It is easy to see that a lot of information has been disseminated regarding this situation. Hopefully, this information is useful to the collecting community and will give them a better understanding of the authentication process and the factors used in determining the likelihood of a bat potentially being game used. If so, I think it would be hard to argue against that being a good thing. However, I also hope it hasn’t confused people about the central issues in this situation that we believe are critical to the collecting community overall and potential buyers of game used items. Thus, I will try to simplify things a bit here so readers can hopefully understand what we believe are the true issues in this matter.

The Role of the Authenticator

As I have stated before in a previous thread, I believe the authentication process for game used items should be about helping a potential buyer determine the probability that an item is game used. I have elaborated on this in some detail in the following post:

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=4370&postcount=10

As I stated in that post, there are extremely few instances where a buyer can get to 100% certainty. Therefore, the collector must rely on other data to determine the likelihood, or probability, of an item being “game used”. Importantly, all collectors are not the same in regards to what emphasis they place on different data. Some collectors may be more liberal in terms of what data gives them comfort that an item is game used while others may be more conservative in their approach. For example, some collectors are fine with an item’s legitimacy “as long as an authenticator says it’s good” while others prefer to examine all possible data to make their own conclusions.

Once again, different collectors place different emphasis on different types of data. I, along with the other current owners of this bat, place a great deal of emphasis on the Louisville Slugger “factory records”. Given the MEARS authentication process awarded 5 points in a 10 point scale for this bat “matching factory records”, I think it is fair to say empirically that they consider this an important factor as well. Personally, I think you would be hard-pressed to find any seasoned bat collector who does not place tremendous emphasis on the “factory records”. In fact, here is a quote from a highly-respected, highly-recognized bat expert regarding Vince Malta’s bat player charts (based on Louisville Slugger’s factory records) we currently make available on GUU ““The player charts are the single greatest resource to bat collectors.” Another quote from a vintage bat collector at SCD claimed “The bat records for each player have always been kind of the Holy Grail for bat collectors.” The bottom line is, the “factory records” have always been one of the primary, most reliable data points bat collectors have considered when buying Louisville Slugger bats.

The Disclosure of Information

First of all, it is important to understand that when this bat was purchased, the Louisville Slugger “factory records” were not available to us, the buyers, or any other average collector. Fortunately, through the efforts of Vince Malta, that world is now changing. Through the player charts in his new book, the “factory records” will, in effect, be made available to anyone who wants them. However, at the time of the Speaker bat purchase, the collector relied on the authenticator to provide them with that information since the information only resided in the hands of a select few. Further, since the records were perceived to be guarded like the formula for Coca-Cola, collectors entered into a relationship of trust with the authenticator to let them know what the records stated in regards to a specific item. There was no reason to believe this information would be misrepresented or not disclosed in situations where it existed.

This is where the fundamental problem exists and, for the first time, I think I finally understand why. One of the final factors that drove us to create Game Used Universe was the situation encountered here. As I mentioned, we believe all relevant and pertinent information relating to an item should be disclosed to the potential buyer so they can make a well-informed and educated decision about a “game used” item’s potential legitimacy. In the case of game-used bats, given the monumental importance of “factory records”, when they exist it seems all too obvious that they need to be disclosed to the potential buyer. Unfortunately, this did not happen in this case.

What we now know

Before proceeding, let me state here that this is not intended as an attack on MEARS. In fact, and we have stated over and over again that we chose to believe this whole issue centered on an oversight and was not intentional. However, upon further review, I now believe the problem lies in a clear difference of opinion in regards to what MEARS believes they needed to provide the collector and what the collector believes they need from them. As already demonstrated, any information coming directly from Louisville Slugger is critical and pertinent information for collectors to evaluate in the buying process. In this case, there were “factory records” from Louisville Slugger that were applicable to this bat. Anyone wishing to determine if “factory records” do exist in relation to this bat may find it helpful to read the following post entitled “H&B Bat Factory Records – You be The Judge”:

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=5363

If these “factory records” had been disclosed in this case, would that have had an affect on the buyers’ purchase decision? Being one of buyers, I can say with absolute certainty that the answer is “Yes”. In fact, the desire to make sure this type of information is disclosed to collectors is one of the reasons Game Used Universe now exists. While not a knock against any organization or individual, we simply believe the collector should have all necessary information available to them so they can make an educated determination of whether or not they are comfortable believing the item was “game used” by a player.

In this case, Mike Specht has already done an excellent job providing information regarding the Louisville Slugger factory records as they relate to Speaker. In fact, here is a post Mike made a while back that enabled collectors to see exactly what information exists directly from Louisville Slugger:

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=17755&postcount=16


Jim Caravello also made a statement that is particularly germane in regards to an evaluation of these records. That is, “These records provide insight, to varying degrees, of individual player's ordering patterns. The closer a bat falls into a player's ordering patterns, the higher the comfort level for the collector. The further it falls away from a player's established patterns, the collector's comfort level diminishes.” In this case, the factory records from that period, while obviously not complete, are so far removed from what Speaker is “known” to order, that we believe it is not likely this bat was used by Speaker.

In addition to the ledger entries, Vince Malta has personally shown me the factory bat diagrams for Speaker and they were consistently 35”. I actually saw the diagrams with my own eyes. While Jim Caravello has pointed out there apparently may also be one diagrammed at 34”, these lengths are so far removed from the length of the bat in question (32 ¼ inches) that it definitely affects our opinion of Speaker potentially using it. Consider this bat is 1 ¾” less than the shortest known diagram and 2 ¾” less than the typical length diagrammed for Speaker. Is it “possible”? Sure. Is it “probable”? We don’t think so. And that is exactly the point. If this information was disclosed, we never would have touched this bat.

Until recently, I, for the life of me, couldn’t figure out why the people at MEARS couldn’t admit that their claim this bat was “PRE factory records” was inaccurate and that the records should have been disclosed. However, now I think I understand. The following statement sheds light on the subject:

MEARS defines factory records as the complete set of records instituted in 1930 and forward also known as the personal player bat records.

Ledger entries are not known in the industry as "factory records."

--- Troy Kinunen

How can the “industry” define what factory records are when only a handful of people had access to them? The average collector has never even seen the records. As per my discussions with Vince Malta and Mike Specht (who were among the handful that had the records), the claim that only post-1930 entries are considered “factory records” is a misrepresentation in their eyes. However, this seems to be the reason MEARS chose not to acknowledge the records or disclose them in the authentication process.

At the end of the day, it is certainly an interesting exercise to consider what is “possible”. However, as stated above, we feel it is incumbent upon the authenticator to disclose all the relevant information so the collector can decide the risk levels they are comfortable accepting. Said another way, we don’t believe the process should be about conjecture and speculation about what is “possible” but rather the disclosure of relevant and important information to allow the collector to make an informed decision about what is probable. This is especially true when assigned grades give collectors certain assurances to that affect. In this case, if the relevant information regarding the factory records was disclosed, we would never have agreed with the grade and certainly not have purchased the bat.

Last Word

I think it is important to clear up one more thing before closing. Troy Kinunen’s post included the following statement, “We feel that only after the bat failed to sell for a profit, the letter was dissected in order to capitalize and exploit the MEARS buy back policy.” I have to say I am saddened by this unfounded accusation which appears to be nothing other than an attempt to unnecessarily discredit us.

While the market values are really not relevant to the issue at hand, there was a Speaker bat that sold in 2003 for over $20,000. Thus, we had a precedent for what we believe a high grade Speaker bat could sell for, especially at that time when the vintage game used bat market was very strong due to the publicity surrounding the Ruth first Yankee Stadium HR bat. In any event, we think it is irresponsible and unjust to make such a malicious and unwarranted claim. Those who know us well know our uncompromising emphasis on trying to do what is right. We have not speculated on MEARS’ motives in this situation when we could have easily done so and find it disheartening that they have erroneously done so toward us. I would hope any future discourse will stay clear of such behavior.

In the end, this is not simply a matter of “Agreeing to Disagree”. This is a matter of the authenticator failing to disclose critical information to the potential buyer, information that would have affected the buyer’s decision of whether or not they thought the item was legitimately game used. The failure seems to stem from the unilateral decision on the part of the authenticator not to include “factory records” in the authentication analysis even though those records clearly should have been provided. If allowed, the authentication process would no longer follow the purpose outlined above but would become more a matter of:


“MEARS thinks it is, therefore, it is”.


Sincerely,
Christopher Cavalier