"CAL RIPKEN" stampings on '91-'97 black P72

[ripkengamers]

Mike,
Not so much a batting record but more regarding the stampings on a Cal Ripken bat offered on Mastro:

Something strikes me funny about this bat....................I've owned many Ripken bats and I don't ever recall seeing any post 1991 LVS P72's of Cal Ripken having this strange script for his name especially without the "Jr" appended to it.................This script is not the coventional script I'm used to seeing on Ripken bats. I've only seen "Cal Ripken" without the "Jr." only on his early vintage '81-83 model bats and on his Rawlings bats. Do you have more insight?????

Thanks.

http://www.mastroauctions.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayContent&ContentName=Lot%20Information&LotIndex=63509

[MSpecht]

Check out the info on this thread under "Current Auction Items" Forum. Here is the link: http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=5111

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[sportscentury]

Please see the thread to which Mike makes reference. I corresponded with John Taube about the bat. This is a Cal Ripken Jr. ordered, issued, and game used bat - the L.S. factory made an error and used the wrong stamp (the stamp of Cal Ripken Sr.) but Cal Sr. only had fungo bats ordered for him during that time; this bat matches Jr's order records perfectly, per John. This is not my bat and I have no financial interest in it whatsoever - just trying to help.
Reid

[MSpecht]

Collectors have asked me about the possibility of a 'factory mistake' in situations such as described here. Certainly, mistakes can happen. In this instance, let's examine the possibility.

Regarding the shipping records from 1/8/91 to 12/6/97, Ripken Jr was shipped approximately 862 bats for his professional use. Of these bats, all 35-inch Model P72 bats with a black finish were shipped awith a weight of 33 ounces. The weight of the subject bat is described at 32 ounces, with is within an acceptable range of variance for most authenticators, based on game preparation, storage conditions, etc.

In addition to the approximately 862 bats shipped to Ripken Jr for his professional use during that label period, literally thousands of 35-inch (no weight specified) black Ripken Jr signature bats were shipped to various promotional companies, including shipments to Baseball Promotions, The Ball Yard, Front Row Cards, Anaconda-Kaye, Herman's World, Tufton Group (2100 bats in 1995 alone), Ball & Shoe Sports, and others, including the Orioles themselves. Hundreds more were shipped in other models, lengths, and finishes to those, and other, promotional companies.

That being said, it becomes obvious that, during this period, there was a very large demand for Ripken Jr signature model bats, both professionally and for promotional use. Is it possible that the demand caused, at some point, a production run with the use of Ripken Sr 's signature on the barrel?

There is more than just labeling and that is considered during the authentication process. Review of available records and objective analysis of professional game use is key, and John Taube is highly regarded as an astute authenticator. Additionally, a review of Ripken Sr 's shipping records, as John has done, pretty much eliminates the possibility of the subject bat being ordered by Ripken Sr as a coach during this labeling period in 1991 or 1992.

The logical conclusion, therefore, is that the error was made during the manufacturing process, based on the four factors examined above:

1. Increased production of Ripken Jr bats during this period as documented in H & B factory records;
2) Comparison of subject bat with Ripken Jr shipping records and individual
game use characteristics;
3) Comparison of subject bat with Ripken Sr shipping records; and
4) Critical analysis of professional game use.

As an aside, I would personally like to see auction houses employ the necessary software, much of which is already in use, to provide a link from each auction item page from which to access all available LOA's issued on the specific item, which would give the potential bidders an opportunity to make some independent decisions about each item without having to telephone or email the auction houses for the basic relevent information. Just a thought.

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[sportscentury]

As an aside, I would personally like to see auction houses employ the necessary software, much of which is already in use, to provide a link from each auction item page from which to access all available LOA's issued on the specific item, which would give the potential bidders an opportunity to make some independent decisions about each item without having to telephone or email the auction houses for the basic relevent information.

Mike,

Good analysis. Also, as you know, I agree with you 100% regarding this last point you made. If auction houses would do this (and I think it would be relatively simple), it would save auction houses, consignors, and bidders many, many problems, save a lot of time, and answer many questions that are raised by interested parties.

Reid