Bat Grading Discussion

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

I'm going to have to disagree that JT has "only added value". I can show you examples of him selling/authenticating bats that were nowhere close to authentic.

The above quote is libelous, if you don't substantiate the claim. In the context of the thread and your other remarks, I would go so far as to say, whether intended or not, your posts seem to be directed toward somehow discrediting Mr Taube. I understand that you're upset that the 8.5 you sold through Goldin only received $550, but that doesn't justify the other claims (without substantiation) of Mr Taube selling fakes as authentic.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I interpreted that the factory record requirement meant every company must keep records in the same fashion/system as H&B bats.

I just reread my original comment, in the context of the quote, and I must apologize. When I said "you" in the post, I didn't mean you (R.C.), but more so you as in "anyone." I, perhaps, should have said "one" instead of "you" in this case, but grammatically and colloquially, either is acceptable for the point I was trying to make.

[GameBats]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

For what it's worth, I agree 100% with Anthony (Game Used Bats) posts.

- John

[Game Used Bats]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

Nick,

"As far as your questions about the difference in the two Gwynnexamples. There's no need to go into detail but one bat is clearly nicer thanthe other."

Well, as a rather large collector of game used bats, I cannot clearly see asto why one Gwynn is better than the other. Clearly the bat that graded an 8.5is yours and you’re not happy about that grade. You would be better served puttingtogether an argument showing details as to why one is better than the other andpresenting to John and or the forum. You chose to use this bat as the basis foran industry changing argument but have failed to provide any details as to why,and to me that seems irresponsible.

On a side note: "human nature" of a man.... I don’t understand whyyou feel the need to question a man on a public forum with frankly nonsense. Ifyou feel the industry is evolving and needs a new kind of authentication process,go out and make it happen. There is no barrier of entry, and if you have a goodproduct the industry will respond. John is a professional that has supportedthis hobby from the ground up. It’s a shame that someone could read this postand take something other than that away from it.


Anthony
RichardsonA742@aol.com

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

“Once again I ask: Outside of Louisville Slugger does anyone have access to historical factory records for say Andirondak or Worth? How about data from the numerous current manufacturers? If not, theoretically no other bat other than LS may receive a grade higher than GU3.

For grading purposes, a 10 should match factory records from any manufacturer. Obviously those records would have to be “available” to PSA. Otherwise, it’s not a perfect bat in every aspect with full documentation. Just my opinion.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I interpreted that the factory record requirement meant every company must keep records in the same fashion/system as H&B bats.

The response I posted was based upon the premise you initially posited about Adirondack factory records being unavailable for the purposes of grading a bat as GU 10. My point was that, while H&B records included the bat orders by year, model, size, weight, and size of order, that wouldn't preclude an Adirondack bat from being eligible for a "10" grade. As I stated before, I can't speak to the records being available for bat manufacturers who are defunct, but Rawlings kept some of the Pro bat employees at the Adirondack factory, who are privy to the factory records of previous (McLaughlin) incarnations of Adirondack, on staff. The existence of these individuals, and their shop records would constitute manufacturers records. As such, I'm positing that Adirondack should be removed from the list of manufacturers who Taube/Malta wouldn't have ready access to records.

One more thing, PSA/DNA does authenticate signatures. "Could not" authenticate" means it was reviewed, as opposed to "did not authenticate." PSA will not say a signature is fake, only that they are unable to authenticate. Anyone familiar with Gwynn's signature can see why PSA could not authenticate that signature.

PSA/DNA does authenticate signatures. I never said they didn't. I said that the NJ office, which does the bat authentications doesn't authenticate autographs. That is why GU bats that haven't been previously authenticated for their signature by the California office will have the clause about PSA not being able to authenticate the signature.

Beyond that, PSA *does* distinguish between a signature that they believe isn't authentic and one they simply can't authenticate. In the first case, the autograph is labeled as "Questionable Authenticity." In the second case, you receive a note and a voucher (basically a gift certificate) for a future grading due to PSA being unable to authenticate the item. This second case would usually be due to a lack of contrast between the signature and the background. Since PSA is unable to definitively say "authentic" or "questionable" on the signature, they provide you with a voucher. I had this happen with a Steve Yzerman autographed rookie card that I purchased off eBay. The signature had faded to the point that I would have said it were a "2" grade, at best, but I thought it was still discernible. PSA disagreed and sent me the voucher for a credit off my next submission.

[R. C. Walker]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

I believe the problem is what you define as available. Adirondack does have factory records of what weights/lengths/models of bats were ordered by players. They may not be available to the public, as is the case with H&B (thanks to Malta's research and book), but they exist to at least the 50s.

That means that available factory records for Adirondack (I can't speak re: Worth/Wilson/Spalding/etc) might not be as exact (dates of production, number ordered, etc) as H&B, but they do exist.

As an example, Willie Mays ordered M63 35" 33 oz bats from Adirondack during his playing days, according to factory records. If a bat was submitted that fit into those specifications, had Mays player characteristics, and showed medium-heavy usage, that bat would be eligible for a grade of GU7 or higher. I don't see how one would interpret the factory record requirement to mean every company must keep records in the same fashion/system as H&B did for the Louisville Slugger bats.

For grading purposes, a 10 should match factory records from any manufacturer. Obviously those records would have to be “available” to PSA. Otherwise, it’s not a perfect bat in every aspect with full documentation. Just my opinion.

I don’t know where you got the idea that I interpreted that the factory record requirement meant every company must keep records in the same fashion/system as H&B bats.

[Nnunnari]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

Nick,

Are either of the Gwynn bats yours from the original post? Also, on thesecond bat, presumably the one graded a 10, where is the back side of the LOA that gives description? I'm not exactly sure what your argument is, but perhapsyou would be better served laying out the facts pertaining to usecharacteristics of Gwynn and why one is better than the other.

I am no trying to attack you in any way, shape, or form, but this all stinks of sour grapes. Posting here chipping away at people that have only added valueto the hobby, yet you haven't added value to your own post is irresponsible.If someone visiting this forum for the first time reads your post, they take absolutely nothing informative away from their experience here.

I apologize, I don't know who you are based on your username.
I completely understand how this entire thread could come off as me just stomping my feet and crying about grades I disagree with. I want to make it clear that that is not the point of of this thread whatsoever. I am using examples I can best vouch for since I have held the bats in my hand. I truly want to get a discussion going among bat collectors as I believe there are issues with the current grading system. I have felt this way for years and have kept my mouth shut for the most part. When I hear from many friends in the hobby who agree with me, I feel like it is worth bringing to a public forum for debate. The problem is, most people do not feel comfortable chiming in on a public forum for many reasons and I don't blame them. John's a nice guy and if you are a bat collector, you're going to want to keep a positive relationship with John. So people bite their tongue, accept it for what it is and move on with their lives. Nothing will every change unfortunately taking that approach.

As far as your questions about the difference in the two Gwynn examples. There's no need to go into detail but one bat is clearly nicer than the other.

"Posting here chipping away at people that have only added value to the hobby, yet you haven't added value to your own post is irresponsible."
I'm going to have to disagree that JT has "only added value". I can show you examples of him selling/authenticating bats that were nowhere close to authentic. I am not sure what exactly you are looking for from me to "add value". I gave a suggestion about alternative ways to grade an item as have other members.
I think I have also pointed out how the grading scale has changed over the years as well as the blatant conflict of interests involved when one man, who is a collector, buyer and seller himself is in charge of grading. If you are looking for me to give specific details about use characteristics and what a grader should be looking for while grading a bat, that's not the point of the thread.

How about this example. Let's say John owns the nicest Joe DiMaggio in existence, the highest graded one. You happen to be lucky enough to acquire a fantastic DiMaggio that is new to the hobby. Do you want John grading the bat?
John's a great guy, he would never have ulterior motives when assigning grades right? I truly believe John is a great, honest guy and would be as honest as possible. But isn't it human nature to have these other thoughts creep into your mind? What are the surrounding circumstances with this grade, who sent it to me, was it a friend? If I grade this bat a 10, what happens to the value of mine or the value of my good buddy's who has been giving me solid business for 10 years. Just things to think about.

[esquiresports]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

One more thing, PSA/DNA does authenticate signatures. "Could not" authenticate" means it was reviewed, as opposed to "did not authenticate." PSA will not say a signature is fake, only that they are unable to authenticate. Anyone familiar with Gwynn's signature can see why PSA could not authenticate that signature.

[esquiresports]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

Nick,

Are either of the Gwynn bats yours from the original post? Also, on thesecond bat, presumably the one graded a 10, where is the back side of the LOA that gives description? I'm not exactly sure what your argument is, but perhapsyou would be better served laying out the facts pertaining to usecharacteristics of Gwynn and why one is better than the other.

I am no trying to attack you in any way, shape, or form, but this all stinks of sour grapes. Posting here chipping away at people that have only added valueto the hobby, yet you haven't added value to your own post is irresponsible.If someone visiting this forum for the first time reads your post, they take absolutely nothing informative away from their experience here.

I think Nick was using examples to question whether assigning grades to a bat should be eliminated, whether or not grading is applied consistently, and whether there are actual or perceived conflicts of interest/biased in grading.

I believe this discussion could get PSA to look at whether an independent group should be doing the grading, as it uses for packs, since their pack authenticator also sells packs. Everyone I know is fine with this arrangement.

I believe the market will determine what value, if any, to assign to bat grades the same way it has with cards. A lot of people hate the grading "game," and I understand that. That's why people often retort "buy the card, not the flip (the label with the grade)."

The grading dilemma cuts both ways. It stinks to be a seller of an undergraded bat, but provides some nice opportunities as a buyer. Hopefully they cancel each other out.

One final note - PSA will review graded cards to determine (for a fee) if they are worthy of a bump in grade. There are several eagle-eyed collectors I know who have done very well purchasing high end 8s and 9s that they have gotten bumped to 9s and 10s upon review. I wouldn't hesitate to try the same approach with Taube, although I understand there are cost considerations.

[vonbrandingo]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

This is a very condescending response to what I feel is a valid explanation. Nowhere on the LOA for the GU10 does it say the signature isn't authentic. The auction says PSA/DNA wasn't able to authenticate the signature. Based upon other LOAs (even the GU8.5 bat has the autograph clause), Taube adds a qualifier that the grade/opinion is not for the signature, since they're unable to authenticate the signature. My assumption (perhaps incorrect) was that Goldin Auctions asked Taube about the signature, and he said they don't authenticate those. I made the assumption on the LOAs that say the same thing whenever the bat wasn't first submitted to PSA/DNA's California office for autograph authentication.

You might be right, but the wording that PSA could not authenticate the signature is different than how it's stated in Taube's LOA and implies that they couldn't authenticate it because it's inconsistent with exemplars. If the signature wasn't presented to PSA for authentication, Goldin would have said the auto hasn't been presented to PSA or other third party for authentication.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

Ok bud.

This is a very condescending response to what I feel is a valid explanation. Nowhere on the LOA for the GU10 does it say the signature isn't authentic. The auction says PSA/DNA wasn't able to authenticate the signature. Based upon other LOAs (even the GU8.5 bat has the autograph clause), Taube adds a qualifier that the grade/opinion is not for the signature, since they're unable to authenticate the signature. My assumption (perhaps incorrect) was that Goldin Auctions asked Taube about the signature, and he said they don't authenticate those. I made the assumption on the LOAs that say the same thing whenever the bat wasn't first submitted to PSA/DNA's California office for autograph authentication.

[Game Used Bats]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

Nick,

Are either of the Gwynn bats yours from the original post? Also, on thesecond bat, presumably the one graded a 10, where is the back side of the LOA that gives description? I'm not exactly sure what your argument is, but perhapsyou would be better served laying out the facts pertaining to usecharacteristics of Gwynn and why one is better than the other.

I am no trying to attack you in any way, shape, or form, but this all stinks of sour grapes. Posting here chipping away at people that have only added valueto the hobby, yet you haven't added value to your own post is irresponsible.If someone visiting this forum for the first time reads your post, they take absolutely nothing informative away from their experience here.

[vonbrandingo]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

That statement means that John Taube's division of PSA (the NJ office) can't authenticate the signature, since they don't do that. If you look at any signed bat that isn't previously authenticated by PSADNA (the CA office), the LOA will state that or something similar.

Ok bud.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

PSA/DNA GU4 - GU10
 States, “The bat in question must match available factory records . . .
“Once again I ask: Outside of Louisville Slugger does anyone have access to historical factory records for say Andirondak or Worth? How about data from the numerous current manufacturers? If not, theoretically no other bat other than LS may receive a grade higher than GU3.

I believe the problem is what you define as available. Adirondack does have factory records of what weights/lengths/models of bats were ordered by players. They may not be available to the public, as is the case with H&B (thanks to Malta's research and book), but they exist to at least the 50s.

That means that available factory records for Adirondack (I can't speak re: Worth/Wilson/Spalding/etc) might not be as exact (dates of production, number ordered, etc) as H&B, but they do exist.

As an example, Willie Mays ordered M63 35" 33 oz bats from Adirondack during his playing days, according to factory records. If a bat was submitted that fit into those specifications, had Mays player characteristics, and showed medium-heavy usage, that bat would be eligible for a grade of GU7 or higher. I don't see how one would interpret the factory record requirement to mean every company must keep records in the same fashion/system as H&B did for the Louisville Slugger bats.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

danesei, PSA said they were unable to authenticate the signature. May not mean it's fake I guess, but it is questionable at best. I've seen a few Gwynn signatures and can't remember one that looks like this from any point in his career.

http://www.goldinauctions.com/LotDet...ventoryid=7214

That statement means that John Taube's division of PSA (the NJ office) can't authenticate the signature, since they don't do that. If you look at any signed bat that isn't previously authenticated by PSADNA (the CA office), the LOA will state that or something similar.

[Nnunnari]

Re: Bat Grading Discussion

You guys might be interested to know that sometimes PSA does split the authentication and grading processes. For example, with unopened material, Steve Hart of BBCE authenticates all unopened product. A different group of people grade the unopened material. Perhaps this is an ideal solution, or at least a step forward, for the concerns expressed by many here. Taube can authenticate - his true speciality - and another group can grade - more of a formulaic exercise.

Excellent comment Scott. The grading should be left to someone without a vested interest in the outcome.

If John has a player "X" GU10 up for sale on his website, does he want another GU10 of same player going to auction? Maybe it helps, maybe it hurts.