Fake George Brett Bat

[Lumber 1980]

I had this bat in my collection for a time before I realized it was not good. No seem marks, no cleat marks and the autograph was not on there when I sent it back to Ebay seller, On The Third Day, Scott Kennedy . The present seller, don't know who he is. I don't see any offers, legit ones that is, so I hope no ones buys this fake Brett lumber. This one also does not match factory records.


http://www.ebay.ca/itm/GEORGE-BRETT-1987-1989-GAME-USED-AUTO-KANSAS-CITY-ROYALS-BASEBALL-BAT-GREAT-USE-/291603411066?hash=item43e4eaf07a:g:4xcAAOSwl9BWNGF K

[Juicyfruit66]

I asked seller if Brett used this exact bat, got this reply:
Dear xxxx

Yes, bat came straight from Brett in a game used at Toronto.

[grandeleague]

I'm not a Brett bat expert but have owned six in my day. I'm not sure based on the pics that the bat can be deemed "fake." The autograph appears genuine but faded blue sharpie. There are a few prominent ball marks on it. There is a black one that is very visible. I would say it is possible that this bat is a good one but was used at least for a time in spring training. The black ball mark absolutely appears to be a national league ball mark. It does have several Brett use traits. It's very interesting and one I would like to see in hand.

[Lumber 1980]

I'm not a Brett bat expert but have owned six in my day. I'm not sure based on the pics that the bat can be deemed "fake." The autograph appears genuine but faded blue sharpie. There are a few prominent ball marks on it. There is a black one that is very visible. I would say it is possible that this bat is a good one but was used at least for a time in spring training. The black ball mark absolutely appears to be a national league ball mark. It does have several Brett use traits. It's very interesting and one I would like to see in hand.

I can tell you that if you had it in your hand, you would draw the same conclusion as I did after owning it. I am in Toronto and maybe that was part of his story or the story he was told by On the third day, Ebay seller.

I only post to save someone from buying this bat and having the issues I did.

[sportsnbikes]

It doesn't look good to me. The finish of the tar just doesn't look right to me. No expert whatsoever just looks off.

[mancuso8918]

Lumber 1980:
I can assure you that you did not own that exact Brett bat at any time (perhaps one like it?). It has been in my family for quite some time. It was given directly by George Brett to a local Radio Sports Caster and then given to my family a while back which was then gifted to the current seller. Also gifted was all of the credentials to go along with the bat.

The current seller is a very close family friend.. who also has a 100% positive feedback rating on ebay. So for you to immediately call them out (with no proof) is a little disrespectful.

Also if I didnt have a signature on it when you first "purchased" it, and now the signature is somehow faded...that doesnt leave too much time for a recent signature to age...esp seeing you are only 35 and couldnt have purchased it more than 5 years ago. signatures dont fade that fast. ...just yet another flaw in your story

Thanks and have a great day

[camarokids]

The Pine tar looks aged to me. I bet Ben aka Gorilla, and a few others on here could shed some light on the bat.

[grandeleague]

I believe the bat is far more likely do be genuine than fake. It has several really good Brett use traits. I like the national league ball mark on the barrell. What faker would put a national league ball mark on an american league bat? Not likely.

[CampWest]

First off, its tough to draw any solid conclusions on the bat given the limited photos (and poor quality of some of) that are provided in the listing.

The 5 on the knob looks sloppier than the 5s that are generally on Brett bats. The photo sucks though, so its tough to conclude on that point.

The autograph is good in my opinion. No doubts about that. Its a style of inscription and a phrase Brett commonly used and the handwriting looks spot on.

C271 Cupped, 1987-1989. Brett did in fact order C271C in 1988 and 1989 in 34.5" 32 oz with no finish - also ordered 33.5" 31 & 32 oz. So, perhaps this bat is a touch shorter than ordered, but is within manufacturing tolerances - its well known that they may come in +/- 1/4" or more to make the weight. I would say this bat matches known factory records. OP appears to be incorrect in saying this bat does not match records, but he didnt explain his basis for that opinion so its tough to know whether he just missed these orders or thought the bats were made to a tighter tolerance.

As for the black ball mark, that's a bit of a question mark, since inter-league play did not begin until 1997. This bat is a 1987-1989 and Brett retired in 1993. So, that is not a good thing in my opinion. The Royals did not play in the postseason in that time span, which means I have no idea when he would have hit a national league ball. Maybe spring training.

Bottom line. I think the bat looks more positive than negative, but I would not pay premium prices for it. Factory records - check. Vintage autograph - check. Story of provenance, chain of ownership - check. Typical pine tar application - check. The 5 on the knob looks sloppy, inconclusive. There seems to be more pine tar than I'd expect for the apparent amount of use. The black ball mark outside of any known inter-league play, I can only think this would maybe have come from a spring training game.

I wouldn't call it a fake, but I don't think its an ideal example. Just my opinion...

[Lumber 1980]

All I can say is that this is the bat I owned and returned. if it is not, then you have an exact replica there.. If this is the real deal, please provide good photos of the ball and seem and cleat marks that are talked about in the listing. That would clean this up for sure.

What I said was that the seller may or may not know the story of this bat. If I am mistaken, then I apologize for this error.

Todd

[mancuso8918]

Much appreciated on all sides.
Thank you for all of the input about the pointers and details surrounding this bat and the due diligence regarding the bat sizes and ounces and years
And Thank you for clearing everything up. Just dont want to see anyone (esp the seller) get a bad rap for a miscommunication or any errors. Especially on such a beautiful item

I have asked the seller to post new and clearer pictures regarding this bat and I believe he has done so. Please check the following link

http://www.ebay.com/itm/GEORGE-BRETT-1987-1989-GAME-USED-AUTO-KANSAS-CITY-ROYALS-BASEBALL-BAT-GREAT-USE-/301837145365?hash=item4646e55515:g:d9sAAOSwa-dWhJ4V

[mancuso8918]

Just to clarify as well, this bat has only exchanged hands 3 times.
From George Brett to the Radio Host (name on signature) , from Radio Host to my family.
Winner of auction or private sale will be able to get all of the credentials which certify the date and personalization of the signature and other paperwork.

Thanks again

[STLHAMMER32]

I have a couple questions/concerns. Am I the only one who finds this post a bit strange? Why would a bat not signed originally pop up with what appears to be an authentic vintage signature that is personalized. If this is the same bat why has a picture not been provided. How can this bat be called fake from the poster (on what basis with no facts provided to claim otherwise and still be allowed)?

[Lumber 1980]

At this point, I have said what I felt would help other collectors. If I am wrong, once again, I want to apologize.

[STLHAMMER32]

At this point, I have said what I felt would help other collectors. If I am wrong, once again, I want to apologize.

Are you retracting the fact you are certain this is the bat you owned?

[Phil316]

I have a couple questions/concerns. Am I the only one who finds this post a bit strange? Why would a bat not signed originally pop up with what appears to be an authentic vintage signature that is personalized. If this is the same bat why has a picture not been provided. How can this bat be called fake from the poster (on what basis with no facts provided to claim otherwise and still be allowed)?

Very strange post for sure.

[grandeleague]

First off, its tough to draw any solid conclusions on the bat given the limited photos (and poor quality of some of) that are provided in the listing.

The 5 on the knob looks sloppier than the 5s that are generally on Brett bats. The photo sucks though, so its tough to conclude on that point.

The autograph is good in my opinion. No doubts about that. Its a style of inscription and a phrase Brett commonly used and the handwriting looks spot on.

C271 Cupped, 1987-1989. Brett did in fact order C271C in 1988 and 1989 in 34.5" 32 oz with no finish - also ordered 33.5" 31 & 32 oz. So, perhaps this bat is a touch shorter than ordered, but is within manufacturing tolerances - its well known that they may come in +/- 1/4" or more to make the weight. I would say this bat matches known factory records. OP appears to be incorrect in saying this bat does not match records, but he didnt explain his basis for that opinion so its tough to know whether he just missed these orders or thought the bats were made to a tighter tolerance.

As for the black ball mark, that's a bit of a question mark, since inter-league play did not begin until 1997. This bat is a 1987-1989 and Brett retired in 1993. So, that is not a good thing in my opinion. The Royals did not play in the postseason in that time span, which means I have no idea when he would have hit a national league ball. Maybe spring training.

Bottom line. I think the bat looks more positive than negative, but I would not pay premium prices for it. Factory records - check. Vintage autograph - check. Story of provenance, chain of ownership - check. Typical pine tar application - check. The 5 on the knob looks sloppy, inconclusive. There seems to be more pine tar than I'd expect for the apparent amount of use. The black ball mark outside of any known inter-league play, I can only think this would maybe have come from a spring training game.

I wouldn't call it a fake, but I don't think its an ideal example. Just my opinion...

I believe the "5" on the bat is appropriate in style and in font (size) on a Brett bat of this era. I believe it saw service in spring training but so what. It is what it is. A nice bat worthy of a collection.

[grandeleague]

Lumber 1980:
I can assure you that you did not own that exact Brett bat at any time (perhaps one like it?). It has been in my family for quite some time. It was given directly by George Brett to a local Radio Sports Caster and then given to my family a while back which was then gifted to the current seller. Also gifted was all of the credentials to go along with the bat.

The current seller is a very close family friend.. who also has a 100% positive feedback rating on ebay. So for you to immediately call them out (with no proof) is a little disrespectful.

Also if I didnt have a signature on it when you first "purchased" it, and now the signature is somehow faded...that doesnt leave too much time for a recent signature to age...esp seeing you are only 35 and couldnt have purchased it more than 5 years ago. signatures dont fade that fast. ...just yet another flaw in your story

Thanks and have a great day
I am sorry to see your bat get taken to the wringer when in reality it really speaks for itself as a nice genuine item.Don't let anyone talk the value down either because it doesn't meet their "criteria." It's a nice item and folks who know what they are looking at know it. It belonged to a legendary player and is worthy of any collection. It stinks to see nice items tarred and feathered when the bat speaks for itself. Enjoy your nice Brett bat!
Let's recap:
1) is the model correct? Yes-Brett often used that model during said labeling period.
2) is the 5 on the knob applied in a manner typical of Brett bats? Yes- You see "5" "GB5" and "Lou5" on Brett bats of that labeling period. The "5" is correct in style and font.
3) Is the autograph genuine? Yes, it's in faded blue sharpie.
4) is the pine tar application appropriate? Yes it is and it's been on that bat for years IMO.
5) Did a left handed batter use the bat? Extremely likely. Black ball mark is strong evidence that it was.
6) Is a lack of visible spike marks a problem? Not at all.

Bottom line= Nice bat used by the legendary 3rd baseman.

[ndevlin]

Let's see some pics of the other Brett bat, and this should be fairly easy...

[yanks12025]

I am sorry to see your bat get taken to the wringer when in reality it really speaks for itself as a nice genuine item.Don't let anyone talk the value down either because it doesn't meet their "criteria." It's a nice item and folks who know what they are looking at know it. It belonged to a legendary player and is worthy of any collection. It stinks to see nice items tarred and feathered when the bat speaks for itself. Enjoy your nice Brett bat!
Let's recap:
1) is the model correct? Yes-Brett often used that model during said labeling period.
2) is the 5 on the knob applied in a manner typical of Brett bats? Yes- You see "5" "GB5" and "Lou5" on Brett bats of that labeling period. The "5" is correct in style and font.
3) Is the autograph genuine? Yes, it's in faded blue sharpie.
4) is the pine tar application appropriate? Yes it is and it's been on that bat for years IMO.
5) Did a left handed batter use the bat? Extremely likely. Black ball mark is strong evidence that it was.
6) Is a lack of visible spike marks a problem? Not at all.

Bottom line= Nice bat used by the legendary 3rd baseman.


Black mark also shows it wasn't used in a regular season game.

[mancuso8918]

The seller of the bat asked me to post some images of items he acquired from the same source that the Brett bat came from. These are a few Blue Jays Item, most inscribed "To Bruce" as the Brett bat is. Along with images of press credentials. I have more images but they were too large to upload. Email him me @ kedogs00@yahoo.com for more

[ndevlin]

I had this bat in my collection for a time before I realized it was not good. No seem marks, no cleat marks and the autograph was not on there when I sent it back to Ebay seller, On The Third Day, Scott Kennedy . The present seller, don't know who he is. I don't see any offers, legit ones that is, so I hope no ones buys this fake Brett lumber. This one also does not match factory records.


http://www.ebay.ca/itm/GEORGE-BRETT-1987-1989-GAME-USED-AUTO-KANSAS-CITY-ROYALS-BASEBALL-BAT-GREAT-USE-/291603411066?hash=item43e4eaf07a:g:4xcAAOSwl9BWNGF K

Any pics of your old bat?

[grandeleague]

Black mark also shows it wasn't used in a regular season game.

Who is to say it didn't get used in spring training and the regular season. Not one person can say with certainty when it was used.

[grandeleague]

The seller of the bat asked me to post some images of items he acquired from the same source that the Brett bat came from. These are a few Blue Jays Item, most inscribed "To Bruce" as the Brett bat is. Along with images of press credentials. I have more images but they were too large to upload. Email him me @ kedogs00@yahoo.com for more

Splendid items. Case closed for the authenticity of your bat IMO. Congrats.

[yanks12025]

Who is to say it didn't get used in spring training and the regular season. Not one person can say with certainty when it was used.

George Brett collectors will care. They won't spend the big bucks on a bat that doesn't show the correct ball marks.

[yanks12025]

The seller of the bat asked me to post some images of items he acquired from the same source that the Brett bat came from. These are a few Blue Jays Item, most inscribed "To Bruce" as the Brett bat is. Along with images of press credentials. I have more images but they were too large to upload. Email him me @ kedogs00@yahoo.com for more


I'm confused. You said earlier you were the person/family who gave the bat to the current seller. So shouldn't you also be the source of these items???

[mancuso8918]

Yanks12025, the bat was given to our family straight from the Toronto sports caster, Bruce. Same with all of the items you see pictured in my previous response. The bat is currently owned by my brother. 3 owners, Brett himself, Bruce the Jays sports caster, and us/my brother.

[yanks12025]

Yanks12025, the bat was given to our family straight from the Toronto sports caster, Bruce. Same with all of the items you see pictured in my previous response. The bat is currently owned by my brother. 3 owners, Brett himself, Bruce the Jays sports caster, and us/my brother.



So now it's your brother who owns it. Yet earlier you said you gave it to a very close family FRIEND.

[mancuso8918]

Yes, it wasn't necessary to acknowledge that it was my brother, look at my last name on here and check this last name of the seller. It will match. And I have nothing to hide nor does he. It kinda sounds like you're interrogating me... I was just shedding light on this bat. As some fella who claimed he owned this bat before which is impossible is caiming its no good.If you're interested in the bat then please make him an offer via eBay, or email him at kedogs00@yahoo.

[CampWest]

I believe the "5" on the bat is appropriate in style and in font (size) on a Brett bat of this era. I believe it saw service in spring training but so what. It is what it is. A nice bat worthy of a collection.

Totally agree that a 5 on the knob is typical, that spring training use is not an issue, and that it is a nice bat worthy of a collection.

All I was saying is that the 5 is written sloppily, which is unusual, because they are usually written with better penmanship. Its not a deal breaker and doesn't discredit the bat. Any number of things could have legitimately impacted how well it was written. It would just look more typical if the line wasn't broken on the down stroke and if the bottom part was rounded. I've seen a couple bats with sloppy 5s, but most are clean and well written. Its just a note on the quality of the appearance and something that people consider when shelling out 5k+ for a bat and they want it to look good.

Photo from http://vintagebats.com/feature_page-GeorgeBrett.htm and the other two knobs are bats in my collection, for reference and comparison to the bat that is for sale.

[CollectGU]

Any pics of your old bat?


Lumber 1980 basically destroyed the credibility of the bat saying it was his and total fake and now we dont hear a peep from him....

[Phil316]

Lumber 1980 basically destroyed the credibility of the bat saying it was his and total fake and now we dont hear a peep from him....

Some people have no accountability. If you make a mistake own it.

[Juicyfruit66]

I'm not saying this was the case at all, but it makes you wonder if people try and ruin item credibility for stuff being auctioned so that can grab it cheap themselves .

[grandeleague]

I'm not saying this was the case at all, but it makes you wonder if people try and ruin item credibility for stuff being auctioned so that can grab it cheap themselves .

People open fire on the items without doing their homework and it runs the credibility of legitimate items. Every item presented for discussion should be given a fair shake and presented for discussion with factual evidence to the contrary that the item is not legitimate. Then it can be discussed and a verdict determined.

[gorilla777]

Did this ever get resolved in any way? I'm guessing not...

[ndevlin]

I wanted to see the OP's Brett bat for comparison.

[Kedogs00@yahoo.com]

I personally own this bat, I have 0 to hide. I had my brother post a few pictures of some of my collection I received from the same source. Yes, whomever started this post was just trying to ruin the credibility of this bat and was called out on it and stopped posting after he knew he was wrong. The bat is 100% real. And there was a few people defending the credibility of this bat with facts. And I appreciate there input on this. Please any question and or offers let me know.

[grandeleague]

I personally own this bat, I have 0 to hide. I had my brother post a few pictures of some of my collection I received from the same source. Yes, whomever started this post was just trying to ruin the credibility of this bat and was called out on it and stopped posting after he knew he was wrong. The bat is 100% real. And there was a few people defending the credibility of this bat with facts. And I appreciate there input on this. Please any question and or offers let me know.

Sir
I am glad your bat was vindicated and its a great shame it and you were put through the wringer without just cause. I hope you continue to enjoy you Brett bat.