-
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
PSA has already evaluated the bat, see post # 17. clearly states it is a pro model bat but CANNOT attribute use to Tris Speaker. That is the key. There is a very large dollar difference between Tris Speaker pro model with no attributes and Pro Model Game Used with Rock solid attributes.Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
JBoosted - Bill is correct - also, in case you missed it, this quote is from Mike Specht's post above..........
That is also the opinion of John Taube, who, in the referenced email, indicated that he would likely grade the bat between a 3 and 4 depending on use and condition, as "the light weight removes this bat from any of the bats ordered by Speaker during the referenced labeling period, "
A grade of 3 or 4, is a far cry from a 7. Mike Rosen would not have bought the bat with a grade that low....
Jim
Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
---as posted on MEARS
Mr. Bushing,
Less than two weeks ago (August 5th) you created a post titled “more” in response to Dave Grob’s post titled Recent Hobby Rumblings. Here is a direct excerpt from it:
“This is why we strive as hard as humanly possible to be 100% perfect and we use the same method to investigate each and every piece with an ever expanding date base that is second to none. Through the efforts of a great team, we have exceeded to a point unheard of less than two years ago yet errors will happen and most of them, we will catch ourselves and inform the hobby and do everything we can to make it right. If you want to build a better mouse trap, get off your duff and do it but an armchair quarterback serves no usefull(sic) purpose. If you see something we missed, contact us and we will remedy the situation.”
I am 100% in agreement with you that we all make mistakes. In the case I have outlined previously, an examination of the factory records makes it clear that this is a real example of where something was missed. The reason I contacted MEARS twice previously on this issue prior to making my post was because I believed MEARS would respond in a manner consistent with what you outlined in your statement above. I truly believed the organization would recognize that this item had been misgraded and then, either on their own or in concert with Steve Jensen at Vintage Authentics, correct the situation. Specifically:
- Known, documented factory records for this label period do exist and are in conflict with this bat’s characteristics.
- The length of this bat is not within the tolerances you set relative to the factory records.
- The weight of this bat is out of the tolerances set by your organization for other bats known to be ordered by Speaker during this label period.
Supporting documents follow, but in this case it is clear this one was an “error.”. In your own words I’m simply asking that you “make it right” …I’m asking that you “remedy the situation.”
Sincerely,
Mike Rose
mikeroseny@yahoo.comComment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
I have a couple of questions for everyone to consider for a moment......
Let's say I stumble into a Speaker bat from 1921 that matches perfectly to factory records. Let's assume it matches the specific record posted by Mike Specht above in Post #16:
6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above
Let's assume this bat is 35" and weighs 40 ounces. Let's also assume that the bat has fairly light use and that its clearly a hand turned professional model bat. Let's for a moment say we all feel good about this bat being from the 1921 order referenced above.
Let's also assume I send this bat to MEARS. Based on their grading criteria, they will give this bat an A6 - which consists of 5 points for the base grade and 1 point for the use on the bat.
Now - my questions are as follows:
( 1 ) Wouldn't you much rather own my A6 bat that matches factory records exactly?
( 2 ) How can you justify grading the Speaker bat in question higher with an A7 grade with the facts we know; basically that it does not match factory records and its 32.25" in length and is so far off anything that Speaker is shown to have used in his records?? Basically, where is the logic in grading the Speaker bat in question higher than my Speaker bat?
I would love to hear some feedback on this............JimComment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
I would like to know what Vintage said when they were asked to take this item back as a return, which I assume must have happened somewhere in this great debate.Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
hi mike,
i have a couple of questions for you about this matter but regarding a slightly different aspect. (let me preface them by saying i ask them completely earnestly.)
1) after this experience, would you base future purchases on a mears grade?
2) would you use them to authenticate items in the future?
i ask because i'm curious what effect (if any) an incident like this has on the collector(s) involved.
mike and chris, i commend you for sticking to your guns, deciding not to accept a raw deal and having the fortitude to see it through.
i'll leave off, quoting myself, from a post made long before this debacle.
"Let me..say it behooves them more to ..ignore the grade. To refrain from giving it any real weight or consideration...The grades can't do any harm if noone takes them seriously".
rudy.Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
Troy has posted a reply about this issue on the MEARS forum that many should find interesting:
Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
Mike S. & Jim C:
I'm thoroughly enjoying this thread and learning a lot. Troy recently posted a reply and I was curious if you two could share some insight on a couple of points that have confused me.
"For the period of 1917-21, examine cases of known game used professional model bats that are not supported by factory records. With the logic provided by GAI and PSA, these known professional model bats could not be authentic due to lack of factory records. Taking the logic offered against the MEARS authenticated Tris Speaker bat, you would not be able to authenticate most pre 1930 game used bats, as very few of these bats match actual factory records."
My first point of confusion; Up until now I thought that GAI/PSA's logic was that this bat wasn't attributable to Speaker because it didn't come close to matching any sort of pattern within the known factory records, not because records don't exist as Troy states. Where has my understanding failed?
"For Tris Speaker, establish that professional model bats were made during the period of 1921-31, also in the 33" legth
For the period of 1917-21, establish that professional model Louisville Sluggers bats were produced for contemporary stars like Shoeless Joe Jackson made in identical 33" lengths."
My second point of confusion: What is the relevance of a 33" bat? The speaker bat in question has been measured by Vince Malta as being 32.25". Mike Rose offers that it's 32.5". Amongst bat experts, is 1/2" or 3/4" typically considered irrelevant?
Bushing has indicated that the lathe bat is 34 3/4". Given that this Speaker bat is 33" and the lathe bat is supposed to add support to it, (1 3/4" longer), I'm confused by how much deviation is considered acceptable by bat experts/collectors? Is 3/4" or 1" splitting hairs?
thanks very much,
Rudy.Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
H Rudy
I have also enjoyed reading, posting, and researching on this thread, although not the circumstances that led to it. The thread would have been much more enjoyable if it had been generated as a "What if..." type of roundtable discussion between collectors and authenticators.
That being said, I have followed the posts on both MEARS site and Game Used Universe, and I have seen the most recent post by Troy Kinunen where he details the research he is about to undertake. I will be the first to credit Dave Bushing, Dave Grob, and Troy on the quality and depth of their research on numerous topics within the bat collecting hobby, and the information base within the hobby to which they have contributed. I am looking forward to the results of that research, and will be reviewing many of the same records myself over the next several days.
Basically, as I said before, the role of the authenticator is to collect as much information as exists, incorporate whatever experience and knowledge he has garnered over the years, and make a reasoned, logical, informed conclusion. The final, and equally important step in the process, is to lay it all on the table in front of the collector, and let him accept or reject your analysis.
Collecting data is the easy part of the process. The differences between authenticators and, for that matter, collectors, is the reasoning process and the application of logic that leads to to an opinion. That, too, is what brought us to this point, and which will be the subject of future posts on both sites I am sure.
One unfortunate thing that has occurred in this thread is the blind comments some people have made that are stated as fact in previous posts. One post opined the validity of the subject Speaker bat by referencing the discovery "of a much shorter lathe bat." That is not accurate. The lathe bat that is of interest here is, according to Dave Bushing, 34.75 inches, or acceptably close to Tris Speakers existing known documented ordering patterns ( + 1/4" ). Another post also stated that, in some years, Babe Ruth."got like 200+ bats." Again, the existing records don't support that statement. In the years for which documented records are available for the number of bats shipped to Ruth for his professional use, 1930 to 1935, he received the following numbers of bats for his professional use: 27, 48, 56, 32, 28 (which include 16 bats shipped for the 1934 Tour of Japan), and 24 bats, respectively. Did the company turn out more Ruth bats than that? Absolutely, but by 1940, when the company was manufacturing 2 million bats a year, only about 40,000, or about 2 %, were for professional use by professional players. That is not relevant to this discussion, but serves as an illustration of how statements are made without basis in fact.
To (finally) provide short answers to your questions, Rudy:
1) the deviation of + 1/4" is acceptable to most authenticators, including the most conservative.
2) The relevance of a lathe bat (modeled at least several years after the latest possible production date of the Speaker bat) measuring 34.75 inches, to a Tris Speaker bat that is 32.25 inches in length, a difference of 2 1/2 inches, has not been established at this time.
Mike Jackitout7@aol.comComment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
Your argument here is that how they constitute the grade. They add 3 points for heavy use, and 1 for light use.
Say you have a ty cobb bat with black tape cleat marks..etc.. but light use.. A6
or Cobb bat with no cleat marks, no tape, but heavy use... A8.
Now you might say, "EXACTLY..thats my point"
Well not really, its a scale, its a MEARS scale. you have to look at the sum of the numbers, and how they were created if you agree/disagree with the MEARS system. I would blame the auction house for not disclosing the process more than THIER scale. Its their company...their scale.
If you concerned that the "average" collector (and what average collector spends thousands on bats..) then its the consumers job to understand what an A* means...Comment
-
The Real Issues Are Very Simple
Hello Everyone,
While this thread has obviously brought up many questions that collectors would like answered, I felt it was incumbent on me to make sure we are all very clear on the only issues that I believe need to be addressed by MEARS at this point:
· The certification documentation stated this was “pre” factory records when there are, in fact, known, documented factory records that exist.
· This bat does not “match factory records”.
We have stated numerous times that we realize everyone makes mistakes and we feel this is simply an “error” in the authentication process. However, while I cannot speak for other collectors, there is no way we would have ever purchased the bat if we had known factory records existed and that this bat did not match them…period.
It is really that simple.
Sincerely,
Christopher CavalierChristopher Cavalier
Consignment Director - Heritage AuctionsComment
-
Playing Devil's advocate again....
This quote by Mike Specht is one of the best I have ever read regarding authenticators:
The breakdown in the final part of the process is where this entire situation manifested itself. By purchasing the item (twice), the buyer has virtually accepted the associated analysis....the role of the authenticator is to collect as much information as exists, incorporate whatever experience and knowledge he has garnered over the years, and make a reasoned, logical, informed conclusion. The final, and equally important step in the process, is to lay it all on the table in front of the collector, and let him accept or reject your analysis.
MEARS formed and offered their opinion on an item, and the buyer failed in their responsibility to perform their own due diligence. This would not even be an issue if money had not been lost on the ensuing auction attempt. If it had sold for $30K, we sure wouldn't be hearing about it.
Regardless of how the bat was "graded" (which seems to be the sticking point in this discussion) it will be highly unlikely a consensus will ever be gained when it comes to the usage/issuance of bats from this era. I have hundreds of sidewritten bats in my collection. I guarantee that records do not exist in any written form for the majority of these bats. These bats ARE the factory records.
Very few questions in our hobby have finite answers. This holds true in the medical field also. After I send a patient to the surgeon for surgical evaluation, if they want a second surgical opinion, they sure better do it before they get the procedure done because you can't really put a gallbladder back in......
Know what you're getting into.
Mr. O'Keefe will have a field day with this one.sigpic
Always looking for vintage game used bats of Houston Buffs and Colt .45's players.Comment
-
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
marcus,
i think we can agree that mike shouldn't have relied on the mears' opinion and should've instead done his own due diligence prior to purchasing. however, isn't due diligence a 2-way street? shouldn't mears also have performed it's due diligence?
your analogy of a medical opinion is a good one. let's say, for example, that a patient goes to a doctor for an opinion on preventing lung cancer. the doctor fails to do the necessary research and as a result he tells the patient to take up smoking. the patient then follows his doctor's misinformed opinion and develops lung cancer. obviously the patient should've done more research. however, does that negate the fact that the doctor failed to do their due diligence? is that example not the very definition of negligence on the part of the doctor? does the blame lie entirely with the patient? is the doctor completely absolved of any responsibility? we both know the patient would easily win a malpractice suit indicating the legal system clearly views the doctor as having a high degree of responsibility.
mike failed in his due diligence and i'm sure he blames himself. however, this in no way negates mears' responsibility to perform their due diligence (for which they were paid). i believe this is the gist of mike and chris' argument. they said it was pre factory records when in fact, factory records existed. is there no blame whatsoever for negligence resulting in a faulty opinion? if that's the case, then millions of doctors will be overjoyed to know they can stop paying malpractice insurance.
rudy.Comment
Tweet
Comment