Deducting grading points for showing use??

[tigerdale]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

I'd almost prefer mine to have a crack. In todays world of marketing, a player can wear a new jersey, helmet everyday if the demand was there to sell. He could use a different bat everytime up. There really are very few things today that can't be altered. I guess having a 'cracked' bat is one of them...to me, it almost gives more appeal. (not related to bats, but another thing in baseball which can't be mass produced whould be MLB authenticated hits, like home runs, theres only going to be so many).

[yanks12025]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

That is why I like PSA/DNA for GU bat authentication. They deal with the authenticity and that's enough for me.

GU bats should not have a grade. You can't grade accurately when one persons preference (aesthetically speaking) is different than anothers. Taking off points for use seams to contradict the whole point of something GU in the first place.

PSA gives bats grades also, you just have to pay extra for it.

[R_Aaronson]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

I think this comment from the Mears letter sums up the inconsistency -- points lost due to use.

That is why I like PSA/DNA for GU bat authentication. They deal with the authenticity and that's enough for me.

GU bats should not have a grade. You can't grade accurately when one persons preference (aesthetically speaking) is different than anothers. Taking off points for use seams to contradict the whole point of something GU in the first place.

[PwKw13]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

I think this comment from the Mears letter sums up the inconsistency -- points lost due to use.

[suave1477]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

Ok I am glad everyone chimed in on this at least now I know I am not alone and it seems overall we are pretty much on the same page.

Birdbats in your comments I think you hit every nail on the head along the lines of my own thinking.

Me personally I prefer a crack in my bat it tells me the player used it till he couldn't use it any more.

And to the member who mentioned a half a point or point was taken off of the loa because Jeters name was partially smeared off from a hit is absolutely ridiculous. I mean seriously that is part of the usage that was applied to the bat.

TRSENT I agree it seems they apply to different angles of grading in one but as Birdbats said they should just apply the grading to authenticity and let me decide if I like how it looks. Just my 2 cents

[joelsabi]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

I like MEARS. As far as companies go, I feel they've done more to standardize and archive information for the game-used hobby more than anyone else.

+1
I enjoy reading their LOAs. I learn a lot from them as they are very detailed. I least you see the thought process of how they grade.

[joelsabi]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

I'd be a supporter of grading if there was a different grading scale for each player and the grade focused completely on authenticity. But, when you consider aesthetics, that's where it gets subjective and unnecessary. Most collectors want to know a bat is legit; once they cross that bridge, they can decide if it looks good enough to hang on the wall without a third party's opinion on the undesirability of cracks and flaking labeling.

I prefer that the focus on a third party authentication to be on the authenticity of the bat. If Ripken is known to use his bats until it cracked, does it make sense that a cracked Ripken bat with heavy use gets a 9 and another well used uncracked Ripken with medium use gets a 10? That doesn't make sense to me. Same goes for the example of McGwire for the same scenario. Aesthetic beauty is in the eye of the beholder while use is just that -- use.

[3arod13]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

I prefer to do my own homework[/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE][/SIZE] and determine my own aesthetic requirements. I'm surely not alone.[/SIZE]

I agree!

[Birdbats]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

The difficulty in grading is the subjective nature to some of it. But I would say if it is purely based on the level of use, degree of provenance, along with the number of player specific characteristics (Griffey bats with tape style, O'Neill bats with heavy cleat marks, Brett bats with heavy and correct pine tar, Duke Snider bats with handle tape, etc.), then it is going to make a big difference in connecting that bat to that player. And the nicer examples, the better examples, have been fetching much higher prices from collectors over the last few years.
The deduction for a handle crack is purely for aesthetics and I don't really agree with it. I know it is done because there are many collectors that for whatever reason will not buy cracked bats. It seems silly to me, as it signifies some level of game use. And as one example, if you have an uncracked Ripken bat, he likely didn't use it. I guess it is accounted for based on the feedback from the collectors of uncracked bats. But like it or not, the grade on a bat matters when it is time to value it.

I think we pretty much agree. The points you mention (player-specific characteristics, etc.) are important when determining authenticity. Grading combines authenticity plus aesthetics. How "nice" a bat looks might be important to some, but not all. I'd be a supporter of grading if there was a different grading scale for each player and the grade focused completely on authenticity. But, when you consider aesthetics, that's where it gets subjective and unnecessary. Most collectors want to know a bat is legit; once they cross that bridge, they can decide if it looks good enough to hang on the wall without a third party's opinion on the undesirability of cracks and flaking labeling.

I disagree, though, that grade matters when valuing a bat, at least as a blanket statement. It might matter to some, maybe even most. But, to the educated collector, a grade is like an LOA -- just someone else's opinion. I prefer to do my own homework and determine my own aesthetic requirements. I'm surely not alone.

[gorilla777]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

The difficulty in grading is the subjective nature to some of it. But I would say if it is purely based on the level of use, degree of provenance, along with the number of player specific characteristics (Griffey bats with tape style, O'Neill bats with heavy cleat marks, Brett bats with heavy and correct pine tar, Duke Snider bats with handle tape, etc.), then it is going to make a big difference in connecting that bat to that player. And the nicer examples, the better examples, have been fetching much higher prices from collectors over the last few years.
The deduction for a handle crack is purely for aesthetics and I don't really agree with it. I know it is done because there are many collectors that for whatever reason will not buy cracked bats. It seems silly to me, as it signifies some level of game use. And as one example, if you have an uncracked Ripken bat, he likely didn't use it. I guess it is accounted for based on the feedback from the collectors of uncracked bats. But like it or not, the grade on a bat matters when it is time to value it.

[Birdbats]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

Bat grading is a ridiculous concept, created (I assume) to appease card collectors who had shifted to game-used items and were used to graded cards. Deducting for cracks is a perfect example of why grading is meaningless. For example, McGwire collectors know that Mark used a bat until it cracked (or had deadwood) -- and that if you are offered an uncracked McGwire bat, you should be suspicious unless there is unquestionable provenance. But, a cracked McGwire bat would grade lower than a comparable, uncracked bat. Deducting for missing foil stamping -- the result of the bat striking the ball -- also is dumb, especially now that the center brand placement on maple bats results in many players hitting the ball on the stamped side of the barrel. If you're evaluating retail bats, where the value is based on condition, grading makes sense. But, if you're evaluating game-used bats, where the value is based on use, grading is worthless.

[jppopma]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

One of my favorite jerseys is a 1970 Brewers jersey that had points deducted from the team logo change from Pilots to Brewers. To me the history of the Pilots move to Milwaukee is what makes the jersey so special.

Can't complain as I would have likely been way outbid if it had been graded higher.

[commando]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

However, if a player commonly hits the ball on the front barrel (like Jeter), and this is a trait that a collector would want to see, why would it grade lower the more he hits the ball on the front barrel? It doesn't really make sense from either the viewpoint of authenticity or desirability as an example of that player. I can see it grading lower only if the wear wasn't from the player actually using the bat.

I like MEARS. As far as companies go, I feel they've done more to standardize and archive information for the game-used hobby more than anyone else. With that being said, their grading system has always bugged me for the very reason you've stated. Deducting points for game use seems counter-intuitive to me.

I can understand that they want to keep things simple and streamlined by issuing just one grade.... But in a perfect world, you'd have two grades... One for authenticity (correct tagging, style, supplier, numeral font, etc.), and another grade for game use characteristics.

[nickacs]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

Funny you bring this up because I've seen the same with older baseball jerseys where the letter will deduct a point or .5 due to "staining" on areas of it. Huh? I like to see "use" on my game worn jerseys?!
And the stains are very faint and not obscuring the player's NOB/team logo or anything.

Just find it strange I guess... The more use, the better IMO!

[PwKw13]

Re: Deducting grading points for showing use??

However, if a player commonly hits the ball on the front barrel (like Jeter), and this is a trait that a collector would want to see, why would it grade lower the more he hits the ball on the front barrel? It doesn't really make sense from either the viewpoint of authenticity or desirability as an example of that player. I can see it grading lower only if the wear wasn't from the player actually using the bat.