Help solve the great baseball mystery

[thecatspajamas]

Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the balls produced for each season based on who was the league president at the beginning of the year, not the beginning of the season, and therefore 1989 ONL balls would bear Giamatti's name, not Bill White's (since Giamatti was still NL president on January 1, and named Commissioner on April 1).

To my mind, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption since there has to be some lead time to the production of the thousands of balls that would be used in games starting in early April. You can't name a new NL president on April 1, and then 2 days later on Opening Day have a truckload of balls show up ready for game use.

[cardsfan22]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the balls produced for each season based on who was the league president at the beginning of the year, not the beginning of the season, and therefore 1989 ONL balls would bear Giamatti's name, not Bill White's (since Giamatti was still NL president on January 1, and named Commissioner on April 1).

To my mind, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption since there has to be some lead time to the production of the thousands of balls that would be used in games starting in early April. You can't name a new NL president on April 1, and then 2 days later on Opening Day have a truckload of balls show up ready for game use.

It is amazing where all this research leads and how interesting this is all becoming (to me at least ha). I have been emailing with Big League Baseballs and one thing they sent me was this article:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...me+balls&hl=en

In the article it address the issue that was just brought up about producing the balls with the White signature. Basically it looks like Rawlings was trying to get all the teams the new balls by opening day 1989 but they acknowledged Giamatti balls would prob still make it into games. Once again this would lead me to believe seeing a reg season game in July of 1990 would be highly unlikely. However, things were definitely a lot different back in 1990 so who really knows if the Padres just happened to have some extra cases of Giamatti balls that made their way into games in 1990.

[mikeakac2]

That article makes me think the ball is real. We know they had Giamatti balls before the season started and Rawlings rushed to get NL teams White balls. So imagine they have cases of Giamatti balls in their storage. When the new White balls came in they get stacked on the cases of Giamatti balls. As the season goes on the White balls are depleted and the Giamatti balls are used before a new shipment arrives. That would explain why this ball would be used in July. It sounds reasonable to me. The guy in charge of getting balls out of storage probably doesn't care or even check whos name is on it.

[cardsfan22]

Originally Posted by mikeakac2

That article makes me think the ball is real. We know they had Giamatti balls before the season started and Rawlings rushed to get NL teams White balls. So imagine they have cases of Giamatti balls in their storage. When the new White balls came in they get stacked on the cases of Giamatti balls. As the season goes on the White balls are depleted and the Giamatti balls are used before a new shipment arrives. That would explain why this ball would be used in July. It sounds reasonable to me. The guy in charge of getting balls out of storage probably doesn't care or even check whos name is on it.

But realize that article is talking about the start of the 1989 season and JC hit his 300th on July 30th, 1990, a year and half later. I totally agree with your assessment for the 1989 season and I do actually think its possible for that same scenario to occur into the 1990 season it just seems a little less likely IMO.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by cardsfan22

But realize that article is talking about the start of the 1989 season and JC hit his 300th on July 30th, 1990, a year and half later. I totally agree with your assessment for the 1989 season and I do actually think its possible for that same scenario to occur into the 1990 season it just seems a little less likely IMO.

This is the absolute worst part about this business. You have a really cool, one of a kind item, and there's absolutely no way to prove if it's real. I'm going through the same thing right now, and I'll probably never get an answer.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Splinte1941

This is the absolute worst part about this business. You have a really cool, one of a kind item, and there's absolutely no way to prove if it's real. I'm going through the same thing right now, and I'll probably never get an answer.

Keep in mind that any information about whether the ball itself is accurate to the correct season can only disprove whether the ball is what it's said to be. Even if you know with 100% certainty that the ball is correct to the time period of the event, you would still be taking Clark at his word that that particular ball was indeed his 300th and not just another ball he grabbed out of the same case. It's just a question of where you take your leap of faith, and how wide the gap is that you have to cross in that leap. Knowing the ball came directly from Clark with a letter stating what it is narrows the gap much more than buying it from some random individual on Craig's List who related the story over the phone, but even so, there is still the question of Clark's reason for selling it and whether his memory and/or integrity are 100% accurate. (I'm not questioning Clark's integrity myself, but others in this thread have, showing that questions will and do arise with this type of item).

At some point, the gap either narrows enough that you feel comfortable moving forward, or it remains wide enough that you bail on the deal for fear of falling in. Different folks have differing levels of comfortability, with some willing to make super-human leaps across wide gaps of information, and others being unwilling to step across the slightest hint of a crack. It's all relative to your own comfort level with the information available.

[cardsfan22]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Keep in mind that any information about whether the ball itself is accurate to the correct season can only disprove whether the ball is what it's said to be. Even if you know with 100% certainty that the ball is correct to the time period of the event, you would still be taking Clark at his word that that particular ball was indeed his 300th and not just another ball he grabbed out of the same case. It's just a question of where you take your leap of faith, and how wide the gap is that you have to cross in that leap. Knowing the ball came directly from Clark with a letter stating what it is narrows the gap much more than buying it from some random individual on Craig's List who related the story over the phone, but even so, there is still the question of Clark's reason for selling it and whether his memory and/or integrity are 100% accurate. (I'm not questioning Clark's integrity myself, but others in this thread have, showing that questions will and do arise with this type of item).

At some point, the gap either narrows enough that you feel comfortable moving forward, or it remains wide enough that you bail on the deal for fear of falling in. Different folks have differing levels of comfortability, with some willing to make super-human leaps across wide gaps of information, and others being unwilling to step across the slightest hint of a crack. It's all relative to your own comfort level with the information available.

I totally agree with everything you said here. What's funny is if the ball had been a William D. White signature ball I never would have questioned its authenticity beyond that point. I did not buy the ball to resell it, Jack was my childhood hero and I thought it was a really cool piece of baseball history. With what he wrote on the ball and his letter stating this was indeed his 300th that would have been enough for me to take that leap of faith. Of course it just had to be a Giamatti ball which has led me down this path. I am a detective by nature so I feel like I have to do as much research as possible even though I know ultimately there will never be a definitive answer. I really enjoy hearing everyone's insight and appreciate the overall discussion in this thread.

[Splinte1941]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Brandon, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the balls produced for each season based on who was the league president at the beginning of the year, not the beginning of the season, and therefore 1989 ONL balls would bear Giamatti's name, not Bill White's (since Giamatti was still NL president on January 1, and named Commissioner on April 1).

To my mind, this would seem to be a reasonable assumption since there has to be some lead time to the production of the thousands of balls that would be used in games starting in early April. You can't name a new NL president on April 1, and then 2 days later on Opening Day have a truckload of balls show up ready for game use.

EDIT: See post below.