Is this a photomatch

[yanks12025]

I was wondering if these look good to you guys. The bat was cracked the next day, so im guessing its the same bat. if any one can help find more good photos it would be great. This is right before he hit a 2 run homerun.

[yanks12025]

Here's acouple more photos. I think he started using this bat around 9/1.

[yanks12025]

Any thoughts.

[kingjammy24]

my thoughts: there's nothing to match.

honestly, some of the matches being done here really surprise me. to me, a photomatch leaves absolutely no doubt. that's the value of them. yet there are numerous postings asking if something is a match. if it isn't obvious, then it probably isn't. the mere fact that you're asking and aren't sure means it isn't a match. if it were, it'd be obvious and you'd be sure. i see several "matches" that really stretch things. someone once posted a whole stack of their mcgwire gamers. holy smokes wouldn't you know it all of the bats exhibited extremely similar pine tar placement and location of ball marks. i guess that's what collectors refer to as "player characteristics". yet i see matches on here that are entirely based on roughly similar pine tar placements. i see matches that are seriously based on some incredibly blurry mlb.tv photo, 20 ft away, showing what could either be a nick on the bat or some lint on the photo lens. how many bats does a player go through in a year? dozens? how many of those are going to show similar rack marks, ball marks, pine tar placement?

yanks: your photos show ballmarks on the barrel and your bat shows ball marks on the barrel. something tells me he had a ton of bats with ballmarks on the barrel. the photo you show with a ballmark circled is so completely out of focus and far away as to be completely useless for the purposes of establishing an undoubted link. the reason noone replied is because there's nothing to reply to. there's nothing to match in them.

to photomatch ballmarks you need to get a photo close enough to match the actual shape and unique markings of that specific ballmark.

i understand everyone really wants a photomatched item but stretching it beyond the bounds of reason isn't helpful.

rudy.

[yanks12025]

Rudy,
Before you go on a hate streak or something, i was talking about the line going through the ball mark. And its not like i picking a photo taken months before the mlb hologram says it was broken, i picked on that was a day before. Sorry for asking for your opinions.

[kingjammy24]

Rudy,
Before you go on a hate streak or something, i was talking about the line going through the ball mark. And its not like i picking a photo taken months before the mlb hologram says it was broken, i picked on that was a day before. Sorry for asking for your opinions.

what line? i'm squinting as hard as i can and i can't see anything. in the first photo, i see what appears to be a really faint smudge of some sort, maybe a ballmark. i don't see anything that links them up conclusively.
i'm not on a hate streak, i'm explaining why noone responded; likely because you've posted photos from which nothing can be concluded. the getty photos, show a bat that's gotta be 15 feet away so how can you photomatch a single ballmark from 15 feet away?

it's not a hate streak and there's certainly nothing i have against you. it's just this somewhat recent flurry of people posting photos asking if something is a match. my point was that if it was a match, then you wouldn't need to ask because it'd be obvious. when 2 things line up perfectly and without a doubt, then what's left to ask? it's not like anyone here has microscopic vision. we've all got the same set of eyes. either it matches or it doesn't and when it does, it's obvious. some poster, awhile back, posted another "is this a match?" question and he had a black bat and he posted 1 photo of the player holding a black bat from what was like 80 feet away. the only similarity seen in the pics was that the bats were both black. sometimes i just don't know what some people think or expect others are going to see. like he couldn't see anything but kyle or myself would look at the photo with our cyborg eyeballs and see something noone else could?

you chose a photo that matched up to the mlb database but how does that help in establishing a match in those specific photos? the dates match up so therefore it's got to be a match? the photos just don't show anything, same date or not.

rudy.

[nomarmauerfan]

Yanks,
I, like you, believe you have a match. You can see the space between the two halves of the ball mark. I believe you have a match. Nice bat!!!

Mike

[kudu]

I see a photomatch with the gettyphoto on the right. If you could get a higher resolution on that photo, you could probably get a definite match. There are two clear ballmarks between the Rawlings logo and Big Stick that look to match the marks on the actual bat photo.

[kingjammy24]

I see a photomatch with the gettyphoto on the right. If you could get a higher resolution on that photo, you could probably get a definite match. There are two clear ballmarks between the Rawlings logo and Big Stick that look to match the marks on the actual bat photo.

what's the difference between a "photomatch" and a "definite match"? is a photomatch tentative? i thought they were one in the same.

anyway, if you could get a higher res photo then perhaps you could get a "definite match" (ie: photomatch). however, without that higher res photo, nothing can be established conclusively enough to call it a photomatch which was my entire point. the photos at hand, as they are, are inconclusive. you seem to agree because you say that higher res photos are necessary which implies the current photos are inconclusive.

anyway, as to the photo you reference, i see 4 ballmarks. personally, i'd be hardpressed to say that, for a guy who probably lands most of his ballmarks on the same part of the bat, if we'd just get a higher res photo then that photo would show a "definite match". you can't even see the specific shapes of the unique ballmarks for petes sake. anyway, i'm done. if folks want to take the easy street to photomatching, then more power to them. they'll get "matches" on all of their items from blurry photos taken 30 ft away that leave enough room for doubt. dave grob has been railing against sloppy, inconclusive matching for years and i certainly see his point.

truly, it's hard to believe that you call the ballmarks in the first photo "clear".



rudy.

[Yankwood]

I like it. Looks good to me.