Fake George Brett Bat

[Phil316]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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

[yanks12025]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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

Any pics of your old bat?

[grandeleague]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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]

Re: Fake George Brett Bat

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.