Posted By:
Dan BrettaHere are some of the facts as presented to us by Robert Plancich:
-DiMaggio never batted label down.
He is wrong. Not only were we shown game action pictures provided by the HoF, but we also got to handle other game used DiMaggio bats that showed use on all parts of the bat.
-He stated the video asks leading questions.
He is wrong. Unless we saw a different video than he did.
There were also things that I had misconceptions about. I'm not sure if Plancich said the Ichiro bat was given an A-10 or not, but that bat was put up for auction before SCDA even had that system in place. This really seemed like a sore subject to Bushing. He stated that they got screwed by Ichiro's agent on that one. Which goes to show that you really can't trust anyone's word on something like that. Which leads to the leap of faith in the game-used collectible field.
Leap of faith - are we to take Tommy Henrich at his word??? After having read his book "Five O'Clock Lightning" and done other research on him I could find nothing anywhere that would question his integrity or character. There are too many things going for this bat that I think Henrich is telling the truth. PBOR records for DiMaggio prove that this bat was ordered for only 1941 - 1942. The PBOR's also show that Henrich ordered the same type of bat, but they would have had Henrich's name on them and not DiMaggio's. Henrich stated himself that DiMaggio gave the bat to him because he loaned him his bat when DiMaggio's was stolen between games 41 and 42. It should be noted that in other research I did it showed that DiMaggio did realize the historical importance of such items associated with the streak as he did give away his spikes he used during the streak to the sister of the good fella who found his missing bat. Would Joe have given these items away if they had the tremendous value of todays market??? Doubtful, but in 1941 items like that had very little monetary value.
Would I have given this bat an A-10? I don't think so, but I would not hesitate to call it A-9. IMO A-10 should never be given on someones word, even if that word corroborates all the evidence. I'm not sure A-10 exists outside of the bat being handed directly to someone from SCDA at the ballpark right after the player used it. But that's my opinion on rock solid provenance.
I can see already that someone is questioning our integrity. All I can say to that is that you were not there. If a "dog and pony show" is being shown player batting order records, game used bats, and testimony from the former player himself then yes I guess we got swayed by the "dog and pony show". Anyone is welcome to see the same "dog and pony show" we saw at the National.
I'm not going to go into detail about what they said about Robert Plancich and his lawsuit with H&B, but if what they say is true then he has some explaining to do, and I imagine that it will be explained in court. That doesn't mean that what they said is true, but I will be following this case closely. I've heard both sides now and Robert Plancich made some clearly false statements regarding this bat.
With the physical evidence supporting this bat and with Tommy Henrich's word on it I choose to believe this bat is the real deal. If you want to impugn my integrity by saying I was swayed by the pretty lights all I have to say is you don't know me. I am a member of SABR and I take baseball research very seriously. I have formed an educated opinion the onus is now on you to do your own research if you disagree with me.
Dan