Posted By:
Robert PlancichFirst of all Bill you have me at a disadvantage, what is your last name? Also, I see that your login name is "batcollector" so I am assuming that you know something about bats. Maybe you could enlighten me with respect to this Cobb bat?
I have stated several times that I am not an expert, that is why I would really like to hear from Dave Bushing on this matter and/or yourself if you are up to it. I would think that the relatively simple questions I have posed should be relatively simple for the "world's foremost expert" to answer. Wouldn't you agree? You yourself agree that Cobb gamers are generally between 34" and 35" so where is the proof on this bat that Cobb used a 33 1/2" decal bat. I am not the expert that authenticated this bat, Dave Bushing is, therefore it would make much more sense and be of greater benefit to the members of this forum to hear from the "world's foremost expert" rather than listen to me. Wouldn't you agree?
Now here's what I don't understand and apparently you don't either. The LOA on this bat states that it's a Ty Cobb game-used Louisville Slugger decal bat. Now I am assuming that it is meant that the bat was used by Ty Cobb and yet it was graded an A5. Now according to SCDA's bat grading criteria an A5 is an authenticated bat with noted problems of usage or player characteristics. In fact, the A5 description states that "physical characteristics have been examined and negative traits are present. This includes no game use." Per review of the LOA under the heading of "Player Characteristics (Negative)" there is nothing listed. My question is how can this bat have been authenticated as being used by Cobb when SCDA's own grade of A5 says that it wasn't. This bat purpotedly has "Cobb style cleat marks" and exhibits "heavy" game use and yet there are no "visible ball or stitch marks" on this bat. Maybe the tree that this bat came from was exposed to some of the early forms of the "cream and/or clear" from Balco, probably obtained from Victor Conti's great, great grandfather. I think you can see my point - how can a bat that is graded an A5 and by definition have no use be authenticated as a bat that exhibits heavy game-use by Cobb? In the New York Daily News (NYDN) article Dave Bushing himself states that he can't place Cobb within 500 miles of this bat!
I'll make a deal with you Bill A. you show me Dave Bushing's extensive research that substantiates his LOA on this bat and I'll show you mine and then we can let the members of this forum decide. Better yet,I'll contact the NYDN and see if they would like to do a follow-up story to the one that they recently published. How does that sound?
Now, with respect to your second request I would have to deny that I have it in for PSA. However, they did decline to authenticate one of my Ruth balls. But instead of going into to here I would propose that if there is enough interest from the board on this topic then I would like to post all of the original emails to/from PSA (Spence, Grad, Orlando) and then the board could make it's own determinations about what actually happened and if Spence and Grad are actually autograph experts. I will post the LOA on the Ruth ball that they did authenticate and the Letter of Opinion (LOO) on the other Ruth ball that they declined to authenticate. Just so you know, I had questions about both of the opinions that they issued (good and bad) and they refused to answer any of them. It wasn't that I was disagreeeing with their LOO, I just wanted some clarification and they couldn't provide that information. How strange, they write you a letter and refuse to answer anything about the statements made in said letter. Sounds kind of like the Cobb decal bat SCDA LOA - wouldn't you agree?
While we are in the mode of "full disclosue" maybe you'd be willing to tell me who told you that I "had a bunch of fake autographs turned down by PSA". Certainly, the identity of this individual(s) isn't going to jeopardize National security.
Finally, I must admit that I really don't understand what you're trying to say in the third paragraph of your post. I think that you're a bit confused because I don't make "accusations" about vintage cards or anything else. Everything that I say I can back up and substantiate. Can you?