Tweet
Re: Authentication Issues - Help Needed
Again, following the course this thread has taken over the past week or so, I feel there are a few basic pieces of information that bear restatement:
1) There are known, documented factory records for Tris Speaker which do exist and which cover the period from 9/15/20 through1933 which include a portion of the LOA's documented label period of this bat. The phrase "pre- factory records," "no records for this era exist," or any other similar phrase is not accurate with regards to this bat.
The documented records can be found in post #16 of this thread. Here is a very abbreviated recap: "...out of 24 specific documented orders, length is referenced on 7 of them (12 if you include the orders of Hornsby models that likely are 35" in length), and all seven documented references are 35 or 36 inches in length. . 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."
2) MEARS has previously responded to the questions posed by Mr. Rose. Troy Kinunen's point-by-point response can be found in a link contained in post # 1 of this thread. Currently, Mr. Kinunen has promised additional research on this specific bat. I have always lauded the entire MEARS team of Kinunen, Dave Bushing, and Dave Grob publicly on the quality of their research. In this matter, however, I would have thought (or hoped, if I had been a potential buyer) that the research would have been complete if it concerned the raising of the grade of a bat that Dave Bushing "... sold (this bat) as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker for a fairly nominal sum which the buyer submitted for a grade of A5 due to a length that had previously been unsubstanciated for Speaker..." from an A5 grade worth only a very nominal sum to an A7 grade which increased its value many times over. Regardless, I look forward to the results of continued research.
I am, however, a bit confused with several of the research areas outlined by Troy Kinunen, specifically those below:
-- For Tris Speaker, establish that professional model bats were made during the period of 1917-21, also in the 33" length
-- 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.
-- Establish that lathe bats can be used as an exact substitute to factory records.
These areas of additional research apparently focus on establishing 33 inches as a valid length of some bats, made for some players, sometime during the period 1917-1921. I am missing the relevance of documented 33 inch bats for some players (of which there are some) to the authentication of a 32.25 inch bat (well beyond the accepted + 1/4" variance ) as possibly game-used by Tris Speaker. Also, research to establish the use a lathe bat, apparently produced in 1924 at the earliest, which measures 34.75 inches "as an exact substitute for factory records" to authenticate a 32.25 inch bat manufactured for Tris Speaker's professional use between 1917-21, should make interesting reading.
3) This bat is actually 32.25 inches in length. This is an objective fact. The problem here is that the Vintage Authentics auction description (written exclusively by Vintage Authentics using the MEARS documentation) claimed that the bat at auction was 33 inches. Now whether or not Vintage believed the bat was 33 inches based on the MEARS documentation (which seems ia bit ambiguous) is a question for Vintage Authentics. However, the objective fact of the matter is the bat purchased by, and shipped to, the current owners is only 32.25 inches. Regardless, this was an inaccurate representation that had significant bearing on the issues surrounding this bat, and can only be viewed as either negligent or fraudulent on the part of the entity writing the auction description, as you wish.
4) I guess one of the more confusing issues surrounding this situation for me is the refusal of the auction house to 'step up to the plate' in this matter. Unless I am really missing something here (possibly), or am really a bad businessman (probably), I just don't get it. Follow along :
Vintage Authentics has a bat that they purchased from Dave Bushing for what Dave refers to as a "nominal" price. They offer the bat to a group of investors (Mike Rose, Chris Cavalier and possibly others) who have spent over several hundred thousand dollars with Vintage Authentics prior to that point. The representations by Vintage Authentics, including the MEARS certifications, induce the group to buy what is billed as "the best Speaker bat ever" and consign it to Vintage's auction.
Now, fast forward to the post-auction chaos
.
Why, in the midst of a significant amount of controversy and clear disagreement between several established authenticators, wouldn't Vintage Authentics just accept the bat back and return the pre-auction purchase price of the bat since they owned the bat prior to the purchase by Mike Rose's group.??? What would be their loss ???? According to Dave Bushing, Vintage only paid a "nominal" amount when they originally bought the bat from him. Vintage therefore would only have a "nominal" amount of money out of pocket and they would have the bat back in their possession. Instead, they refused to accept any responsibility in the confusion surrounding the bat, pointed the finger at MEARS ("We pay them to do our authentications as they have a money-back guarantee.") and, (listen closely, this is the part I really don't understand) totally alienated a group of people that have been a TOTAL CASH COW for them for quite some time, and would likely have continued to be a TOTAL CASH COW for them for years to come, just to protect the "nominal" amount they had paid Dave Bushing for the controversial bat in the first place.
Huh ??? All I know is that if I ever had a goose that laid Golden Eggs, the last thing i would do is serve him up for dinner.
Mike Jackitout7@aol.com
Again, following the course this thread has taken over the past week or so, I feel there are a few basic pieces of information that bear restatement:
1) There are known, documented factory records for Tris Speaker which do exist and which cover the period from 9/15/20 through1933 which include a portion of the LOA's documented label period of this bat. The phrase "pre- factory records," "no records for this era exist," or any other similar phrase is not accurate with regards to this bat.
The documented records can be found in post #16 of this thread. Here is a very abbreviated recap: "...out of 24 specific documented orders, length is referenced on 7 of them (12 if you include the orders of Hornsby models that likely are 35" in length), and all seven documented references are 35 or 36 inches in length. . 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."
2) MEARS has previously responded to the questions posed by Mr. Rose. Troy Kinunen's point-by-point response can be found in a link contained in post # 1 of this thread. Currently, Mr. Kinunen has promised additional research on this specific bat. I have always lauded the entire MEARS team of Kinunen, Dave Bushing, and Dave Grob publicly on the quality of their research. In this matter, however, I would have thought (or hoped, if I had been a potential buyer) that the research would have been complete if it concerned the raising of the grade of a bat that Dave Bushing "... sold (this bat) as a pro model game issued Tris Speaker for a fairly nominal sum which the buyer submitted for a grade of A5 due to a length that had previously been unsubstanciated for Speaker..." from an A5 grade worth only a very nominal sum to an A7 grade which increased its value many times over. Regardless, I look forward to the results of continued research.
I am, however, a bit confused with several of the research areas outlined by Troy Kinunen, specifically those below:
-- For Tris Speaker, establish that professional model bats were made during the period of 1917-21, also in the 33" length
-- 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.
-- Establish that lathe bats can be used as an exact substitute to factory records.
These areas of additional research apparently focus on establishing 33 inches as a valid length of some bats, made for some players, sometime during the period 1917-1921. I am missing the relevance of documented 33 inch bats for some players (of which there are some) to the authentication of a 32.25 inch bat (well beyond the accepted + 1/4" variance ) as possibly game-used by Tris Speaker. Also, research to establish the use a lathe bat, apparently produced in 1924 at the earliest, which measures 34.75 inches "as an exact substitute for factory records" to authenticate a 32.25 inch bat manufactured for Tris Speaker's professional use between 1917-21, should make interesting reading.
3) This bat is actually 32.25 inches in length. This is an objective fact. The problem here is that the Vintage Authentics auction description (written exclusively by Vintage Authentics using the MEARS documentation) claimed that the bat at auction was 33 inches. Now whether or not Vintage believed the bat was 33 inches based on the MEARS documentation (which seems ia bit ambiguous) is a question for Vintage Authentics. However, the objective fact of the matter is the bat purchased by, and shipped to, the current owners is only 32.25 inches. Regardless, this was an inaccurate representation that had significant bearing on the issues surrounding this bat, and can only be viewed as either negligent or fraudulent on the part of the entity writing the auction description, as you wish.
4) I guess one of the more confusing issues surrounding this situation for me is the refusal of the auction house to 'step up to the plate' in this matter. Unless I am really missing something here (possibly), or am really a bad businessman (probably), I just don't get it. Follow along :
Vintage Authentics has a bat that they purchased from Dave Bushing for what Dave refers to as a "nominal" price. They offer the bat to a group of investors (Mike Rose, Chris Cavalier and possibly others) who have spent over several hundred thousand dollars with Vintage Authentics prior to that point. The representations by Vintage Authentics, including the MEARS certifications, induce the group to buy what is billed as "the best Speaker bat ever" and consign it to Vintage's auction.
Now, fast forward to the post-auction chaos
.
Why, in the midst of a significant amount of controversy and clear disagreement between several established authenticators, wouldn't Vintage Authentics just accept the bat back and return the pre-auction purchase price of the bat since they owned the bat prior to the purchase by Mike Rose's group.??? What would be their loss ???? According to Dave Bushing, Vintage only paid a "nominal" amount when they originally bought the bat from him. Vintage therefore would only have a "nominal" amount of money out of pocket and they would have the bat back in their possession. Instead, they refused to accept any responsibility in the confusion surrounding the bat, pointed the finger at MEARS ("We pay them to do our authentications as they have a money-back guarantee.") and, (listen closely, this is the part I really don't understand) totally alienated a group of people that have been a TOTAL CASH COW for them for quite some time, and would likely have continued to be a TOTAL CASH COW for them for years to come, just to protect the "nominal" amount they had paid Dave Bushing for the controversial bat in the first place.
Huh ??? All I know is that if I ever had a goose that laid Golden Eggs, the last thing i would do is serve him up for dinner.
Mike Jackitout7@aol.com
Comment