1996 Alex Rodriguez Game Used & Signed HR #15 Bat

[Rboitano]

I dont care about third party LOA's. If its a team LOA or a player LOA then I care. I think its still a really cool bat, I was wondering if you still had it.

[WadeInBmore]

Tony...

Did you get anything other then the new inscription? That would suck to shell out the cash for a Arod HR bat and simply have it changed to game used As far as the documentation goes, even though it is unnecessary I would say that it keeps a paper trail consistant for the bat. If people track it down to your original purchase and then know about your issues with it being hr#15, it only adds to this bats unique story; I would assume the value has already gone down given the non-HR documentation. Let Mears do what they do, as I don't see it effecting the value of the bat, but maintain its story for whatever collector has the bat next.

wade

[bigtruck260]

I dont care about third party LOA's. If its a team LOA or a player LOA then I care. I think its still a really cool bat, I was wondering if you still had it.

Agreed Tony. I think you did enough research (and some guys here) to merit the removal of the false inscription - and as long as A-Rod re-did the inscription...to me, it's as if it was never inscribed before.

I have yet to see a Rawlings A-Rod bat as nice as yours. It's a really nice piece of history, regardless of whether or not it was used to hit a HR. With nearly 600 HRs to his credit, it just may be a HR bat...have you totally eliminated that possibility? Did you ever find photo proof that he used it in a game?

D

[emann]

Echoing the same thoughts, I also agree with MEARS on this one. I think it needs to be mentioned, but probably won't affect the value.

I'd also consider asking A-Rod's company to reimburse the cost of MEARS LOA or put up the cash toward a LOA from Taube. This is their mess and they still should clean it up...

[suicide_squeeze]

If there was anything written/autographed on an item, and then removed, yes i personally think it is fair to know....i am glad to know MEARS is sticking to this. If a bat was personalized and then removed i would want to know, and i dont think it hurts the value, but it should be disclosed.

I disagree.....totally. If the inscription on the bat was wrong to begin with, and that is obviously proven by the research done (by Tony), what is wrong with removing the incorrect inscription, as it SHOULD BE removed, and just left as a "game Used 1996" inscription with a new letter? What significance is there to the LOA stating that the bat was previously incorrectly listed as H.R. #15 from 1996? I don't see the relevance. It was an erroneous notation on the bat that was removed....WHY does there need to be a record of that?

It is a different subject but the more concerning thing is AROD is authenicating something over 10 years old, but looking at what he was told to write on a bat on a white index card. They were already wrong once, how do you really know it was ever used by him at all. I bet he would sign a retail bat game used if they told them to.

A-Rod is supposed to be able to trust his "people" who look after his stuff. Obviously mistakes are made by human beings, so what would make us think that a mistake or three throughout the years could not occur with his handled items? I think it's reasonable, and predictable, that there is that possibility. You, on the other hand, appear to be insinuating that his people are possibly doing things wrong intentionally, and I think you are quickly approaching dangerous ground there. It is disturbing to everyone that A-Rod has made inscriptions on at LEAST one (and most likely a handful) of game used pieces....but what kind of a FOOL would he be to make that practice commonplace? We all have the ability today to "photomatch" stuff via videos, tapes, photos, etc. I think all in all his stuff is golden, and I'm not even that big of an A-Rod fan. That said, I do own some of his items, and I certainly hope they are all legit. But no need to throw stones without any proof.

Just my opinion....peace.

[suicide_squeeze]

I agree with MEARS 100% on this one. I do not think it would ever be fair to another collector to purchase this bat and not know all of the history behind it.

Interesting position to take. Again.

Please, for my benefit, explain your reasoning behind this? I want to know what makes you think there is any relevance to taking a mismarked bat, tying it to a specific event, and correcting it to a meaningful correct inscription by removing the portion that is incorrect. The bat, in it's corrected state, is a nice item, and not misrepresenting it's heritage as it was before. BEFORE....it was a fraudulent piece. Now? It's golden. The correction "corrected" the error. What reason would there be to necessitate this chain of improper inscription followed by improper inscription removal play in the "disclosure" of ownership regarding this bat?

I am being sincere.....please explain to me the importance behind noting this information.....

It seems to me that a new LOA stating what the bat represents in it's current state is the only thing that matters. The other "record" part of it has already been documented.......right HERE. And MEARS could keep a record of the original LOA issued with it if they deemed necessary, couldn't they?

[WadeInBmore]

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

[murfsteve25]

my only questions 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.

just my 2 cents

[3arod13]

Kid4hof03: I agree with MEARS 100% on this one. I do not think it would ever be fair to another collector to purchase this bat and not know all of the history behind it.

Response: If a bat was authenticated, and someone then removed the tape on the handle, or removed a players number on the knob (which happened not to be the player in question), and you then wanted to have the letter upgraded without mentioning this, I agree 100%. For an inscription proven to be wrong, then corrected, I disagree.

Rboitano: I dont care about third party LOA's. If its a team LOA or a player LOA then I care. I think it’s still a really cool bat, I was wondering if you still had it.

Yes I do. There are thousands of Arod Louisville Sluggers and other style bats out there. You don’t come across a Rawlings often. Arod only used them early in his career. Reason why I love this bat.

Bigtruck260: I have yet to see a Rawlings A-Rod bat as nice as yours. It's a really nice piece of history, regardless of whether or not it was used to hit a HR. With nearly 600 HRs to his credit, it just may be a HR bat...have you totally eliminated that possibility? Did you ever find photo proof that he used it in a game?

Response: I do have a picture of Arod signing game used bats with Mill Creek Sports back then. As you can see in the picture I’ve attached, this Rawlings bat shows really nice game use and is cracked. In my research, this is the only picture I could find with a game used Rawlings bat in Arod’s possession. Finding one of him using one in a game has been difficult. But it’s known that he did use them early in his career. Do I believe it’s possible this is a HR bat, and the HR number (#15) was the incorrect HR Number? Sure, it is possible.

emann: I'd also consider asking A-Rod's company to reimburse the cost of MEARS LOA or put up the cash toward a LOA from Taube. This is their mess and they still should clean it up...

Response: They were more than generous in correcting this matter. Went above and beyond, so I am very satisfied with the outcome.

Suicide Squeeze: Interesting position to take. Again. Please, for my benefit, explain your reasoning behind this? I want to know what makes you think there is any relevance to taking a mismarked bat, tying it to a specific event, and correcting it to a meaningful correct inscription by removing the portion that is incorrect. The bat, in it's corrected state, is a nice item, and not misrepresenting it's heritage as it was before. BEFORE....it was a fraudulent piece. Now? It's golden. The correction "corrected" the error. What reason would there be to necessitate this chain of improper inscription followed by improper inscription removal play in the "disclosure" of ownership regarding this bat?
I am being sincere.....please explain to me the importance behind noting this information.....
It seems to me that a new LOA stating what the bat represents in it's current state is the only thing that matters. The other "record" part of it has already been documented.......right HERE. And MEARS could keep a record of the original LOA issued with it if they deemed necessary, couldn't they?

Response: Well said, and my point exactly. As stated earlier, If a bat was authenticated, and someone then removed the tape on the handle, or removed a players number on the knob (which happened not to be the player in question), and you wanted to have the letter upgraded without mentioning this, I agree 100%. For an inscription proven to be wrong, then corrected, I disagree. In the future, the bat would be sold in its current state, a Game Used Bat, not a HR Bat.
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.

WadeInBmore: 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

Response: I don’t think it maintains the bats history. It maintains the inscription history. As I stated earlier, “If a bat was authenticated, and someone then removed the tape on the handle, or removed a players number on the knob (which happened not to be the player in question), and you wanted to have the letter upgraded without mentioning this, I agree 100%.
For an inscription proven to be wrong, then corrected, I disagree. In the future, the bat would be sold as a Game Used Bat as documented, not a HR Bat. Even it proven down the road that it is actually is a HR Bat, but the number HR as inscribed wrong back in 1996, then that’s great. That can later be document. There is that possibility that it is a HR bat, but inscribed with the incorrect HR number. Finding pictures of Arod using a Rawlings in a game has been impossible. I’m sure they’re out there, but back then in 1996, you just can’t find photo’s, as you can today.

Many great comments and differences of opinion. This is why I brought it to this forum; this is why I value so many of your opinions (especially since you are game used collectors).

Many of you know there have been discussions in this forum about removing inscriptions and having the items reinscribed. I don’t see an issue with it, as long as the inscription is correct and accurate. The inscription was wrong; corrected; and the bat in its current state, is a 1996 Alex Rodriguez Rawlings Game Used Bat.

Overall: I agree with Suicide Squeeze.

Regards, Tony

[3arod13]

I forwarded this post to Troy for him to review all comments.

You all have provided me with some things to think about. Although I still feel, as stated earlier, if a bat was authenticated, and someone then removed the tape on the handle, or removed a players number on the knob (which happened not to be the player in questions number), and you wanted to have the letter upgraded without mentioning this, I agree 100%. For an inscription proven to be wrong, then corrected, I disagree.

After reading many of our comments and opinions, I will say that maybe keeping the HR #15 remarks in the MEARS LOA may help explain why there is a picture of Arod adding an inscription on this bat as a Yankee in 2009.

The signature from 1996 was left on the bat, and only inscription “HR #15 1996” was removed and replaced with “Game Used 1996” in 2009. This would at least explain this.

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 1996.”

Your thoughts?

Regards, Tony