Mystery white substance on a bat.... what is it?

[dplettn]

Any guesses or knowledge as to what this substance is or might be?

[Birdbats]

Cowhide transfer from a batted ball.

[Wrigley2010]

Cowhide transfer from a batted ball.

I'm fairly certain Jeff is correct. It's the most probable and logical answer.

[cfern023]

Could it be tape.

[yankees506]

Cowhide transfer from a batted ball.

+100000000
Have quite a few bats with this, it's from a baseball

[Roady]

+100000000
Have quite a few bats with this, it's from a baseball

Me too. That is 100% leather from a baseball.

[johnsontravis@ymail.com]

Wow I had this on a black bat and figured it was a mark left from tape(though it made a lot of sense since there was tape on the barrel for a reason). Anyhow I guess I learn things every day on here.

[dplettn]

I am always very impressed by the knowledge accessible in our forum when good folks, as here, are willing to contribute their insights.

On my same 2013 bat, here is a smaller speck elsewhere of what I now believe to be the same substance (having come from the other) which I believe to have fallen off or scraped off within the bat tube, stayed along the same vertical plane, and reattached to some damp pine tar on the bat's handle.

Have others experienced cowhide transfer chipping or scraping off a bat? My impression is that cowhide transfer seems very different in nature from ink transfer.

[Wrigley2010]

Let me add another possibility as to what white markings on a bat can be. A transfer from a baseball is absolutely the most common reason/occurrence. With that being said I've owned both a Martin Prado and Vlad Guerrero bat that had field chalk stuck to the pine tar that looked a lot like that bat handle.

[Nnunnari]

It's leather from a ball that has not been rubbed down with Miss mud. BP ball mark.

[emann]

Let me add another possibility as to what white markings on a bat can be. A transfer from a baseball is absolutely the most common reason/occurrence. With that being said I've owned both a Martin Prado and Vlad Guerrero bat that had field chalk stuck to the pine tar that looked a lot like that bat handle.

+1

I have a couple bats and cleats with chalked dirt stuck to them. I've seen it stuck in pine tar and stuck to the barrel end of the bat (banged in the dirt around home plate I'd assume).

[dplettn]

I just want to say thank you to all those who have contributed to this thread. The sharing of insights is just fantastic.

[danesei@yahoo.com]

It's leather from a ball that has not been rubbed down with Miss mud. BP ball mark.

I'm not asking this facetiously...

How would the muddy water rub on the outside of the ball affect the exposed leather under the surface of the ball? How many microns thin would the piece of leather need to be in order for the mud on the outside to have penetrated the lower layers?

[Roady]

It's leather from a ball that has not been rubbed down with Miss mud. BP ball mark.

NO, it is not necessarily a BP mark.
Unless the ball flips inside out when hit by the bat or the mud somehow gets rubbed on the inside of the leather of the ball, both which are impossible.

The leather you are seeing is not the outside leather of the ball. That leather is against the wood of the bat.
The leather you are seeing on the bat is under the outside leather of the ball.

[Roady]

I'm not asking this facetiously...

How would the muddy water rub on the outside of the ball affect the exposed leather under the surface of the ball? How many microns thin would the piece of leather need to be in order for the mud on the outside to have penetrated the lower layers?

It wouldn't. You are correct in thinking his thinking is wrong.

[Roady]

A few more thoughts on BP baseballs, game used balls,and the mud.

Anyone who collects game hit baseballs will tell you that not all of them have the same amount of mud on them. I guess it depends on the pitcher's preference (you see them rubbing the mud off while on the mound), how many times the ball has been put back into play, etc...

I have balls that are as slick as a babies butt and brownish in color because of the mud on the them.
I also have balls, authenticated by MLB mind you, that don't look to have any mud on them at all. Very white except for the dirt or grass or bat marks or the combination on them.

[Nnunnari]

NO, it is not necessarily a BP mark.
Unless the ball flips inside out when hit by the bat or the mud somehow gets rubbed on the inside of the leather of the ball, both which are impossible.

The leather you are seeing is not the outside leather of the ball. That leather is against the wood of the bat.
The leather you are seeing on the bat is under the outside leather of the ball.

What? It's leather from the surface of the ball. Typically from non-rubbed balls traveling at lower speeds. This fake Jeter is a perfect example.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=61206

[yanks12025]

What? It's leather from the surface of the ball. Typically from non-rubbed balls traveling at lower speeds. This fake Jeter is a perfect example.

http://www.gameuseduniverse.com/vb_forum/showthread.php?t=61206

I also disagree. And the leather mark shown is from under the surface of the baseball. For example, if you take a piece of tape and stick it to the bat the sticky side will not be shown but rather the non sticky side. So just like a baseball that is rubbed with mud, the mud side won't be the side shown on the bat.


Also I'm pretty sure parts of the leather will come off considering how hard they hit a baseball(have you not seen photos of bats bending, balls being squashed in slow mo).

[Nnunnari]

I also disagree. And the leather mark shown is from under the surface of the baseball. For example, if you take a piece of tape and stick it to the bat the sticky side will not be shown but rather the non sticky side. So just like a baseball that is rubbed with mud, the mud side won't be the side shown on the bat.


Also I'm pretty sure parts of the leather will come off considering how hard they hit a baseball(have you not seen photos of bats bending, balls being squashed in slow mo).

Wrong. Notice the tiny holes in the leather transfer, those holes match up with the same color leather still on the surface of the ball. I would get these marks while hitting soft toss with new balls. Do you think the guy who faked the Jeter bat was having someone fire 90 mph fastballs at him and risk shattering the bat? No, someone was lobbing him, non- game prepped balls.

[yanks12025]

First off, the OP bat and the jeter look nothing alike. The orginal posters spot is. Rey small while the jeter is huge and shows the seams.

[Roady]

Wrong. Notice the tiny holes in the leather transfer, those holes match up with the same color leather still on the surface of the ball. I would get these marks while hitting soft toss with new balls. Do you think the guy who faked the Jeter bat was having someone fire 90 mph fastballs at him and risk shattering the bat? No, someone was lobbing him, non- game prepped balls.

You really are 100% wrong on this.
Unless a baseball can turn it's leather inside out when hit by a bat, which is not possible.
Anyone who has played baseball with a wooden bat has gotten these pieces of leather on their bat before.

[Roady]

>Not my bat but knowing those transfers are on Stantons bats a lot I found this online.

[Roady]

Chase Utley bat with leather transfer

[Roady]

Check out this Matt Harvey bat from Golden Auctions.
http://www.goldinauctions.com/lot-6860.aspx

"Looking at this bat you wouldn’t think it necessarily belonged to a pitcher; a barrage of blue ink ball marks, white leather scuffs and stitching impressions surround the barrel of this Louisville Slugger M9 model C243 Matt Harvey professional model 34-inch, 33.2-ounce bat."

[Roady]

the PSA/DNA letter of authenticity with the Harvey bat.
Notice the mention of white leather scuffs.