Why minus points for proof of use???

[33bird]

Those McGwire bats look solid, especially the Card's bat. I wouldn't know what to grade them, but I'd be happy with both. So, it sounds like two different kinds of deadwood. 1. From repeated contact with ball. 2. From aging. I could understand getting a minus if it was from aging, but I still disagree with a minus for having deadwood from repeated contact with ball. I think Jim is correct. Just because Mears or Taube grade a certain way doesn't mean everybody agrees or has to accept the process. It all depends on what the collector is looking for. Some collectors like lots of use, where others are looking for an issued or light use gamer that is pretty. To each his own I guess.
Greg

[33bird]

I don't know if people love "cracks" on their bats. I don't. But, it is a good sign of use. I don't have a problem with cracks that lay flat. I have a Bench 1976 bicentennial bat that has great use and had an "eye sore crack" too in the mid-handle. I had Fred Lowman fix it and it's a beauty now. Another To Each His Own issue. Some cracks I'd have fixed, others I wouldn't. I like to be able to swing the bat without it sounding like it might break in two. If offered the same bat, one with a crack and one without, I would take the one without the crack. But, the point of the thread was: Why get a minus for a crack? I thought bats were graded to PROVE it was really used by said player? It sounds like they're getting graded for beauty points too, and some collectors are bothered by that-including me. Just my 2 cents.
G.Todd