Cal Ripken Jr. Rawlings all-star bat?

[mr.miracle]

Forum Readers:

Below is a posted link to the current Huggins & Scott auction which features what is reportedly a Cal Ripken Jr. 1992 MLB All-Star game used bat. http://www.hugginsandscott.com/cgi-b...pl?itemid=7082
It is widely known that Cal prefered and used LS throughout the bulk of his career but was known to use Rawlings/Adirondack through the mid to late 80's. This issue came up in discussion before when a similar 94 or 95 Rawlings Ripken bat came up for auction. It was reported I believe by Ironmanfan that Ripken to his knowlege never used any Rawlings bats during all-star games.

What makes this a very interesting bat is that there is a lone ball mark in the center barrel on the back of the bat. Other than that, the bat shows absolutely no use that I can see. There is no writing on the bat, no additional ball marks, bat rack marks, seam marks, cleat marks, pine tar etc. The bat has been graded GU-8 by MEARS and I contacted Troy Kinunnen regarding this bat because the LOA says that there are no ball marks present while there is in fact a single ball mark on the bat. Troy told me that this was a data entry error and it would be corrected on the LOA and sent to H&S. The bat as it appears according to Troy with the single ball mark is correct and there was an error on the LOA in regards to the ball mark being on the back bat barrel.

What I am specifically looking for is confirmation as to whether or not Cal used the Rawlings bat in this game or whether someone told what was a Ripken game issued Rawlings bat and was able to add one lone ball mark to reflect Cal's lone hit in this game. Since Ironmanfan weighed in on an earlier thread regarding Cal's use of wrist bands at the 88 or 89 All-star game and said that he has every single All-star game on video I figured it would be a simple process to verify that Cal was or was not using a Rawlings bat in this game. I am very suspicious on this being an authentic game used Ripken bat since I have never seen evidence of Cal used Rawlings bats in any all-star game. While Rawlings did issue 2 all-star game bats to Cal as far as I know throughout much of his career, whether or not he used them in the game is another matter. If it is conclusively proven that Cal did not use a Rawlings bat during the 92 all-star game then this bat is nothing more than game issued with a doctored ball mark which some unsuspecting buyer is going to end up getting taken to the cleaners on. The opening bid is already $1500 with one bid. While it would be a nice bat to own as a game issued Ripken all-star bat which in and of itself is rare, nobody wants to own a doctored Ripken all-star bat especially at these prices.

If anyone especially Ironmanfan can assist with this I would greatly appreciate it. I have attempted to look at pics through Getty, Corbis and other sources and have not been able to locate anything with Cal batting in the 92 all-star game.

Thanks

[kingjammy24]

brett,

i'm about to knock your socks off. i have the entire 1992 all-star game on dvd. each and every inning in all its glory. i will look through it today and let you know.

i'll add a small note re: rawlings bats in all-star games. griffey jr was pretty much a LVS man his entire career right? not only a LVS man but strictly a C271 man as well. lelands once auctioned off a 1991 AS game-used griffey bat that was a rawlings. funny thing is, griffey did actually use a rawlings bat during the 1991 AS game and also during the 1991 AS BP practice. an upper deck card shows griffey taking BP during the 1991 AS game using the rawlings bat with the typical griffey tape job on the handle.

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

brett,

i've just watched the entire 1992 AS game. as you know, ripken had 3 ABs. here's how they broke down:

1st inning - vs glavine - black LVS
3rd inning - vs maddux - black LVS
5th inning - vs tewksbury - black LVS

in each AB, he used a black LVS (no 2-tone). there was no number written on the knob.

it would've been nice if MEARS could've viewed a tape of the game but oh well.

rudy.

[ChrisCavalier]

brett,

i've just watched the entire 1992 AS game. as you know, ripken had 3 ABs. here's how they broke down:

1st inning - vs glavine - black LVS
3rd inning - vs maddux - black LVS
5th inning - vs tewksbury - black LVS

in each AB, he used a black LVS (no 2-tone). there was no number written on the knob.

Well Rudy, I can say that you certainly knocked my socks off. Great work, as usual.

-Chris

[mr.miracle]

Hello Rudy:

Thanks for the super fast reply and great detective work. I unfortunately don't have any all-star games on video so that was a great help. I too wondered if maybe that could have been the case regarding bp. The only thing with that issue is that it does not seem to be in Cal's character to use one bat for bp and then his standard bat of choice for the actual game. I can understand wanting to try something else but that seems strange since he was shipped the Rawlings bats for so many years yet nobody has ever been able to produce evidence of him using them in an actual all-star game. What is further fishy about this is that the lone ball mark on the bat in Huggins & Scott is almost perfectly positioned on the back barrel of the bat right in the center. It is almost as if someone went to great lengths to make sure that this ball mark appeared perfectly on there.

Like I mentioned previously, for serious Ripken collectors, this would be a nice edition to the collection simply due to its rarity. Even if Cal had been issued Rawlings all-star bats for each of his 19 all-star games that would mean that only 38 total of these bats ever existed since only two were made per year. I don't know if he was issued bats by Rawlings for all 19 games but the fact remains that you have conclusively proven that this bat never made it into the actual all-star game by Ripken which to me makes it a very expensive game issued bat at best.

Thanks again for the quick and thorough detective work Rudy.

[ironmanfan]

It's the ole "game issued" bat thing....Cal LAST used a Rawlings bat in game competition in either 1988 or 1989, although they did issue All Star bats to him throughout his career (I have a 1995 Rawlings bat from Arlington). I know I've mentioned this before, but I think its ironic that the ONLY All Star bats (post 1985 or so) you seem to see in the hobby are Rawlings/Adirondack ones..

[allstarsplus]

I emailed the H&S auctions for comment. Heck, I already bid on the bat!!!!

[josh@hugginsandscott.com]

Andrew and all:

thank you for bringing this to our attention. I have called Troy at Mears to get some clarification. He told me he was out of the office, but would be back in tomorrow and would review all of the information on the bat. If there needs to be any amendments to their LOA or the description, we will do so tomorrow. I will also contact both bidders on the bat and let them know the situation following my follow-up discussion with Troy.

thanks,
Josh Wulkan
VP of Auction Operations
Huggins and Scott Auctions
www.hugginsandscott.com

[josh@hugginsandscott.com]

Board Members:

I did receive an additional statement from Troy at MEARS. After discussing the situation with Bill Huggins (our President), we have decided to pull the bat from the auction and we will rerun it in our March sale, with the proper description and added notation from Troy.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, as we always strive to provide accurate descriptions and certainly do not want to mislead any potential buyers.

Josh Wulkan
VP of Auction Operations
Huggins and Scott Auctions
www.hugginsandscott.com
josh@hugginsandscott.com

[kingjammy24]

josh,

i'm sure everyone appreciates huggins and scott doing the right thing in this case. it's strange to congratulate someone simply for doing the right thing but sadly, doing the right thing seems to be a rare thing in this hobby.

anyway, i have a question regarding the eventual re-appearance of this bat in one of your future auctions. given that the bat wasn't used in the '92 AS game and that it has a ballmark, how are you going to describe it? as a "game-issued bat with doctored ball mark" ?

i agree with some other posters that, had it simply been left alone, it would've been a nice game-issued ripken collectible. unfortunately, in someones attempt to defraud others, it was ruined with that rubbish ball mark. in your opinion then, what would an accurate description be for the bat as it currently stands? it's a little confusing to see an auction house run an item that they know and admit was doctored.

did the current consigner purchase the bat with the ball mark already on it? if so, i'd assume they'd be pretty disappointed and would seek a refund from the person they bought it from. after all, they purchased what they believed to be a ripken AS gamer right? they probably paid a hefty price. now it's nothing more than a game-issued bat with doctored ball mark. yet rather than get their money back, they're just going to re-run the item and eat the cost?

one last question: does anyone from huggins & scott have a financial interest in this bat?

thanks in advance,

rudy.