‘Powerized’ Branding Variation on 1976 H & B Bicentennial Bats --- What ???

[yanks12025]

Sorry, should have been more clear. I was trying to say what if some stamped the Bicentennial logo onto the bats.

[ironmanfan]

Mike:

You did a good job communicating the thoughts that were running through my head last week.......

Show me a Jack Brohamer or an Ed Goodson and I may think otherwise, but it seemed awfully odd that the presence of the Powerized labeling appeared to be skewed toward the star players...

[sayhey24]

Mike,

That is tremendous research and a great service for the entire hobby.

Greg

[metsbats]

Mike,

We've this type of doctoring of unused modern day era players to "game used" bats alot. This is the first time I've seen a vintage bat go thru the this cycle and actually flagged. Great job!

As an aside John Taube told me there may be 1976 bats without the BiCentennial stamps too. He indicated the only way to verify this is a bat will have to match a unique order in 1976 and not have the liberty bell stamp.

One would have to assume that this variation if they truly exist would be ultra-rare.

Thanks

[ironmanfan]

As an aside John Taube told me there may be 1976 bats without the BiCentennial stamps too. He indicated the only way to verify this is a bat will have to match a unique order in 1976 and not have the liberty bell stamp.

There was actually photo evidence of that in that thread that Mike linked

[bagbig]

Incredible research, great job. Thanks!

[metsbats]

There was actually photo evidence of that in that thread that Mike linked

Thanks ironmanfan. It's amazing how much more there was to learn here after we all thought we knew all there was to know about these 76 HBs!

Great stuff!

[MSpecht]

Dave Grob has made additional posts on this subject on the MEARS Bulliten Board site at :


http://www.network54.com/Forum/427155/message/1263679899/Mike+Specht%27s+Article+on+1976+Branding+Variation s


As always, Dave's comments and observations are intellectually astute and interesting. Basically, we are saying much the same thing. A portion of Dave's post states:

"Tied to this is Mikes observation that a number of bats bearing this version of Powrized, Liberty Bell, and Model # on the barrel appear to be of players of provenance and largely with little or no use. Mike also suggests that based on the auction lot groupings, they may have all come a single source. While the first point is an observable observation and the second (sourcing) may well be true as well, they have to be considered with some sort of context nested back to the seminal issue, theories to explain this branding variation.


Explanations for what we are seeing might run the gamut of: Just another branding variation for the year in question.

To Bats produced for some other purpose other than professional issuance and use.


All of this should be explained and justified before addressing the use/non-use issue. If you accept the premise that this is a just another branding variation, but the bats may not have been shipped to the players, this may explain how one person may have been able to obtain them at one time. Could it have been that these bats showing no use where produced for the players at some time during the 1976 season, but never shipped? This is possible, but then to you also have contented with the fact that if so, then others could have been produced for other less desirable players and disposed of in some other manner."


There is no significant disagreement between our positions, but I would like to clarify a bit. The basis of my post was initially to focus on the small number of the dual branded bats that have actually surfaced in the hobby (less than 20 that we could track down) and that they all displayed strikingly similar characteristics -- basically high profile players with little, if any, professional game use evident. No conclusion was made whether these were professional model bats or something other than that. The focus was on use, and the liklihood whether these bats had ever been in the players hands.


Unfortunately, during the research of these bats, things took an ugly turn. It became obvious, and well documented with photographic evidence, that one of these bats had received manufactured game use ( faked game use) between the time it was apparently introduced into the hobby (2002) and its current (2010) resting place in a GUF member's collection. For that reason, the ultimate thrust of the article was to be very, very careful when encountering these bats, as the liklihood of these bats (although they may well be professional grade) having seen actual use in Major League games has not yet been determined, and, at this time, the scales are heavily weighted against them.

Mike jackitout7@aol.com

[earlywynnfan]

Now this is the kind of post that makes this forum worthwhile. This has to be the most informative post I've seen since "Robert the Helmet Genius" took his sabbatical.

Thank you so much, Mike!

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[suicide_squeeze]

Mike:

You did a good job communicating the thoughts that were running through my head last week.......

Show me a Jack Brohamer or an Ed Goodson and I may think otherwise, but it seemed awfully odd that the presence of the Powerized labeling appeared to be skewed toward the star players...

Good point, and it was blatantly obvious.

But absent the time to do the proper research done here by the "Deep Fly Ball" mystery guest, one just has to keep his mouth shut.

Mike, incredibly helpful display of how it's done.

Chalk up another addition to the "Exceptionally Educational Threads".....it's a keeper.