Is this a photomatch

[yanks12025]

I was wondering if these look good to you guys. The bat was cracked the next day, so im guessing its the same bat. if any one can help find more good photos it would be great. This is right before he hit a 2 run homerun.

[yanks12025]

Here's acouple more photos. I think he started using this bat around 9/1.

[yanks12025]

Any thoughts.

[kingjammy24]

my thoughts: there's nothing to match.

honestly, some of the matches being done here really surprise me. to me, a photomatch leaves absolutely no doubt. that's the value of them. yet there are numerous postings asking if something is a match. if it isn't obvious, then it probably isn't. the mere fact that you're asking and aren't sure means it isn't a match. if it were, it'd be obvious and you'd be sure. i see several "matches" that really stretch things. someone once posted a whole stack of their mcgwire gamers. holy smokes wouldn't you know it all of the bats exhibited extremely similar pine tar placement and location of ball marks. i guess that's what collectors refer to as "player characteristics". yet i see matches on here that are entirely based on roughly similar pine tar placements. i see matches that are seriously based on some incredibly blurry mlb.tv photo, 20 ft away, showing what could either be a nick on the bat or some lint on the photo lens. how many bats does a player go through in a year? dozens? how many of those are going to show similar rack marks, ball marks, pine tar placement?

yanks: your photos show ballmarks on the barrel and your bat shows ball marks on the barrel. something tells me he had a ton of bats with ballmarks on the barrel. the photo you show with a ballmark circled is so completely out of focus and far away as to be completely useless for the purposes of establishing an undoubted link. the reason noone replied is because there's nothing to reply to. there's nothing to match in them.

to photomatch ballmarks you need to get a photo close enough to match the actual shape and unique markings of that specific ballmark.

i understand everyone really wants a photomatched item but stretching it beyond the bounds of reason isn't helpful.

rudy.

[yanks12025]

Rudy,
Before you go on a hate streak or something, i was talking about the line going through the ball mark. And its not like i picking a photo taken months before the mlb hologram says it was broken, i picked on that was a day before. Sorry for asking for your opinions.

[kingjammy24]

Rudy,
Before you go on a hate streak or something, i was talking about the line going through the ball mark. And its not like i picking a photo taken months before the mlb hologram says it was broken, i picked on that was a day before. Sorry for asking for your opinions.

what line? i'm squinting as hard as i can and i can't see anything. in the first photo, i see what appears to be a really faint smudge of some sort, maybe a ballmark. i don't see anything that links them up conclusively.
i'm not on a hate streak, i'm explaining why noone responded; likely because you've posted photos from which nothing can be concluded. the getty photos, show a bat that's gotta be 15 feet away so how can you photomatch a single ballmark from 15 feet away?

it's not a hate streak and there's certainly nothing i have against you. it's just this somewhat recent flurry of people posting photos asking if something is a match. my point was that if it was a match, then you wouldn't need to ask because it'd be obvious. when 2 things line up perfectly and without a doubt, then what's left to ask? it's not like anyone here has microscopic vision. we've all got the same set of eyes. either it matches or it doesn't and when it does, it's obvious. some poster, awhile back, posted another "is this a match?" question and he had a black bat and he posted 1 photo of the player holding a black bat from what was like 80 feet away. the only similarity seen in the pics was that the bats were both black. sometimes i just don't know what some people think or expect others are going to see. like he couldn't see anything but kyle or myself would look at the photo with our cyborg eyeballs and see something noone else could?

you chose a photo that matched up to the mlb database but how does that help in establishing a match in those specific photos? the dates match up so therefore it's got to be a match? the photos just don't show anything, same date or not.

rudy.

[nomarmauerfan]

Yanks,
I, like you, believe you have a match. You can see the space between the two halves of the ball mark. I believe you have a match. Nice bat!!!

Mike

[kudu]

I see a photomatch with the gettyphoto on the right. If you could get a higher resolution on that photo, you could probably get a definite match. There are two clear ballmarks between the Rawlings logo and Big Stick that look to match the marks on the actual bat photo.

[kingjammy24]

I see a photomatch with the gettyphoto on the right. If you could get a higher resolution on that photo, you could probably get a definite match. There are two clear ballmarks between the Rawlings logo and Big Stick that look to match the marks on the actual bat photo.

what's the difference between a "photomatch" and a "definite match"? is a photomatch tentative? i thought they were one in the same.

anyway, if you could get a higher res photo then perhaps you could get a "definite match" (ie: photomatch). however, without that higher res photo, nothing can be established conclusively enough to call it a photomatch which was my entire point. the photos at hand, as they are, are inconclusive. you seem to agree because you say that higher res photos are necessary which implies the current photos are inconclusive.

anyway, as to the photo you reference, i see 4 ballmarks. personally, i'd be hardpressed to say that, for a guy who probably lands most of his ballmarks on the same part of the bat, if we'd just get a higher res photo then that photo would show a "definite match". you can't even see the specific shapes of the unique ballmarks for petes sake. anyway, i'm done. if folks want to take the easy street to photomatching, then more power to them. they'll get "matches" on all of their items from blurry photos taken 30 ft away that leave enough room for doubt. dave grob has been railing against sloppy, inconclusive matching for years and i certainly see his point.

truly, it's hard to believe that you call the ballmarks in the first photo "clear".

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/7193/batje4.jpg

rudy.

[Yankwood]

I like it. Looks good to me.

[ndevlin]

Actually Rudy, I do agree with you for the most part. I dont know about this particular thread and nothing against anyone in this thread either, but most of the time people throw so called photomatches on here that show no substantial evidence of a match.

Nothing against the members, but here are some examples I dont quite get......

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=64538&postcount=180

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=53904&postcount=149

[cigarman44]

Come on! That Thome bat is without a doubt a match! :rolleyes:

[indyred]

That Bay bat looks like a solid match. The screen shot shows that exact same ball mark with seam impression. I wish I could that good of screen shots.

[kingjammy24]

Actually Rudy, I do agree with you for the most part. I dont know about this particular thread and nothing against anyone in this thread either, but most of the time people throw so called photomatches on here that show no substantial evidence of a match.

Nothing against the members, but here are some examples I dont quite get......

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=64538&postcount=180

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showpost.php?p=53904&postcount=149

the thome bat: i can't even tell what's being circled. the LVS/M9 logo? thome's replica signature and team label on the barrel? ie: the features that are stamped on dozens of bats that were shipped to him that year.

remember that kid who came on here a year or so ago and said he could "photomatch anything" and charged $5? all he ended up doing was circling nonsense. he'd circle the LVS center label and he'd circle a model number. all sorts of drivel. one bat would have 10 ballmarks on it and the other would have 2 and coincidentally they'd share 1 ballmark in roughly the same spot and he'd circle that one.

anyway, here's the thread i was referring to earlier:

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?p=105741

for reference sake, i made an composite of the images included in the post:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/3517/batsx5.jpg

with all due respect, what exactly am i supposed to be looking at here?

the fact that both bats are black? i can barely see any distinguishing marks on the getty photos. what possible conclusion could anyone realistically come to via those photos? anything beyond the fact that russell martin used black bats and made contact with some of them would be a massive stretch.

i mean think of it; players go through dozens of identical bats in a season and hit a zillion balls with them. many of them are going to show very similar ballmarks in very similar places. very little certainty can be ascertained from a small, blurry photo taken 40 ft away. you can point vague similarities but that's all they are without some serious hardcore matching. look, barry meisel/meigray offer a photomatching service. they charge a good amount. i once inquired with him about it and he quoted me an average price of $100-$200. what you'll get in return though is an actual, honest to god photomatch where you can look at the 11x14 crystal clear, hi-res photo provided and your item and not have a single doubt that it's obviously the same item. it's not going to be some 2" x 3" blurry mlb.tv screenshot matching one vague, fuzzy blob to a ballmark on your bat requiring you to pray and hope that that fuzzy blob is indeed even a ballmark and the very same exact one at that. from the photos you can barely make anything out so hope and prayer is all you've got left with some of these "photomatches". you can't even see any of the details of the specific marks. some of them are as conclusive as the sasquatch videos floating around. at least in the sasquatch videos, i can make out some of the details.

a photomatch significantly raises the value of a piece. truthfully, i'd rather have a solid photomatch than ironclad provenance. it's disingenous to think that pieces are increasing in value with some of these garbage "matches".

rudy.

[kudu]

I took the NESN photo and lightened it up a bit so that the ballmarks show better.

15565

And you can kinda see the black line going through the ballmark, like you were saying. I still think the getty image on the right is your best bet for a photomatch.