Pujols "rookie" bat on eBay

[Birdbats]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Auth-Rookie-yr-Albert-Pujols-game-used-Auto-bat-w-COA_W0QQitemZ230333675330QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_Def aultDomain_0?hash=item230333675330&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2|65%3A10|39%3A1|240%3A1318 (http://cgi.ebay.com/Auth-Rookie-yr-Albert-Pujols-game-used-Auto-bat-w-COA_W0QQitemZ230333675330QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_Def aultDomain_0?hash=item230333675330&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A2%7C65%3A10%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318)

Though this bat is advertised as a rookie year bat, I have my doubts. Albert's records show no orders for uncupped C243 bats until 9/13/02. All of his C243 bats until then were cupped on the end. One of the letters supposedly shows the bat being broken, but Albert is wearing a 2002 jersey (the DK57 patch on his sleeve is the giveaway). And the auction was held after the 2002 season. Nothing on any of the letters says this is a 2001 bat.

The seller says the same bat was offered at a 2001 auction but didn't meet reserve and was offered again the next year. However, the only uncupped bats ordered by Pujols in 2001 were R205 models, and they were black. What's more, he specifically says it was used in game 41 during Albert's rookie season. Game #41 was played on May 19. Other than the black R205 bats (shipped 1/5/01), there are no other orders on Albert's records until 6/1/01. So, the story just doesn't add up.

The bat and the paperwork appear to be legit, but claiming that it's a rookie bat conflicts with evidence to the contrary.

I've shared this information with the seller.

[suave1477]

Hello Jeff, I agree with you.

By the looks of it the seller is TRYING to attribute this bat from Pujols rookie season. Indeed it is not from then.

Wheter he is doing it knowingly or not.

The only thing on this bat is Pujols added the inscription ROY 01 which is just an inscription of an accomplishment, nothing more.

So either he purchased the bat originally thinking it meant it was his rookie bat and trying to resell it as such. Or he knowingly is not his rookie bat and trying to play off the inscription hoping to fool someone into think it is a rookie bat so can make sure he gets top dollar for the bat.

He also claims the picture on the LOA is of the same exact bat, I do not see how he can tell that, since there is not enough picture to make a positive idenification.

The picture is most likely just a generic photo.

So again he is trying to say that picture attributes to this exact bat confirmming it is a rookie because that is what he actually believes or just trying to hope the ROY 01 and the picture most likely dated from his rookie season will convince someone it is his rookie bat.

[Birdbats]

Just received this reply from the seller:

"I will change the description per your comments. I am going off what I was told at the time of purchase, but misleading is definitely not what I am out to do. I appreciate the feedback."

[Skillz]

What if the date was 4-1? April 1 ST?


Sunday, April 1
St. Louis vs. Seattle @ Seattle (1:35 p.m.)

Just a thought?

[STLCardinalscollector]

Just a thought, but could the seller think that it is from game 41 because of what it says on the knob? Maybe it is just a "game" bat that is 34/31. Just a thought.
David

[cigarman44]

Just a thought, but could the seller think that it is from game 41 because of what it says on the knob? Maybe it is just a "game" bat that is 34/31. Just a thought.
David

You are correct. That is the length and weight.

[bigtruck260]

Just a thought, but could the seller think that it is from game 41 because of what it says on the knob? Maybe it is just a "game" bat that is 34/31. Just a thought.
David

That was my thought when I saw it.

What this proves to me is that there are some collectors out there with some really great stuff - and have no idea what some stuff really is...This is a great bat with solid pedigree, but the description is enough to give me a headache. It's a valuable bat on it's own - but since it was won in a charity auction, there is no telling what he really paid. This fact alone makes me wonder if he is really not aware that it isn't a rookie bat - or if he is playing the part of the undeducated seller:rolleyes:

When people go to sell stuff from charity auctions, they usually end up taking a loss. I have seen some stuff sell for Cardinals care at 3-4 times what they would go for on the regular secondary market. Because of this, I have seen some really terrible descriptions - usually to build up an item to be better than it actually is...

Honestly, when I look at the photos, it looks to have only been used a couple of times before it cracked. Maybe it's the photos, but it's certainly not hammered...I wonder what the going rate is for a Pujols sophomore bat with light use, signed, inscribed ROY '01 (rare) and good paperwork?

Probably pretty good. Not Rookie good, but still enough to make a few payments on my 2004 Dodge Dakota.:D