, in the midst of a significant amount of controversy and clear disagreement between several established authenticators, wouldn't Vintage Authentics just accept the bat back and return the pre-auction purchase price of the bat since they owned the bat prior to the purchase by Mike Rose's group.??? What would be their loss ???? According to Dave Bushing, Vintage only paid a "nominal" amount when they originally bought the bat from him. Vintage therefore would only have a "nominal" amount of money out of pocket and they would have the bat back in their possession. Instead, they refused to accept any responsibility in the confusion surrounding the bat, pointed the finger at MEARS ("We pay them to do our authentications as they have a money-back guarantee.") and, (listen closely, this is the part I really don't understand) totally alienated a group of people that have been a TOTAL CASH COW for them for quite some time, and would likely have continued to be a TOTAL CASH COW for them for years to come, just to protect the "nominal" amount they had paid Dave Bushing for the controversial bat in the first place.

Huh ??? All I know is that if I ever had a goose that laid Golden Eggs, the last thing i would do is serve him up for dinner.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com (Jackitout7@aol.com)

Mike, all good points, and my point has been why Vintage, after recently not renewing their relationship with MEARS and a change (for finical purposes) to a new authenticator, won't accept a return?

I have offered to buy the item for the last public sale price, I guess that offer is not good enough.

I am beginning to believe this whole situation may be a set up from the start. Too many situations have arose around timing of the whole bringing this issue public.

Mike previously asked me if I agreed with the current MEARS grade. I do not have an answer, but I can tell you that I have offered to buy the item for the last known public sale price and I guess that offer was not good enough.

Before my phone starts ringing, let me make my points from how I understand the whole situation:

1. Dave Bushing sells Vintage Authentics a bat that is graded A5.

2. The bat is offered for sale to Mike Rose and he turns it down.

3. MEARS contacts Vintage Authentics and makes an addendum of their previous letter to the grade of A7 due to new information they found.

4. Vintage Authentics offered the bat again to Mike Rose, not telling him how it was the same bat he previously turned down with a new grade.

5. Mike Rose consigned the item in the next Vintage Authentics auction and the item ended at a final price of $6050.00, which was below what Mike Rose paid Vintage for the item.

Now, I look at the time-line here, and if I were MEARS, I'd be concerned as it looks like the item never left the possession of Vintage. I should also reiterate, somewhere in this time line the working relationship between MEARS and Vintage Authentics ended, thus raising more suspicion to what is going on with this whole situation.

I just think it has become silly that since Mike Rose paid $6050.00 plus buyers premium for this bat he expects to receive any more than that at this point of time.

MEARS is not even listening to his arguments about it at this time, as the grade is not in error at this point in time of their research. Their money back guarantee is for items that are not genuine, which no one has proven this item not to be genuine.

[josports]

Joel
GIVE UP!! You continue to miss the major point of this discussion/problem. THE SPEAKER BAT DOES NOT MATCH F-A-C-T-O-R-Y R-E-C-O-R-D-S! MEARS increased the grade from a 5 to a 7 based on a hand written notation to make a 33 inch bat which was written on a 34.75 inch lathe bat. And completely disregarded the factory records that do exist for the label period. This Speaker bat in question measures 32.25 inches!! FINAL! Even if MEARS criteria was +/- 1/2" It still would not match the notation written on the lathe bat. All your conspiracy theories have nothing to do with the facts. It now amazes me that the simple 2 questions from Mike Rose can not and have not been answered. Last, I am personal friends with both parties and am very frustrated that simple facts can not be addressed. Then this entire problem could possibly get solved between the parties.

[trsent]

Thanks for your comments, I am glad you are backing up your friends side. I am backing up my friends side, which I have a right to do, don't I?

I have the balls to come on here and offer to buy the item from the current owners at their last public sale price, who else has backed up their end of the discussion?

The truth is Mike Rose was offered the information to file in the proper courts quite a while ago, and he has not, but he rather try to publicly put down MEARS, who overall has done an amazing job working with this industry to do something that no one has done as well as them to date.

I just do not understand how Vintage Authentic has taken an item, profited quite well on it, and won't work with the buyer because he sold the item for a large profit before he re-sold the item in their auction for a large loss for the current owner (and he profited on that sale with buyer premiums and seller premiums) because he is no longer using MEARS since he would rather work with an authenticator who has a grading scale that no one understands and has no backup plan for questionable items.

You call it a conspiracy theory, I just say the whole situation of selling an item for a large profit to a consigner in your auction house who puts the item in your next auction seems a bit fishy to me. No one on here has the balls to bring this up, but that is why you either love me or hate me, because I call it how I see it, but I have not accused anyone of any wrongdoing. I can bring up how the whole situation is a very odd circle between Mike Rose and Vintage Authentics who will not take a return on this item according to Mike Rose.

Troy has continually responded and I can't wait to see how he decides upon the next step. I'll be proud any way he decides because I know his work ethic is exceptional and he'll make the best decision for the industry.

Now, was there anything else I can do you for?

[staindsox]

Hey guys. Let's leave our balls in our pants and off of forum messages. I understand the magnitude of this situation, but let's cool it and not let an honest and open debate degenerate into crude or unnecessary assertions, okay?

Chris

[trsent]

Hey guys. Let's leave our balls in our pants and off of forum messages. I understand the magnitude of this situation, but let's cool it and not let an honest and open debate degenerate into crude or unnecessary assertions, okay?

Chris

So you would rather I use the word "Guts"?

Eric, would you please edit my previous post to use the word "Guts" instead of the word that has offended Chris. My slang, always getting me in trouble.

[Eric]

I am beginning to believe this whole situation may be a set up from the start. Too many situations have arose around timing of the whole bringing this issue public.

Now, I look at the time-line here, and if I were MEARS, I'd be concerned as it looks like the item never left the possession of Vintage. I should also reiterate, somewhere in this time line the working relationship between MEARS and Vintage Authentics ended, thus raising more suspicion to what is going on with this whole situation.

Joel-

I think you really need to clarify what your suggesting here. If you're saying that you think various parties might have been using an elaborate scheme to set up mears, you're going to have to provide proof, otherwise it's not appropriate to throw those things out there.

If I'm misunderstanding your comments above, can you please explain them more clearly?
Eric

[staindsox]

I was not only suggesting to leave your balls in your pants, but was also alluding to exactly what Eric has also commented on...to be careful about making conspiracy theory comments. That is a bold accusation. I don't believe ANYONE is trying to scam anyone else. This thread discusses what an authentication service should/should not do and what these companies should or should not be responsible for. I am not taking sides on this discussion, but think it would be irresponsible and a bit bold to suggest anyone is trying to scam anyone else.

Just my opinion.

Chris

[trsent]

Joel-

I think you really need to clarify what your suggesting here. If you're saying that you think various parties might have been using an elaborate scheme to set up mears, you're going to have to provide proof, otherwise it's not appropriate to throw those things out there.

If I'm misunderstanding your comments above, can you please explain them more clearly?
Eric

Eric, I am bringing up the point that the time-line for this situation is sure funny how Vintage Authentic will not take a return, but they sold the item to be consigned in their auction and the product was never even viewed by the buyer before the auction listing and that it appears to be an odd circle.

I have no proof, I am just bringing up points of common sense.

If I have a MEARS letter and I sell an item for $25,000 to my friend and then he finds a flaw with the item should MEARS pay my friend $25,000 or me the $12,000 I originially paid for the item?

What if the same item later sells in a major auction for $5,000 what is MEARS due to pay then and to who? I have never used the word "scheme" in any of my posts, Eric, you brought up that term yourself.

I just said that the timeframe for these events is very strange and that Vintage Authentics is telling a customer that they are done with the item and the customer should contact MEARS is pretty poor customer service - Weather MEARS is right or wrong in this whole situation.

I have not accused anyone of anything, but the door needs to be left open for all options, and why Vintage Authentics won't refund this customer for an item they didn't even tell them the full history of is pretty odd to me. Red flags all over the place, but never have I assused anyone of a "scheme".

I do mention how this has come up a few months after Vintage Authentics broke off their full time working relationship with MEARS.

As usual, I am willing to buy this item for the last known public sale price this item realized. I figure I can end the whole debate immediatley. Think about it, if Mike Rose takes this to court and wins (which I feel he won't win) he will be entitled to the final public sale price which was $6050.00 as he admitted on this fourm he bought the item for this price last time it was sold.

I believe my concern is why Vintage Authentics will not refund their customer whatever price they sold the item to them for and then Vintage can deal with who they bought the item from (which I believe was Dave Bushing) which would be the professional thing for a major company to do.

I have offered to end this debate with my wallet, but I guess that request won't hurt the MEARS name enough to keep this debate quiet.

[josports]

Joel

Once again you see beyond the black and white of these posts. I am not against MEARS/Bushing. I am just simply reading the entire discussion and just can not believe after everyone has made all points and THE bat has been in every expert hands and nothing can be justified of the grade warranted to this bat. Joel you may have misunderstood me "when I said I was friends with both parties" I meant both sides, meaning DAVE BUSHING and CHRIS CAVALIER. I am not coming on the forum to blast MEARS. Listen, Dave Bushing has helped me alot with my game used knowledge and I will always be grateful for that. I just want this situation to be resolved the CORRECT way so both parties can move on.

[trsent]

Joel

Once again you see beyond the black and white of these posts. I am not against MEARS/Bushing. I am just simply reading the entire discussion and just can not believe after everyone has made all points and THE bat has been in every expert hands and nothing can be justified of the grade warranted to this bat. Joel you may have misunderstood me "when I said I was friends with both parties" I meant both sides, meaning DAVE BUSHING and CHRIS CAVALIER. I am not coming on the forum to blast MEARS. Listen, Dave Bushing has helped me alot with my game used knowledge and I will always be grateful for that. I just want this situation to be resolved the CORRECT way so both parties can move on.

So, this bat has been inspected in hand by every expert? I missed where the other experts examined the item in the posts above. Did Mike Rose read the letter before he bought the A7 bat? I have done some more homework today, and I believe the grade may be correct. I have offered to buy the item at the last known public sale price to help end this great debate.

[trsent]

On a side note, after discussions with the powers that be, here is my concern from the posts above:

Should this issue be addressed by the customer (Mike Rose) who appears to have been a strong customer of Vintage Authentics for quite some time, or should it be addressed by the seller to Mike Rose (Vintage Authentics) who apparently does not wish to address the situation themselves?

Mike Rose has made it clear that when he bought the bat he was not aware it was the previous bat he had turned down, but the letter clearly states that the bat is the same bat he turned down, so Mike Rose must have not read the letter at that time. Once posted on the Vintage Authentics web site for viewing, why didn't Mike Rose have Vintage Authentics pull the lot from their auction since he was not happy that it was the same bat as the one he had turned down a few months earlier? Vintage Authentics does post all letters with their lots in their auction house.

So, my question is not for Mike Rose, but for Vintage Authentics. Why has your company not addressed MEARS over this issue and left it in the hands of the customer who has publicly accused you of hiding the full facts of the item at time of the original sale? Why would you leave the customer to go through this mess and not professional address the situation and offer the customer to return the item since there was a misrepresentation in their eyes?

My offer to buy the item for the last know sale price of $6050.00 still stands.

[mikeroseny]

Joel,

I think the issue here is that we, as buyers of a bat that was misrepresented, should rightfully be refunded the money we paid for it. This is simply the right thing to do when a mistake is made. Whether it comes from Vintage or MEARS really makes no difference to us. The problem is MEARS, by representing a “money-back guarantee”, has allowed the retailer to say “MEARS authenticated the item and the reason we used them is because they offer a money back guarantee in cases where a mistake is made.” Also, by continuing to stand by their grade in view of facts that prove it was not warranted, they continue to strengthen the retailer’s ability to dig in and state “we only sold this item based on what MEARS said is was. If you have a problem with that you need to take it up with them.”

Where does that leave the buyer? The seller hides behind MEARS and their “guarantee”. MEARS, on the other hand, refuses to honor the fact that their flawed documentation allowed this bat to be sold for an inflated price relative to what a bat like this should sell for. In the end, it is a vicious circle where the collector, who trusted these two entities, is left to suffer. You tell me where the justice is for the collector in this situation?

The price I paid with the other investors for this bat was $23,200.00 If you want to buy the bat for that, I will gladly sell it to you and will waive all of the additional premiums, authentication fees, etc that we paid since making the purchase. Your offer to buy the bat for $6,050 would not provide a fair and equitable solution to the collectors (the ones who have been wronged in this situation).

Joel, you said earlier no one has proven this bat isn’t genuine. For it to be genuinely what it was represented to be then MEARS would have to be able to support it with answers to the following questions:

1) Do factory records from this era exist to which this bat can be compared? (the MEARS certification documents claimed there were none)

2) Does this bat match those records?

To date, they have refused to answer those questions, or simply cannot answer them in a way that would justify the grade that was given. Thus, a mistake was made and they should honor their policy.

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com

[trsent]

Joel,

I think the issue here is that we, as buyers of a bat that was misrepresented, should rightfully be refunded the money we paid for it. This is simply the right thing to do when a mistake is made. Whether it comes from Vintage or MEARS really makes no difference to us. The problem is MEARS, by representing a “money-back guarantee”, has allowed the retailer to say “MEARS authenticated the item and the reason we used them is because they offer a money back guarantee in cases where a mistake is made.” Also, by continuing to stand by their grade in view of facts that prove it was not warranted, they continue to strengthen the retailer’s ability to dig in and state “we only sold this item based on what MEARS said is was. If you have a problem with that you need to take it up with them.”

Where does that leave the buyer? The seller hides behind MEARS and their “guarantee”. MEARS, on the other hand, refuses to honor the fact that their flawed documentation allowed this bat to be sold for an inflated price relative to what a bat like this should sell for. In the end, it is a vicious circle where the collector, who trusted these two entities, is left to suffer. You tell me where the justice is for the collector in this situation?

The price I paid with the other investors for this bat was $23,200.00 If you want to buy the bat for that, I will gladly sell it to you and will waive all of the additional premiums, authentication fees, etc that we paid since making the purchase. Your offer to buy the bat for $6,050 would not provide a fair and equitable solution to the collectors (the ones who have been wronged in this situation).

Joel, you said earlier no one has proven this bat isn’t genuine. For it to be genuinely what it was represented to be then MEARS would have to be able to support it with answers to the following questions:

1) Do factory records from this era exist to which this bat can be compared? (the MEARS certification documents claimed there were none)

2) Does this bat match those records?

To date, they have refused to answer those questions, or simply cannot answer them in a way that would justify the grade that was given. Thus, a mistake was made and they should honor their policy.

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com (mikeroseny@yahoo.com)

Mike, a few things.

MEARS is standing behind their grade. If you had issues with the grade it should have been discussed before you paid over twenty-thousand for the bat. You bought the bat twice, once for a figure over twenty-thousand, and then for a figure over six-thousand. The last public sale was set at six-thousand, which is all you'd be entitled to if there was a MEARS grading issue - But they have stated they are not changing their grade.

Now, when you bought this item, did you even read the letter? I am guessing not, because if you had you would know this was the same bat that Vintage Authentics originally offered you as an A5. The letter makes it clear the grade was upgraded.

As for the bat records, etc. The lathe bat is enough proof to justify the item as being genuine according to everything I have found. My offer of the last known sale price still stands.

Be well.

[earlywynnfan]

I have to say, since this whole post is putting the issue up for public opinion, my opinion is that I agree with Joel. (Not in my offer to buy it, just in the conclusions he's made.)

Ken

[GameBats]

Hi Joel,

"The lathe bat is enough proof to justify the item as being genuine according to everything I have found"

What is "everything I have found"? I would like to agree with you on this bat, just need to hear some reasonable proof the bat is legit. Please explain to me how the bat is legit? The lathe bat alone is clearly not enough proof.

[trsent]

Hi Joel,

"The lathe bat is enough proof to justify the item as being genuine according to everything I have found"

What is "everything I have found"? I would like to agree with you on this bat, just need to hear some reasonable proof the bat is legit. Please explain to me how the bat is legit? The lathe bat alone is clearly not enough proof.

I appreciate your concern, but remember, and here is what appears to have been forgotten in this whole thread: The MEARS letter is a letter of opinion, not a letter of proof.

There is never 100% proof on anything. You can have Barry Bonds take a jersey off after a game, video tape him handing you the jersey and that is still on 100% proof. It is great proof, but really, how can anyone be sure the jersey wasn't switched somewhere down the line?

The point here is that Mike Rose wants MEARS to refund his money, but there is no definitive proof that the item is not genuine. MEARS gave an opinion, which they have justified using the lathe bat.

Since MEARS would have to pay $6050.00 if issues were found with the item as that was the last public sale price, I have offered to match that price and buy the item myself.

[GameBats]

Just wondering, was the fact a MEARS employee authenticated his own item disclosed on the letter of opinion?

[staindsox]

Go talk to Dave Bushing about authenticating his own items and then re-selling.

[GameBats]

I'm only concerned with the Tris Speaker bat at the moment. Is that a yes, no or I don't know?

[trsent]

Just wondering, was the fact a MEARS employee authenticated his own item disclosed on the letter of opinion?


Go talk to Dave Bushing about authenticating his own items and then re-selling.


I'm only concerned with the Tris Speaker bat at the moment. Is that a yes, no or I don't know?

GameBats, John Gruja and staindsox, Chris Sexton, I would think if you were going to post and wish to have your posts taken seriously on an adult forum, you would sign you names to your posts. It adds credibility.

In the meantime, we have had this debate on other threads. MEARS will authenticate items they own and the publish a list of items that they own that are currently consigned to major auction houses.

When Mike Rose bought the bat, he knew the item was sold by Dave Bushing to Vintage Authentics, and if he didn't, how did he later find this out? When Dave Bushing sold the item to Vintage Authentics with a MEARS A5 letter, they knew it was Dave's item. After that, disclosure is finished.

MEARS does not put in their letter if their staff personally ever owned at item. That is not going to happen and that is not the issue.

From what I have gathered:

- Dave Bushing sold the bat to Vintage Authentics with the grade of A5.

- Vintage Authentics offered the bat to Mike Rose who turned it down.

- Dave Bushing found more evidence of the bat's history and regraded the bat with the grade of A7. Vintage did not pay more for the bat even though it had a grade hike.

- Vintage called Mike Rose again, offered the same bat, but didn't tell Mike Rose it was the same bat now with the grade of A7.

- Mike Rose bought the bat for a large price, but he never even saw the bat or read the letter from MEARS which clearly lets the owner know the item was upgraded in grade from A5 to A7. If Mike Rose had read this letter, there would be no debate on this forum now, right?

- Mike Rose consigns the bat in the next Vintage Authentics auction where the bat sells for $6050.00 plus premium.

- It just happens Mike Rose is the buyer, so Mike bought the bat again, this time for much less.

- Mike Rose asks Vintage Authentics to work with him, a very profitable customer, as he is not happy with the whole situation including the fact that Vintage Authentics never once told Mike Rose that the A5 and A7 bats they were offering him where the same bat that had been reevaluated.

- Vintage Authentics tells Mike Rose that MEARS, who they fired for money reasons and switched to Lou Lampson as their head authenticator, has a guarantee if the item is not real and to deal with them. Nice customer service with a customer who is buying big dollar items.

- Mike Rose contacts MEARS, and MEARS tells him that there is not proof the item is not genuine. There isn't. Just opinions by other people/authenticators. MEARS made an opinion, which is what they are paid to do.

- MEARS has stood behind their grade.

- Joel Alpert has offered to buy the bat for the last price paid, which is all MEARS would be liable for if the item was found to be not genuine. This price was $6050.00 plus buyers premium.

Many people have contacted me privately about this debate on the forum and told me they feel it is sour grapes by the current owner. I have offered to end the debate with my wallet, but even a few messages ago, Mike Rose told me he wanted around twenty-thousand for the item.

So, he is willing to sell the item, even though he disagrees with the grade, so this is not an issue of if the item is authentic or not, but rather an issue over money. Good luck with your lawsuit, I hope you include Vintage Authentics with MEARS because MEARS will only be liable for the last major sale price, which we all know is $6050.00 plus buyers premium.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Now, the topic questioned by the two users above.

Dave Bushing has, just as others have, bought items that he has written letters for. This is a known fact. MEARS makes it public knowledge any items they are selling with their letters.

If you think they should put it in their letters that they once owned an item, that is your opinion, but don't expect it to happen. You have a choice with your wallet if you are going to use MEARS's service to buy or sell merchandise.

Then again, if that is the case, I guess you should have anyone who ever writes a letter for any item put in the description if they or a member of their staff ever once owned the item. That would include PSA, PSA/DNA, Global Authentics, Grey Flannel, PSA/DNA Bats, Lou Lampson, PSI, etc.

It is never going to happen. The question is not a conflict of interest issue here, it is buyers remorse of an item that they didn't even view or view the letter upon paying over $20K for!

My offer to buy and end this debate still stands.

[mikeroseny]

To provide some clarification….

When Mike Rose bought the bat, he knew the item was sold by Dave Bushing to Vintage Authentics, and if he didn't, how did he later find this out? When Dave Bushing sold the item to Vintage Authentics with a MEARS A5 letter, they knew it was Dave's item. After that, disclosure is finished.

We actually asked Troy Kinunen if this bat ever belong to Dave Bushing after we discovered the issues with the bat. When asked, Troy said he was not at liberty to discuss what was ever in Dave Bushing’s personal collection. It was only after we mentioned to MEARS that we might take this issue public for collector’s opinions that Dave Grob made a post that included the statement “As far as ownership history and timeline, I will also make this known. Dave Bushing at one time owned that bat and sold it to a private hobby entity who has never been a part of either SCDA or MEARS. This transaction pre-dates MEARS.” That was the first time anyone from MEARS admitted that Bushing ever owned the bat. Further, it was only after I made this public that Dave Bushing explicitly revealed that the “private hobby entity” who bought the bat from him was Steve Jensen.

MEARS does not put in their letter if their staff personally ever owned at item. That is not going to happen and that is not the issue.

That is very interesting. I would think this should be disclosed given the potential conflict of interest and I would have to believe most of the collecting community would agree.

- Dave Bushing sold the bat to Vintage Authentics with the grade of A5.

Dave Bushing has publicly stated he “sold this bat as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker for a fairly nominal sum which the buyer submitted for a grade of A5 due to a length that had previously been unsubstanciated (sic) for Speaker.” Are you saying Bushing graded the bat an A5 knowing it was only a “pro model game issued” bat with a length that could not be attributed to Speaker? As a side note, that is also pretty interesting.

- Mike Rose bought the bat for a large price, but he never even saw the bat or read the letter from MEARS which clearly lets the owner know the item was upgraded in grade from A5 to A7. If Mike Rose had read this letter, there would be no debate on this forum now, right?

Joel, once again, this is also incorrect. When we bought the bat initially the only document MEARS had generated on the bat was their “Letter of Opinion”. That “Letter of Opinion” stated the bat had been upgraded but didn’t mention the bat was the same one that Dave Bushing and Troy Kinunen wrote a “Letter of Authenticity” on when they worked for SCDA. Thus, we did not know it was the same bat as the one previously offered. Further, the worksheet documents created by MEARS were actually done after we bought the bat back from the auction (you will notice the first page of the worksheet is actually dated 8/22/05) at our request. That is, the supportive documentation was only done by MEARS after we requested it when we realized the grade may have been in error. Once again, while the world has changed since the time of our purchase, at the time we actually trusted MEARS and didn’t think we had any reason not to trust their grade.

- Mike Rose contacts MEARS, and MEARS tells him that there is not proof the item is not genuine. There isn't. Just opinions by other people/authenticators. MEARS made an opinion, which is what they are paid to do.

Joel, what you are failing to recognize here is that there are objective facts that cannot be attributed to “opinions”. That is, the fact that there are factory records is not an “opinion”. MEARS’ documentation which states there were none is either deliberate fraud or an error. We have given them the benefit of the doubt by stating we believe they simply made an error and that this may not have been intentional. In addition, MEARS has consistently (and in our minds inappropriately) tried to justify a 33 inch bat for Speaker. However, this bat is only 32 ¼ inches long. Once again this is an objective fact that cannot be attributed to an “opinion”. The bat can be measured. In fact, if anyone would like to measure it in person we will be happy to show them exactly how long this bat really is. Once again, MEARS is either mistaken or deliberately tried to conceal something to mislead the buyer. Once again, we are assuming it is an error and not intentional. Either way, these facts cannot be attributed to “opinion”.

- MEARS has stood behind their grade.

We believe this is the really sad part given all the facts that now exist.

- Joel Alpert has offered to buy the bat for the last price paid, which is all MEARS would be liable for if the item was found to be not genuine. This price was $6050.00 plus buyers premium.

Joel, we do have one suggestion here. If “you” are going to make a post, you might want to consistently refer to yourself in the first person. That is, I would use the word “I” when referring to yourself (as you do in the rest of the post) rather than “Joel Alpert” as you do here. With the exception of Tarzan, Elmo and Bob Dole, I don’t think many people refer to themselves in the third person any more. Given your initial comment in your recent post to make sure the names of the posters were displayed, I think you might not want to do anything that would cause others to wonder if you are really writing your posts.

So, he is willing to sell the item, even though he disagrees with the grade, so this is not an issue of if the item is authentic or not, but rather an issue over money.

This is an amazing statement. We have already said Vintage has offered to re-sell the bat in an attempt to get us our money back and we declined since we didn’t want this mis-graded bat going to some unknowing collector. To be honest, we see your offer as really coming from MEARS since this issue, in actuality, has absolutely nothing to do with you. If I’m not mistaken you have even mentioned a number of times that you are not even a bat collector. In fact, your claim that the lathe bat provides enough proof to justify this grade despite the existence of factory records that do not match the specifications of this bat is evidence of your lack of understanding of the Hillerich & Bradsby system and relative points of discussion. That is, we would be willing to sell it back to you as someone clearly representing MEARS but not to anyone else in the collecting community.

Good luck with your lawsuit, I hope you include Vintage Authentics with MEARS because MEARS will only be liable for the last major sale price, which we all know is $6050.00 plus buyers premium.

Joel, I don’t think you are qualified to determine what we are entitled to in this situation. As an officer in the Navy I was the prosecutor in more than 95 trials and even I’m not qualified to decide what a judicial body would decide. As mentioned, the second purchase was made to keep the bat in our possession since it was clear by the collecting community’s actions there was something wrong with it. If a judicial body finds that MEARS’ authentication was flawed or even fraudulent, they would most likely be liable for the original purchase amount.

Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.com

[trsent]

Mike, great post. I was in the movies and emails came over my cell phone because you made a comment about me listing a timeline and refering to myself in that timeline in the first person. Don't worry about me and my style of type. I once wrote a book that never was published because of a robery in my home, but I have no problems writing.

You do not know anything about my retations and my offer is from me and only me. Good luck in court, I'm taking the don't. (A craps term)

As many people have mentioned to me, they feel your attack is a personal attack against MEARS and you have sour grapes for paying too much for an item that you didn't research. The bat records do not mean that MEARS can't make an opinion based on other proof.

Have a happy holiday, my offer is still on the table.

[staindsox]

Joel,

What is your problem? John and I are as much of adults as anyone on this forum. Secondly, there is absolutely no reason WHATSOEVER to question our credibility. I suggest you offer an apology to both of us. As far as my Dave Bushing comment goes, it is well known and well debated that be purchased a DiMaggio item, authenticated it himself, and then resold it, which does bring credibility into question. I was responding to John that yes, it is a problem and that no authenticators try to keep this quiet. You have no reason to insult either of us. Your comments were out of line and an apology is in order.

Chris

[GameBats]

"If you think they should put it in their letters that they once owned an item, that is your opinion, but don't expect it to happen. You have a choice with your wallet if you are going to use MEARS's service to buy or sell merchandise.

Then again, if that is the case, I guess you should have anyone who ever writes a letter for any item put in the description if they or a member of their staff ever once owned the item. That would include PSA, PSA/DNA, Global Authentics, Grey Flannel, PSA/DNA Bats, Lou Lampson, PSI, etc.

It is never going to happen. The question is not a conflict of interest issue here, it is buyers remorse of an item that they didn't even view or view the letter upon paying over $20K for!"

Joel,

Once again, I asked a question in order to gather the facts. I am suprised to hear MEARS, PSA, GREY Flannel etc. does not include within a letter of opinion the fact the item was once owned by one of their employees? Why wouldn't they? If a respected authenticator once owned a particular item it should only enhance the item. I happily own plenty of items that were owned at one time or another by both Bushing and Taube. It would be pretty hard to find a quality item that hasn't passed through one or both of their hands/collections. "It is never going to happen" Why not?

In regards to a member signing a post. I never gave it much thought. I believe it's the content of the post that's important. The fact you sign your name to your post has no bearing on how I view the content. If it's important to you for a member to identify him or herself you should ask them to do so. I'm sure they'd be happy too. I think most adults will agree.

John

[staindsox]

I think you are absolutely correct in all your points John. The Bushing item I mentioned was a Di Maggio streak bat. There was a great deal of controversy with this one because many people believed the provenance was shaky at best. It was a real DiMaggio bat, but Mr. Bushing called it a 56 game streak bat, which was possible, but may also have been a bit of wishful thinking. Calling it a streak bat exponentially raised the value of the piece. Some may view it as a conflict of interest to certify your own bats and then resell them at a huge profit, but both MEARS and Bushing are the best in the business in their knowledge and resources. That's why they get the big ticket items. Like I said, great points John. A great post.

Chris

[trsent]

Chris and John, I was not trying to insult anyone. I just feel if you are going to question someone's credibility you should take the time to sign your post to stand behind it.

I agree with the comment that if I have a MEARS letter that states that Dave Bushing owned the item at the time of authentication, I would also find that a plus, but others feel there is a conflict of interest issue here.

I do not know of any authentication company that lists this in their letter, maybe it is a good debate to start on the MEARS forum that they will consider a change for.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I was thinking while out all night tonight, and Mike, I want to make a comment so you do not think I am picking on you or your issue.

This forum is great because it is a place to discuss and debate topics. If everyone agrees with every topic it would be like a country with only one political party and no choice. This forum helps find issues within the industry.

Your issue may be a major issue with the policy of a MEARS guarantee not being what you expected, but I believe there has to be no doubt when they go to the next level and refund an item. Also, I believe the guarantee works where there is a chain of how the money is collected and refunded, I do not know details.

Have a great holiday, everyone!

[kingjammy24]

personally, i can't wait for troy's research to come out. given that he's been on it since august 16, this should really be something to knock everyone's socks off. can't wait!

i realize it had to take a backseat to that urgent and pressing study of cassius clay but hopefully it's back on track now!

rudy.

[trsent]

personally, i can't wait for troy's research to come out. given that he's been on it since august 16, this should really be something to knock everyone's socks off. can't wait!

i realize it had to take a backseat to that urgent and pressing study of cassius clay but hopefully it's back on track now!

rudy.

Rudy, you and Michael O'Keefe should wait by your monitor for Troy's update.

I bet Troy is busy with authentication deals for major auction houses and that would be why his response has been delayed. The guy is allowed to work, right?

[CollectGU]

I am still waiting to hear back from Troy on the Yogi Berra mask issue since July 2nd. I wouldn't hold your breath....Personally I feel that was a bigger travesty than this...

Dave

[flaco1801]

why didnt vintage just put it in their auction? why did they have to make phone calls to push the sale? i think the bat should be returned to the auction house, and everyone will have learned a lession. when ya buy something buy it because you love it not because ya wanna make a profit. Jeff

[LHG39]

why didnt vintage just put it in their auction? why did they have to make phone calls to push the sale? i think the bat should be returned to the auction house, and everyone will have learned a lession. when ya buy something buy it because you love it not because ya wanna make a profit. Jeff


You know, that is exactly what I was wondering while reading the initial post. Why sell it to someone on the condition that they consign it back? That is my first sign that something funny is going on.

[kingjammy24]

perhaps the seller didn't want to auction/consign it and instead wanted to sell it outright, therefore vintage couldn't put it in their auction.

the seller may not have wanted to deal with the hassles of an auction, didn't feel comfortable with the risks of an auction, may have felt they'd make a greater profit by selling it outright.

rudy.

[trsent]

perhaps the seller didn't want to auction/consign it and instead wanted to sell it outright, therefore vintage couldn't put it in their auction.

the seller may not have wanted to deal with the hassles of an auction, didn't feel comfortable with the risks of an auction, may have felt they'd make a greater profit by selling it outright.

rudy.

Rudy, the seller was Vintage Authentics who bought the bat from Dave Bushing.

[kingjammy24]

joel,

are you positive? i never specifically caught that from mike's original post. it seemed as if steve brokered the sale. perhaps i'm wrong.

if steve was the seller then it seems as if he was trying to doubledip. profit from a direct sale and then, by stipulating it should be consigned back, profit again from the auction proceeds. essentially profiting from selling the same bat twice instead of just once.

if steve was indeed the seller then perhaps that's why he failed to inform mike and chris that it was the same bat that he offered them before?

steve used to post diligently whenever any related questions/issues arose. i'm unsure why he hasn't made a single post regarding this entire issue.

on a slightly different note, joel you're a betting man. care to wager that troy's "research" is never going to see the light of day?

rudy.

[trsent]

joel,

are you positive? i never specifically caught that from mike's original post. it seemed as if steve brokered the sale. perhaps i'm wrong.

if steve was the seller then it seems as if he was trying to doubledip. profit from a direct sale and then, by stipulating it should be consigned back, profit again from the auction proceeds. essentially profiting from selling the same bat twice instead of just once.

if steve was indeed the seller then perhaps that's why he failed to inform mike and chris that it was the same bat that he offered them before?

steve used to post diligently whenever any related questions/issues arose. i'm unsure why he hasn't made a single post regarding this entire issue.

on a slightly different note, joel you're a betting man. care to wager that troy's "research" is never going to see the light of day?

rudy.

Rudy, I'm not wagering with you on anything but sports.

I talked to Troy twice today, he is a busy man.

If you don't take my offer to start our own Authenticating/Opinion service soon, I'm going to make an offer to buy MEARS.

[trsent]

on a slightly different note, joel you're a betting man. care to wager that troy's "research" is never going to see the light of day?

rudy.

Ok, Rudy, I'm ready to wager.

How much?

[jake33]

s

[sportscentury]

Ok, Rudy, I'm ready to wager.

How much?

Joel,

This was a great teaser. Now that we've all been sitting on the edges of our seats for a couple of weeks, do you care to elaborate?

Reid

[JimCaravello]

Does it not strike anyone oddly that MEARS has not followed up on the Speaker bat since August 24th???? That's over 60 days??? Will they ever respond, or are they just hoping this topic will be swept under the rug and never re-surface????

I personally would not be able to sleep at night until this issue was resolved if I were the authenticator................


Just MHO............Jim

[kingjammy24]

hi jim,

actually it doesn't strike me as odd. isn't it what you thought would happen?

only 2 possibilities; either all that grandiose "research" never happened or it did happen and the results weren't what troy was hoping for.

while troy's silence was expected, i didn't quite expect mike rose to disappear. mike? any updates?

rudy.

[staindsox]

I have also been following this thread closely for quite some time. Are there any updates or any new deveopments? Although I'm sure we have varying ideas on how this should be resolved, I think we all agree this is an extremely important issue. I would appreciate any updates from involved parties. Thanks again!!!

Chris

[b.heagy]

Response to this topic has been posted on mears.

[jboosted92]

Does it not strike anyone oddly that MEARS has not followed up on the Speaker bat since August 24th???? That's over 60 days??? Will they ever respond, or are they just hoping this topic will be swept under the rug and never re-surface????

I personally would not be able to sleep at night until this issue was resolved if I were the authenticator................


Just MHO............Jim



Its up.....

[ISUbirdjersey]

Response to this topic has been posted on mears.

Incredible images of Speaker using a very short bat. There is no way that bat is any longer than the approx. 32" bat in question. Those photos are obvious proof Speaker once swung a short bat and and should raise the value of the bat in question. MEARS makes a very good point that the $20,000+ purchase price was in no way close to what the established values are. Good research and great by Troy and Dave! Especially good to know that he proved the people wrong who claimed the research would never "see the light of day." A+ response by MEARS!

David A.

[ISUbirdjersey]

Does it not strike anyone oddly that MEARS has not followed up on the Speaker bat since August 24th???? That's over 60 days??? Will they ever respond, or are they just hoping this topic will be swept under the rug and never re-surface????

I personally would not be able to sleep at night until this issue was resolved if I were the authenticator................


Just MHO............Jim

Jim, I hope you are happy with the response by Troy. The great amount of words and detail in his response should let you know that he was not able to sleep at night until he double and triple checked every fact. You should agree it was worth the wait while MEARS made sure their reply would leave little room for debate when it comes to the MEARS money back gty. Based on that research, MEARS has proven the money back gty does not apply to this situation. Their grade was seemingly fairly applied.

[JimCaravello]

Just briefly read Troy's response - very lengthy and detailed and I applaud his efforts - he has done a fabulous job with this research. As I have indicated in the past, I don't have experience handling pre-30 bats and I have learned quite a bit from the little I have digested from his reply. I can't really comment on everything he has detailed, but I look forward to reading it and hearing what the pre-30 bat collectors and authenticators have to say about his research. I am sure Mike Specht will weigh in on this at some point in time..........

As an aside, I wish I was smart enough to buy Babe Ruth game used bats in the early 80's for $2,500.......

I think the issue that still hasn't changed is the following from one of Chris's earlier posts:

The Real Issues Are Very Simple
Hello Everyone,

While this thread has obviously brought up many questions that collectors would like answered, I felt it was incumbent on me to make sure we are all very clear on the only issues that I believe need to be addressed by MEARS at this point:

· The certification documentation stated this was “pre” factory records when there are, in fact, known, documented factory records that exist.

· This bat does not “match factory records”.

We have stated numerous times that we realize everyone makes mistakes and we feel this is simply an “error” in the authentication process. However, while I cannot speak for other collectors, there is no way we would have ever purchased the bat if we had known factory records existed and that this bat did not match them…period.

It is really that simple.

Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier



I think the bottom line is that they would not have purchased the bat because of the comments Chris made above......I don't believe even Troy's detailed research changes that.......

Like I said, I haven't completely read Troy's piece and look forward to reading it when I have more time and am not at work - I am glad to see that he spent the time to respond this way.......

Jim

[yankees159]

After seeing this unfold over the last few months, it makes me wonder what the Value of a MEARS Letter is? As an educated collector, I must say I personally put very little faith in the MEARS authentication service and this situation validates my opinion. Gameuseduniverse.com offers collectors the ability to network and ask questions pertaining to game used items. Additonally you can now upload images to help your fellow collector. Why use MEARS when this website arms you with all the information you need to make an informed opinion through research?

The evolution of this website will no doubt call out more unethical practices such as this. Hey Mears guys why haven't you addressed any of the questions?

Chris keep up the good work.



TW

[kingjammy24]

this entire thing is the very definition of impasse.

in all the talk of plato and socrates, i didn't manage to catch the part where troy addressed the blatant fact that mears said it was pre-factory records, when in fact records did exist.

david a., i enjoyed your response. while troy showed the speaker photo simply to document the style of the knob and barrel end, you've gone a step further and apparently managed to ascertain, to the inch, the length of the bat solely via it's angled appearance in a photo. as an imagery enthusiast, i'd love to know how you managed to conclusively acheive this sort of accuracy. can you please share?

rudy.

[ISUbirdjersey]

this entire thing is the very definition of impasse.

in all the talk of plato and socrates, i didn't manage to catch the part where troy addressed the blatant fact that mears said it was pre-factory records, when in fact records did exist.

david a., i enjoyed your response. while troy showed the speaker photo simply to document the style of the knob and barrel end, you've gone a step further and apparently managed to ascertain, to the inch, the length of the bat solely via it's angled appearance in a photo. as an imagery enthusiast, i'd love to know how you managed to conclusively acheive this sort of accuracy. can you please share?

rudy.

Rudy,

Troy DID NOT show the photo simply and ONLY to document the style of the knob and the barrel end. If you would have actually read what he wrote, you would have noticed that Troy specifically mentions the fact that the bat appears to be short in length. I would be willing to place a bet that over 75% of GUU members would agree that that bat is clearly closer to 32" than it is to the 36" inch length Speaker bats from his later years.

[kingjammy24]

my apologies. i became lost in the first 4 paragraphs where troy provides a refresher on metaphysics and goes about proving that the bat does in fact exist. i was half-expecting to start reading questions like "is a bat really a bat?" or "can a bat ever not be a bat?".

anyway, i see that troy posted the photo to "show Tris Speaker using a very short bat."

"Because I am lacking an object of known size, I was not able to conduct true imagery analysis"

this isn't really true is it? is tris speaker himself not an object of known size? sure he is. there are 2 issues preventing imagery analysis - the first is the fact that even knowing that speaker's height doesn't permit us to gain the sort of accuracy (+/- 1") which we're talking about.
the second is that without knowing an accurate single unit of measurement in the photo, we're unable to correctly compensate for the effect of the bat being on an angle.

"I would be willing to place a bet that over 75% of GUU members would agree that that bat is clearly closer to 32" than it is to the 36" inch length Speaker bats from his later years."

then i'd ask the same question of 75% of GUU members that i'm asking of you. troy said he couldn't ascertain the length of the bat in the photo. he simply called it "short". "short" is a relative, subjective term. somehow, you managed to go several steps further and state "There is no way that bat is any longer than the approx. 32" bat in question". this is not relative or subjective. i'm simply asking you to please show me how you determined that the bat in the photo is no longer than approx 32".

you're obviously confident of your findings so please divulge how you ascertained the length of the bat. apparently it was something that MEARS wasn't even able to do.

thanks,

rudy.

[ISUbirdjersey]

my apologies. i became lost in the first 4 paragraphs where troy provides a refresher on metaphysics and goes about proving that the bat does in fact exist. i was half-expecting to start reading questions like "is a bat really a bat?" or "can a bat ever not be a bat?".

anyway, i see that troy posted the photo to "show Tris Speaker using a very short bat."

"Because I am lacking an object of known size, I was not able to conduct true imagery analysis"

this isn't really true is it? is tris speaker himself not an object of known size? sure he is. there are 2 issues preventing imagery analysis - the first is the fact that even knowing that speaker's height doesn't permit us to gain the sort of accuracy (+/- 1") which we're talking about.
the second is that without knowing an accurate single unit of measurement in the photo, we're unable to correctly compensate for the effect of the bat being on an angle.

"I would be willing to place a bet that over 75% of GUU members would agree that that bat is clearly closer to 32" than it is to the 36" inch length Speaker bats from his later years."

then i'd ask the same question of 75% of GUU members that i'm asking of you. troy said he couldn't ascertain the length of the bat in the photo. he simply called it "short". "short" is a relative, subjective term. somehow, you managed to go several steps further and state "There is no way that bat is any longer than the approx. 32" bat in question". this is not relative or subjective. i'm simply asking you to please show me how you determined that the bat in the photo is no longer than approx 32".

you're obviously confident of your findings so please divulge how you ascertained the length of the bat. apparently it was something that MEARS wasn't even able to do.

thanks,

rudy.

Obviously MEARS has a job to do and they are not going to go on a limb when it comes to that photo. Howver, I do own a few game bats that have been style matched at a similar angle to how Tris Speaker is holding the bat. It just really looks like that bat is very much shorter in comparision. I know you testing me to see how I came to that conclusion. I have no problem admitting it was in no way scientific. It is just one of those observations I felt okay making. It is kind of like if I was shown a photo of the front and back of a Pujols game worn jersey. If I had no knowledge of jerseys, I would still be confident saying that the front #5 must be smaller than the back #5. It just looks that way in a photo. Obviously Troy agrees the bat looks small too. That is why he mentioned it in his report. The bat just looks very short. I would bet it would look short no matter what angle that photo was taken from. How about this...have someone take photos of you holding a 32 inch bat, a 33.5 inch bat and then one holding a 35 inch bat. If the photo is taken from the same angle, it would be clear which bat was longest and shortest if all three bats were also held at the same angle as Tris Speaker is holding his bat in the photo. In conclusion, you trust have to trust your instincts sometimes and my instincts say that bat looks very short. i rwalize that is not good enough for proof but I don't think you will ever find the proof you are looking for with this bat. The research shows Troy and Dave did the research and gave a fair grade. The buyers overpaid for the time but that bat may increase in value over the next decade. You never know.

[JimCaravello]

ISYBirdJersey - the buyers bought a bat based on the COA indicating that there were no factory records for Speaker during this time period. In fact, there were factory records for Speaker available and the bat does not come close to matching factory records. The buyers wouldn't have even sniffed at this bat - whether it was graded a "10" or a "2" if they had known factory records existed and that the bat did not match those records. The COA was wrong - PERIOD.

The authenticator who should have had the knowledge about the factory records either ( 1 ) didn't know they existed and should not have claimed there were no records or ( 2 ) knew they existed but negligently said they didn't exist and graded the bat based on other criteria.

If the bat was graded a "7" but the COA said that factory records were available and the bat in question does not match those factory records but overwhelming evidence still leasds us to cert this bat a "7" - the Buyers would NOT have bought the bat.

The photo and everything else documented by Troy is great stuff to ponder over - but at the end of the day, its irrelevant - the fact that the COA was worded and relied upon by the buyers as outlined above remains the issue at hand and has not been addressed by MEARS - PERIOD. Jim

[ISUbirdjersey]

ISYBirdJersey - the buyers bought a bat based on the COA indicating that there were no factory records for Speaker during this time period. In fact, there were factory records for Speaker available and the bat does not come close to matching factory records.

Jim,

I do understand your point there. However, you can't prove that they did or did not know the factory records did exist. I will assume they really didn't know there were the additional records. The issue is, the records are known to be incomplete. Even though MEARS did not know about additional records, the fact is that the discovery of those records still does not conclusively show Speaker was never shipped this bat. The authenticators think the bat is legit and they have supplied a nice photo. I am not sure if thier error in regard to the factory records is enough to not validate the grade they gave the item. It appears MEARS feels strongly that they feel the item was correctly authenticated and graded. What a tough situation to be in.

[JimCaravello]

Once again - the grade and the criteria MEARS used is irrelevant. Records existed ( and the COA indicated this bat was pre-factory records ) and this bat does not match those records. I don't know how many times I have to say this - the Buyer would not have bought the bat knowing that factory records existed, no matter how detailed they were - and knowing that this bat does not match those factory records.

You can agree with their criteria of how and why they graded the bat - but the Buyer relied on the MEARS representation that "no records exist" when in fact they did. MEARS has had access to the LS records for along time - it's not like this Speaker records just appeared mysteriously one day after this bat was issued its COA. The COA is clearly wrong relative to this item. Even if the records are incomplete for that era, you do not indicate on a COA that they do not exist, when in fact they do.

Yes - it is a sad situation.....and I believe even Plato would be scratching his head right now..........jim

[JimCaravello]

ISU Bird Jersey - I am sorry - but I had to follow up on your last comments again:

Even though MEARS did not know about additional records, the fact is that the discovery of those records still does not conclusively show Speaker was never shipped this bat. The authenticators think the bat is legit and they have supplied a nice photo. I am not sure if thier error in regard to the factory records is enough to not validate the grade they gave the item.


The fact is that the discovery of the records shows that their COA was incorrect relative to stating that this bat was pre-factory records and the Buyer would not have bought the bat knowing this bat did not match those records. Also - so because the records conclusively don't show that Speaker was never issued the bat - you take the other side and say he was?? Where is the logic in this?? If this is the case - any Speaker bat from that era is legitimate......that's a long stretch..........
The authenticators think the bat is legit and have supplied a nice photo? What does that mean? They have incorrectly stated that the bat was pre-factory records and they were wrong. The photo means absoutely nothing.
The error is huge - its wrong - its the basis why the bat was bought in the first place........Sorry - this is black and white and very simple....................

[b.heagy]

Clarification has been added to the Mears site concerning this bat.

[jboosted92]

I just saw the LOO, it doesnt state what is below....

and apparently the worksheet contend that FACTORY RECORDS are post-1930.

everything pre-1930 is just random "ledger entries" and lathes...etc.





ISU Bird Jersey - I am sorry - but I had to follow up on your last comments again:

Even though MEARS did not know about additional records, the fact is that the discovery of those records still does not conclusively show Speaker was never shipped this bat. The authenticators think the bat is legit and they have supplied a nice photo. I am not sure if thier error in regard to the factory records is enough to not validate the grade they gave the item.

The fact is that the discovery of the records shows that their COA was incorrect relative to stating that this bat was pre-factory records and the Buyer would not have bought the bat knowing this bat did not match those records. Also - so because the records conclusively don't show that Speaker was never issued the bat - you take the other side and say he was?? Where is the logic in this?? If this is the case - any Speaker bat from that era is legitimate......that's a long stretch..........
The authenticators think the bat is legit and have supplied a nice photo? What does that mean? They have incorrectly stated that the bat was pre-factory records and they were wrong. The photo means absoutely nothing.
The error is huge - its wrong - its the basis why the bat was bought in the first place........Sorry - this is black and white and very simple....................

[JimCaravello]

Fascinating JBoosted92 - There are a handful of people who have had access to the records through the years and I don't think the "Industry" refers to the Records as only existing after 1930. First off, an "Industry" can't be created or determined by a handful of people or by one organization such as MEARS. Secondly - what do you call these Records that Mike Specht posted earlier in this thread outlined below? All but two of them are pre-1930.........

TRIS SPEAKER

9/15/20; His Model / 40 oz. NOTE: Old Tris Speaker diagram at 35"
6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above
6/3/22 Cleveland BBC Model sent in for Speaker / 39 oz. NOTE: unknown length
4/27/23 His Cleveland BBC 6-3-22 / 39-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
7/18/23: Sheeley Model 36" Use large Sisler-Cuban / 40 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 36"
8/21/23: Earl Sheeley Auto on End Cuban Wood Model sent in / 40-41 oz NOTE: unknown length

4/15/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: This Speaker model is not diagrammed in H & B
records and is of unknown length
5/6/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
5/14/25:His 8-21-23/ 35 ounces NOTE: unknown length as above
6/6/25: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood Model/ 38-39 oz. NOTE: unknown length as above
2/20/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/7/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/15/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood/ 37 ounces: NOTE: unknown length as above
6/11/26: His Old Speaker/ 37 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 35"
5/14/27 Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE: only two Hornsby model bats are known diagrammed, both at 35"

6/16/27: Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE as above 35"
7/9/27 : HornsbyAuto on End, Model sent in: / 38 oz NOTE: as above, 35"
3/12/28: His 7-9-27/ 38 ounces NOTE: as above, 35"
4/5/28: Hornsby/ 38-39 oz. NOTE as above, 35 "
7/27/28: His Auto on end Model sent in/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length
5/2/29: Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 to 38 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
8/10/29 Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 37 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
1930: His Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 & 38 oz NOTE: diagram at 35"
1933: His 7-27-28/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length


If these are not considered Records produced by the workers at Louisville Slugger, then what are they?

I ask you this - why do people just assume that everything MEARS conveys to the collecting community is factual such as what is considered "Factory Records" and why would you not disclose the information above when grading the subject bat which is much shorter and lighter than known Records?

Don't you think these "Factory Records" would be relevant to someone trying to purchase this bat?

I am at a complete loss to the logic of MEARS that they can sit there and defend their position that the above information is not considered a "Factory Record" and can actually state on a their Worksheet that this bat is "Pre" Factory Records...........Even though the bat is from the 1917 - 1921 labeling period, reviewing and sharing the above information with the collector would be the smart and appropriate thing to do............Not only is their approach not logical, its negligent..............

MEARS has set their own standards that are not conistent with what the collecting community is looking for so they can justify grading whatever comes through the door..........

[JimCaravello]

As a follow up to my recent post, Mike Specht has made an excellent post relative to this question of "Factory Records". It is in the Game Used Memorabilia Discussion Section of the Forum.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=5363

As Mike asks at the end of his piece - you be the Judge!

Just a sampling of Mike's post.........

"By comparing the data contained in the two record-keeping systems, it becomes clear that the main difference between the "yearly logbook"records from 1920 to 1929, and the "individual player bat card" records from 1930 to 1980 is primarily the format, or 'record keeping system,' rather than content. To term the information contained in the yearly logbooks as anything less than "factory records" is a mischaracterization of the facts."

I agree with Mike and my vote is that every document, ledger, journal, etc. that was produced to record the bat making process is a Factory Record and should be considered in authenticating bats.

[ISUbirdjersey]

Jim,

What do you think about this post from Dave Bushing? It seems that MEARS is being fair by stating there is a difference between Factory records, journal entries, and pre 1920 information. The grade MEARS issued was obviously based on all the additional information they have access to. I know you have strong feelings so maybe you could address each one of the numbered comments from Dave Bushing that you have a problem with. That was the current disagreement is exact.

final notes

November 1 2006 at 11:58 AMdavid bushing (no login)

Response to Authenticators (http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1162401823/Authenticators)A few last points with regards to the 1916-21 Speaker discussion.
1. There are NO known records, ledgers, notes, pieces of paper nor anything else that details or even remotely addresses the pre 1920 ledgers covering the time period of 1916-19.
2. This era is called the dead ball era, a time in baseball prior to the lively ball and the Ruth home run where bases and RBI's where the norm.
3. We have copies of the original pre 1920 tool room drawings for several players and the lengths of this era are shorter than those normally found in the post 1920 ledgers.
4. These drawings are far from complete.
5. We have the notated Tris Speaker vault bat that rested in the Louisville Slugger tool room that was one of the original lathe or model bats used to make player model bats for Speaker.
6 Regardless of whether the pre 1930 notebooks are referred to by some as incomplete records or incompelte ledgers, there are none from the majority of the era in which the Speaker bat now under discussion was made.
7. Where records or ledgers or notes or whatever are not present, evalutions based on tool room drawings, other known examples and especially factory tool room lathe bats are not only acceptable procedure but responsible evaluations as well.
8. It would be impossible to discuss any bat made between 1916 and 1919 as anything but a pre record bat given allowances for some incomplete ledgers from 1920 and 1921. Even if complete which all will agree they are not, this leaves over 60% of the era in which this bat hails with no records at all and during an era of baseball entirely differnet than the post 1920 live ball era and an era in which most of the information we have show player models bats shorter, if not significantly shorter, than those found recored after 1920

Respond to this message (http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/post?messageid=1162403894)

[ISUbirdjersey]

Sorry, I hit the enter button before I edited my last sentence. If you address the points he is making then people may even better understand exactly what the problem is since their recent comments have explained the situation better from their point of view.

[JimCaravello]

ISUBirdJersey - thanks for your post. Here is an answer to your question:

Response to Authenticators (http://www.network54.com/Forum/426247/message/1162401823/Authenticators)A few last points with regards to the 1916-21 Speaker discussion.

1. There are NO known records, ledgers, notes, pieces of paper nor anything else that details or even remotely addresses the pre 1920 ledgers covering the time period of 1916-19. That is correct - but there are 24 entries between 1920 and 1929, 22 of which were during his playing career and two of which were in 1929. These records include two entries during the time period of the bat - These are relevant and should have been communicated in the Cert - I still contend these are Factory Records and they should have been called that and the Authenticator should have divulged this info and all other Speaker records and indicated the bat was not consistent with those records - no matter the grade they gave the bat.

2. This era is called the dead ball era, a time in baseball prior to the lively ball and the Ruth home run where bases and RBI's where the norm. Not everyone subscribes to this theory and it should not be used as a basis for an opinion / grade

3. We have copies of the original pre 1920 tool room drawings for several players and the lengths of this era are shorter than those normally found in the post 1920 ledgers. They do not say they have any tool room drawings for Tris Speaker. The only known diagram of a Tris Speaker bat is labeled "Old Tris Speaker" (which would logically place it between 1907 and 1919 as his documented 1920 and 1921 orders are logically for this bat) and it is diagrammed at a length of 35 inches. Additionally, as pointed out by Mike Specht previously on GUU, there also appears to be a photo of a diagram of a Tris Speaker bat (the diagram itself has not yet surfaced, but may be a ) that is diagrammed at 34 inches. The other two referenced bats for Speaker on his diagram sheet are 35 inches (Foxx's 2-21-28 model) and 34 inches (P.Waner's 6-22-27 model), ordered in 1929 and 1930 respectively

4. These drawings are far from complete. Nobody is arguing this - but consider this for a moment - the drawings and records are probably more complete then people realize, given that this was a bonafide business at the time and this information was very likely used for accounting purposes, to track inventory, and to and bill customers

5. We have the notated Tris Speaker vault bat that rested in the Louisville Slugger tool room that was one of the original lathe or model bats used to make player model bats for Speaker. My understanding is that this bat is much longer and heavier than the bat in question. In Dave Bushing's hand written notes on this bat, the length is referenced at 34 3/4 inches

6 Regardless of whether the pre 1930 notebooks are referred to by some as incomplete records or incompelte ledgers, there are none from the majority of the era in which the Speaker bat now under discussion was made. They are Factory records and all of Speaker's info should have been used and divulged in the Cert. - same as #1 above. Bushing's #6 is not that different than #1. These records provide insight, to varying degrees, of individual player's ordering patterns. The closer a bat falls into a player's ordering patterns, the higher the comfort level for the collector. The further it falls away from a player's extablished patterns, the collector's comfort level diminishes

7. Where records or ledgers or notes or whatever are not present, evalutions based on tool room drawings, other known examples and especially factory tool room lathe bats are not only acceptable procedure but responsible evaluations as well. Agreed - but divulge that info as well as all Speaker's records - let the Buyer make the determination from all available info
8. It would be impossible to discuss any bat made between 1916 and 1919 as anything but a pre record bat given allowances for some incomplete ledgers from 1920 and 1921. Even if complete which all will agree they are not, this leaves over 60% of the era in which this bat hails with no records at all and during an era of baseball entirely differnet than the post 1920 live ball era and an era in which most of the information we have show player models bats shorter, if not significantly shorter, than those found recored after 1920 Rehash of many previous points - bottom line - divulge all info at hand including the records which show longer and heavier bats - let the consumer decide if they want the bat -

Look - Troy and Dave are knowledgeable guys - they have done a tremendous amount of research for the hobby and have helped the collecting community greatly. My comments are not personal attacks against these guys - I have a difference in opinion ( a stong one ) of how they grade things.......

I FEEL MY OPINIONS REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF THE COLLECTING COMMUNITY

My passion and issues with this particular bat and with MEARS is that ( 1 ) the collecting community has a lack of understanding of how they grade which is not MEARS fault - but to further educate the collecting community, MEARS needs to do a better job of focusing on how the collector wants a bat graded and not how they want to grade an item. For instance, I am an avid collector - I don't want a team index bat in my collection - why grade that bat a "7" and confuse a novice collector who hasn't done their homework? Why even grade the Pujols bat that is currently in Vintage's auction http://vintageauthentics.at.truition.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=76026159&prmenbr=57735959&aunbr=76372869 and which has been dicsussed on the Forum?

Pujols never used that bat in a game and it has led to an auction company listing the bat improperly - I could go on and on with examples - that's why collectors really need to understand the MEARS system, so they won't get burned ( 2 ) Divulge everything you know about the player's ordering history - every record, fact, lathe bat example, etc - let the collector decide if they should buy the piece - they did not do this with the Speaker bat and did not disclose the fact that the bat didn't come close to matching any of Speaker's known Factory Records. They also indicated the bat was pre-Factory Records which I completely diagree with and was a basis used by the Buyer initially

If they had done my # ( 2 ) point above, the Buyers would never have bought this bat - that's the issue.........
Jim

[ISUbirdjersey]

Jim, thanks for the detailed response.

[JimCaravello]

My pleasure - sorry for the delay - unforutnately, the day job takes precendence.......

[Eric]

I took some time over the weekend to sift through Troy's appropriately lenghty response to the Speaker bat situation.

I posted a question about it on mears online,

Here's what I asked them

Troy-

Thank you for your thorough analysis. I have a question about the technique you used.

If I understand correctly, you awarded 5 points for this bat matching factory records because, while there wasn't a record of this specific bat, you found it reasonable to believe he MIGHT have ordered one of this length (since he ordered various size bats and other players have ordered a bat of this size)

Where does it say in the worksheet that the 5 points awarded are based on an educated guess, rather than factual support?

Also- according to the logic you wrote above, I'm wondering- do you assume that something is possible and then look for information to disprove it- or do you assume an item is a zero and then look for the evidence which adds up to the final grade.

Eric Stangel

[staindsox]

This is absolutely excellent Eric! I think you have boiled down all of these points of view and arguments into one concise thought:

How should an item be authenticated? Do you prove that it was used or disprove that it was not used?

I personally think it is scary concept to argue that we assume everything is real and we therefore consider it to be authentic unless we can disprove it.

I hope they respond to your post, but it would not surprise me if it went unanswered.

Chris

[Eric]

My personal authentication process is to assume that everything is a zero, until you learn otherwise. Then gather factual evidence which builds a case for an item.

In my personal opinion, to assume things are a ten and work backwards would put you in the situation to overgrade item, because if you look at something which COULD be a fact, you're likely not to discount it, whereas if you're dealing with hard facts, your grades will be harsher, but at least you'll know what you're getting.

Eric

[Eric]

After some back and forth, I posted this on the mears board...


Dave

Thanks for your response.

My questions did not have anything to do with a Clemente bat. It occurred to me after reading Troy's description of how he analyzed information for the Tris Speaker bat, that perhaps different approaches might lead one to different results.

The specific part that made me wonder this was when the leap was made regarding what could have been in the records.

You were able to make the leap that since other players ordered short bats and since Speaker ordered various sizes that he could have ordered one with the specs of the one submitted.

When I look at something for my collection, since I assume things are wrong until I see the evidence that proves otherwise, I would not have been able to make that leap.

I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just trying to learn how you do what you do, to see if my system is the best one.

Interested in any thoughts you have on this.
Eric Stangel

[ghostkid]

Check out this link for lot #735 in the Nov. 10-11 Hunt Louisville Slugger auction:

http://www.huntauctions.com/online/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=29&lot_num=735&lot_qual=

A 1921-28 Tris Speaker Louisville Slugger 125 pro model bat, 36" and 40 ounces. Including buyer's penalty, the final price was $8625.

Kevin Kasper

[MSpecht]

Hi Kevin-- I checked out the link and noted the condition of the Speaker bat in the lot you mentioned (nail repair, etc), then started looking through Hunt's auction results and found this -- Lot 720 --

http://www.huntauctions.com/online/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=29&lot_num=720&lot_qual

This bat, described by the auction house as "...This incredible rarity is, without question, the finest Speaker game used bat extant..." sold for approximately $34,500 with the buyer's premium. So it looks like a benchmark has been set for a high-grade Speaker bat, much as the subject bat of this thread was championed by Vintage Authentics at the time of sale as "...the finest Speaker bat known..." (without disclosing that it was the same bat that Mike Rose had declined to purchase when originally offered by Vintage a short time before.)

As a related aside, the Lot 720 bat adds another piece to the Speaker bat records with regard to DOCUMENTED lengths for Speaker game used bats. I am reprinting a part of post # 16 of this thread here, with the updated information in blue:


"With this objective information in hand, what references are found in Tris Speaker's factory records? Below is a listing of all orders that are known to exist for Tris Speaker. Any added notations are referenced from additional factory records as indicated:


TRIS SPEAKER


9/15/20; His Model / 40 oz. NOTE: Old Tris Speaker diagram at 35"
6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above
6/3/22 Cleveland BBC Model sent in for Speaker / 39 oz. NOTE: unknown length
4/27/23 His Cleveland BBC 6-3-22 / 39-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
7/18/23: Sheeley Model 36" Use large Sisler-Cuban / 40 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 36"
8/21/23: Earl Sheeley Auto on End Cuban Wood Model sent in / 40-41 oz NOTE: unknown length


4/15/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: This Speaker model is not diagrammed in H & B
records and is of unknown length
5/6/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
5/14/25:His 8-21-23/ 35 ounces NOTE: unknown length as above
6/6/25: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood Model/ 38-39 oz. NOTE: unknown length as above
2/20/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/7/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/15/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood/ 37 ounces: NOTE: unknown length as above
6/11/26: His Old Speaker/ 37 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 35"
5/14/27 Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE: only two Hornsby model bats are known diagrammed, both at 35"


6/16/27: Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE as above 35"
7/9/27 : HornsbyAuto on End, Model sent in: / 38 oz NOTE: as above, 35"
3/12/28: His 7-9-27/ 38 ounces NOTE: as above, 35"
4/5/28: Hornsby/ 38-39 oz. NOTE as above, 35 "
7/27/28: His Auto on end Model sent in/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length UPDATE: 34.75 inches as measured by Hunt Auctions
5/2/29: Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 to 38 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
8/10/29 Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 37 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
1930: His Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 & 38 oz NOTE: diagram at 35"
1933: His 7-27-28/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length UPDATE: 34.75 inches as measured by Hunt Auctions


There are three diagrammed bats in Speaker's records. These bats were used as indexed bats and generally came with a specified length. In other words, if you ordered a Jimmie Foxx model 22-21-28 it would automatically come to you in its indexed length of 35" unless you specified a different length, and the variation would be the weight ordered. The three diagrammed Speaker bats are the Old Tris Speaker diagrammed at 35". the Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28 model diagrammed at 35", and a Paul Waner model. The Waner model is not specified, but in Waner's index there are eleven diagrammed bats as his index bats, four of which likely overlap Speaker's playing career as follows: His (Waner's) 6-22-27 diagrammed at 34", Old Tim Hendrix diagrammed at 35.75", Large Sisler diagrammed at 36", and Hornsby diagrammed at 35-36". It is unknown which of these bats is referenced specifically. UPDATE: Now, a diagram of Speaker's 7-27-28 would be accurate at either 34.5". 34.75", or 35".


So what does this all mean? Well, out of 24 specific documented orders, length is referenced on 7 UPDATE:: 9 of them (12 UPDATE: 14 of them if you include the orders of Hornsby models that likely are 35" in length), and all seven UPDATE: nine (or actually fourteen) documented references are 35 or 36 inches in length UPDATE: 34.75 inches in length or greater.. . The length of this bat, 32.25 inches, is so dramatically uncharacteristic of Speaker's KNOWN existing records, that it is extremely unlikely that it was manufactures for Speaker's professional use. When the weight is factored into the equation, this bat is between 7.4 ounces and 8.4 ounces lighter than any order documented within the bat's labeling period. "

FINAL UPDATE NOTE: Although the length of the Hunt Auction bat that has been used to update the above information, as disclosed by Hunts, is 34.75 inches, the accepted variance on length is + .25 inch, which gives the diagram, or tool room drawing, three potential lengths, as noted above. My belief, based on reviews of numerous diagrams of the era, is that the indexed length of "Speaker's 7-27-28" is likely either 34.5 inches or 35 inches, and there is a .25 inch acceptable variance in the actual length of this bat. Nonetheless, presented here is the available, documented information -- THE RECORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AND THE COLLECTOR DRAWS HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS. Remember, way back at the beginning of this discussion it was implied that prior to 1930 there were no available records (actually it is still MEARS position that there are no pre-1930 records, only shipping ledgers) that referenced length. Now it appears that of 24 documented orders for Tris Speaker between 1920 and 1933 there are 14 that reference length, or 58 percent. I believe that is information that should have been disclosed and was essential for a collector to make an informed decision in this matter.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[sforaker]

Great observations, Mike, about the Hunt's auction Lot 720 Speaker bat and what it adds to the collector knowledge base regarding Speaker game used bats. This bat is incredible - excellent use characteristics, great patina, sidewritten, vault marked, with shipping label and perfectly matches a very specific entry in the H&B shipping ledgers. What more could you ask for? This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists.

[sportscentury]

Great observations, Mike, about the Hunt's auction Lot 720 Speaker bat and what it adds to the collector knowledge base regarding Speaker game used bats. This bat is incredible - excellent use characteristics, great patina, sidewritten, vault marked, with shipping label and perfectly matches a very specific entry in the H&B shipping ledgers. What more could you ask for? This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists.

Scott,

Thanks for your post. That is amazing praise! In particular, your strong assertion that This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists. peaked my curiosity. Please don't take offense, but do you mind me asking if you are the consignor of this Speaker bat (or if you have a financial interest in it)?

Reid

[ISUbirdjersey]

I took some time over the weekend to sift through Troy's appropriately lenghty response to the Speaker bat situation.

I posted a question about it on mears online,

Here's what I asked them

Troy-

Thank you for your thorough analysis. I have a question about the technique you used.

If I understand correctly, you awarded 5 points for this bat matching factory records because, while there wasn't a record of this specific bat, you found it reasonable to believe he MIGHT have ordered one of this length (since he ordered various size bats and other players have ordered a bat of this size)

Where does it say in the worksheet that the 5 points awarded are based on an educated guess, rather than factual support?

Also- according to the logic you wrote above, I'm wondering- do you assume that something is possible and then look for information to disprove it- or do you assume an item is a zero and then look for the evidence which adds up to the final grade.

Eric Stangel

Eric, that is probably the best set of questions you could have possibly asked with the hope of getting the specific responses all of you have been waiting for. Excellent.

[sportscentury]

Great observations, Mike, about the Hunt's auction Lot 720 Speaker bat and what it adds to the collector knowledge base regarding Speaker game used bats. This bat is incredible - excellent use characteristics, great patina, sidewritten, vault marked, with shipping label and perfectly matches a very specific entry in the H&B shipping ledgers. What more could you ask for? This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists.


Scott,

Thanks for your post. That is amazing praise! In particular, your strong assertion that This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists. peaked my curiosity. Please don't take offense, but do you mind me asking if you are the consignor of this Speaker bat (or if you have a financial interest in it)?

Reid

Scott,

Are you there? I tried to private message you, but no luck. Please respond.

Reid