A Word about 40K Bats - Babe Ruth , Ty Cobb, etc.

[steve B]

I only have a few game used bats, so I'm far from expert. But I'll give it a go and the experts can correct me if I'm way off.

1) I suppose it depends, faking marks that are old might be difficult, but I guess anythings possible. I'm pretty sure I don't have enough bat speed to duplicate the sort of marks someone like the Babe would have caused. More modern marks maybe. Of course the risk is wrecking a nice lightly or unused pro bat.

Some people have studied at length the stuff a player does to a bat. Different use of pine tar, tape etc. Knowing a player usally taped a certain way helps. I think the LS bats have released the order books so you can find out if a certain player ordered a bat that size weight and finish. But I think it's easier to figure out a particular player didn't use a bat than that he did.

2) Lots of ways. The ones I have are from a wide range of eras,

1900-10 ish. Got it from a family friend who broke it playing softball The player was from Maine, and I think his family had some Maine connection, so the player probably had a few around and gave them away. At the time they were just old bats. (I got a couple old but not pro bats too)

1950's Found at a flea market. I used to check the markings on any crummy old bat I saw and to my surprise got a pro bat. Probably the same thing, the player had a few and gave them away to friends then eventually it found its way to the bat barrel in the barn and flea market.

1970's-early 80's Dwight Evans game used, bought from Fenway sports cards. They had a clubhouse guy who sold them batches of broken bats that would have been thrown away. ($9 in I think 1979)

Late 80's Cubs. Maybe Damon Berryhill? maybe just a BP bat with his number writen on it. By then some teams were selling bats as souveneirs. Early 90's the Red Sox had a store in the mall that sold game used bats alongside the replica uniforms hats, upper deck autographs etc. You could even place an order for some players.

Some I heard about survived other ways, like ending up in the stands.

3) I know less about jerseys. But many old ones got recycled to the minor leagues, so un modified/unrestored ones aren't typical.

Steve B

Originally Posted by glchen

Thanks for your information on this. I have always been looking to buy a GU bat, but have been confused by this. I have a few of other questions.

(1) First, let's get the dumb one out of the way. First if someone has a Ruth pro model bat, and say that there are no game used marks on it (e.g., something like a ball mark where the bat hit a ball), could this be added a later time. For example, a guy has a pristine Ruth bat that looks like it was never used. He takes it to his backyard, and hits a couple of balls with it, to "produce" these marks. Is this possible or can people tell that this "mark" was done in "modern" times? (I assume this is not possible to tell.)

On a similar note, I assume there is no way to tell if Ruth actually used the bat, even if the marks were legitimate? That is, one of Ruth's teammates could have borrowed his bat, and used it instead? Do we know if this practice was fairly common or pretty rare (e.g., players borrowing each others bats in prewar times)

(2) Do we know how these bats typically survived to modern times? For example, other than Ruth giving a bat away to a friend or fan, how did the public typically get these bats? Do most of them come from the player's estate? Or did some people just find a bunch of bats at the bat company? For example, many old photos are found when the archives of newspapers go on sale. Did something happen for bats in a similar way? e.g., at the end of every year, the Yankees would sell/give away old bats/memorabilia to the public.

(3) For bats, it is stated that there is only a percentage chance that the player actually used it. How about other memorabilia like jerseys? If there is a Ruth uniform (or hat, etc), is there practically a 100% chance that was used by the player? (assuming it was not counterfeit) For jerseys, it is more about whether any restoration was done (e.g., new buttons) rather than questioning whether the player actually used it? Thanks!

[MGHPro]

WOW.. This is one of the threads where guys like Bushing, JT, Zane, Art Jaffe, etc would share there thoughts.

As far as what BigJJ said, he couldn't be more wrong. Kork grip bats were produced for retail and professional use. Look for pro models to be hand turned, with no inch and match player specs. Retail have inch marks.

A 40 br is in NO WAY related to the 40k's. A 40 Br is a retail Babe ruth bat. PLease note, 125 bats were also made for retail, and again have inch marks.

As far some of the other questions.. yes, a mint original ruth bat could have the use faked on it and you would never know unless you did it. There are traits to look for on many bats, such as locations of ball marks, concentration of use, tape patterns etc.

BigJJ, would you mind signing your name so we know who we are talking with.
Matt Hart

[MGHPro]

Did you buy or consign the Ruth 40k in REA?

[MacDice]

It can be very difficult if not impossible to prove who actually swing a bat without photo matching. In my years coaching, I have seen several players using "big league" wood that could be very easily passed as game used bat of the player whose name was on the barrell. Last summer I had a kid that broke 4 bats in 5 games all of which came directly from a MLB clubhouse in spring training. He could have easily sold them on eBay with very little questions.

[Mark]

"(2) Do we know how these bats typically survived to modern times? For example, other than Ruth giving a bat away to a friend or fan, how did the public typically get these bats? Do most of them come from the player's estate? Or did some people just find a bunch of bats at the bat company? For example, many old photos are found when the archives of newspapers go on sale. Did something happen for bats in a similar way? e.g., at the end of every year, the Yankees would sell/give away old bats/memorabilia to the public."

A good number of bats were saved by family, friends, and fans. That is how I got my first old bats. But the big event was in the early 1990's, when Hillerich and Bradsby sold their inventory of game used bats. Over the years, these bats had been sent to them by players for use as models for future bats. There were, if I recall, about 8000 bats in that sale, and about 10% were from hall of fame players. The marks placed by the factory on one of these bats is considered evidence that this player used the bat in games. Not many of these side written bats exist for any particular player.

[BigJJ]

What I am saying is that there are pro model 40ks and pro model 125s.

AND it is my understanding that they (40k and 125) are identifiable as "pro model" to the same extent as each another.

What you have written confirms this I believe. Please add any additional information to this thread, that a 40k (without inch marks etc.) is in any way a lesser bat to a 125 (without inch marks etc.).

I agree regarding inch marks, etc. and have amended the above, though this is not the heart of what I wanted to discuss - which is the weight given to 40k versus 125, when it is my understanding they are pro model to the same extent.

What does not make sense to me is the difference in value between a 125 and a 40k - of a player with ordering records, or photos, or other evidence, of having used both models. Do you disagree? Again the heart of this is the weight given to 125 versus 40k and if there is any evidence as to 125 being any more pro model than 40k.

I am convinced the difference in values between 125 and 40k stem from a lack of knowledge. This is the only explanation, in my opinion, when it is my understanding that both are pro model to the same extent - unless others have evidence that a 40k is any less of a bat to a 125, or vice versa.

[murphusa]

Like the internet, if it's in an auction catalog it must be true.

if you take your time to read through auction descriptions they tell you they aren't really sure. In one instance, Mears tells you that the first was a Wagner, then a Cobb.

They list a Cobb article from December 20, 1913 asking H&B to come up with a cork bat for use in 1914

One of their other reserchers says because the copyright say September 1914 then the bats were not used till the 1915 season.

Logic would tell you that like anyone, players would not experiment with new things during the season, but they would try stuff out in spring training.

Is that where the pictures come from?

if the bats are to the players specs? Then haven't the specs changed as they have now added weight, ever so small to the handle of the bat.

If you add cork or another substance to the handle hasn't the grip become bigger or did they cut down on the handle so it was the same thickness as a non cork bat.

If so then they are not the same specs

why buy a question?