PDA

View Full Version : "Exceptional" George Brett bat in Hunts All-Star auction?



schubert1970
06-24-2012, 07:29 PM
There is a 1977 supposedly "game used" George Brett bat up for auction in Hunt Auction's MLB All-Star auction coming up on July 10, 2012, at the All Star FanFest. They describe it as being "exceptional" and go on as stating it is "perhaps the finest Brett bat we have brought to auction in (20) years." Here is the link:

http://www.huntauctions.com/live/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=37&lot_num=328&lot_qual=

That's not how I see it at all. There are many issues with this "exceptional" bat. Some subtle, and some seriously troublesome.

On the subtle side, I see a bat that appears to be a bit "yellowed" on the factory clear finish that also appears to have a washed out "cloudy" lighter area on the sweet spot which carries over onto the center label. The applied sharpie Brett signature and salutation is off to the right in what seems to be a subconscious attempt to "avoid" the cleaned area, thus jamming his penmanship into the signature stamping on the right end of the barrel. Not exactly what I would call desirable, and by no means, "exceptional". There is no number on the knob end of the bat, a player trait typically identifying the player who used it, and much more importantly, a staple on all George Brett gamers (more on that in a minute). But that's just the obvious visual stuff.

A quick review of Malta's "A Complete Reference Guide: Louisville Slugger Professional Players Bats" shows this model bat ordered only two years in his career, the first year being 1976, the second 1977, the year this bat was made.

But here's the troublesome part: *His 1976 bats were ordered in ONLY 32 ounce weight. His 1977 bats were ordered in ONLY 33 ounce weight. This bat weighs 35.8 ounces. Assuming normal weight LOSS over the 35 years it's been since this bat was made, this was manufactured as a 36 ounce bat. In addition to that, George Brett ordered these model bats ONLY in "no finish", so if the sheen and discoloring that appears to be in the pictures of this bat is showing the effects of age on a factory clear finish, along with the troublesome weight problem, could this even be a true Brett gamer? I am not saying it isn't, but does anyone really believe George Brett was swinging a 36 ounce bat at ANY time in his career? Not a chance. And even if so, for how long? I would argue NOT long enough to build up that kind of concentrated pine tar application on the middle of this bat. The HEAVIEST bat George Brett ever ordered from Louisville Slugger in ANY year of his career was 34 ounces, and the VAST majority of bats used by Brett over his entire career were ordered as 32 ounce bats, a full FOUR OUNCES less than this bats original manufactured weight.

And one note for argument's sake. I have read old threads here, and have heard "professional" explanations on how bats "lose weight" over time. That makes sense as wood is a natural product that has moisture in it, and over time the moisture will evaporate through normal aging. But to those out there that argue "bats can also gain weight", I say BOLOGNA. That is not an argument that "holds water" with me. That is more likely a fabricated "back door" escape for an authenticator that has made a mistake in his wrongful blessing of a bats heritage to a player. I KNOW wood is "porous" and that genetic make-up is what allows loss of moisture as time passes. No one, however, has ever been able to prove a bat, stored improperly, will GAIN 3 ounces OF WEIGHT. That's HORSE-POOP. So please, you guys arguing the storage of the bat can explain this away, please don't bother. There is more of a chance that an improper billet was pulled from the racks at the factory and this bat was made from a denser piece of ash. Regardless of the truth, the question still remains: Would George Brett have used a bat weighing 36 ounces for longer than one or two at bats?

NO. Professional hitters are like professional golfers, and they stay with the sticks of their choice, ones they are familiar with. Ones they know will produce the desired results.

And here's the clincher. That knob number omission? This bat has a knob that has been modified in some fashion, and my guess is most likely the obvious, to it's finish. Hunt refers to it this way:

"Appears to have professionally executed restoration to knob."

What the hell does THAT mean? At 36 ounces, wouldn't it be reasonable to suspect it was "professionally restored" by the prior owner because he felt to maximize his take when selling it the desirable thing to do would be to remove the number of the player who really used this 36 ounce George Brett team index bat and try to sell it as a legit Brett gamer?

My whole point here is not to attack the provenance of this bat. The bat's stats and tampered knob do a fine job of that on its own. My point is, if you are going to tout a bat as "exceptional" and "perhaps the finest Brett bat we have brought to auction in (20) years", shouldn't it at the very least match factory records and display all of the characteristics known in regards to the player, and be void of any modifications and/or restoration? I could even excuse a professionally repaired handle crack, but restoration to the KNOB, wiping clean any visible link of player markings tying it to that player?

That's not "exceptional". That's a cover-up. The only logical explanation there can be for that would be to HIDE something undesirable about the bat. And we aren't talking a wood chip or a missing grain or two off the side of the knob. Those types of things can be repaired without wiping any markings on the knob clean. So with all of these issues, how can this be the finest Brett bat Hunt has offered in (20) years?

Take Lot #338, for example, another George Brett gamer from the 1986-'89 period. IMO it has a MORE visually appealing signature and career hit inscription centered perfectly on the suite spot, has pine tar characteristics more typically found on a Brett gamer, has his characteristic typical bold "5" on the knob, is uncracked for you purity buffs, has ball and rack marks which are tell-tale signs of true game use, and is in all-original condition.

http://www.huntauctions.com/live/imageviewer.cfm?auction_num=37&lot_num=338&lot_qual=

What makes this any less of an "exceptional" bat than Lot #328? The age difference? So a 35 year old fake coin is worth more than a 24 year old real coin? If I were after a George Brett gamer, the latter bat would be much more desirable to me than that questionable '77 modified bat any day. Why? It matches factory records exactly and is all original and visually appealing in every way.

These auction houses are often biased in how they present auction items. After reviewing the facts tied to this bat, one could almost be led to believe that maybe Hunt Auctions is trying to sell a bat for a family member, close friend, or a favored business associate based on the presentation put forth here. If I were a consignor and had a George Brett bat in this auction (as others do) and read that lot #328 description, I'd be a bit pissed off. Their bats are being devalued at the hands of a bat that, upon a closer look than Hunt Auctions has taken the time to research and present to collectors, is questionable and certainly not worthy of the praise given it. If in fact there is unintended overzealous bias worded in favor of the bat because of it's age and visual attributes sincerely viewed by Hunt Auctions as superior, while Hunt Auctions is simply ignorant to the problems of it's provenance based on factory records from Louisville Slugger themselves, then one may give them a pass. But then again, shouldn't these auction houses be responsible in their representation of their auction items by having employees in place who can verify claims laid out in their descriptions at the very least? Where is the responsibility to perform the very basic verification of proper provenance, especially when it's available to the public? Why does it always lie on the shoulders of the poor unsuspecting collector to second guess and fully research every single solitary word served on their plate for digestion before buying something they may end up being sorry they spent their hard earned money on?

In conclusion, if the bat was without flaws, I could understand the "high praise" touting. But at 35.8 ounces that should read closer to 32.8 today, with a wiped-clean "restored" knob eliminating any concrete "tie" to the player at question, and having a clouded area possibly hiding a signature removal on the sweet spot before Brett signed it at a later date, the bat is questionable at BEST of having ever been ordered or used by Brett and COULD be a team index ordered bat used by another player. IMO, the wording of this offering is overzealous and misleading as it misrepresents the items provenance in a poorly researched manner.

schubert1970
06-29-2012, 11:25 AM
It appears Hunt Auctions have done the right thing and pulled the bat for further review.

joelsabi
06-29-2012, 11:36 AM
It appears Hunt Auctions have done the right thing and pulled the bat for further review.

did you happen to save the photo of the bat you are talking about? the link no longer works and i just read this.

joelsabi
06-29-2012, 11:45 AM
It appears Hunt Auctions have done the right thing and pulled the bat for further review.

maybe they pulled it because the owner of the other bad complained after reading your post.

schubert1970
06-29-2012, 11:53 AM
did you happen to save the photo of the bat you are talking about? the link no longer works and i just read this.

I did not.

BrianK
06-29-2012, 12:00 PM
From Google's cache.

gorilla777
06-29-2012, 12:05 PM
I actually talked to John Taube on this bat, alerted him to the issues and so he talked to Hunt at the Philly Show. They had him review the bat and then did indeed pull it from the auction.


Ben

joelsabi
06-29-2012, 12:11 PM
I actually talked to John Taube on this bat, alerted him to the issues and so he talked to Hunt at the Philly Show. They had him review the bat and then did indeed pull it from the auction.


Ben

team index bats can be ordered by any team and by any player. i think taube would say that it is 1% chance this bat was used by brett.

joelsabi
06-29-2012, 12:13 PM
From Google's cache.

thanks. need to remember that trick