[chrisolds]

tkopinetz Wrote:I have a question.<br />
<br />
I had pulled a 2009 t-206 Ruth Relic card and while initially happy, was not sure what type of relic would be painted a bluish color. So, I started to do a little research. I ended up finding your article on the Tribute cards and the information stating they were actually stadium seat relics. Well, this prompted me to see if this card was actually a ruth relic card or not. The research I found on line implied it was not a bat but a seat, so I decided to call Topps.<br />
<br />
Well, to say they were evasive is an understatement. Initially, everyone insisted this was was a bat card and then after I mentioned that it was painted, they though it may be a stadium seat but after speaking to a supervisor, informed me it was a stadium seat. <br />
<br />
Well, I asked for a letter form Topps confirming this, which they insisted they would not provide. Well I continued to try and get something with no luck until I wrote customer services requesting my question be forwarded to customer service. I received a message back informing me that the Topps 2009 T-206 Ruth relic is actually a bat and not a seat and the reason for the paint is that it is a coaches bat.<br />
<br />
Now here lies my question, what exactly was a coaches bat as defined by that era. I remember bats having a red or blue stripe around the neck or a bat when I was young to assist with hand positioning, but I am not sure in this case. there seem to be a lot of blue relics out there. <br />
<br />
Secondly, how exactly could this be considered a Babe Ruth Game Used Relic as advertised on the cards? While I understand you point from a previous article about cost cutting and vague labeling, I do not 100% buy the answer. I have a bunch of the 2009 T-206 relic cards and over 90% of them are labeled correctly (that is to my knowledge), except for the FR1 Alex Rodriguez bat card that is labeled jersey on the back. <br />
<br />
Let's be honest, most collectors do not buy as much to build sets as they buy for the autos and relics and they expect these relics and autos to be authentic. If you truly believe topps labeling issues on these relic cards is just a result of topps cutting corners, why is it so hard to believe they are cutting corners on the relics they are using and where they get both their autos and relics. I think the response I was given about a coaches bat being utilized as a Ruth game used relic should speak to that. <br />
<br />
So back to my question, can you help me with a clearer understanding of what a coaches bat is in relations to this card containing a ruth relic and the relic is a coaches bat.<br />
<br />
Thanks<br />

<br />
<br />
Well, if Ruth used the bat while he was a coach, then it is what it is.<br />
In all likelihood, the bat was one of only a few options Topps found when seeking out a Ruth bat to use as a Relic -- a bat from later years when he was a coach or a bat when he was a player (rarer and more expensive).<br />
Ultimately, nobody polices the card companies on issues like this -- except perhaps MLB when it comes licensing time. So collectors have to put their faith in the card companies that everything is on the up-and-up. <br />
Honestly, it's something that Topps has to take seriously. I'd be relatively comfortable with their answer.<br />