Ty Cobb/Bushing/SCDA/Game-Used Decal Bat

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Dennis, I'd love to hear the answers from Mr Bushing. If you are going make claims like this bat being game used by DiMaggio during The Streak, or a game used Cobb decal bat, then you better be ready to provide all the evidence you have to prove these claims. These are not state secrets or anything that will threaten national security, so there is no reason for him not produce the evidence he has to make his claims of authenticity. It certianly won't threaten his livelyhood either, unless of course, he can't prove the claims he is making.

Jay

Wow upside down is Mom. Mom upside down is what dad wants to see.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

i really don't think he can .......i,too would love to hear it but read my post above again....he has the lemmings following him.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

Just joined and read the interesting posts about the Bat. Since I am a bat collector and have a very substantial collection I would like to offer some feedback in regards to the decal bat.

The bat had a grade of A5 and sold for 37K, that seems very reasonable. An A5 bat does exhibit some negative characteristics, if the bat was 100% and/or had provenance it would have graded A10. An A10 Cobb bat sold for a record 132K in one of Hunt's Auctions last year. SCD also graded that one. Bushing is the foremost bat authenticator in the hobby. I don't think he would have time to answer every question from everyone who whined and cried about an opinion that he put on a piece that they didn't agree with. It is your choice not to buy items authenticated by him. But since evey other person on the planet respects his opinion, it might suit you to reconsider.

Also, I agree with the post in regards to Wagner and game used decal bats from him, he used LS bats before he signed his endorsement contract in 1905, as he was the first player to have his signature endorsed on a LS bat.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe P.

The anonymous is worth the weight of his words.
He has not added anything new to this topic.
Nada, zilch, gottz.

Anonymous:
"Bushing is the foremost bat authenticator in the hobby. I don't think he would have time to answer every question from everyone who whined and cried about an opinion that he put on a piece that they didn't agree with. It is your choice not to buy items authenticated by him.
But since evey other person on the planet respects his opinion, it might suit you to reconsider."
*
*
For 132k's, you bet your @ss he better make time.

And After The Seventh Day Bushing Saeth:

"Let There Be Lemmings!"

And there were Lemmings.

[Archive]

Posted By: Amy

Bushing is the foremost bat authenticator in the hobby. I don't think he would have time to answer every question from everyone who whined and cried about an opinion that he put on a piece that they didn't agree with. It is your choice not to buy items authenticated by him. But since evey other person on the planet respects his opinion, it might suit you to reconsider.



Welcome to the forum, Mr. Bushing!

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

If someone is going to offer opinions based on their expertise/experience, as "anonymous" has done, then step up to the plate (so to speak) and tell us who you are. I count myself in the "evey [sic] other person on the planet" category (my wife might disagree) and at the moment I do not have a high opinion of said Mr. Bushing's judgment or ethics based on what appears to be the undisputed fact that he failed to disclose that a "Dimaggio streak" bat he had "authenticated" was in fact one he owned. I admit to not being an expert on bats myself, but the facts speak for themselves here. As Bob Dylan sang, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."

[Archive]

Posted By: martindl

Anonymous

With all due respect, have you actually read any of these Bushing threads?

I've got what i think is a decent bat collection myself and have spent plenty of time talking to Dave Bushing. He's helpful, knowledgable and has always seemed to be a good guy.

But......If you forget about who that person is and just look at all the facts, i don't know how you can can make the arguement that because a person is "the foremost bat authenticator in the hobby" and "evey other person on the planet respects his opinion" that his actions are warranted and no one should question them. You didn't say that exactly, but that seems to be your intent.

As a collector of many things i want data and facts that show the item to be what it is. I'm not looking for some trumped up story, even when the story is coming from someone who is an expert; especially when that person is an expert.

a quote
"Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort them into what they are not. We cannot make facts. All our wishing cannot change them. We must use them."
John Henry Cardinal Newman

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

ANONYMOUS -

That was somewhat entertaining. Laughter is the best medicine. It's always nice to wake up to a good comedy routine.

I don't know Dave Bushing. All I know I've heard from others and most of it was positive until recently. I understood he was one of the top authorities on "bats" and even considered sending him a few to get his stamp of approval (which hopefully now, for others, isn't the kiss of death). I suppose we all start out with the best of intentions.

I'm not real religious but....

The love of money is the root of all evil - 1 Timothy 6:10

This weeks vocabulary list includes:

• Ethics
  
• Responsibility
  
• Greed
  

I can only hope that I can hold myself to a higher standard.

[Archive]

Posted By: Ryan Christoff

I agree with the previous posts. You have no credibility here if you post anonymously. There's no reason for a legitimate post to be made without signing your name to it.

I also find it interesting to have a post made by "AUTHINC" put under such scrutiny for its anonymous nature by the following:

Amy
PASJD
martindl
Judge Dred

Most of those are pretty anonymous as well, wouldn't you say? I think sometimes we might assume people know who we are if we post a lot and our login name is easy to recognize. I'm not suggesting that any of the mentioned posters are hiding anything or intended to post anonymously (as it would appear AUTHINC did) but did find it kind of ironic.

Of those posters, I suppose I know Amy's first name and I'm guessing Martin is another first name, but I don't even know that much about the other posters, in spite of seeing their login IDs regularly.

We all have login IDs. Why can't we also put our full names to our posts?

-Ryan

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Are that I agree with Ryan. Not sure I would want there to be NO anonymous posts but I am leaning that way, and certainly ones with controversy should have it's authors identified. Maybe there could be a link at the top of the page for id's, like the other ones? At any rate unless we know who you are your views really don't hold much water and should barely be allowed. For all we know it IS Mr. Bushing posting on his own behalf. Let me say too that I don't remember meeting him but might have so I only know what I read. It's not like he hasn't been a little covert from what I have read .....regards all

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

A man is as good as his word.

If the man won't identify himself it tells you a lot about the quality of his wordS.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

I am not posting as anonymous or any other unidentifiable name. And I do not know Dave Bushing. But I do know that he had a Dimaggio Streak bat sold as authentic without disclosing the fact that he was the authenticator. And I do know that any potential purchaser of such an item would desperately want to know that the consigner of the bat was also the authenticator -- and thusly would have a major finanical interest in claiming that the bat was real. And I do know that such an act makes it clear that Bushing is dishonest. Anyone who could trust this snake oil salesman after such a blatanly unethical act would have to be out of his mind.

Oh, and Anonymous, if you're reading this, try suing me instead of someone who does not have his own law firm, is not in the national media all the time and doesn't have the resouces to kick your ass in court.

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

why would anyone,who never posted here before, DEFENDING a blatant unethical act.use his real name?? I think if we saw an email address(option,just click the name & there it is)it is better than a name. but,i guess you can also have a bunch of these too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy R. Kinunen

The recurring theme in this post is there was a non-disclosure regarding the Joe DiMaggio bat and the fact that Dave Bushing was the authenticator/owner.
That statement is not entirely correct.

Throughtout the history of the auction business, Dave Bushing and other authenticators have been consigning to auction houses and authenticating. Never has there been an instance where the bidders were not made aware of the fact that Dave Bushing owned an item if that question was asked.

Also, in most instances and especially in cases where the pieces sold for substantial amounts of money, the potential and high bidders were directed to speak with Dave Bushing about the piece. Since it was his item, he was more than willing to discuss it and try to promote the item to achieve the highest price possible. The bidders were bidding knowing this. There has always been a policy of verbal disclosure. Collectors such as Marshall
Fogell and Richard Angrist have built world class collections. Some items were owned by Dave Bushing. Again, almost without exception, they spoke with Dave about the items as they were bidding.

The issue of disclosure has never been an issue to the collecting community up until the time of the Joe DiMaggio bat. Looking back, all of the comments and posts from this sight contain very valid points. Now please remember, Dave Bushing and all authenticators worked within accepted policies of the auction industry. Should there have been disclosure policies, absolutely. Once it became an issue, we instituted that policy within 30 days of it being brought to our attention.

SCDA has only been in existence since Janurary of 2004. As the director, I can only speak about the policies that I have been responsible for. When the DiMaggio bat sold and it became an issue, Dave Bushing, Dan Knoll, Lou Lampson, SCD, and myself immediately agreed to make changes to address the non-disclosure practices. We moved from a verbal disclosure to a written policy.

Our policy regarding conflict of interest include:

1. No authenticator can sell an item with a SCDA letter. To date, after the policy was adopted, this has been enforced 100%. I know this because I personally review each letter.

2. When an authenticator consigns an item to auction, on the back of each letter there is a check box. If an authenticator has any financial interest in that item, the box is checked. This discloses the fact that the authenticator owns the item. The bidder then has the option of 1. accepting that opinion 2. Getting a second opinion 3. Or passing on bidding if the bidder is not comfortable knowing the authenticator owned the item. If potential bidders are concerned about this, please ask the auction house to see the letter before bidding.

3. Also disclosed on the back of the letter is a money back guarantee issued by the authenticator for items that they own. If the piece is sent for another expert opinion and it is found that information was wrong, omitted, or proven to be incorrect, the authenticator, not the auction house, will issue a full refund. Also, the cost of the authentication will be paid for by our authenticator

4. SCDA has spoken with some of the auction houses and in the very near future is going to issue a letter to all auction houses that we are under contract with suggesting that any lots owned by the authenticators be posted in the catalog. We cannot dictate auction house policy, but we are more than willing to have these items disclosed in the catalogs. For the auction houses that are not willing to do so, bidders are protected by asking to see the LOA.


SCDA is at the forefront of authenticating and the forefront of policy change. We have instituted every policy suggested to us that made sense.

Some collectors are still going to be upset about the fact that Dave Bushing still buys and sells. Until the climate of the market changes, that will still continue. I hope the readers of this post see that we have taken steps to address these concerns and there can be balance between authenticators selling and authenticating.

We will continue to monitor this post and all postive suggestions and valid criticism is welcome.

Troy R. Kinunen



Director of Authentication, SCD Authentic

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"Never has there been an instance where the bidders were not made aware of the fact that Dave Bushing owned an item if that question was asked."

Puh-lease. Were you actually laughing when you typed this? What if any reasonable, honest potential purchaser couldn't possibly imagine that you would sell a bat as authentic which had been authenticated by its owner and not disclosed -- and therefore didn't bother to ask? That you are so proud that this minor little tidbit of information was provided -- only upon specific request, of course -- is amazing! Had you not provided this info when specifically asked, you'd be in prison now.

Next time I go buy a rare piece of art which turns out to be fake, would it be appropriate if the seller simply sniffs at me, "Well, if you had only bothered to ASK if the painting was fake I would have told you!"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Oh, and Troy, was my post "valid criticism?"

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

"Never has there been an instance where the bidders were not made aware of the fact that Dave Bushing owned an item if that question was asked."

"Some collectors are still going to be upset about the fact that Dave Bushing still buys and sells. Until the climate of the market changes, that will still continue. I hope the readers of this post see that we have taken steps to address these concerns and there can be balance between authenticators selling and authenticating."

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Are your new rules retroactive? ie. could H&B get their money back from Bushing on the DiMaggio bat? Not that they would do that as they seem to be willing to pass off a questionable bat as the real deal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy R. Kinunen

Dave Bushing has advised me he would be perfecty willing to buy back any and all bats if it is found that he has made an error or omission in the authentication process. This includes the Joe DiMaggio bat.

H&B was aware of the fact that Dave owned the bat before the sale was finalized.

SCDA will be set up at the following shows:

Feb. 27 - March 5 Hawaii Trade Show
March 4-6 Fort Washington, PA
March 18-20 Chicago Sun Times
June 24-26 SportsFest, Chicago
July 27-31 National Convention, Chicago
November 18-20 Chicago Sun Times

Dave Bushing will be at each of these shows. This is a good opurtunity to discuss any issues which concern members of this post.

Finally, if any of these board readers are located near a major auction house and would like to accompany SCDA during an authentication session, please email me and accomodations can be made.

Troy

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Troy, thanks for the response. I'm glad to see some changes are being made. Until such time that you require Mr Bushing and other authenticators to stop buying and selling items, their opinions on these items becomes meaningless because they have a vested interest in the item sold. This is a very serious conflict of interest. I want my authenticators to be impartial with no financial interest in the item.

Until such time that Mr Bushing stops having a finiancial interest in the items he authenticates AND discloses how he authenticated The Streak bat, his reputation as a authenticator is going to remain seriously tarnished.

There is no reason for any authenticator to hide what information he used to authenticate an item. Taking his word for it is not good enough. And to make a claim that a bat was use in The Streak, you better be preapred to provide all the proof you have that this item really is what you claim it to be. To my knowledge, Mr Bushing has never provided this information and makes me seriousy question the veracity of his claims. At the very least, he should be providing this material to you so that you can provide this information. I would think this something that you want to know if you are backing up Mr Bushing's claims.

This scandle about authenticators owning items they authenticate and not disclosing that fact should have been a non-issue. Common sense says that this should be openly disclosed, not something divulged only if you ask the right question. Your at least taken the first step to try to make things more kosher in this situation, now go the next step and start making your authenticators accountible for claims and no longer allow them to own and authenticate their own items so that their is no appearance of impropriety.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

What could possibly be the reason that Bushing's ownership of the bat he authenticated not be disclosed without asking that question? There can be only one, simple answer: had it been disclosed, the conflict would have been exposed and the bat sells for less. And all the little pigs make less money. End of story.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I completely agree with Jay and Jeff on this. If Mr.Bushing continues to sell his own authenticated memorabelia it is no different than a grading company selling their own graded cards. Can you say CU and PSA? I never did like the fact that CU sells/sold (don't know if they still do ...I think they might have quit) their own graded cards. Funny thing is that one of my best cards (SGC92 Buchner Kelly) was bought in a CU/PSA auction. I think it was the only card that wasn't graded by PSA, or one of the very, very few anyway. Now enough of the nonsense about buying, authenticating, and then selling your own stuff.....it gives a poor perception....and I am sure there is some latin/legal term for it

edited again to say it's America and folks can do as they may....I do think it's admirable that Mr.Bushing will let others authenticate his items and off a guarantee....

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Elkins

ASA!!!!!!!!! Someone with the ability to say something is REAL and from a certain time period or unaltered that is SELLING what they are AUTHENTICATING!?!?!?!? Maybe Bushing is the current Hager??????????????

[Archive]

Posted By: MW

Troy,

I don't think you should have to defend Dave on a public forum. Have you asked him why he doesn't come here and offer an explanation himself?

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

"Never has there been an instance where the bidders were not made aware of the fact that Dave Bushing owned an item if that question was asked."

And what if it wasn't asked? Then the buyer was just deceived into thinking the bat had been impartially authenticated. What kind of "disclosure" policy is that? Is this the memorabilia world's equivalent of "Don't ask don't tell?" And I agree with MW, given that Mr. Bushing is aware of the questions that have been raised, why does he not respond himself instead of using a proxy? And finally, if Mr. Bushing is truly setting himself up as the impartial world's leading authority on bats, he ought not to be selling his own. How difficult is that ethics lesson to grasp? It's called, and no latin needed here, a CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Look, we're all smacking our heads against the wall here, frustrated that Troy and Bushing don't seem to understand that a conflict of interest exists here which could affect the value of all Bushing authenticated/consigned materials. Do you actually think such greedy people don't get it? Of course they do. They just will never admit that they were wrong due to their concern about potential litigation and less cash in their pockets. Had this sort of omission occurred in a regulated industry, i.e., the securities industry, I assure you Eliot Spitzer would be on them like stink on sh*t.

If anyone has any proof of other "friendly mistakes or omissions" of Bushing, I would invite you to forward them to me. I'm a criminal defense attorney in New York City; I'll know what to do with them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

One problem I have with this situation is that Bushing bought the bat from the Henrich family himself (for $30,000 I believe). If he had received this through a third party I probably wouldn't be as upset about it. I just think he took advantage of the Henrich family. And I'm still waiting to hear how he authenticated this bat an A-10. Why is it so difficult to come here and let us know exactly how he authenticated it?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

He won't come in here and specifically provide details about how he authenticated it because it will be considered an admission in any litigation. Or perhaps he is so concerned about the beating he is taking in the court of public opinion due to his huge ethical lapse that he'll decide to come clean after all. Can anyone guess which road he'll take? Cough, cough.

[Archive]

Posted By: PASJD

1. He doesn't have time. He is too busy collecting 1000 autographs a day. Nope, sorry, that's Mastro's autograph guy, can't find the thread now but someone did an analysis showing how many autographs he would have had to collect a day if the preposterous claim about the total number were true.

2. He doesn't know how to use the internet. This seems consistent with his failure to respond to any of Robert Plancich's emails.

3. Since no serious questions have been raised, there is nothing that needs explanation.

4. H and B bought the bat, and they aren't complaining (they are too busy suing Robert on some bizarre legal theory), so who gives a you know what what a bunch of people on Network 54 think or want to know.

5. His lawyer told him not to say anything.

6. He has nothing to say because there is no credible evidence the bat was used during the Streak. (Hmmm 5 and 6 may overlap a bit.)

7. As Updike wrote of Ted Williams, "Gods do not answer letters."

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

As far as the excuses of SCDA go, excuse me while I shun your service. A judge who owns 100 shares of stock in IBM removes himself from trying a case about IBM because of the "appearance of impropriety." Remember that phrase, it is the key here. I don't want people who sell stuff to authenticate their own stuff because it looks fishy even if it is on the level. IMHO the opinion of an "expert" on his own item is always suspect, regardless of whether it is right or wrong ultimately. That's why we avoid situations that appear improper. Nothing may be amiss but that doubt is always there.

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

Troy:

You claim that H&B knew Bushing owned the bat (my assumption is you are claiming they knew he owned the bat BEFORE they bid on it, although you curiously didn't make that distinction).

Yet, Marshall Fogel (one of the prominent collectors you mention in your post) is quoted (among others) in a New York Daily News article that H&B did not know.

How can you prove H&B knew? (Right now it looks as though you are lying to cover up for an ugly scandal.)

As regards the rest of your post, why not refuse to provide authentication services to auction houses that refuse to make public in an item description whether an item has been authenticated by one of your SCDA authenticators who also happens to own the item?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Aaron, it's ahrd for SCDA to do something like that since most items would have been authenticated prior to going to the auction house. It's pretty much out of their hands at point.

You are correct though that pressure now needs to put on the auction houses to fully disclose things about the items they are offering. Between the Bushing scandal and the "stablization" of the Keeler, the auction houses need to do some house cleaning and "come clean", so to speak, about the items they are offering.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!

[Archive]

Posted By: dennis

"The whole controversy, Fogel adds, would never have erupted if Bushing had not committed what he considers a serious ethical breach. It was widely known that Bushing had extensively researched the bat and gave it an A-10, his highest mark.


But he didn't tell people he was the seller - and had every reason to pump it up (Hillerich & Bradsby didn't know Bushing was the seller until contacted by a Daily News reporter weeks after the sale." looks a little different than the post from scda

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I just went back and reread Troy's intial post. Very cleverly worded. I'm sure a lot time was spent flshing out that post before it was made.

He mentions the name of prominent collectors and how they talk to Bushing, but never says directly that Bushing ever told them or H&B that he was the owner of the bat or any other item they may have been interested in. He is honest when he says "Since it was his item, he was more than willing to discuss it and try to promote the item to achieve the highest price possible." Which also means he never disclosed the fact that he was owner unless asked that question. Ryan even states this in his post.

When I first read that post, I thought, wow, something good is coming about. To a degree it is. But after having reread his post, I realize it's just more selfserving spin and damage control. The perfect example is his statement "we were just operating within standard practices of the industry". What about holding yourself to a higher standard when it's obvious that standard practice is less than ethical?

Let's hope these changes are real and that SCDA will start holding Mr Bushing and others to higher standard. I'm not gonna hold my breath since there is way too much money to lost by doing this.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy R. Kinunen

This email was sent by Marshall Fogell to Michael O'Keefe. It was also forwarded to Dave Bushing.

SCDA has held itself to higher standards. We were the first authentication company to adopt these policies. My words were carefully worded because I was not present when Dave spoke about the bat. I was not spinning my response, I was being accurate. My home number is 414-828-9990. I would like to discuss this personally with each and every individual that has an issue with this matter.



SUBJECT SLUGGING IT OUT ARTICLE



DEAR MICHAEL



WE HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER AS FAR BACK AS THE DAYS YOU WORKED FOR THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS.

OUR ASSOCIATION IS WHY I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN EXPANDING MY VIEW OF DAVE (BUSHING).



I KNOW YOU WELL ENOUGH THAT YOU WOULD APPRECIATE MY COMMENTS AS I HAVE NEVER BEEN A QUIET PERSON IF I FEEL THAT THE PUBLIC IS ENTITLED TO KNOW THE “NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE”



WITH THESE COMMENTS AS BACKROUND, I DID NOT WISH TO CREATE ANY IMPRESSION THAT DAVE COMMITTED A SERIOUS ETHICAL BREACH AND THAT DAVE ABUSED HIS INFLUENCE.



MICHAEL, I HAVE KNOWN DAVE FOR OVER TEN YEARS. WE COAUTHORED A “BAT” BOOK TOGETHER. WE PIONEERED HOW TO DATE AND AUTHENTICATE PROFESSIONAL BASEBALL BATS. DAVE SOLD ME BATS AND HELPED ME BUILD WHAT IS UNIVERSALLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS THE BEST BAT COLLECTION KNOWN---INCLUDING THE HALL OF FAME.



DAVE IS, AS YOU KNOW, AN ACCEPTED NATIONALLY KNOWN AUTHENTICATOR AND I MUST SAY HE DESERVES THIS POSITIVE RECOGNITION.



I HAVE NEVER COME CLOSE TO ANY CONCLUSION THAT DAVE COMMITTED AND ETHICAL BREACH OR ABUSED HIS INFLUENCE. I HAVE WITHOUT QUESTION IN THE PAST AND PRESENTLY ON OCCASION HAVE DISAGREED PROFESSIONALLY WITH DAVE ON ISSUES AS TO THE SUBJECT OF BASEBALL BATS. THESE DISAGREEMENTS WILL PROBABLY NOT BE COMPLETELY RESOLVED AS OUR OPINIONS THOUGH OPPOSITE ARE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE RECONSTRUCTING HISTORY WHEN WE WEREN’T THERE TO SEE IT HAPPEN. WITH THIS SAID, AND MY INTIMATE KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT DAVE, I WITHOUT HESITATION ABLE TO STATE TO YOU MICHAEL THAT I HAVE NOW NOR EVER HAD ANY EVIDENCE THAT DAVE BUSHING COMMITTED A SERIOUS EHTICAL BREACH OR ABUSED HIS INFLUENCE.



AS TO THE DIMAGGIO BAT AND THE ISSUE OF DAVE STATING HE OWNS AT BAT FOR SALE THAT HE HAS AUTHENTICATED.



COLLECTING IS A GROWING AND EVOLVING COLLECTIBLE. I NEVER CONSIDERED THE NEED FOR A DEALER WHO AUTHENTICATES A BAT HE OWNS TO STATE SO IN AN AUCTION CATALOG.

WHEN IT BECAME REASONABLE TO DO SO, IT IS CLEAR THAT DAVE HAD NO PROBLEM DOING SO. AS AN OBSERVATION, THIS SUBJECT HAS NEVER BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE OTHER COLLECTIBLES AREAS. I STAND BY MY STATEMENT THAT AUTHENTICATORS WHO OWN AN OBJECT FOR SALE IN AUCTION AND WHO WRITE AN LOA REGARDLESS OF THE OBJECT SHOULD REVEAL THEIR OWNSHIP INTEREST. I RESPECT DAVE WHO WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST TO SET THIS STANDARD AT THE VERY TIME THE SUBJECT BECAME AN ISSUE. DAVE’S PAST PRACTICES WERE IN KEEPING WITH THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR ITS TIME. I ALSO STAND BY MY THE FACT THAT DAVE DOES TRY TO DO THE RIGHT THING WHICH IS PROVEN BY THE FACT THE HIS TIMING AS TO THE OWNERSHIP INTEREST RESOULUTION IS APPROPRIATE.



THE DIMAGGIO BAT CONTROVERSY, I BELIEVE, STANDS ON ITS OWN “LEGS” AND SHOULD BE VOID OF ACCUSATIONS OF WRONGDOING. LOUISVILLE SLUGGER MADE THE DECISION TO RELY ON AN EYEWITNESS ACCOUNT, IN PART, AND THIS IS AN ACCEPTABLE INDUSTRY STANDARD.



MICHAEL, IN CONCLUSION, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT ANY DEALER WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE SUED DEALERS IN THE PAST FOR WRONGDOING AND I HAVE THE REPUTATION FOR SPEAKING OUT WHEN I BELIEVE THERE IS PROVABLE BAD PRACTICES.



AS SUCH, DAVE BUSHING CREDIBLE OPINIONS AND UNDERSTANDABLE MISTAKES AND REASONABLE RESOLUTIONS SHOULD NOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR UNDERSERVED ACCUSATIONS.



I KNOW THAT YOU ARE REPORTING ALL SIDES OF CONTROVERSIES WHETHER IT IS THIS SUBJECT OR ANOTHER AND THE PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO KNOW AND DECIDE. PUBLIC CONTROVERSIES THROUGH THE PRESS CAN CERTAINLY LEAD TO IMPROVEMENT. IF I CAN BE A PART OF THIS IMPROVEMENT I WOULD WELCOME THE CHANCE AS I HAVE TRIED TO DO THROUGH OUR CONVERSATIONS. IN DOING SO, I KNOW YOU CARE ABOUT MY OPINONS AND I WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE WITH YOU A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF MY VIEW OF THIS SUBJECT.



BEST REGARDS,



MARSHALL

[Archive]

Posted By: Scott Forrest

when you say to remember the key phrase "shade of impropriety". This is something that never enters the minds of sports memorabilia authenticators.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Interesting read. So the DiMaggio bat is authenticated based on an eyewitness. I'm assuming that this eyewitness is Heinrich, who would also have a vested interest in this being a streak bat since he is the one that sold it to Bushing.

I'm sorry, but this reeks to high heaven and barely warrants being athenticated, let alone getting the highest grade possible. I would assume that getting this grade would involve irrefutable evidence.

And falling back on "it was standard practice" is a lame excuse. It doesn't mean that it's right. It's like the old mining and steel barons making people live company towns. It may have been stardard practice, but that doesn't mean that company towns were a right or good thing. you should be cleaning up your act and removing any appearance of impropriety PRIOR to any scandal breaking out.

You crow about no authenticator has sold an item that they authenticated since the policy was instituted. This obviously didn't happen too long ago, so bragging about this fact doesn't carry much weight. And I am sure Mr Bushing will just find a awy to disguise his interest an any items that come to sale in the future.

Thanks for the changes you've made. Let's hope they have some impact.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

So Marshall Fogel is saying that the DiMaggio bat was given an A-10 on one eyewitness account of a 93 year old man who forgot he had the bat for 60 years, never mentioned that he had this bat ever, was known to use the exact same model bat as DiMaggio, and was even known to borrow bats from DiMaggio? Not to mention the ballmarks on the bat correspond to Henrich and not DiMaggio.

Mastro claims that Henrich and DiMaggio were close friends, but Henrich is quoted as saying he never went out with DiMaggio once in the entire time they were teammates.

IMO Fogel is coming to Bushing's aid because he has as much to lose as Bushing does. All of these authenticators and auction houses have much to lose if it becomes common knowledge that even an A-10 from the world's foremost authority really means "maybe".

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Troy, I'll say again what I said before: the conflict of interest by Bushing is such that had your industry had even the remotest amount of governmental oversight, you would be on the wrong end of an investigation. We know it, you know it. Bushing's ethical breach was so great--yet it was not only not disclosed to the bidding public but you have the balls to come in here and say that he disclosed it to anyone who employed a psychic detective and asked the right question. I'm just curious, Troy: at what stage in your life did the pursuit of money override your love of sports?

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy R. Kinunen

Since members of this post are both passionate and suspicious regarding our methods of authentication for the Joe DiMaggio bat, all of us at SCDA are willing to offer the following:

SCDA will pay travel, lodging and meals for up to 5 members of this post to meet with us in either Milwaukee or Chicago. At that time, we will provide you with the shipping records from Louisville that we inspected, video footage of Joe DiMaggio using bats with labels both up and down, still photos of Joe DiMaggio using bats with labels both up and down, a review of the video taped session with Tommy Henrich, and we will also explain the financial arrangements regarding ownership and payments recieved from the sale of this bat which affected our authenticators . All other related documents will be offered for viewing at this time.

Also, if any members take me up on this offer, I will get sworn statements from all potential bidders as to at what point of the auction they were made aware of the fact that Dave Bushing owned the bat. I was not privy to these conversations, so if warranted, I will begin to get accurate records of the bidding procedure. I also extend this offer to Michael O'Keefe if interested. He has declined to meet with us in person upon two different invitations.

For the record, this offer was extended to some of the original parties involved that questioned the authentication of the Joe DiMaggio bat. My one request was that the entire session be video taped. I am going to request the same for this offer also so all facts will be accureately represented and chronicled.

The members of this board have been very critical of SCDA. Lets see if anyone is willing to really find out the facts about this bat. We are willing to provide them.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Troy, you're on to us: we just want to bitch for bitching's sake.

I nominate the most knowledgable two people on the board, Robert Plancich and his attorney. Oh, and me too (you can never have enough attorneys at these sort of things).

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Troy, I left a message with you in your voicemail. You can contact me by the phone number I left you or email me at nudan92@yahoo.com

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy R. Kinunen

Dan Bretta has committed. There are 4 more spots available.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Troy, I just responded to your email. Count me in since I can easily make myself available.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!

[Archive]

Posted By: Judge Dred

Save a seat for Robert Plancich. Maybe he'll take you up on it this time.

[Archive]

Posted By: Troy R. Kinunen

jay has committed. 3 spots left.

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

Troy: Thanks for posting Fogel's e-mail. Of course nowhere in it does Fogel retract his statement that H&B did not know beforehand that Bushing owned the bat, so you've essentially confirmed the following:

1. H&B did not know the bat was owned by Bushing prior to purchasing the bat.

2. Marshall Fogel believes that H&B did not know the bat was owned by Bushing prior to purchasing it.

When you are able to offer proof that H&B knew beforehand that Bushing owned the bat, I'm sure the entire collecting community would be eager to see it.

You also ignored my second question: If auction houses refuse to include information in an item description that the authenticator and owner of an item are the same person, that SCDA will no longer provide authentication services to such auction house.

You want to get your credibility back?

That's the way to do it.

You want to keep getting money from auction houses without rocking the boat?

Then keep on your present course and accept that the credibility of SCDA is forever tarnished and will continue to be the object of suspicion and derision for what most consider to be unethical practices.

On the same note, you seem to be purposefully missing a couple points here: The major complaint (and source of suspicion of Bushing and SCDA's authentication methods) stems from your failure to disclose to potential bidders that Bushing owned the bat he himself had authenticated (and confirmation that thse types of consignments are commonplace and have been for years).

And before you offer the "this information was available to anyone who asked answer," I would like to say that I, as a potential bidder, did not know Bushing owned the bat, and did not know that Bushing and/or SCDA owned any lot in any auction for the past four years that it provided authentication services for.

I would imagine 99% of the posters on this site would share this position.

Unfortunately, I'm not a "top collector" who was apparently aware that this practice was going on. I didn't even suspect that SCDA would tolerate such an obvious and blatant conflict of interest and breach of ethical standards and conceal vital information from its customers.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, SCDA and Dave Bushing are guilty of deception by omission, by failing to make public an obvious conflict of interest that could severely question the validity of the authentication of the bat (and the motivation for such validity) and change a potentials bidders mind about bidding on an item he might otherwise have no reason to be suspicious of.

I've purchased several items in major sports auctions over the past few years that were authenticated by Dave Bushing and/or SCDA. I am now suspicious about all of them (one jersey in particular).

I would like to know that if I provide you with the auction and lot number, would you reveal if Bushing, SCDA or any of its authenticators was, in fact, the consignor as well?

[Archive]

Posted By: Aaron

Agreed. Robert Planich should be on the trip. Since suing him obviously hasn't made the issues he raised (and revealed) go away, you should try dealing with him as a concerned collector, just as you seem to be offering collectors here. (You should also drop your lawsuit against him since it just makes you guys look more guilty by trying to silence a whistle-blower.)

BTW, if you think flying five collectors out for a carefully arranged visit to "examine" your authentication process (great PR move!) is a better idea than to take a strong, ethical stand and stop allowing your authenticators to act as dealers and consignors, then you guys are in worse shape than you think.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

SCDA is not the one suing Robert. It is H&B. If you read Troy's post, SCDA no longer allows their authenticators sell items that they themselves have authenticated. I'm sure there are ways around that, but at least it's a start. Now if we could only get Mastro and the other auction houses to disclose when an item has been "stablized", restored, cleaned up, etc.

I do agree that Robert should be one of the people on this trip since he is the one that brought this to light and is the one the that asked to see the evidence and documention that proves the bat is what it is claimed to be. If SCDA can convince him that the bat is as claimed, then his lawsuit will go away since he would have to come forward to say that the bat is as claimed.

Jay

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!