Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

[dcrules01]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Is it really that outrageous to believe he did this tacprc? In my eyes big deal he corked his bat at least he didn't kill anyone. At 43 playing the game is tough why do you think guys did steroids? To maintain that competitive edge is what I am guessing. Just like all them years he said he never bet on baseball. It would be hard for me to believe anything he says anymore. Just my opinion But I still think he should be in the hall of fame..

[tacprc]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

By the way, a week or so ago you suggested everyone hold off reporting this story until Pete had a chance to give his explanation, which was supposed to come last Wednesday. Did he say anything? If so, I missed it.

I said that I had heard that Rose wasn't available to talk with Barry Petchesky until last Wednesday. I don't suspect that Rose would talk with him now after seeing what he wrote -- including all the factual errors and fictional statements.

[Boswell baseball]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

I just took a look at Pete's detailed batting log for 1985.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?n1=rosepe01&t=b&year=1985

I just don't see at what point he would have really panicked and started using a corked bat.

Remember that Pete was a 24-year veteran and had battled through many bad weeks at the plate.

Remember also that Pete batted .365 for the last six weeks of the 1984 season -- after he returned to the Reds from the Expos -- so he knew that he still could hit major league pitching even at 43 years of age.

Let's assume for now that Rose never used a corked bat prior to the 1985 season, and his bat speed from 1963-84 was sufficient that he didn't need one. Prior to 1985 I have never heard of a Pete Rose corked bat in the collecting hobby. Moreover, prior to 1985 he always used an ash-colored bat -- with the exception of spring training (and possibly possibly the first six weeks) of 1981 when he used a pink Mizuno bat -- and it would have been harder to hide the corking.

Hello forum,

I have been following this thread and thought I would respond.

tacprc,

you seem to possess a deep rooted desire to go against everything resembling reality and circumstances pointing to Pete's having used a cork bat. You also seem to be confusing some statements here.

Many here have discussed old reports, facts published in several different means (Dowd report, interviews, close friends of Rose making statements, and now an apparent onslaught of collectors who , don't know eachother, but have because of a photo someone was able to match to their bat, upon further effort discovered their bats to be corked.

In particular, a close household friend of Pete Rose's who was as close to Pete as anyone could have been (he ran his bets, scuffed up the ends of his corked bats-if you believe him, knew everything about his personal dealings, etc.) has claimed that Pete "used corked bats right before breaking Ty Cobb's record", yet you are still bringing up accounts of your reasoning why Pete had no reason to use corked bats throughout his career, and even in the last months of 1984 while returned to the Reds from the Expos.

No one here is talking about any time frame other than right before and approaching Ty Cobb's record. Not throughout his career, and not even in 1984.

So what is your agenda? I for one don't understand your process of trying to discredit every rational thought presented here? You yourself told off a poster here asking everyone to "stick to the facts".

Are those the same facts you turn a blind eye to, just to support your waning opinion that Pete Rose is an Angel?

You are out at the plate as you leave the batter's box my friend. There is no reason for you to continue on your path to first base.

Let me know when you want to start analyzing the "facts" as you have suggested. Then maybe what you have to say here will become relevant. To this point, I don't believe you have made any point at all, other than to show you will support Pete against all common reasoning pointing in the other direction.

Thanks,

Bob

[schubert1970]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Thanks to my friend in Ohio for sending me the pictures of Pete Rose holding the bat, which at the time he owned.

This picture was from '87 or '88 and it shows a portion of the top of the barrel. He wasn't able to scan the photo since it 11 x 14 in size so he took some picture of it.

He began to tell me how awful the autograph looked and how much he hated it. I died laughing because I told him I almost didn't buy the bat because of the signature. It's doesn't look that bad in this photo, but in person it's bad.

Shortly after receiving from Steve Wolter, I posted photos (just posted them again) and asked questions on how to remove the signature so after some research on the forum I used olive oil and it worked like a charm. You can still see some residue, but looks better. Also, the signature was covering a good portion of the game use which is all I care about. I figured I can get Rose to sign it again anytime….maybe not now.

Anyway, the old owner was excited that I took it off without damaging the bat.

He doesn't remember the name of the person he purchased the bat from originally; just that he paid $700 at the time which was a good chunk of change for a bat.

Still can’t believe we can track the ownership of this bat from 22 or 23 years ago.

Bill

[schubert1970]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Also, received my LOA from JT today and he did a great job.
Took is own x Ray and gave a good history of the bat and recent media attention. The bat got a GU 10.

[tacprc]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

... He began to tell me how awful the autograph looked and how much he hated it. I died laughing because I told him I almost didn't buy the bat because of the signature. It's doesn't look that bad in this photo, but in person it's bad. ... Bill

Just to be clear, when you say "bad", do you mean fake or just unattractive in some way? Thanks.

[schubert1970]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Just to be clear, when you say "bad", do you mean fake or just unattractive in some way? Thanks.

Unattractive. Just not a typical looking Pete sig when using a paint stick, and too large.

[tacprc]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Unattractive. Just not a typical looking Pete sig when using a paint stick, and too large.

OK. Thanks.

[emann]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Just reading this post for the first time. Bill, awesome bat & story...

[tacprc]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Here is a better view. This is a pic of Alou in the on deck circle from 1993. If Alou was standing up, the Beckett cover would be almost identical.

I've also included an overhead pic of Veterans stadium so you can see where the photographers are compared to the on deck circle. The photographers at that time were on the right end of the dugout (visitor side).

I believe that Three Rivers Stadium had a similar green background. I found one decent photo that shows the wall behind home plate.

I am not sure, but I think that the pictures for these two baseball cards were also snapped at Three Rivers.

[schubert1970]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

I believe that Three Rivers Stadium had a similar green background. I found one decent photo that shows the wall behind home plate.

I am not sure, but I think that the pictures for these two baseball cards were also snapped at Three Rivers.

Above the green padding there are no bars in Pete's pic. The cards clearly show bars above the green padding.

[tacprc]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Above the green padding there are no bars in Pete's pic. The cards clearly show bars above the green padding.

Yeah, that's a good point. Like I said, I am not sure where those baseball card photos were snapped.

They could have been taken in spring training. Since 1969 McKechnie Field in Bradenton, FL, has been the spring training home of the Pirates. From what I have seen on the internet and perhaps in other Fleer baseball cards, it has green walls.

Note: The Reds played one spring training game against the Pirates at McKechnie Field in 1985.

I would like to see a better picture of the green wall behind home plate at Three Rivers Stadium. From the one good picture that I posted, there don't appear to be any railings behind home plate -- just a protective net.

[Tim+Jeff]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Great match looks like it.

[tacprc]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

I have been exchanging emails with photographer Bob Bartosz for the past 10 days. Here's a conglomeration of what he has told me thus far.

"I did 100 baseball cards for Donruss when they put out their first set in 1981. Donruss were paying $3.00 to $5.00 for photos for cards, and they had Many Many freelancers sending in 100's of photos hoping they would use one -- just to say they had their photo on a BB card.

Then Fleer hired me and two other photographers in 1982; we were the only staff baseball photographers working full-time for Fleer Corp.

They did buy a few photos from freelancers from time to time but not many. I had over 40 plus percent of the photos used in each set. Also I did a lot of photos for their Football card sets.

My wife and I would go to Spring Training in Florida each year in February and March. I had all the teams on Florida's West Coast. Another Fleer photographer had the East Coast. The third guy had the West Coast teams also.

My wife was their proof reader from 1982 to 88. We both stopped working for them after that.

All three of us Fleer photographers keep a low profile -- not bragging about what we did. The freelancers bragged about just getting into a ballpark. I could get into the club house and locker rooms and on the field at any time for any ballpark in the NL and AL.

All the photos were taken with Kodak Slide Film that Fleer bought for us. We used over 500 rolls or more each year.

Kodak did all the developing. There were 36 slides per roll.

++++++

I was always in the dugout when I took photos. No one was permitted on the field.

In 1985 I was at spring training and at games all over from April to October.

All the 1985 photos would be for 1986 cards.

Fleer and Topps cards were printed by the same printer in Pennsylvania. Printing started in November and December. The new cards came out in February.

Fleer also put out special sets in 1985 using the 1985 spring training and 1985 game photos we took, but the Set and Wax pack cards were based on the photos from the year before.

++++

I took thousands of baseball photos during 30 plus years and to remember a place and time of a player just standing there would be hard to do. If it were a great play or event, then Yes. I have so many photos of Rose just standing by himself.

When I was taking photos for Fleer Corp Baseball Cards, I would take 25 to 50 rolls of film a week. I liked to take photos of games, rather than posing players just standing.

That Beckett color photo was on Kodak Slide Film. I sold all my Slides, 50 or 60 thousand of them, about 10 or so years ago.

For more info you would need to ask Beckett. I put my name and the date on my photos, and marked the place on the back of the photo or slide."

[schubert1970]

Re: Photo matched PR4192 Rose bat with surprise!!!!

Take a look at this interview.

http://www.wlwt.com/video/23964386/index.html

I'm glad they actually have some footage of the bats. There is no #14 on top of the PR4192 so I could have told you the x-ray would have been negative. I don't know why they even bothered to scan an ATHL bat, these have never been questioned about cork.

And at the very least Pete himself verifies the findings.

JT recenlty told me a collector of his x-rayed their PR4192 and found cork, but he doesn't want to come forward.