1996 Alex Rodriguez Game Used & Signed HR #15 Bat

[metsbats]

steve...

I would say that it maintains the bats history...and as Truck pointed out that if someone does match it to another homerun then the argument of it being a homerun bat doesn't exhist as it was originally mislabeled.

If years down the road people discover that this bat was once labeled a HR bat then, and then changed to its current state, questions would be brought up about why. Its simply disclosure and the story of this back. I would think this adds to its provenance and in turn maintains a consistant unarguable story. The question here of should be if Tony wants it to be so. A COA or LOA is supposed to list known facts about an item. The value shouldn't be affected by this statement, but its story maintains consistency and eliminates the potential question.

I think it only adds to the bats lore.

wade

If you do a google on "Alex Rodriguez game used rawlings bat" it'll come back links to GUU with all the discussions of this very bat and the history of it. Should Tony ever part with this bat the seller may discover the history anyway if they did this.

I think MEARS disclosing the history on the LOA will protect Tony from any liability and future issues with the next owner of this bat.

[3arod13]

If you do a google on "Alex Rodriguez game used rawlings bat" it'll come back links to GUU with all the discussions of this very bat and the history of it. Should Tony ever part with this bat the seller may discover the history anyway if they did this.

I think MEARS disclosing the history on the LOA will protect Tony from any liability and future issues with the next owner of this bat.

After reviewing all of your comments and opinions, I'm rethinking this matter.

As previously stated, "I’m considering asking Troy to keep the info about the HR #15 1996 inscription in the MEARS LOA, and at least state something like this in his "History" section of the MEARS LOA:

“Although this Rawlings bat was initially inscribed HR #15 1996, and authenticated as such, and then proven later not to have been the actual bat in which Alex Rodriguez used to hit HR #15 1996, it is still possible that this is a bat used by Alex Rodriguez to hit a HR, just not HR #15."

This way, if it is later proven to have been used to hit a HR, it will show the initital HR #15 inscription was incorrect, but it is a HR bat.

Regards, Tony

[murfsteve25]

Kid4hof03: Murfsteve25: my only question is why would you need 2 or 3 different LOA's for the same bat? What good is it going to do you if already have a LOA from Arod. I'd say the Arod LOA is as good as your gunna get. I dont see the value increasing just because you have 3 different LOA's stating the same thing.

Response: I already paid for the MEARS LOA. MEARS letters provide more information and are very detailed with factory history, etc. You’re correct. I could just keep the Rawlings Company Letter (proof Arod ordered 12 bats of this model in 1996) and Arod’s LOA, and that should be enough.

Good point. I see your angle now.

[GameBats]

Tony,

I believe your intentions are all good, but the statement "it is still possible that this is a bat used by Alex Rodriguez to hit a HR, just not HR #15." is pure speculation.

Why not speculate "it is still possible that this is a bat used by Alex Rodriguez during batting practice, not during an actual game."

Doesn't sound as enticing, but if we're specuating you never know.

Just let Mears write whatever they want and let the bat be judged on its own merits.

- John G.

[Kid4hof03]

My thinking in all of this and the reason I agree with MEARS initial response is for the future. If I were to buy a piece like this and then find out all the threads, all the back information about the bat I would be pretty concerned. My first thought would be, "why did the seller not tell me all this?" It would cause me to questions everything else about the bat.

I personally think that full disclosure is the only way to go on an item like this. Not giving all the details up front gives an appearance of dishonest, even though I am sure none is intended in this case.

[3arod13]

Tony,

I believe your intentions are all good, but the statement "it is still possible that this is a bat used by Alex Rodriguez to hit a HR, just not HR #15." is pure speculation.

Why not speculate "it is still possible that this is a bat used by Alex Rodriguez during batting practice, not during an actual game."

Doesn't sound as enticing, but if we're specuating you never know.

Just let Mears write whatever they want and let the bat be judged on its own merits.

- John G.

John,

Thanks for your comment.

I would agree with you if this was a bat that showed game use and was only signed by Arod, with no other inscription, and I wanted that comment added in the MEARS LOA History. That would be pure speculation.

It is well know that player’s do make mistakes and error on inscriptions. Nobody’s perfect. Arod did the right thing in correcting this error. The bat is game used. The bat was inscribed HR #15 1996. It is very well possible that the HR (#15) inscription was wrong, and it could possible be a HR bat from another game.

I don’t see anything wrong with my statement, considering it was signed as a HR bat.

Regards, Tony

[3arod13]

Matter finally resolved.

Regards, Tony

[kellsox]

Very detailed letter which captures the full background of the bat. I find the grade of A10 interesting. It states the bat is 100% documented- with Arod's initial inscription error(which puts into question Arod's recollection of when the bat was used) and no photo documentation of him using a Rawlings during a game, how can the authenticator be 100% that the bat was used in an actual game. Based on their grading criteria, wouldn't an A9 be more appropriate?
K

[3arod13]

Very detailed letter which captures the full background of the bat. I find the grade of A10 interesting. It states the bat is 100% documented- with Arod's initial inscription error(which puts into question Arod's recollection of when the bat was used) and no photo documentation of him using a Rawlings during a game, how can the authenticator be 100% that the bat was used in an actual game. Based on their grading criteria, wouldn't an A9 be more appropriate?
K

I think photo matching is great. But you have to be realistic when trying to compare finding a photo matched from today, than from earlier years.

The farther you go back, the more difficult it is to find vidoes and pictures. Technology today is much more advance, and we have many more tools.

Regards, Tony

[3arod13]

Very detailed letter which captures the full background of the bat. I find the grade of A10 interesting. It states the bat is 100% documented- with Arod's initial inscription error(which puts into question Arod's recollection of when the bat was used) and no photo documentation of him using a Rawlings during a game, how can the authenticator be 100% that the bat was used in an actual game. Based on their grading criteria, wouldn't an A9 be more appropriate?
K

It is well known Arod used Rawlings bats during games early in his career, so that's not really in question. Finding a picture is the difficult part.

Regards, Tony