If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Why would someone add blood to a jersey that already had use from dirt on it?
Well the blood was the most unique part of the jersey that intrigued me to buy it. It makes me wonder though what could've made him bleed AFTER the game
I bought a DVD of the game, and I matched the dirt, but all the way up to the 9th inning, there was no blood in sight on his jersey. Should I be worried over this?
Why would someone add blood to a jersey that already had use from dirt on it?
I'm starting to get worried. I bought an unwashed WBC jersey from this seller a year and a half ago. It was covered in dirt and blood. I bought a DVD of the game, and I matched the dirt, but all the way up to the 9th inning, there was no blood in sight on his jersey. Should I be worried over this?
I also emailed the seller and I asked if it was the same bat - he assured me that it was not. I think we should let him explain before the firing squad starts shooting. It could be lighting - being lazy & using a old pic - fraud.. Just my two cents, not worth alot I know. Give it some time to get it figured out or we can just move on to the next bagwell bat.
Shawn
Shawn,
I understand your not wanting to rush to judgments. However, after taking a good, hard look at both pictures, I have a hard time believing that Bagwell could have made that same mark over the "T" at identical angles on two separate bats. Much less on two different bats by the same seller. Also, look at those long scratch like marks (rack marks?). They are the same in both listings.
The only difference in the bats is more use and pine tar. I am not calling for the firing squad; the seller just has some serious explaining to do.
I also emailed the seller and I asked if it was the same bat - he assured me that it was not. I think we should let him explain before the firing squad starts shooting. It could be lighting - being lazy & using a old pic - fraud.. Just my two cents, not worth alot I know. Give it some time to get it figured out or we can just move on to the next bagwell bat.
Now that we have established that this is likely the same bat, what should we conclude about the seller? If you ask me, this is a case of deliberate bat altering. Pine tar was added and use was contrived, for the purpose of making money at the hands of an unsuspecting buyer.
The bat didn't sell, but I am upset, because I considered purchasing that Bagwell bat on eBay. Unlike tigerhidden, I didn't have the good sense to look at the seller's past offerings on GUU. And, had I the money, and had I not just acquired a Bagwell bat, I could have been the victim.
What bothers me most is the lack of ethics. As I have seen with other sellers, profits are being put above the integrity of the hobby. For every bat that is caught, there are several others that float into the collecting world, and that cannot be distinguished from regular bats. This poisons the hobby.
I was just wondering if anyone else thought this was the same bat? It was first listed on here as issued and then on ebay as used. If you look above the T in Houston, that mark is in the exact same space as on the other bat.
Chris,
The other thing that is a red flag is that white streak on the barrel. Do you see how it is on both of the bats? It doesn't seem to extend as far in the one photo, but the light is hitting it, so I don't know.
I sure would be interested in the seller's response, especially since he is a forum member.
I was just wondering if anyone else thought this was the same bat? It was first listed on here as issued and then on ebay as used. If you look above the T in Houston, that mark is in the exact same space as on the other bat.
Leave a comment: