I am going to be one of the people visiting SCDA to see how they authenticated the DiMaggio Streak Bat. I have a few questions that I will be asking and I am sure more will pop up in my head as the presentation moves along, but I am looking for any questions that you all might have so that I can bring to their attention.
You can email me the questions so I'll be able to easily print them out and organize them.
Someone posted that Heinrich was not that close to DiMaggio, so I would be interested in any supporting material to back up this claim since the video testimony of his seems to biggest reason that it is claimed to be a Streak bat.
Unlike PSA, you guys have the chance to ask the right questions and not get censored.
Jay
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!
This is kind of disappointing. A lot of people were talking smack during the thread on the card forum about the DiMaggio bat and now we have a chance to actually have questions answered by the source and I have gotten a total of 1, yes one, person responding with a few questions they would like asked.
I guess everyone likes to be a blowhard but when push comes to shove, they slink away. SCDA was even willing to pay for 5 people to come out there and witness the whole authentication process for the bat and only 3 people took them up on the offer.
Jay Behrens
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming --- WOW, What a ride!
I agree with you that this is something that collectors should take advantage of. My questions for SCDA are about their resources. I submitted a pair of 1950s cleats that allegedly were Casey Stengel's. SCDA returned them to me and kept my money, saying that the provenance was inconclusive. They mentioned nothing about whether the size or brand of the shoe were consistent with what Casey wore with the Yankees of the 1950s. I would like to know what kind of archival photo resources they used for authenticating equipment. It seemed like with my case they didn't even try.
I would have to agree. I have spoken with Troy Kinunen about the upcoming trip and have urged him to provide the group with "take home copies" of what you will be shown. I also suggested that this event be covered by some form of local media other than SCD.
Most of the chatter in this forum and on VBC has been about the conflict of interest issue as it relates to disclosure. This trip will not address that issue, as nothing can be done about a past practice that, according to SCDA, will no longer be the case. The finding as they relate to the opinion offered, will go to the credibility of Dave Bushing, after this is over.
The questions for this trip should and will focus on the opinion of Dave Bushing that the totality of the circumstances involved served as the basis for his opinion, and that if another person was presented with the same information, they would in fact reasonably come to the same conclusion he did.
Reasonable questions would focus on:
Is there anything that places this bat to this period at the exclusion of other possibilities such as being used earlier or later?
a. Shipping Records
b. Testimony
c. Unique physical characteristics
When these areas are objectively assessed, the potential bidder would then have to have been comfortable with their own assessment that it was more likely than not that the bat in question was in fact what it was represented to be. This will involve an individual assessment on how much validity they chose to put in the testimony of Tommy Heinrich, since he is the only person involved with first hand knowledge of the circumstances surrounding both the item and its acquisition at the time in question.
For each of the three previously mentioned areas, I would look to assess and score them with:
1. High Probability
2. Low Probability
3. No Objective Determination can be made or inferred
In addition, for each of these, the individual may choose to weight, one or more of these criteria more heavily than others.
I would suggest that anyone looking at this item decide on their methodology and criteria before hand.
I would also ask if they know (many collectors/basbeall historians seem to know) that Heinrich borrow Dimaggio bats in game play. How can they be sure that the use is Joe D's and not Tommy's
Eric
Jay, my questions regarding SCDA were already answered by Troy.
1. I asked if SCDA authenticators would stop authenticating and selling items they owned. Troy said they would continue to do so, but with the individual authenticator's LOA instead of SCDA's LOA. So, short answer: "No".
2. I asked (several times) if they would require auction houses to identify items the authenticator owns in the item's description and Troy said this would be addressed with a "check box" system on the LOA. So, short answer: "No".
3. I asked if jerseys that I'd purchased in past auctions were owned by anyone at SCDA, and Try told me he checked with Dan Knoll and Dave Bushing and they said "No," although he offered no proof. (This one is one me to check with Mastro, etc., and see if they will provide information.)
So, basically in terms of the conflict of interest questions, they've already been asked and responded to. SCDA feels like they've gone as far as they're willing to without jeopardizing the income of those associated with SCDA.
To that end, while your trip might be somewhat educational, it's basically just a carefully orchestrated (as in they're going to show you what they want to show you) PR trip that obscures the real issues (undisclosed conflict of interest) and uses you as a pawn to help clear their name. Personally I think you are wasting your time.
I'm much more interested in what Adam might uncovers during the discovery process and over the course of the Planich litigation (where SCDA won't be able to set the rules and side-step important questions), then a field trip to the cracker factory.
One thing that has not been addressed and should not be assumed is that if the bat will be present. For those individuals who said they wanted to examine the hitting surface of the bat, this is rather important.
The thing about this, is producing the bat my not be within the control of SCDA. If Louisville Slugger is in possesion of the bat, which is a reasonable assumption, they may reluctant to produce with the pending legal action. As a minimum, I doubt that they would send something like this in the mail.
I only bring this up so that what ever the circumstances (will the bat be there or not) is know and understood by all before they show up..
Jay-
When are you going out there. Who else is going? What do they say they are going to show you when you're out there? Will you have a chance to sit down with Bushing and Knoll?And is the purpose to solely discuss the means used to authenticate the Dimaggio bat, or to show you how they authenticate their items?
What are your questions? Let's get this thread going. it's a very important one.
This message has been edited by ecky3 on Feb 6, 2005 12:52 PM
Here are some things that should be considered or examined:
a) Someone should offer Robert Plancich a ticket to be there. No one would be more credible and it would actually be a bit of olive branch towards Plancich who took a lot of heat early on for raising the questions that have turned out to be warranted.
b) Physical examination of DiMaggio order/shipping records.
c) Physical examination of Heinrich order/shipping records.
d) Ball mark examination of the bat. It has been widely reported that the ball marks show that there is more use on the side that a left handed batter would make. The assumption would be that it was really a Heinrich bat not a DiMaggio.
e) The group should be allowed to examine/view in its entirety the interview tapes of Heinrich being interviewed. Whomever viewed it would see if they posed "leading" questions to a 90 year old man. It would also be able to show the state of mind (or possible lack there of) for Heinrich.
f) It would be helpful if there was a way to find out the financial status of the Heinrich family to see if there was any motivation to "stretch the truth" to receive a large payday. I am not accusing anyone here but a lot of these retired pros never saw a lot of $$ playing. His family may have had some motivation (past due tax liens, grandkids heading to college, bad business investments etc.)
g) Someone should demand of SCDA that they disclose any and all other Bushing owned items authenticated and sold by Bushing that bore the SCDA LOA/COA. If they are not willing to come clean when given the opportunity to do so, that will shed light onto their business ethics. This will always be a black eye/black cloud over SCDA until they come clean. Bushing's name is already turning to mud according to a lot of big collectors. This will be SCDA's chance to give some seperation from the deserved bad publicity.
h) Someone suggested that an outside media source should be invited as well. That is a very good suggestion. Maybe Bob Ley or Jeremy Schapp of ESPN should be invited or Micheal O'Keeffee of the NY Daily News whom has written all the articles on the memorabilia business should be invited.
I hope that whomever goes is able to bring back and post whatever goes on positive or negative to report back to those who are not on the trip.
