Authentication Issues - Help Needed

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Jim,

What do you think about this post from Dave Bushing? It seems that MEARS is being fair by stating there is a difference between Factory records, journal entries, and pre 1920 information. The grade MEARS issued was obviously based on all the additional information they have access to. I know you have strong feelings so maybe you could address each one of the numbered comments from Dave Bushing that you have a problem with. That was the current disagreement is exact.

final notes

November 1 2006 at 11:58 AMdavid bushing (no login)

Response to AuthenticatorsA few last points with regards to the 1916-21 Speaker discussion.
1. There are NO known records, ledgers, notes, pieces of paper nor anything else that details or even remotely addresses the pre 1920 ledgers covering the time period of 1916-19.
2. This era is called the dead ball era, a time in baseball prior to the lively ball and the Ruth home run where bases and RBI's where the norm.
3. We have copies of the original pre 1920 tool room drawings for several players and the lengths of this era are shorter than those normally found in the post 1920 ledgers.
4. These drawings are far from complete.
5. We have the notated Tris Speaker vault bat that rested in the Louisville Slugger tool room that was one of the original lathe or model bats used to make player model bats for Speaker.
6 Regardless of whether the pre 1930 notebooks are referred to by some as incomplete records or incompelte ledgers, there are none from the majority of the era in which the Speaker bat now under discussion was made.
7. Where records or ledgers or notes or whatever are not present, evalutions based on tool room drawings, other known examples and especially factory tool room lathe bats are not only acceptable procedure but responsible evaluations as well.
8. It would be impossible to discuss any bat made between 1916 and 1919 as anything but a pre record bat given allowances for some incomplete ledgers from 1920 and 1921. Even if complete which all will agree they are not, this leaves over 60% of the era in which this bat hails with no records at all and during an era of baseball entirely differnet than the post 1920 live ball era and an era in which most of the information we have show player models bats shorter, if not significantly shorter, than those found recored after 1920

Respond to this message

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Sorry, I hit the enter button before I edited my last sentence. If you address the points he is making then people may even better understand exactly what the problem is since their recent comments have explained the situation better from their point of view.

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

ISUBirdJersey - thanks for your post. Here is an answer to your question:

Response to AuthenticatorsA few last points with regards to the 1916-21 Speaker discussion.

1. There are NO known records, ledgers, notes, pieces of paper nor anything else that details or even remotely addresses the pre 1920 ledgers covering the time period of 1916-19. That is correct - but there are 24 entries between 1920 and 1929, 22 of which were during his playing career and two of which were in 1929. These records include two entries during the time period of the bat - These are relevant and should have been communicated in the Cert - I still contend these are Factory Records and they should have been called that and the Authenticator should have divulged this info and all other Speaker records and indicated the bat was not consistent with those records - no matter the grade they gave the bat.

2. This era is called the dead ball era, a time in baseball prior to the lively ball and the Ruth home run where bases and RBI's where the norm. Not everyone subscribes to this theory and it should not be used as a basis for an opinion / grade

3. We have copies of the original pre 1920 tool room drawings for several players and the lengths of this era are shorter than those normally found in the post 1920 ledgers. They do not say they have any tool room drawings for Tris Speaker. The only known diagram of a Tris Speaker bat is labeled "Old Tris Speaker" (which would logically place it between 1907 and 1919 as his documented 1920 and 1921 orders are logically for this bat) and it is diagrammed at a length of 35 inches. Additionally, as pointed out by Mike Specht previously on GUU, there also appears to be a photo of a diagram of a Tris Speaker bat (the diagram itself has not yet surfaced, but may be a ) that is diagrammed at 34 inches. The other two referenced bats for Speaker on his diagram sheet are 35 inches (Foxx's 2-21-28 model) and 34 inches (P.Waner's 6-22-27 model), ordered in 1929 and 1930 respectively

4. These drawings are far from complete. Nobody is arguing this - but consider this for a moment - the drawings and records are probably more complete then people realize, given that this was a bonafide business at the time and this information was very likely used for accounting purposes, to track inventory, and to and bill customers

5. We have the notated Tris Speaker vault bat that rested in the Louisville Slugger tool room that was one of the original lathe or model bats used to make player model bats for Speaker. My understanding is that this bat is much longer and heavier than the bat in question. In Dave Bushing's hand written notes on this bat, the length is referenced at 34 3/4 inches

6 Regardless of whether the pre 1930 notebooks are referred to by some as incomplete records or incompelte ledgers, there are none from the majority of the era in which the Speaker bat now under discussion was made. They are Factory records and all of Speaker's info should have been used and divulged in the Cert. - same as #1 above. Bushing's #6 is not that different than #1. These records provide insight, to varying degrees, of individual player's ordering patterns. The closer a bat falls into a player's ordering patterns, the higher the comfort level for the collector. The further it falls away from a player's extablished patterns, the collector's comfort level diminishes

7. Where records or ledgers or notes or whatever are not present, evalutions based on tool room drawings, other known examples and especially factory tool room lathe bats are not only acceptable procedure but responsible evaluations as well. Agreed - but divulge that info as well as all Speaker's records - let the Buyer make the determination from all available info
8. It would be impossible to discuss any bat made between 1916 and 1919 as anything but a pre record bat given allowances for some incomplete ledgers from 1920 and 1921. Even if complete which all will agree they are not, this leaves over 60% of the era in which this bat hails with no records at all and during an era of baseball entirely differnet than the post 1920 live ball era and an era in which most of the information we have show player models bats shorter, if not significantly shorter, than those found recored after 1920 Rehash of many previous points - bottom line - divulge all info at hand including the records which show longer and heavier bats - let the consumer decide if they want the bat -

Look - Troy and Dave are knowledgeable guys - they have done a tremendous amount of research for the hobby and have helped the collecting community greatly. My comments are not personal attacks against these guys - I have a difference in opinion ( a stong one ) of how they grade things.......

I FEEL MY OPINIONS REPRESENT A MAJORITY OF THE COLLECTING COMMUNITY

My passion and issues with this particular bat and with MEARS is that ( 1 ) the collecting community has a lack of understanding of how they grade which is not MEARS fault - but to further educate the collecting community, MEARS needs to do a better job of focusing on how the collector wants a bat graded and not how they want to grade an item. For instance, I am an avid collector - I don't want a team index bat in my collection - why grade that bat a "7" and confuse a novice collector who hasn't done their homework? Why even grade the Pujols bat that is currently in Vintage's auction http://vintageauthentics.at.truition...aunbr=76372869 and which has been dicsussed on the Forum?

Pujols never used that bat in a game and it has led to an auction company listing the bat improperly - I could go on and on with examples - that's why collectors really need to understand the MEARS system, so they won't get burned ( 2 ) Divulge everything you know about the player's ordering history - every record, fact, lathe bat example, etc - let the collector decide if they should buy the piece - they did not do this with the Speaker bat and did not disclose the fact that the bat didn't come close to matching any of Speaker's known Factory Records. They also indicated the bat was pre-Factory Records which I completely diagree with and was a basis used by the Buyer initially

If they had done my # ( 2 ) point above, the Buyers would never have bought this bat - that's the issue.........
Jim

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Jim, thanks for the detailed response.

[JimCaravello]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

My pleasure - sorry for the delay - unforutnately, the day job takes precendence.......

[Eric]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

I took some time over the weekend to sift through Troy's appropriately lenghty response to the Speaker bat situation.

I posted a question about it on mears online,

Here's what I asked them

Troy-

Thank you for your thorough analysis. I have a question about the technique you used.

If I understand correctly, you awarded 5 points for this bat matching factory records because, while there wasn't a record of this specific bat, you found it reasonable to believe he MIGHT have ordered one of this length (since he ordered various size bats and other players have ordered a bat of this size)

Where does it say in the worksheet that the 5 points awarded are based on an educated guess, rather than factual support?

Also- according to the logic you wrote above, I'm wondering- do you assume that something is possible and then look for information to disprove it- or do you assume an item is a zero and then look for the evidence which adds up to the final grade.

Eric Stangel

[staindsox]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

This is absolutely excellent Eric! I think you have boiled down all of these points of view and arguments into one concise thought:

How should an item be authenticated? Do you prove that it was used or disprove that it was not used?

I personally think it is scary concept to argue that we assume everything is real and we therefore consider it to be authentic unless we can disprove it.

I hope they respond to your post, but it would not surprise me if it went unanswered.

Chris

[Eric]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

My personal authentication process is to assume that everything is a zero, until you learn otherwise. Then gather factual evidence which builds a case for an item.

In my personal opinion, to assume things are a ten and work backwards would put you in the situation to overgrade item, because if you look at something which COULD be a fact, you're likely not to discount it, whereas if you're dealing with hard facts, your grades will be harsher, but at least you'll know what you're getting.

Eric

[Eric]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

After some back and forth, I posted this on the mears board...


Dave

Thanks for your response.

My questions did not have anything to do with a Clemente bat. It occurred to me after reading Troy's description of how he analyzed information for the Tris Speaker bat, that perhaps different approaches might lead one to different results.

The specific part that made me wonder this was when the leap was made regarding what could have been in the records.

You were able to make the leap that since other players ordered short bats and since Speaker ordered various sizes that he could have ordered one with the specs of the one submitted.

When I look at something for my collection, since I assume things are wrong until I see the evidence that proves otherwise, I would not have been able to make that leap.

I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just trying to learn how you do what you do, to see if my system is the best one.

Interested in any thoughts you have on this.
Eric Stangel

[ghostkid]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Check out this link for lot #735 in the Nov. 10-11 Hunt Louisville Slugger auction:

http://www.huntauctions.com/online/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=29&lot_num=735&lot_qual=

A 1921-28 Tris Speaker Louisville Slugger 125 pro model bat, 36" and 40 ounces. Including buyer's penalty, the final price was $8625.

Kevin Kasper

[MSpecht]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Hi Kevin-- I checked out the link and noted the condition of the Speaker bat in the lot you mentioned (nail repair, etc), then started looking through Hunt's auction results and found this -- Lot 720 --

http://www.huntauctions.com/online/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=29&lot_num=720&lot_qual

This bat, described by the auction house as "...This incredible rarity is, without question, the finest Speaker game used bat extant..." sold for approximately $34,500 with the buyer's premium. So it looks like a benchmark has been set for a high-grade Speaker bat, much as the subject bat of this thread was championed by Vintage Authentics at the time of sale as "...the finest Speaker bat known..." (without disclosing that it was the same bat that Mike Rose had declined to purchase when originally offered by Vintage a short time before.)

As a related aside, the Lot 720 bat adds another piece to the Speaker bat records with regard to DOCUMENTED lengths for Speaker game used bats. I am reprinting a part of post # 16 of this thread here, with the updated information in blue:

"With this objective information in hand, what references are found in Tris Speaker's factory records? Below is a listing of all orders that are known to exist for Tris Speaker. Any added notations are referenced from additional factory records as indicated:

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 UPDATE: 34.75 inches as measured by Hunt Auctions
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 UPDATE: 34.75 inches as measured by Hunt Auctions

There are three diagrammed bats in Speaker's records. These bats were used as indexed bats and generally came with a specified length. In other words, if you ordered a Jimmie Foxx model 22-21-28 it would automatically come to you in its indexed length of 35" unless you specified a different length, and the variation would be the weight ordered. The three diagrammed Speaker bats are the Old Tris Speaker diagrammed at 35". the Jimmie Foxx 2-21-28 model diagrammed at 35", and a Paul Waner model. The Waner model is not specified, but in Waner's index there are eleven diagrammed bats as his index bats, four of which likely overlap Speaker's playing career as follows: His (Waner's) 6-22-27 diagrammed at 34", Old Tim Hendrix diagrammed at 35.75", Large Sisler diagrammed at 36", and Hornsby diagrammed at 35-36". It is unknown which of these bats is referenced specifically. UPDATE: Now, a diagram of Speaker's 7-27-28 would be accurate at either 34.5". 34.75", or 35".

So what does this all mean? Well, out of 24 specific documented orders, length is referenced on 7 UPDATE:: 9 of them (12 UPDATE: 14 of them if you include the orders of Hornsby models that likely are 35" in length), and all seven UPDATE: nine (or actually fourteen) documented references are 35 or 36 inches in length UPDATE: 34.75 inches in length or greater.. . The length of this bat, 32.25 inches, is so dramatically uncharacteristic of Speaker's KNOWN existing records, that it is extremely unlikely that it was manufactures for Speaker's professional use. When the weight is factored into the equation, this bat is between 7.4 ounces and 8.4 ounces lighter than any order documented within the bat's labeling period. "

FINAL UPDATE NOTE: Although the length of the Hunt Auction bat that has been used to update the above information, as disclosed by Hunts, is 34.75 inches, the accepted variance on length is + .25 inch, which gives the diagram, or tool room drawing, three potential lengths, as noted above. My belief, based on reviews of numerous diagrams of the era, is that the indexed length of "Speaker's 7-27-28" is likely either 34.5 inches or 35 inches, and there is a .25 inch acceptable variance in the actual length of this bat. Nonetheless, presented here is the available, documented information -- THE RECORDS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, AND THE COLLECTOR DRAWS HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS. Remember, way back at the beginning of this discussion it was implied that prior to 1930 there were no available records (actually it is still MEARS position that there are no pre-1930 records, only shipping ledgers) that referenced length. Now it appears that of 24 documented orders for Tris Speaker between 1920 and 1933 there are 14 that reference length, or 58 percent. I believe that is information that should have been disclosed and was essential for a collector to make an informed decision in this matter.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[sforaker]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Great observations, Mike, about the Hunt's auction Lot 720 Speaker bat and what it adds to the collector knowledge base regarding Speaker game used bats. This bat is incredible - excellent use characteristics, great patina, sidewritten, vault marked, with shipping label and perfectly matches a very specific entry in the H&B shipping ledgers. What more could you ask for? This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists.

[sportscentury]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Great observations, Mike, about the Hunt's auction Lot 720 Speaker bat and what it adds to the collector knowledge base regarding Speaker game used bats. This bat is incredible - excellent use characteristics, great patina, sidewritten, vault marked, with shipping label and perfectly matches a very specific entry in the H&B shipping ledgers. What more could you ask for? This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists.

Scott,

Thanks for your post. That is amazing praise! In particular, your strong assertion that This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists. peaked my curiosity. Please don't take offense, but do you mind me asking if you are the consignor of this Speaker bat (or if you have a financial interest in it)?

Reid

[ISUbirdjersey]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

I took some time over the weekend to sift through Troy's appropriately lenghty response to the Speaker bat situation.

I posted a question about it on mears online,

Here's what I asked them

Troy-

Thank you for your thorough analysis. I have a question about the technique you used.

If I understand correctly, you awarded 5 points for this bat matching factory records because, while there wasn't a record of this specific bat, you found it reasonable to believe he MIGHT have ordered one of this length (since he ordered various size bats and other players have ordered a bat of this size)

Where does it say in the worksheet that the 5 points awarded are based on an educated guess, rather than factual support?

Also- according to the logic you wrote above, I'm wondering- do you assume that something is possible and then look for information to disprove it- or do you assume an item is a zero and then look for the evidence which adds up to the final grade.

Eric Stangel

Eric, that is probably the best set of questions you could have possibly asked with the hope of getting the specific responses all of you have been waiting for. Excellent.

[sportscentury]

Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed

Great observations, Mike, about the Hunt's auction Lot 720 Speaker bat and what it adds to the collector knowledge base regarding Speaker game used bats. This bat is incredible - excellent use characteristics, great patina, sidewritten, vault marked, with shipping label and perfectly matches a very specific entry in the H&B shipping ledgers. What more could you ask for? This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists.

Scott,

Thanks for your post. That is amazing praise! In particular, your strong assertion that This bat is undoubtedly the best Speaker bat that exists. peaked my curiosity. Please don't take offense, but do you mind me asking if you are the consignor of this Speaker bat (or if you have a financial interest in it)?

Reid

Scott,

Are you there? I tried to private message you, but no luck. Please respond.

Reid