Joe Pepitone Bat
 

Sorry if this has already been discussed. I didn't see it mentioned in a quick scroll of threads. Curious to get the thoughts of people who follow the Yankees and baseball more closely than I. Do you think the claim is legit? It seems like there is enough historical record to back Pepitone up, but why wait so long?

I worked as a bank teller when I was in college and I became interested in Pepitone because his son used to come into the bank to deposit checks and his father always seemed to be in the news. I learned quickly that Joe junior wasn't particularly friendly and wasn't interested in discussing his dad. This was around 1990 or so.

Interesting story. Curious to see how it plays out.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...nly-story.html

What Pepitone doesn't seem to understand is that he never owned the bats he used, or his Yankee uniform. The team owned all that stuff. Players didn't pay for bats they ordered. So that bat was Yankee property all the time.

I dont know the details of this situation but is it true that the team owns a players bats? Don't they have to sign a personal agreement with the bat company to use their name/signature etc on the bats?

I would assume part of that agreement is the ownership of the bats that they receive but I'm just speculating obviously.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Teams issue uniforms to players and teams own them. I believe players get their bats directly from the companies, if thats true, Pepitone might have a legitimate claim of ownership.

You might be right and I might be wrong. I know the teams order a bunch of bats for general use (team index bats) and players order bats to their specifications. I had assumed the team paid for all bat orders. If players sign a contract with the bat company, their bats have their facsimile signature burned into the barrel; if not, their name is in block letter. There are cases where players were traded or released and left their bats behind, and other cases where players took some of their bats home.

It could come down to something nuanced, like whether the bat is a Pepitone signature model or block letter. This will be an interesting case to see what equipment from back in the day belongs to players, and what belongs to the teams.

Looks like it is a signature model Pepitone

https://collection.baseballhall.org/...-1967-may-14-1

You would think there would be paperwork on its origin and status as permanent donation vs loan etc in the museum records.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

The bat was taken from Pepitone's locker without his consent. There is no paperwork that I know of. Joe says he has been told all along by the HOF that it is his bat, which it is, and he could have it back when he wanted. Now when he wants his bat back, the HOF won't give it up.

This is a really bad look for the HOF. If they don't give Joe his bat, who would ever loan the HOF anything again?

In general, players select bats and MLB teams pay for them, although some players may buy their own bats if they see a new type of bat they like and want to try it out. As long as a bat meets MLB specs ( Baseball bat ), it can be used in games.

Need a lot more evidence.

We don't know the veracity of Pepitone's tale, or what exactly are his rights and ownership or his evidence. On the other hand, perhaps it's longstanding practice of museums and auctions houses to deal in stuff that wasn't originally obtained on the up-and-up.

Big museums are very thorough and paper-work heavy about things they receive-- from who, ownership, rights, where it came from, expressed conditions, etc.

Not enough info to form an opinion.

Yeah the HOF said in their statement that it was donated in 1967 by the Yankees. There should be paperwork on that donation.

Then it becomes a matter of why the Yankees had the bat, whose property it actually was, and if they truly had the right to donate it.

The Hall has already basically said that Pepitone didn't donate it (it was the Yankees).

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

It's a P104 model which almost certainly is not a team ordered index bat. So I'm almost certain it's a bat ordered by Pepitone, to his personal specifications.

I think that, from a legal standpoint, it will come down to whether a bat Pepitone ordered from H&B, that the team probably paid for, belonged (belongs) to Joe or the Yankees.

As a GU collector, it brings up an interesting question. There are stories about valuable artwork that was stolen during the last World War, that has been claimed and returned to the original owners. Could a MLB team make the same type of claims? For example, could they sue to recover one of those million dollar Ruth jerseys, stating the garment belonged to the Yankees and was at some point taken by somebody without the Yankees consent?

I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on the return of stolen property. I doubt any of my GU bats or jerseys were sold by the teams that originally owned them.

Anybody who got paperwork that Mr. Pepitone evidently did not get.

Why would Joe Pepitone get paperwork for a bat taken without his consent? A player like Joe Pepitone would have signed an endorsement deal with the bat manufacturer. Part of that deal would be providing Joe bats to use in games.

I can’t speak to modern times, signing players and whether or not they supply bats for free, or if the teams buy them. However, in the 1960’s players were approached in their first spring and asked to sign with Louisville Slugger in return for a set of golf clubs made by them or 125 dollars. When you ordered bats, you could get your name on them, but you paid for them. I am not sure if and when that changed and if it was different once you made the majors or if you were a star but I believe it was a one time thing whether you made it or not. It would not surprise me if it were vastly different today. . I think it likely that there was a difference in the procedures, pre and post about 1980 or so. No, I do not know this because I did it. I know it because several teammates did do it and I have seen the contracts they signed. They took the money by the way.

https://nypost.com/2021/07/10/yankee...y-mantles-bat/

The Brooklyn-born Pepitone, 80, claims in the suit that the bat, a “Joe Pepitone” model that includes a facsimile of his signature, was his through an endorsement deal with Louisville Slugger, and that Mantle borrowed it to make history on May 14, 1967.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/mlb/...k1bnhchdcefl50

Pepitone and the Hall are locked in a he-said-he-said conundrum, with no paperwork involved that landed the bat in Cooperstown, according to The Athletic.

The question is will Joe wear his oversized wig to court?

The Yankees should write a check to Joe for the value of the bat and re-donate it to the Hall.

That the bat may have been taken without his consent seems immaterial inasmuch as he has known where the bat was and hasn't demanded it's immediate return to him at any time in the past 54 years.

If I understand the article correctly, Pepitone claims that the HoF told him that he could get the bat back any time he asked and is now reneging. That seems just like the type of agreement that should have been memorialized in writing. Otherwise, you are left right where we are: competing claims regarding a decades old conversation with no documentary evidence one way or the other.

A question is does the HOF museum even accept things on loan? (I don't know)

The reason why Rite Aid cards everyone when buying liquor (even my 82 year old dad) is that so, in case of dispute, they can say "We card everyone."

The HOF has such much given to them, perhaps they feel need to accept loans. In the Sporting News article, the HOF says it was donated.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/s...-on-guard.html

They definitely do and this isn't the first time a player has asked for his item back. With the rise of prices, I bet they are worried other living players will do the same as Pepitone. If the HOF has no paperwork, I don't see how they can keep Pepitone's bat. They need to do a better job of documenting everything that is given as a gift versus what is on loan.


“The lifeblood of any museum is its collections,” said Jeff Idelson, the president of the Hall. “Our policy is that artifacts that we acquire are donated. We have some items that are on loan, and the only time we have an interest in accepting a loan item is when we can’t tell a story because we don’t have anything to tell the story.”

But the cap Bobby Thomson wore when his 1951 playoff home run clinched the National League pennant for the New York Giants, which had been in the museum’s care for more than 27 years, was returned to its owner. In May, it was auctioned for more than $173,000.

Maybe Pepe can give them one of his hair pieces in exchange for the bat. Rarely do you see him without one especially if he has a wife for the evening!

If museums trafficked only in legitimately obtained items, their galleries would have significantly fewer items in them.

In museum studies classes we debate these types of issues, but about ancient artifacts that crossed international lines generations ago. In many cases, it's debatable who is the rightful (however you wish to define rightful) owner, and sometimes the popular ethical view and the law differ.

Common international sentiment is that the British Museum should return the Elgin Marbles (giant Ancient Greek marble figures) to Greece, but according to international law the museum is the fair owner. It's also debated if returning everything to its original country is a good thing, and the British Museum argues that it is a "world museum," an international cultural center not simply a national musuem. If the only place you can see Ancient Greek artifacts is in Greece or Peruvian artifacts in Peru, is that a good thing?

Suing 50 years after the fact? Low probability of winning.

Some places also have museums that aren't safe for the artifacts (Brazil...)

One of the archaeology shows about Egypt showed Hawas very happy about getting back a bunch of hawks in jars from somewhere.. The intern asked why they needed a few hundred more when they already had 5000+ !
Why? Because they're ours, and they belong here!
Ok, so you'll return the stuff the Egyptians looted from Babylon?

Boy did he get mad!

Didn't Ted Williams in the Spring order a dozen or so custom-made, personalized bats to start the season. Wonder if the Red Sox paid for them.

Yeah, this makes me think of the whole mummy craze in the past and even the current fascination to some degree. At one point in time or another people were buying mummies for "medicinal" purposes, to make "mummy brown" paint, to unwrap at parties as a spectacle, etc. You could order a mummy through a newspaper ad and have one show up at your front door. Considering they were once actual living human beings that raises all sorts of issues. Hopefully many of us that choose to be buried don't get desecrated in such ways in thousands of years.

Anyhow, back to baseball. There are all sorts of questionable items out there in the memorabilia world in regards to ownership. It's my opinion that historically significant baseball items belong in the hands of a museum for all to enjoy. I get the legal aspect of ownership and obviously agree with that. So yeah, if you own something you are free to do with it what you wish, well to some degree. Luckily many items over the years have been graciously donated. I guess it circles back to ethical or legal views and both can be right.