Fake George Brett Bat

[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...sAAOSwa-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.