Ozzie Smith bat in SCP...

[gorilla777]

Is not an '80-'82 Cardinals/Pads bat, but a '79-'80 Padres bat...big difference. I have notified SCP, but I am surprised they and the consigner did not know. I was sold the bat at one time as an '82, then saw there was no evidence of a 2 stamped on the knob upon inscpection.
I'm sure the intent has been to place it within the '82 St. Louis WS Champs Year or time frame...

[seanbaseball]

I own the bat and just sent to scp with a group of other stuff. Ill contact them to get it corrected. There was no intent on my part to deceive anyone and I don't appreciate that assumption.

[gorilla777]

There's no need to be defensive then, if you didn't have that intent. It was simply pointing out an error; relax and don't take things personally.

[seanbaseball]

There's no need to be defensive then, if you didn't have that intent. It was simply pointing out an error; relax and don't take things personally.

LOL gotcha!

[BirdsOnBat]

I have notified SCP, but I am surprised they and the consigner did not know...
I'm sure the intent has been to place it within the '82 St. Louis WS Champs Year or time frame...


It was simply pointing out an error; relax and don't take things personally.

In all fairness these 2 quotes seem mutually exclusive specifically given the use of the word intent and I would think most on here, if in err, would have a negative reaction.

[MSpecht]

Here is a past thread with numerous pics and data.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=62321&highlight=ozzie+bat

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[Birdbats]

I don't believe the lack of a batch code necessarily means this is a 1979-80 bat. I have seen other AD bats from the '80-'82 label era, with no batch code like this one, that almost had to have been made in '81 or '82 based on the players' careers and teams. The Ozzie bat could date back as far as 1979, but I think the end range could extend to 1983 because I'm not convinced 100 percent of the bats made during that era received the batch code.

[seanbaseball]

Thanks for the reply Jeff. Sounds like the 80-82 range is in good order then!

[gorilla777]

In all fairness these 2 quotes seem mutually exclusive specifically given the use of the word intent and I would think most on here, if in err, would have a negative reaction.

I will respectively agree to disagree here and leave it at that...

[seanbaseball]

It was at least implied (no, it was actually stated) that the intent was to deceive buyers. Im a big boy and can handle the criticism although I think it was awfully premature. This was not the case and ironically the listing appears to be correct. Im assuming you will follow up with SCP with this new correct information? I shall now move on with no hard feelings.

[gorilla777]

You can re-read my first post again, but this time it would be easy to take it where the intent portion could be assumed to be the auction house that is listing the item. It is either sent in labeled as something by the consigner or the auction house labels it and runs it as such. You chose to read it directed at you, maybe solely at you, whereas others have read it differently from the get-go. There are a number of threads calling into question items at auction and the auction house themselves.
The bats missing the batch code and year, have all been '79-'80 bats in my experiences. I had checked in with a couple of different authenticators some time ago to query them on this variety and both told me those are late '79 production bats. They have seen many more bats than I have, I know that much, so it held some weight. There may be a random exception to this rule here or there, per other comments, but that has not been the case for any I have seen or had checked out. At the very least, it would be the vast majority falling into that camp.
And Sean, you possibly have an email from me somewhere with my contact info, including phone number. If you don't, then I will shoot one over. Then you can feel free to contact me directly thru either route and we can continue this dialogue person to person.

[ndevlin]

I do have this exact same bat, and I have it labeled in my excel as a '79.

[seanbaseball]

You can re-read my first post again, but this time it would be easy to take it where the intent portion could be assumed to be the auction house that is listing the item. It is either sent in labeled as something by the consigner or the auction house labels it and runs it as such. You chose to read it directed at you, maybe solely at you, whereas others have read it differently from the get-go. There are a number of threads calling into question items at auction and the auction house themselves.
The bats missing the batch code and year, have all been '79-'80 bats in my experiences. I had checked in with a couple of different authenticators some time ago to query them on this variety and both told me those are late '79 production bats. They have seen many more bats than I have, I know that much, so it held some weight. There may be a random exception to this rule here or there, per other comments, but that has not been the case for any I have seen or had checked out. At the very least, it would be the vast majority falling into that camp.
And Sean, you possibly have an email from me somewhere with my contact info, including phone number. If you don't, then I will shoot one over. Then you can feel free to contact me directly thru either route and we can continue this dialogue person to person.

email sent

[seanbaseball]

I do have this exact same bat, and I have it labeled in my excel as a '79.

Sounds like there are multiple opinions here. Im simply just trying to sell a bat and now I wish I had just kept it on the wall. LOL I trust Jeff and am going to keep the auction labeled as is. I cant list it as some think its 1979, some think its 1979-1980 and others say 1980-82 with a possibility of 1979.

[ndevlin]

Sounds like there are multiple opinions here. Im simply just trying to sell a bat and now I wish I had just kept it on the wall. LOL I trust Jeff and am going to keep the auction labeled as is. I cant list it as some think its 1979, some think its 1979-1980 and others say 1980-82 with a possibility of 1979.

No I believe Ben is right as it is a 79-80. I imagine I labeled it as a '79 in my excel because I was able to pinpoint it to that yr somehow yrs ago when I purchased it.

[seanbaseball]

You cant say there arent multiple opinion when there clearly are. Your entitled to your opinion and so is Ben and I appreciate that.

[seanbaseball]

Perhaps ill list as "used sometime in his career!":)

[seanbaseball]

Talked to SCP. They are going to add 79-80 as a distinct possibility. Ill wait to see how they word this. Im just trying to get the listing as accurate as possible.

[dougiedshow]

I also believe this is a 1979 bat. I own one myself, authenticated as such. The SCP bat sold on Ebay as a 1979 bat. There are also examples of early 80s Ozzie bats with batch codes. I'm sure Sean was unaware, based on his posts, but agree that SCP should change the listing. Either way, if you plan on bidding, I would recommend bidding on it as a 1979. That's just my opinion. Links and pics...

ebay- http://www.ebay.com/itm/Ozzie-Smith-1979-San-Diego-Padres-2nd-Season-Game-Used-Autographed-Bat-/371331197032?hash=item5675106868

Early 80s Ozzie with batch code-
http://www.legendaryauctions.com/lot-30331.aspx

My 1979 Ozzie-

[seanbaseball]

Thanks for the post dougieshow. Interesting. I am not an expert as is completely obvious by now:) Jeffs letter was dated 2001 so im going to assume since then he has seen examples that make him think 79-82 or even 83. I dunno and dont want to speak for him. I know SCP is doing some research also. I just want the listing to be correct as either way its a nice bat.

[onlyalbert]

I'm a bit confused here as to what is at stake. Are we saying that the bat as an 80-82 is more valuable or is a 79 rookie bat more valuable? Personally I've seen very few 79 or earlier Oz bats. I think it would be more valuable labeled that way. Either way.....count me as a bidder.

[sox83cubs84]

No single digit year code exists on the knob, so I would think, IMO, that the bat is pre-1980.

Dave Miedema

[earlywynnfan]

I have a bat matching this from Gary Carter, and it's from 1979. Prevailing thought has always gone with the batch numbers. I respect birdbats' knowledge, so I'll trust him that there are bats with no batch code or year number that could be from 1982. But if those are exceptions to the rule, when presented with a fresh unknown, I think you need to stick to the rule and call this bat a 1979.

On the flip side, I don't see a huge price difference between a 1979 and a 1982.

[ndevlin]

I'm a bit confused here as to what is at stake. Are we saying that the bat as an 80-82 is more valuable or is a 79 rookie bat more valuable? Personally I've seen very few 79 or earlier Oz bats. I think it would be more valuable labeled that way. Either way.....count me as a bidder.

That would be because 1982 was a WS yr.

[onlyalbert]

That would be because 1982 was a WS yr.

So if I decide to give away some of my Pujols bats....say an 01, an 04, or an 06 which would you rather have?

[ndevlin]

So if I decide to give away some of my Pujols bats....say an 01, an 04, or an 06 which would you rather have?

I like MVP yrs more myself, but I'd go with '06 on those three...

[ndevlin]

I like MVP yrs more myself, but I'd go with '06 on those three...

Actually, out of those 3 yrs, probably 01, 06 and 04 in thst order, for me

[onlyalbert]

Actually, out of those 3 yrs, probably 01, 06 and 04 in thst order, for me

Yeah Id take the rookie bat over WS years too.

[gorilla777]

His rookie year was '78, and those are tough bats to find. Rookie bats and bats specific to years when a team wins a title typically command a premium. An Ozzie bat tied to '82 with the Cards title year would pull a premium vs. a Padres bat that's not a rookie year specific one.

[seanbaseball]

I wish I still had the bat so I could burn it!!! :eek:

[dougiedshow]

No reason to be upset, it's a nice bat. There's nothing wrong with a second year Ozzie bat!

[sox83cubs84]

No reason to be upset, it's a nice bat. There's nothing wrong with a second year Ozzie bat!

A Major League +1!!

Dave M.

[seanbaseball]

Im not upset. I was just kidding. Ive heard from good sources on both sides of the debate.
Im no expert, just your average collector.

[seanbaseball]

I mainly just wanted to make sure that no one thought I was trying to mislead anyone with the auction. I think I have done that and Ben has helped me understand his thoughts and opinion, so Im good. As always this forum is a great source for information and learning for me and hearing all sides of the debate is valuable. I leave the rest up to SCP.