Albert Pujols Bat-serious Issues And Problems

[BULBUS]

I dont know Chris. Being that Pujols bats are in huge demand and collectors are paying crazy prices, you did a very bad thing. How can people trust you now??? If you would have just fixed the crack and added a small amount of pine tar to conceal the repair, that would have been acceptable. This is not.

[kingjammy24]

Personally, if it's not an athlete or team marking, I think I would prefer that my game-used items not have any markings from a seller. Ideally, the item should be as close to the condition as it was when it left the athlete's possession. Items changes hands regularly in this hobby. Can you imagine if every seller marked the item with their own little permanent notation? After 15 yrs you receive the item and it's littered with all sorts of seller "graffiti".

At any rate, many (most?) cracks that were severe and were repaired can easily be seen. There's no need to mark the obvious. I can see the crack on the Pujols as plain as day. I can also see it was obviously repaired. If the crack is visible and it's sealed, what else would I think possibly happened to it? I'm aware that it didn't seal itself. The knob need not be permanently sullied simply to state the extremely obvious.

For me, I think the most disturbing part of it is the pine tar. I've looked at both the original auction photo and the subsequent auction photo, and a good amount of pine tar was added. Who added the pine tar? For what purpose?

Jeff Sullivan: You stated you "have no problem with reapplying pine tar if the repair makes it necessary. I've done that, too." Granted, I'm not a bat collector or expert so I may be naive about certain bat-specific practices etc. Why would you destroy an original application of pinetar by putting a new coat on it? The original application was a coat of real Major-League, game-used pinetar applied by the athlete. It saw games, it exhibits the athlete's unique preferences, etc. It's got history to it and meaning. The new coat is nothing but pinetar applied by a seller.
Given that I'm not an expert on bats, could you please tell me what about a crack repair absolutely necessitates a re-application of pinetar?

However this entire story turns out, I suppose the real point at the end of it all is that if you've altered an item, regardless of why, then anything less than full disclosure of these alterations borders on deliberate misrepresentation.

Incidentally, what happened to other "marking" on the original knob? Also, was the "5" on the knob re-traced in the "restored" version?



Rudy.

[Yankwood]

Beg for our forgiveness, Dammit! Beg, I say!

[Jeff Sullivan]

Rudy

You have me confused with Jeff Scott (Birdbats) I did not make any comments at all regarding this bat.

Thanks

Jeff Sullivan

[kingjammy24]

Jeff Sullivan: Woops sorry! You're both Jeffs and you're both into the Cardinals. Apparently the similarities proved too confusing for me.


At any rate, Jeff Birdbats: that last post re: pinetar applies to you.


thanks,

Rudy.

[Birdbats]

Rudy,

Regarding repairing bats and reapplying pine tar, I've only had to do it a couple times. Pine tar can come off during the repair process no matter how careful you are -- it can stick to clamp pads or be scraped off while trying to remove excess dried glue. If you're not careful, a bat can end up looking like Steve Carell's chest (post waxing) in the 40-Year-Old Virgin.

Also, if the crack is severe enough, it can require some serious craftsmanship to make a bat whole again. It might even require sanding. I know Fred Lowman, who is the most highly praised bat repair guy around, will replace missing wood with new wood (not filler) -- and that could really stand out if it's in the middle of a dark, tarred area. I e-mailed Fred once about repairing a heavily tarred bat; he replied that he'd remove all the tar, repair the bat and then replace the tar. I personally think that's kind of extreme (and didn't use his services as a result) -- I guess we all have different comfort levels. What's important is that he disclosed his process to me and gave me information to make my decision.

Removing and/or reapplying pine tar is not something you want to do routinely, but sometimes it is necessary -- especially if the customer requesting the repair wants the bat to be restored as closely as possible to its unbroken condition. I'd never reapply pine tar unless it was ok with the owner.

The concept of "restoration" is the key. Bats aren't like baseball cards that are trimmed to be passed off as mint. To many, they're more like museum pieces that are more desirable if restored. If artists can retouch the Sistine Chapel, then why not replace the pine tar on a baseball bat's repaired, bare spot?

Now, if you're applying pine tar just to make a bat match a player's "desired" characteristics, that's a whole different matter. That's not restoration, that's deception. I believe that's the issue to which Howard is referring on this particular bat.

Jeff
http://www.birdbats.com

[bagbig]

Great work Howard!!!!!!!!!!!! Obviously this guy has been selling fake items on ebay for quite some time. I am never going to bid on his fake auctions again. Thanks again for the good work Howard.

[kingjammy24]

Jeff,

Thanks for your reply and insight. My 2 bits (as we hijack this thread into a discussion on bat repair):

If I read your reply correctly, a bat crack repair doesn't physically necessitate any re-application of pine tar. That is, a re-application of pinetar is in fact not necessary for a repair to be made.
A re-application of pinetar is only necessary for the aesthetic effect; that is, to satisfy a customer who prefers the aesthetic look of a restored bat.
The pinetar doesn't help seal the crack, it simply helps hide the repair and/or make the bat look more 'original'. A personal choice obviously, best left up to the customer after full disclosure has been given. I understand.

re: the topic of restoration:
"To many, they're more like museum pieces that are more desirable if restored."

Some prefer their pieces restored, other's don't. Personally I don't because for me the attraction to these items isn't aesthetic, it's in their tangible history. There's nothing 'pretty' about a scuffed baseball. The appeal is in the fact that it was the 700th home run for example. To strip off the old hide, which actually flew off the hitter's bat and out of the stadium, and replace it with a new hide, ruins the historical artifact. For me, the same is true for anything else - nameplates, letters, pinetar. It's destroying the original, historical material and replacing it with material that has no significance whatsoever purely for aesthetic reasons.

"If artists can retouch the Sistine Chapel, then why not replace the pine tar on a baseball bat's repaired, bare spot?"

Jeff, there are 2 huge differences with memorabilia restoration and art restoration of the nature given in your example above:

1) High-end art restorers painstakingly ensure that all of their modifications fall precisely within the exact lines and specs of the original. This ensures that any restoration does not alter the original visual appearance in any way. If Michelangelo did a 1.31 mm line which curved 35.42 degrees to the right, then the restorer fills in a 1.31 mm line which curves 35.42 degrees to the right. Somewhat similar to "filling in the lines", only they do it so there is absolutely no visual difference whatsoever between the restorer's work and the original. When you re-apply pinetar, do you re-apply it in exactly the same way, pattern, amount, etc as the original application? That is, does your re-application differ in any way from the original? I would offer that most "pine tar re-appliers" don't apply nearly the same amount of painstaking detail and skill as professional art restorers. I'm not talking about applying a "light coat" or "heavy coat". I mean..if there's an s-shaped swirl that's 3.1" long formed in the original pinetar, do you faithfully re-create a 3.1", s-shaped swirl in the exact same position? I would offer that what pine-tar re-appliers do is a crude job that barely resembles the intricate details of the original.

2) Unlike sports memorabilia restorers, those who restore high-end art aren't doing it purely for aesthetic reasons. It's done when the original is literally falling apart or fading drastically. That is, when the original piece is in real danger of not existing if left unrestored. I would argue that there isn't even a genuine need for crack repair. I have 2 cracked bats. In 15 yrs, their condition has not changed in the least. The crack has not affected their rate of deterioration. Repairing these bats or re-applying their pinetar will not lengthen their life whatsoever. The Sistine Chapel is fading and deteriorating. If it's not periodically restored, it will fade to nothing and cease to exist. If I don't seal a crack or re-apply the pinetar, the bat will not suffer the same fate. The bat repair we're discussing is done purely for aesthetic reasons and I personally don't believe aesthetics take precedence over a genuine piece of tangible history. I'd prefer a cracked bat completely in it's original state to one repaired and with new pinetar. I completely understand though that it's simply a personal preference. Thanks again for your insight.

Rudy.

[Birdbats]

Rudy,

All valid points. As you note, a lot of it is personal preference. Many people don't like to fix cracked bats, and some won't buy cracked bats in the first place. But, trust me when I say I've seen bats that, if not repaired, might snap into two pieces if handled in the slightest.

This particular bat already was in two pieces, which most people would not prefer. There aren't a lot of bat racks that can accommodate a two-piece bat. Repairing it makes it presentable. Whether you call that aesthetic or necessary, the fact is, the bat is more desirable to most people if restored. And if, in the repair of that bat some of the pine tar came off, many people would prefer to have those spots concealed. Some wouldn't. Only one bat in a hundred might actually need this kind of work -- it should be the exception rather than the rule.

As long as the work is done in the name of restoration and not deception, I don't have a problem with it. It's been suggested that this Pujols bat might have crossed the line, and that's the issue in play here.

Jeff
http://www.birdbats.com

[trsent]

Wait a second, Rudy, you are now a bat expert?

Even I can't help with this topic, I have bought and sold about 10 game used bats in my life, I am not an expert. I always overheard discussions at trade shows about restoring bats, I didn't think it was an issue since the bats were always sold as restored.