2004 Albert Pujols LVS bat M9 Model M356

[Clutch_Hitter]

Can anybody tell me what the red and blue ball mark on this bat means? It's on the back barrel of the bat, but all the ball seam impressions are on the left barrel. The red and blue ball mark is on the bottom barrel and is larger than the blue ball marks on the left barrel where the ball seam impressions are. It appears to have been a glancing blow. Foul ball...........???? Or is this actually two different ball marks, one red and one blue? Thanks for your help.

[Clutch_Hitter]

PSA/DNA authenticated this bat, stating it's c. 2004. The PSA/DNA letter stated, "There is a red mark on the back barrel that appears to be a ball mark."

I paid $185.00 plus shipping to and from New Jersey for PSA/DNA services, so I felt they should have been decisive about this characteristic. Is it or isn't it a ball mark? To me, it obviously looks like the blue ball marks, except it's red. Why wasn't it obvious to PSA/DNA? Am I wrong, is it not a ball mark?

PSA/DNA also stated in the letter, "Also visible on the bat are red and blue bat rack streaks....." It does, but it also contains black bat rack streaks. The red and black streaks are much more predominant than the blue streaks. Why didn't the full authentication letter mention this obvious detail?

The PSA/DNA letter stated, "several ball marks and ball stitch impressions are visible on the left and back barrel. Ball marks include blue ink transfers." The back barrel doesn't contain ball stitch impressions. It contains a red and blue mark that "appears to be a ball mark." Or the marks are two different marks, one red and one blue.

When I received the bat and letter from PSA/DNA, I immediately thought it comparable to hiring someone to do construction work and receiving sloppy, incomplete results. No offense to anyone in construction; it's just what I thought at the time.

I've been submitting cards to PSA for years, so I decided to send this bat when I bought it from one of the members here. I believe it's been owned by three members here.

What would cause the red mark that appears to be a ball mark? Thanks for the help.

Greg Martin

[joecoco]

Hello-

That is a great looking bat. The red marks are from the red stiches on the baseball. I have seen it on other bats and also from my experience with wood bats in baseball. It usually occurs with foul ball marks- speaks to the force with which it was hit.

Anyways, that is my take. Cheers! - Joe

[camarokids]

My Travis Lee circa 2003 Devil Rays bat has a similar ball mark....actually has two of them.....

I believe there were special balls used after 9-11-01 and some of these balls have ended up in Batting Practice baseball bins......

[Clutch_Hitter]

Thanks guys. Good information and nice bat David!



I've already covered most everything in this paragraph, except for the cleat marks. PSA/DNA said cleat marks were visible on the back barrel. Hmm, they definitely didn't look at the bat for any length of time. Cleat marks are visible on each side.

The picture of the left barrel in my previous post showed the cleat marks there.

Here is the right barrel, which also demonstrates game use as this chunk likely wouldn't splinter in BP. Anybody have an opinion on how this occurred? My thought was that contact was attempted on the left barrel, as normal, but perhaps an off-speed pitch caused contact on the cup of the right barrel (?).:


Here's the front barrel:

[Clutch_Hitter]

Who saw it coming?

Evidence Pujols used this bat:

• Pujols ordered the bat
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the cup
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the knob
• The #5 was not crossed out, etc by someone else on either end
• Deep seam trenches were embedded on the left barrel
• Seam impressions were on the sweet spot, high avg and power
• Blue ink transfers are present
• Red bat rack streaks are present

Evidence Pujols didn't use this bat:

• Light coat of pine tar to handle

I could settle for the PSA bat salesmen stating: the bat was used by Pujols and possibly another player, but to outright state it was used by another player with Pujols unconfirmed is irrational at best. The short description contained numerous errors, except for the light pine tar on handle. For $200.00 plus in authentication, if they want to say Pujols didn't use the bat, I want to know who did. It was in the St Louis dugout, so figure it out. I paid PSA to research the bat, not to tell me what is typical.

When a criminal investigator interviews a suspect, he or she will ask the suspect about the event in question, and the suspect will typically say, Well, I usually.........That's not what the investigator asked. He or she asked for specifics, not what is typical.

This picture was taken during the sixth inning of game 7, 2004 NLCS. I downloaded the game and watched some before work last week. Pujols was facing Clemens. Between each pitch, Pujols stepped out and grabbed the bat on the upper handle, intentionally applying pine tar to the lower handle. Coming through in the clutch, Pujols doubled:


This picture is from 9-17-04, Pujols 44th HR. Look at the pine tar on the handle and on his right glove:

[spartanservitto]

Who saw it coming?

Evidence Pujols used this bat:

• Pujols ordered the bat
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the cup
• Pujols wrote his #5 on the knob
• The #5 was not crossed out, etc by someone else on either end
• Deep seam trenches were embedded on the left barrel
• Seam impressions were on the sweet spot, high avg and power
• Blue ink transfers are present
• Red bat rack streaks are present

Evidence Pujols didn't use this bat:

• Light coat of pine tar to handle

I could settle for the PSA bat salesmen stating: the bat was used by Pujols and possibly another player, but to outright state it was used by another player with Pujols unconfirmed is irrational at best. The short description contained numerous errors, except for the light pine tar on handle. For $200.00 plus in authentication, if they want to say Pujols didn't use the bat, I want to know who did. It was in the St Louis dugout, so figure it out. I paid PSA to research the bat, not to tell me what is typical.

When a criminal investigator interviews a suspect, he or she will ask the suspect about the event in question, and the suspect will typically say, Well, I usually.........That's not what the investigator asked. He or she asked for specifics, not what is typical.

This picture was taken during the sixth inning of game 7, 2004 NLCS. I downloaded the game and watched some before work last week. Pujols was facing Clemens. Between each pitch, Pujols stepped out and grabbed the bat on the upper handle, intentionally applying pine tar to the lower handle. Coming through in the clutch, Pujols doubled:


This picture is from 9-17-04, Pujols 44th HR. Look at the pine tar on the handle and on his right glove:

Greg,

First off, I love this bat. If you ever plan on selling it, let me know.

Secondly, I agree with your conclusion... given the photographic evidence, and I actually believe the photo where the ball is hitting him in the face is possibly a photomatch. I think at the very least the bat was used by Pujols and someone else.

Granted pine tar isn't a Pujols characteristic, however, you have provided photos that show that it has happened. As for the stitch marks, the conclusion from other members is correct.

Great bat.

-Tony

[MLB_Authentic]

Your kidding right??

Greg,

First off, I love this bat. If you ever plan on selling it, let me know.

Secondly, I agree with your conclusion... given the photographic evidence, and I actually believe the photo where the ball is hitting him in the face is possibly a photomatch. I think at the very least the bat was used by Pujols and someone else.

Granted pine tar isn't a Pujols characteristic, however, you have provided photos that show that it has happened. As for the stitch marks, the conclusion from other members is correct.

Great bat.

-Tony

[spartanservitto]

Its not going to be definitive, but the 5 looks the same... I wouldn't chalk it up, but I believe the bat is genuine. Take it easy on me, geez.

Tough crowd.

-Tony

[MLB_Authentic]

Style match at BEST.

Its not going to be definitive, but the 5 looks the same... I wouldn't chalk it up, but I believe the bat is genuine. Take it easy on me, geez.

Tough crowd.

-Tony