Authentication Issues - Help Needed

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Does it not strike anyone oddly that MEARS has not followed up on the Speaker bat since August 24th???? That's over 60 days??? Will they ever respond, or are they just hoping this topic will be swept under the rug and never re-surface????

I personally would not be able to sleep at night until this issue was resolved if I were the authenticator................


Just MHO............Jim

Jim, I hope you are happy with the response by Troy. The great amount of words and detail in his response should let you know that he was not able to sleep at night until he double and triple checked every fact. You should agree it was worth the wait while MEARS made sure their reply would leave little room for debate when it comes to the MEARS money back gty. Based on that research, MEARS has proven the money back gty does not apply to this situation. Their grade was seemingly fairly applied.

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Just briefly read Troy's response - very lengthy and detailed and I applaud his efforts - he has done a fabulous job with this research. As I have indicated in the past, I don't have experience handling pre-30 bats and I have learned quite a bit from the little I have digested from his reply. I can't really comment on everything he has detailed, but I look forward to reading it and hearing what the pre-30 bat collectors and authenticators have to say about his research. I am sure Mike Specht will weigh in on this at some point in time..........

As an aside, I wish I was smart enough to buy Babe Ruth game used bats in the early 80's for $2,500.......

I think the issue that still hasn't changed is the following from one of Chris's earlier posts:

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 Cavalier



I think the bottom line is that they would not have purchased the bat because of the comments Chris made above......I don't believe even Troy's detailed research changes that.......

Like I said, I haven't completely read Troy's piece and look forward to reading it when I have more time and am not at work - I am glad to see that he spent the time to respond this way.......

Jim

[yankees159]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

After seeing this unfold over the last few months, it makes me wonder what the Value of a MEARS Letter is? As an educated collector, I must say I personally put very little faith in the MEARS authentication service and this situation validates my opinion. Gameuseduniverse.com offers collectors the ability to network and ask questions pertaining to game used items. Additonally you can now upload images to help your fellow collector. Why use MEARS when this website arms you with all the information you need to make an informed opinion through research?

The evolution of this website will no doubt call out more unethical practices such as this. Hey Mears guys why haven't you addressed any of the questions?

Chris keep up the good work.



TW

[kingjammy24]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

this entire thing is the very definition of impasse.

in all the talk of plato and socrates, i didn't manage to catch the part where troy addressed the blatant fact that mears said it was pre-factory records, when in fact records did exist.

david a., i enjoyed your response. while troy showed the speaker photo simply to document the style of the knob and barrel end, you've gone a step further and apparently managed to ascertain, to the inch, the length of the bat solely via it's angled appearance in a photo. as an imagery enthusiast, i'd love to know how you managed to conclusively acheive this sort of accuracy. can you please share?

rudy.

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

this entire thing is the very definition of impasse.

in all the talk of plato and socrates, i didn't manage to catch the part where troy addressed the blatant fact that mears said it was pre-factory records, when in fact records did exist.

david a., i enjoyed your response. while troy showed the speaker photo simply to document the style of the knob and barrel end, you've gone a step further and apparently managed to ascertain, to the inch, the length of the bat solely via it's angled appearance in a photo. as an imagery enthusiast, i'd love to know how you managed to conclusively acheive this sort of accuracy. can you please share?

rudy.

Rudy,

Troy DID NOT show the photo simply and ONLY to document the style of the knob and the barrel end. If you would have actually read what he wrote, you would have noticed that Troy specifically mentions the fact that the bat appears to be short in length. I would be willing to place a bet that over 75% of GUU members would agree that that bat is clearly closer to 32" than it is to the 36" inch length Speaker bats from his later years.

[kingjammy24]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

my apologies. i became lost in the first 4 paragraphs where troy provides a refresher on metaphysics and goes about proving that the bat does in fact exist. i was half-expecting to start reading questions like "is a bat really a bat?" or "can a bat ever not be a bat?".

anyway, i see that troy posted the photo to "show Tris Speaker using a very short bat."

"Because I am lacking an object of known size, I was not able to conduct true imagery analysis"

this isn't really true is it? is tris speaker himself not an object of known size? sure he is. there are 2 issues preventing imagery analysis - the first is the fact that even knowing that speaker's height doesn't permit us to gain the sort of accuracy (+/- 1") which we're talking about.
the second is that without knowing an accurate single unit of measurement in the photo, we're unable to correctly compensate for the effect of the bat being on an angle.

"I would be willing to place a bet that over 75% of GUU members would agree that that bat is clearly closer to 32" than it is to the 36" inch length Speaker bats from his later years."

then i'd ask the same question of 75% of GUU members that i'm asking of you. troy said he couldn't ascertain the length of the bat in the photo. he simply called it "short". "short" is a relative, subjective term. somehow, you managed to go several steps further and state "There is no way that bat is any longer than the approx. 32" bat in question". this is not relative or subjective. i'm simply asking you to please show me how you determined that the bat in the photo is no longer than approx 32".

you're obviously confident of your findings so please divulge how you ascertained the length of the bat. apparently it was something that MEARS wasn't even able to do.

thanks,

rudy.

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

my apologies. i became lost in the first 4 paragraphs where troy provides a refresher on metaphysics and goes about proving that the bat does in fact exist. i was half-expecting to start reading questions like "is a bat really a bat?" or "can a bat ever not be a bat?".

anyway, i see that troy posted the photo to "show Tris Speaker using a very short bat."

"Because I am lacking an object of known size, I was not able to conduct true imagery analysis"

this isn't really true is it? is tris speaker himself not an object of known size? sure he is. there are 2 issues preventing imagery analysis - the first is the fact that even knowing that speaker's height doesn't permit us to gain the sort of accuracy (+/- 1") which we're talking about.
the second is that without knowing an accurate single unit of measurement in the photo, we're unable to correctly compensate for the effect of the bat being on an angle.

"I would be willing to place a bet that over 75% of GUU members would agree that that bat is clearly closer to 32" than it is to the 36" inch length Speaker bats from his later years."

then i'd ask the same question of 75% of GUU members that i'm asking of you. troy said he couldn't ascertain the length of the bat in the photo. he simply called it "short". "short" is a relative, subjective term. somehow, you managed to go several steps further and state "There is no way that bat is any longer than the approx. 32" bat in question". this is not relative or subjective. i'm simply asking you to please show me how you determined that the bat in the photo is no longer than approx 32".

you're obviously confident of your findings so please divulge how you ascertained the length of the bat. apparently it was something that MEARS wasn't even able to do.

thanks,

rudy.

Obviously MEARS has a job to do and they are not going to go on a limb when it comes to that photo. Howver, I do own a few game bats that have been style matched at a similar angle to how Tris Speaker is holding the bat. It just really looks like that bat is very much shorter in comparision. I know you testing me to see how I came to that conclusion. I have no problem admitting it was in no way scientific. It is just one of those observations I felt okay making. It is kind of like if I was shown a photo of the front and back of a Pujols game worn jersey. If I had no knowledge of jerseys, I would still be confident saying that the front #5 must be smaller than the back #5. It just looks that way in a photo. Obviously Troy agrees the bat looks small too. That is why he mentioned it in his report. The bat just looks very short. I would bet it would look short no matter what angle that photo was taken from. How about this...have someone take photos of you holding a 32 inch bat, a 33.5 inch bat and then one holding a 35 inch bat. If the photo is taken from the same angle, it would be clear which bat was longest and shortest if all three bats were also held at the same angle as Tris Speaker is holding his bat in the photo. In conclusion, you trust have to trust your instincts sometimes and my instincts say that bat looks very short. i rwalize that is not good enough for proof but I don't think you will ever find the proof you are looking for with this bat. The research shows Troy and Dave did the research and gave a fair grade. The buyers overpaid for the time but that bat may increase in value over the next decade. You never know.

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

ISYBirdJersey - the buyers bought a bat based on the COA indicating that there were no factory records for Speaker during this time period. In fact, there were factory records for Speaker available and the bat does not come close to matching factory records. The buyers wouldn't have even sniffed at this bat - whether it was graded a "10" or a "2" if they had known factory records existed and that the bat did not match those records. The COA was wrong - PERIOD.

The authenticator who should have had the knowledge about the factory records either ( 1 ) didn't know they existed and should not have claimed there were no records or ( 2 ) knew they existed but negligently said they didn't exist and graded the bat based on other criteria.

If the bat was graded a "7" but the COA said that factory records were available and the bat in question does not match those factory records but overwhelming evidence still leasds us to cert this bat a "7" - the Buyers would NOT have bought the bat.

The photo and everything else documented by Troy is great stuff to ponder over - but at the end of the day, its irrelevant - the fact that the COA was worded and relied upon by the buyers as outlined above remains the issue at hand and has not been addressed by MEARS - PERIOD. Jim

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

ISYBirdJersey - the buyers bought a bat based on the COA indicating that there were no factory records for Speaker during this time period. In fact, there were factory records for Speaker available and the bat does not come close to matching factory records.

Jim,

I do understand your point there. However, you can't prove that they did or did not know the factory records did exist. I will assume they really didn't know there were the additional records. The issue is, the records are known to be incomplete. Even though MEARS did not know about additional records, the fact is that the discovery of those records still does not conclusively show Speaker was never shipped this bat. The authenticators think the bat is legit and they have supplied a nice photo. I am not sure if thier error in regard to the factory records is enough to not validate the grade they gave the item. It appears MEARS feels strongly that they feel the item was correctly authenticated and graded. What a tough situation to be in.

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Once again - the grade and the criteria MEARS used is irrelevant. Records existed ( and the COA indicated this bat was pre-factory records ) and this bat does not match those records. I don't know how many times I have to say this - the Buyer would not have bought the bat knowing that factory records existed, no matter how detailed they were - and knowing that this bat does not match those factory records.

You can agree with their criteria of how and why they graded the bat - but the Buyer relied on the MEARS representation that "no records exist" when in fact they did. MEARS has had access to the LS records for along time - it's not like this Speaker records just appeared mysteriously one day after this bat was issued its COA. The COA is clearly wrong relative to this item. Even if the records are incomplete for that era, you do not indicate on a COA that they do not exist, when in fact they do.

Yes - it is a sad situation.....and I believe even Plato would be scratching his head right now..........jim

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

ISU Bird Jersey - I am sorry - but I had to follow up on your last comments again:

Even though MEARS did not know about additional records, the fact is that the discovery of those records still does not conclusively show Speaker was never shipped this bat. The authenticators think the bat is legit and they have supplied a nice photo. I am not sure if thier error in regard to the factory records is enough to not validate the grade they gave the item.

• The fact is that the discovery of the records shows that their COA was incorrect relative to stating that this bat was pre-factory records and the Buyer would not have bought the bat knowing this bat did not match those records. Also - so because the records conclusively don't show that Speaker was never issued the bat - you take the other side and say he was?? Where is the logic in this?? If this is the case - any Speaker bat from that era is legitimate......that's a long stretch..........
• The authenticators think the bat is legit and have supplied a nice photo? What does that mean? They have incorrectly stated that the bat was pre-factory records and they were wrong. The photo means absoutely nothing.
• The error is huge - its wrong - its the basis why the bat was bought in the first place........

Sorry - this is black and white and very simple....................

[b.heagy]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Clarification has been added to the Mears site concerning this bat.

[jboosted92]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

I just saw the LOO, it doesnt state what is below....

and apparently the worksheet contend that FACTORY RECORDS are post-1930.

everything pre-1930 is just random "ledger entries" and lathes...etc.

ISU Bird Jersey - I am sorry - but I had to follow up on your last comments again:

Even though MEARS did not know about additional records, the fact is that the discovery of those records still does not conclusively show Speaker was never shipped this bat. The authenticators think the bat is legit and they have supplied a nice photo. I am not sure if thier error in regard to the factory records is enough to not validate the grade they gave the item.

• The fact is that the discovery of the records shows that their COA was incorrect relative to stating that this bat was pre-factory records and the Buyer would not have bought the bat knowing this bat did not match those records. Also - so because the records conclusively don't show that Speaker was never issued the bat - you take the other side and say he was?? Where is the logic in this?? If this is the case - any Speaker bat from that era is legitimate......that's a long stretch..........
• The authenticators think the bat is legit and have supplied a nice photo? What does that mean? They have incorrectly stated that the bat was pre-factory records and they were wrong. The photo means absoutely nothing.
• The error is huge - its wrong - its the basis why the bat was bought in the first place........

Sorry - this is black and white and very simple....................

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Fascinating JBoosted92 - There are a handful of people who have had access to the records through the years and I don't think the "Industry" refers to the Records as only existing after 1930. First off, an "Industry" can't be created or determined by a handful of people or by one organization such as MEARS. Secondly - what do you call these Records that Mike Specht posted earlier in this thread outlined below? All but two of them are pre-1930.........

TRIS SPEAKER

9/15/20; His Model / 40 oz. NOTE: Old Tris Speaker diagram at 35"
6/18/21: Tris Speaker / 40 & 41 ounces NOTE: 35" diagram as above
6/3/22 Cleveland BBC Model sent in for Speaker / 39 oz. NOTE: unknown length
4/27/23 His Cleveland BBC 6-3-22 / 39-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
7/18/23: Sheeley Model 36" Use large Sisler-Cuban / 40 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 36"
8/21/23: Earl Sheeley Auto on End Cuban Wood Model sent in / 40-41 oz NOTE: unknown length

4/15/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: This Speaker model is not diagrammed in H & B
records and is of unknown length
5/6/25: His 8-21-23 / 38-40 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
5/14/25:His 8-21-23/ 35 ounces NOTE: unknown length as above
6/6/25: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood Model/ 38-39 oz. NOTE: unknown length as above
2/20/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/7/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban wood/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length as above
4/15/26: His 8-21-23 Cuban Wood/ 37 ounces: NOTE: unknown length as above
6/11/26: His Old Speaker/ 37 oz NOTE: diagrammed at 35"
5/14/27 Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE: only two Hornsby model bats are known diagrammed, both at 35"

6/16/27: Hornsby/ 38-40 oz NOTE as above 35"
7/9/27 : HornsbyAuto on End, Model sent in: / 38 oz NOTE: as above, 35"
3/12/28: His 7-9-27/ 38 ounces NOTE: as above, 35"
4/5/28: Hornsby/ 38-39 oz. NOTE as above, 35 "
7/27/28: His Auto on end Model sent in/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length
5/2/29: Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 to 38 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
8/10/29 Jimmy (sic) Foxx 2-21-28/ 37 oz NOTE diagram at 35"
1930: His Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28/ 36 & 38 oz NOTE: diagram at 35"
1933: His 7-27-28/ 37 oz NOTE: unknown length


If these are not considered Records produced by the workers at Louisville Slugger, then what are they?

I ask you this - why do people just assume that everything MEARS conveys to the collecting community is factual such as what is considered "Factory Records" and why would you not disclose the information above when grading the subject bat which is much shorter and lighter than known Records?

Don't you think these "Factory Records" would be relevant to someone trying to purchase this bat?

I am at a complete loss to the logic of MEARS that they can sit there and defend their position that the above information is not considered a "Factory Record" and can actually state on a their Worksheet that this bat is "Pre" Factory Records...........Even though the bat is from the 1917 - 1921 labeling period, reviewing and sharing the above information with the collector would be the smart and appropriate thing to do............Not only is their approach not logical, its negligent..............

MEARS has set their own standards that are not conistent with what the collecting community is looking for so they can justify grading whatever comes through the door..........

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

As a follow up to my recent post, Mike Specht has made an excellent post relative to this question of "Factory Records". It is in the Game Used Memorabilia Discussion Section of the Forum.

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

As Mike asks at the end of his piece - you be the Judge!

Just a sampling of Mike's post.........

"By comparing the data contained in the two record-keeping systems, it becomes clear that the main difference between the "yearly logbook"records from 1920 to 1929, and the "individual player bat card" records from 1930 to 1980 is primarily the format, or 'record keeping system,' rather than content. To term the information contained in the yearly logbooks as anything less than "factory records" is a mischaracterization of the facts."

I agree with Mike and my vote is that every document, ledger, journal, etc. that was produced to record the bat making process is a Factory Record and should be considered in authenticating bats.