MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

[frikativ54]

A month ago, I bought a Justin Smoak MLB authenticated helmet with a huge crack in the brim. It was about to come apart. The number finally showed up in the database yesterday, so I went to confirm its game use. Sure enough, it was marked as follows:

Hologram number EK320167 was located in the MLB Authentication Database under GAME-USED BATTING HELMET.
Session Product Description:
Session Name: SEA AT OAK
Session Date: September 30, 2012
Autographer:
Authenticator: AUTHENTICATORS, INC.
Additional Information: BATTER - JUSTIN SMOAK

However, after reviewing both telecasts of the game on MLB.tv, I could not find any evidence of this helmet's being broken in a game. Thank goodness that I have found several photomatches for the intact helmet. But nevertheless, I was curious when and how this helmet was cracked.

After I looked at the video, I decided to inspect the MLB Authentication database further. Sure enough, there were two Justin Smoak "game used" bats authenticated to that same game. However, Justin Smoak didn't break his bat even once in any of his at-bats on September 30. Here's the information provided by MLB:

Hologram number EK320165 was located in the MLB Authentication Database under GAME-USED BROKEN BAT.
Session Product Description:
Session Name: SEA AT OAK
Session Date: September 30, 2012
Autographer:
Authenticator: AUTHENTICATORS, INC.
Additional Information: BATTER - JUSTIN SMOAK

and

Hologram number EK320168 was located in the MLB Authentication Database under GAME-USED BROKEN BAT.
Session Product Description:
Session Name: SEA AT OAK
Session Date: September 30, 2012
Autographer:
Authenticator: AUTHENTICATORS, INC.
Additional Information: BATTER - JUSTIN SMOAK.

To be hologrammed as "game used," per MLB's standards, doesn't the authenticator have to witness the item's being taken out of the field of play? And if these items were taken out of the field of play and given to the authenticator, then shouldn't there at minimum be video evidence of the former? What do you think happened with these helmets? Is there any way to know?

[frikativ54]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

What do you think happened with these helmets? Is there any way to know?

Should say, "...with the bats and this helmet?"

[rdeversole]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

Maybe the authenticator witnessed him coming back into the dugout and slamming his helmet down? I see a lot of players do this and a lot of helmets are taken out of play/broken because of this.

[frikativ54]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

Maybe the authenticator witnessed him coming back into the dugout and slamming his helmet down? I see a lot of players do this and a lot of helmets are taken out of play/broken because of this.

That sounds reasonably plausible. So Smoak was so mad he broke a helmet and two bats? And the authenticator was able to witness all of this?

The problem is how do we know that both bats are game used? After all, one of the bats could have been a BP bat and never used in a game. I know that one of the bats was his game bat, because he was swinging a black bat for the final homestand (after 09/30).

Does being broken in a game count as game used, by your standards or even by MLB Authentication standards?

[jppopma]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

Maybe the authenticator fell behind and just entered alot of items under the same session number. We erxpect that the dates would match up, but often they do not.

[joelsabi]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

The problem is how do we know that both bats are game used? After all, one of the bats could have been a BP bat and never used in a game. I know that one of the bats was his game bat, because he was swinging a black bat for the final homestand (after 09/30).

you could look at game footage to see if Smoak used the same bat the entire game. I thought you said you did this already?

[frikativ54]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

you could look at game footage to see if Smoak used the same bat the entire game. I thought you said you did this already?

I will do that this evening. Since I don't own either of the bats, I looked at footage more for the helmet, which is in my possession. However, while doing this, I noticed that Smoak didn't break a bat during an at-bat on September 30. And then I came across the information for the two bats while entering hologram numbers from that game.

[frikativ54]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

Maybe the authenticator fell behind and just entered alot of items under the same session number. We expect that the dates would match up, but often they do not.

Thanks for the idea. I should have noted, however, that I have photomatched the helmet to the September 30 game. And it was purchased on October 1, so it was broken sometime during the 9/30 game.

[Lunytune2]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

The bat may have not broke , but possibly cracked on a hit or foul ball.

[jbsportstuff]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

I've also had a few bats that are not "broken" as we think but enough dead wood was on the bat that the player retired the bat. I wouldn't see how they would do this to two bats by the same player in one game though.

[dnrapp]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

bats get broken/cracked all the time while the people watching the game never know about it.

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

Re: MLB Authentication and "Game Use" Designation - Clarification Needed!

bats get broken/cracked all the time while the people watching the game never know about it.

Every once in a while I will notice a player get in the on deck circle with a bat and then discard it. Probably noticed a minor crack that they didn't see in the prior at bat.