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-...cAAOSwl9BWNGFK

[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