George Brett Bat

[MichaelofSF]

I've been looking at an ebay auction for the past few days that is titled: "291 HR Game Used Bat 1/1 George Brett G Gossage." I find this auction interesting not just because I am a Royals and George Brett fan, but because of the inscription and letter that comes with the bat. The bat is a Brent Mayne model Cooper C271 bat that is inscribed

"George Brett #291 vs. Goose Gossage 4-6-92." It also comes with a letter on Royals letterhead and signed by George Brett that states: "This letter will serve as authenticity for the following item: Brent Mayne model bat used by me to hit Home Run #291 vs. Goose Gossage. I did not have a contract w/L.S. and used Brent Mayne bats (Mine all have pine tar). My Best, George Brett"

What is interesting about this is that according to baseball records, George Brett hit his first homer of the year off Goose Gossage on 4-8-92 (a game that he went 1-6) and that was homer #292. Now both the letter signature and inscription look to be in Brett's pen although I have no credentials behind that statement, but there are differences between the LOA/inscription and the history books.

I asked the seller about the differences and he responded, "In the photos you will see the signed letter and it states the facts. Also on the bat you will see Brett signed, dated the day and the HR number all in his handwriting." This response didn't really help me much as I already knew that.

I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on this as I am interested in the bat. Do you think that it was a mistake on Brett's part, or if you think I should stay away. Below I believe is a picture of Brett actually hitting that HR. It's hard to photo match as the detail of the bat in the picture isn't great.

[karamaxjoe]

Here's my thoughts on this:

You should ask Mike Specht in the shipping records section if Brett had a contract or not in 1992 with LS. I checked Getty images for 1992 and in a few photos you can see Brett using LS very late in the season.

The date screw up will only make it more difficult for you to resell the bat some day and will always give you a feeling of doubt about the bat.

Why would a future Hall of Famer be using someone elses bats for his final season as the letter would lead you to believe? That just doesn't add up.

Mike

[kingjammy24]

hello michael

"..but his final playing season George did not resign a contract with Louisville Slugger"

as you know, brett's final season was 1993, not 1992. he played the entire 1993 season.

according to the LVS shipping records in malta's last book, in 1992 brett was shipped 144 bats in 1992 and 84 bats in 1993. i'm sure mike specht or bmh would do a better job of filling in the specific details.

here, lelands sold a "1992 george brett game used bat":

http://www.lelands.com/bid.aspx?auctionid=104&lot=1899

rudy.

[kingjammy24]

here are two photos from 1992 and one from 1993. you can easily date them via the year-specific patches. (in 1992, the jbb memorial and in 1993, the 25th anniversary patch). all show brett using LVS.



the idea of brett using another player's bats simply because he hadn't signed a LVS contract doesn't seem to make sense. here's a man who spent 20 yrs in the major leagues and he entered his final season(s) without a bat contract?

secondly, unlike many players who use several brands over the course of their careers, brett seems to have been an LVS man his entire career. it seems he was pretty devoted to using LVS. hypothetically speaking, if brett found himself without any of his own bats for an entire season (an insane scenario in itself) then doesn't it seem to reason that he'd borrow some LVS bats? he'd been an LVS man his entire career and upon finding himself without bats, he then goes to borrow a Cooper?

rudy.

[karamaxjoe]

Just for kicks I emailed the seller asking about the LS contract and how Brett could put the wrong date on a bat he most likely didn't use. His response was:

"Thanks for your comments. I seem to have enough people
believing what is posted and I don't find myself worrying about it at
all. Thanks again"

[MSpecht]

Here is the H & B info for the relevant period:

In 1991 Brett was shipped the following models from H & B - C271C, T141, T141C, and P138C ---there were 8 orders in all, between 2/1/91 and 9/4/91 that went directly to Brett via the K C Royals. Also during that year, numerous promotional orders totaling hundreds of bats were shipped to Anaconda Kaye, Ike Co, and other entities.

In 1992 Brett was shipped nine orders from H & B between 1/21/92 and 6/9/92 via the K C Royals. Models included C271C, B351C, and C271. As in 1991, hundreds of promotional bats were shipped to other entities, including the Royals.

The question of whether Brett had a valid contract with H & B early in the 1992 season, or if it had lapsed for a short period, could best be answered by BMH, however it appears from the shipment patterns of professional Brett bats and particularly "other" Brett bats to the Royals themselves (for promo) , Anaconda Kaye, and others, that it is almost certain that Brett had a valid contract and all bats shipped were signature model bats. The possibility that H & B would somehow allow a contract of one of their most popular and in demand players lapse at that time seems unlikely as well. Pictured in this post are signature model Brett bats from the period, and I easily found signature model pro Brett bats from surrounding years (1990 and 1993).

Could Brett have used a different bat during any specific at bat ? Sure. Enhanced imagery of the Getty photo from that game may allow a photo match. Brett's apparent error in the home run total is not unlikely (I once had a Clemente auto'ed baseball where in the inscription the hit total was off by one number --- bummer but interesting as well). The inscription on the bat by Brett and the C271 style (Cooper mirrored H & B models) tend to add to the possibility that it is a bat Brett would have chosen to use if he either had no bats available for whatever reason, or wanted to switch during that at bat (maybe to a lighter bat against Gossage?)

Basically, this comes down to one's comfort level with Brett's provenance, errors (home run total) and all. The provenance insofar as to whom the bat was given (Mayne, Bat Boy, etc) would also be interesting

Mike Jackitout7@aol.com

[MichaelofSF]

thanks for all the input/insight from everyone

[bigjimsguitars]

It would be rather strange that George Brett would be battless at the beginning of the season, but anything is certainly possible. I wouldn't think that George would personally add provenance for the bat if not a bat he used.

However, the Signature and Inscription don't appear to be from the same hand and the Pine Tar Pattern on the bat doesn't conform as George as we all know used pine tar well up to and into the branding...the amount of Pine Tar however is consistent.

It would have been great if there was a picture of George with the bat or he was seen using a Cooper.

It sure looks like it's getting some action nevertheless...

[kingjammy24]

looks like brett did have his own bats in '92?:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...m=130184947977

rudy.

[CampWest]

I know I am a few years late to this party, but the discussion of Brett using Cooper brand bats showed up in a somewhat unrelated search I was doing. Anyhow, I have seen a photo of Brett using a Cooper brand bat that would have been in the early 90s. It was actually a magazine cover, from a collectors magazine, not Beckett, not SI, not Tuff Stuff... I'll find it eventually. I always remembered that picture, because my family owned a card shop for 19 years and at least once year a discussion came up that somebody would declare "Brett used a Louisville every single at bat of his career" and I'd pull out that magazine.

Anyhow, regardless of the specifics in the letter below, I believe at least one at bat in one game Brett used a Cooper bat. And somewhere out there is photographic evidence. Regardless of the letter and shipping records, Brett occassionally borrowed bats. His 2,000th hit bat was a Frank White T141 that he borrowed from Greg Pryor.

I've been looking at an ebay auction for the past few days that is titled: "291 HR Game Used Bat 1/1 George Brett G Gossage." I find this auction interesting not just because I am a Royals and George Brett fan, but because of the inscription and letter that comes with the bat. The bat is a Brent Mayne model Cooper C271 bat that is inscribed "George Brett #291 vs. Goose Gossage 4-6-92." It also comes with a letter on Royals letterhead and signed by George Brett that states: "This letter will serve as authenticity for the following item: Brent Mayne model bat used by me to hit Home Run #291 vs. Goose Gossage. I did not have a contract w/L.S. and used Brent Mayne bats (Mine all have pine tar). My Best, George Brett"

What is interesting about this is that according to baseball records, George Brett hit his first homer of the year off Goose Gossage on 4-8-92 (a game that he went 1-6) and that was homer #292. Now both the letter signature and inscription look to be in Brett's pen although I have no credentials behind that statement, but there are differences between the LOA/inscription and the history books.

I asked the seller about the differences and he responded, "In the photos you will see the signed letter and it states the facts. Also on the bat you will see Brett signed, dated the day and the HR number all in his handwriting." This response didn't really help me much as I already knew that.

I was wondering if anyone could shed some light on this as I am interested in the bat. Do you think that it was a mistake on Brett's part, or if you think I should stay away. Below I believe is a picture of Brett actually hitting that HR. It's hard to photo match as the detail of the bat in the picture isn't great.