How does a GU Bat show good use on the handle & labelling area, but not hardly on the barrel of the bat?

[3arod13]

How does a GU Bat show good use on the handle & labelling area, but not hardly on the barrel of the bat?

I see many GU bats like this. Wouldn't you think you would see more ball marks and use on the barrel?

[bigtruck260]

An example of a bat that was used specifically for product purposes.
It looks like it was taped, tarred heavily and used for a few at bats.
There are some ink transfers there - I would bet there are a few seam marks too.

Sadly, this is how it is done in the modern GU era. Sheff and many others go through bats just for the purpose of resale.

Dave

[suave1477]

3arod13 I will agree with bigtruck BUT that is not always the case. That specific bat your showing I do believe is actually a Shaff Batting Practice bat, so chances are you may not see a lot of ball marks depending how they hit during practice. Also remember players are supersticious if they are using a bat and fouling off a lot and striking out there going to get rid of it, so your gonna see a lot of use on the handle and a few ball marks but not much.

So much as it is possible they your using the items minimal and selling them to make profit, it could actually just be from the way a player sees fit to use that bat.

[kingjammy24]

1. it's clear that a lot of current GU items are being "manufactured" in the sense that they're being legitimately used a minimal amount of times solely for the point of quickly reselling them as game-used. everyone's caught on to the money train and they want to pump this stuff out as fast as possible. why wait 5 months for a nice pounded bat when you can produce 10 times the amount in that time? what they haven't clued into is that collectors like to see heavy use. it honestly shocks me to see the level of athletes involved in these shenanigans - arod, who will eventually have made half a billion dollars, is spending hours of his time devoted to making an extra $300k from his items and autographs. half a billion and he cares about a paltry $300k? rather than spending his scant free time relaxing with friends or with his wife, he'd rather spend it in some sweaty warehouse in the middle of nowhere signing, just to make money he'd never be able to spend anyway? sheffield who's made over $140MM is meeting with ESM to sign bats and sweatbands for a measly $20k? for me, it's an incomprehensible level of greed.

2. i've been told that the level of pine tar should be commensurate with the amount of use seen on the barrel. lots of pine tar applications = lots of ABs = lots of use.

3. all of that said, i don't believe you can completely and entirely judge the use on a bat by these photos. tony, you indicate that you believe there's a lack of use based on a lack of ball marks. every single hit isn't going to leave a big, blue mark or a patch of white leather stuck to the bat. i don't know if this bat has a lack of use. i recently purchased a bat and the pictures didn't fully convey the use on the barrel. there's an area on the bat with tremendous swelling. you can run your fingers over the area and feel how pronounced the swelling of the wood grain is. you couldn't see the swelling at all in photos. it must've taken a good amount of hits to produce that swelling yet there are barely any visible ballmarks on the swelling. seam marks are also difficult to see at times. i've seen bats on john taube's site that he describes as having tons of seam marks yet i can't see any of them in the photos. i have to assume they aren't showing up well in photos but once you have the bat in hand they'd become apparent. i've seen brett and yount bats heavy with tar yet the barrel wasn't littered with blue marks. maybe i'm wrong but i think a bat can be heavily used and not show 200 blue marks all over the barrel. i think a bat can have good use on the barrel and much of that use may not show up well in photos. those sheffield photos aren't even closeups of the barrel. truth is, i don't know how heavily used the sheffield barrel is but i don't think the photos convey the full extent of it either way.

rudy.

[Billyu40]

I agree with what everyone is saying I just wanted to add a couple of things about ball marks on the bats.

First you are probably less likely to have ball marks on a BP bat because the ball has been hit several times before. This wont effect seam marks but it will effect the ink. Second BP balls are not rubbed up like game balls are so inital hits will usually provide better ink and white marks. Third, bats that are game used can have varying ink marks because the umpires are the ones that "rub up' the balls these days. Bat boys and clubhouse officals used to do this so you could usually count on the balls being the same stadium to stadium.

My whole point on this is that you cant really tell 100% if a bat is "game used" or BP used simply by the ball marks and pine tar on the bat. You have to look at the whole picture of the bat and the player who used it.