Custom Bats Cricket Forum
Companies => Off-the-shelf companies => Gunn & Moore => Topic started by: Yorkershire on March 26, 2024, 07:12:35 PM
-
Long story short, bought an Aion Signature online.
Looked really narrow so measured the width, turned out to be 104 mm. Needless to say all packed and on its way back.
Really disappointed tbh as I hold GM in high regard.
Anyone else experienced this?
-
I believe @SOULMAN1012 also discovered one to be narrow.
-
Will measure up the ones I’ve got when in the office shortly
-
on the calipers..
404 @105.52mm (2.9.3oz)
606 @ 105.34mm (2.9.0)
Sig @104.74mm (2.9.0)
My take is that something has to give to get a full profile L555 blade bat at weights under 2.9. However, if they are sacrificing some width to get the full shape then at least be transparent about it as B3 have with their Ultra range.
-
You will recall the md of GM denied it at launch …
Perhaps was not aware ..
-
The Mana & Kyros are all 108mm by comparison
-
I agree but I always had GM as being one of the companies with great quality control that stuck to measurements especially using CNC.
As they say best buy a bat in person, just felt as it was GM i was safe.
on the calipers..
404 @105.52mm (2.9.3oz)
606 @ 105.34mm (2.9.0)
Sig @104.74mm (2.9.0)
My take is that something has to give to get a full profile L555 blade bat at weights under 2.9. However, if they are sacrificing some width to get the full shape then at least be transparent about it as B3 have with their Ultra range.
-
Most of the Aion and the Brava range I saw this year had been pretty narrow, around 105mm in width. It does allow for a bigger looking bat at a lower weight, which retailers and customers will generally want, alongside the flatter face just gives that illusion of more volume than there actually is. 3mm ends up being approximately 1oz lost in weight overall, and depending on spine:edge ratio, probably approximately 1mm larger appearance as you cut into the bulk of the wood
-
Thing is, the reason for this is due to customer demand. Not saying it's you @Yorkershire as I know it's not, but people are demanding large bats at light weights. So, something has to give to produce this consistently. If it wasn't GM, most people would accept it. So why should they be any different.
I'd rather not do it, but it's becoming common practice now. Sm oz saving shouldn't mean a lot, but big difference for people looking for a 2lbs 9oz bat and not willing to accept a 2lbs 10oz bat.
-
I think it was really my disappointment that it was GM more than anything and it was a whole 4 mm on a new adult SH bat. I've had bats that have been refurbed etc.. and have gone down to 106 ish...
I think maybe Manufacturers need to be open about it like B3 have done. I appreciate this has been going on for a while with some other manufacturers over the years.
-
For me the lack of transparency was what really disappointed me with GM.
Even now on there website bat description nothing to inform the customer is a Harrow width bat to give the full profile at desired weights or even some marketing BS to let the customer know would be great and should be the case.
There is a clear difference between this and the rest of the range in terms of width so allow customers to know this
-
Is the MD around perhaps to address this
-
time to take the tape measure to the new GM i bought. Rather stupidly ive never thought to measure the width on bats from UK brands that make their bats here.
-
From my experience, widths vary from 104 - 111 generally in UK bats. Sometimes you have to take into account that a batmaker may have slipped up with a tool or during sanding, or there may be blemishes/knots/dead wood they're looking to get rid of. In this case, it does appear to be intentional to get a bigger looking stock shape.
I've been told Babar asks for his bats to be narrowed, and also been told/heard from multiple sources that a large majority of pros have narrower bats. (Under 106mm)
Thing is, with the demand to fill the gauge in all dimensions to a weight limit of 2.10, or rather large bats at 2.8, you can see why some might decide to narrow, especially if counterparts across the sea have been employing this trick for years. If it doesn't sit well with you, then absolutely send the bat back as @Yorkershire has done
-
I can understand it from your top pros, they middle the ball so often and (especially in T20) a nick off the edge isn't necessarily a bad result.
I'm sure it's been raised before but how much weight are you saving with a couple mm thickness of the blade?
-
The whole world has gone a bit mad. There is no scenario in which a narrower bat is more beneficial than a full width bat.
People seem to think they gain more size by giving up width, but The true edge size of a narrower bat is actually 0mm (since there is no wood present at the 107-108mm point).
Pros should be demanding full width bats and be willing to accept smaller edges. The whole “I middle the ball” argument is not rational- there is a reason a technique bat is harder to use, despite having “bigger” edges.
I think Steve smith and labuschagne might be the only pros checking width these days (Marcus carries vernier calipers in his bag).
Re GM - I think this is a massive mistake from them. They were supposed to be one of the few bat manufacturers who didn’t subject the consumer to these gimmicks. I applaud B3 for being so transparent about their latest profile being narrower- everyone should follow their example.
Be transparent and then let the consumer decide what they want.
-
I can understand it from your top pros, they middle the ball so often and (especially in T20) a nick off the edge isn't necessarily a bad result.
I'm sure it's been raised before but how much weight are you saving with a couple mm thickness of the blade?
Did this a while ago. Pics below show weight of the bat at 109mm and then weight at 108mm (roughly). 0.5oz lost.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvf4mJwt/PXL-20231111-174638115.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/WFZ7RDLj)
(https://i.postimg.cc/cLy9wdBc/PXL-20231111-174718456.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/bsg9jcMG)
(https://i.postimg.cc/G3fS3FBV/PXL-20231111-174728548.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/Cdj4mfss)
(https://i.postimg.cc/NFZNNtqB/PXL-20231111-174901564.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/BPcc6dnV)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yX7q0rs/PXL-20231111-174917964.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/y3zy7VsR)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXR2yyKB/PXL-20231111-174924473.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/3dYF6JL5)
-
The whole world has gone a bit mad. There is no scenario in which a narrower bat is more beneficial than a full width bat.
People seem to think they gain more size by giving up width, but The true edge size of a narrower bat is actually 0mm (since there is no wood present at the 107-108mm point).
Pros should be demanding full width bats and be willing to accept smaller edges. The whole “I middle the ball” argument is not rational- there is a reason a technique bat is harder to use, despite having “bigger” edges.
I think Steve smith and labuschagne might be the only pros checking width these days (Marcus carries vernier calipers in his bag).
Re GM - I think this is a massive mistake from them. They were supposed to be one of the few bat manufacturers who didn’t subject the consumer to these gimmicks. I applaud B3 for being so transparent about their latest profile being narrower- everyone should follow their example.
Be transparent and then let the consumer decide what they want.
Pros can use what they want - some genuinely don't care as much about these dimensions that we more neurotic bat buyers do. Knowing how good some of the bats in your collection are - you should give your bats up to pros! 😂
With your logic - the bat having an edge size of 0mm should mean you may end up saved by the smallest of margins with a narrower bat at times. And you may as well have a bat that's 106mm with 10mm of wood at the edge is equal to one that's 106mm width with 38mm edges. I can tell you what the vast majority of the market will want assuming they're the same weight.
There's a lot more to kick up a furore about than the narrowing of bats in the cricketing world IMO. I do agree about folks being transparent about it at least though - must stress that. Transparency about the willow, the manufacturing continent and general dimensions like length configuration and width
-
The whole world has gone a bit mad. There is no scenario in which a narrower bat is more beneficial than a full width bat.
People seem to think they gain more size by giving up width, but The true edge size of a narrower bat is actually 0mm (since there is no wood present at the 107-108mm point).
Pros should be demanding full width bats and be willing to accept smaller edges. The whole “I middle the ball” argument is not rational- there is a reason a technique bat is harder to use, despite having “bigger” edges.
I think Steve smith and labuschagne might be the only pros checking width these days (Marcus carries vernier calipers in his bag).
Re GM - I think this is a massive mistake from them. They were supposed to be one of the few bat manufacturers who didn’t subject the consumer to these gimmicks. I applaud B3 for being so transparent about their latest profile being narrower- everyone should follow their example.
Be transparent and then let the consumer decide what they want.
Agree
-
Pros can use what they want - some genuinely don't care as much about these dimensions that we more neurotic bat buyers do. Knowing how good some of the bats in your collection are - you should give your bats up to pros! 😂
With your logic - the bat having an edge size of 0mm should mean you may end up saved by the smallest of margins with a narrower bat at times. And you may as well have a bat that's 106mm with 10mm of wood at the edge is equal to one that's 106mm width with 38mm edges. I can tell you what the vast majority of the market will want assuming they're the same weight.
There's a lot more to kick up a furore about than the narrowing of bats in the cricketing world IMO. I do agree about folks being transparent about it at least though - must stress that. Transparency about the willow, the manufacturing continent and general dimensions like length configuration and width
I think it can both save you in that you will miss the ball and cost you when you get small edge that goes straight to first slip instead of a thick outside edge that flies through gully. Chances are you wont know either of those things has happened to you because of your bat being narrower.
In the end its all about transparency and companies being up front and honest with you as they take your hard earned money.
-
The pros who are unaware they are using a smaller worth bat at the highest level
If they were told would they continue or would they ask for them to be widened …
Have heard several stories of some being unaware and then asking for them to be wider
In terms Babar only the hesd Gn maker will currently know if he’s asking for less width bats for tests and odi and t20 ?
-
The pros who are unaware they are using a smaller worth bat at the highest level
If they were told would they continue or would they ask for them to be widened …
Have heard several stories of some being unaware and then asking for them to be wider
In terms Babar only the hesd Gn maker will currently know if he’s asking for less width bats for tests and odi and t20 ?
Believe Alex addressed this in a thread a while ago, Babar had skinnier bats and wasn't aware but his bat specs would need a miracle bit of willow to achieve at his desired weight and a full width.
-
Personally, I would take 36-37 mm edges bat any day over narrow blade. Being an opener, full size blade would be more important to me than bigger edges.
-
Just checked my bats, lower end around 105-106mm, higher end bats 107mm.
Just remember the bats are finished by hand, so there will be a varieance after the cleft is cnc'd.
There is no way GM are trying to mislead anyone, its only you lot on here that worry about such things :D
-
@Six Sixes Cricket is right, not many people outside of this forum would know the allowed max width of a cricket bat, let alone really care.
I've said it before and some on here wouldn't want to hear it, but we're all responsible for this in some way. It's always (90-95% of the time at least) about 'specs' and something has to give.
@KW9221 states abv that he'd take a 36mm/37mm edge at full width over big edges and narrower. This is the issue here. 37mm edges aren't considered big anymore???!! Good luck being a batmaker and making consistently full bars with 38mm edges, high spines etc at lighter weights.
Until smaller edges are accepted and we all stop talking like bats have to be fill the gauge, then this sort of thing is what batmakers will do to sell bats I'm afraid.
-
38edge or 37 is pretty decent
I can’t remember specs of aions but are they not meant or be 37mm edges
-
Just checked my bats, lower end around 105-106mm, higher end bats 107mm.
Just remember the bats are finished by hand, so there will be a varieance after the cleft is cnc'd.
There is no way GM are trying to mislead anyone, its only you lot on here that worry about such things :D
We do but a whole 4 mm which is academy size on a new SH bat. I feel I'm well within my rights to be unhappy and return it. If others are happy with this, then that's their choice and I have no issue with their choices.
-
You are mate, well within your rights. I think 106mm or below and people should state it, but everyone will think different.
@Thamesvalley thanks for proving my point! 😆 38mm is just 'pretty decent'. Jeez!
-
Pretty decent is another words words fine …
-
I use a bat with 34mm edges and it’s a gun but seems to be one of a kind
-
I use a bat with 34mm edges and it’s a gun but seems to be one of a kind
There are plenty of bats with smaller edges which are guns. Pretty decent and fine for 38mm edges is my whole point. These size edges are now expected, as the terminology used makes everyone think they're the norm, regardless of scale weight. They're not.
-
Is 34 mm more realistic for a bat maker to work with with the average weight of a cleft to get full width ?
-
Depends on many factors mate. Full, concaving, profile, handle, toe thickness, spine height etc. Even down to grip, binding. Better to not specificy 'specs' and let the batmaker make you a great bat regardless imo
-
Has the addition of ‘the gauge’ only
Increased the arms race for big light bats?
-
Has the addition of ‘the gauge’ only
Increased the arms race for big light bats?
That, social media, t20 and CBF! 😂
-
Has the addition of ‘the gauge’ only
Increased the arms race for big light bats?
I don't recall much of a focus on bat specs before the restrictions came into force
There is a logic though in wanting the max specs possible if you are told by the games' law makers that bigger edges and spine heights distort the game so much in the favour of the batter that they need to be limited
Personally I think the bat regs were a very poor idea in the first place - massive improvements in strength and conditioning, practicing range hitting and an emphasis on taking risks have played a much bigger part in my view on the ability of Batters to clear the rope than the size of bats has
-
I don't recall much of a focus on bat specs before the restrictions came into force
There is a logic though in wanting the max specs possible if you are told by the games' law makers that bigger edges and spine heights distort the game so much in the favour of the batter that they need to be limited
Personally I think the bat regs were a very poor idea in the first place - massive improvements in strength and conditioning, practicing range hitting and an emphasis on taking risks have played a much bigger part in my view on the ability of Batters to clear the rope than the size of bats has
You say that but then you had crazy bats like Warners kaboom and the GN Halestorm knocking around. I think the focus now is more on a fuller profile
-
In my (albeit fairly limited) time as a batmaker, I'd say big specs were more asked for more than full profile. The issue is now, people are expecting both! 😆
-
You say that but then you had crazy bats like Warners kaboom and the GN Halestorm knocking around. I think the focus now is more on a fuller profile
You could give Geoff Boycott 5 full days with the Kaboom and he still wouldn't have managed to hit off the square
Conversely since the bat regs came in to force batting records are being obliterated
-
Sport science has a lot to answer for 😂
-
The thing is now that lots of cricketers have grown up with big bats, so it's very difficult to convince them big bats aren't necessarily better. No matter how many clips of Gilchrist etc you show them!
-
You could give Geoff Boycott 5 full days with the Kaboom and he still wouldn't have managed to hit off the square
Conversely since the bat regs came in to force batting records are being obliterated
Thats more to do with how batting is coached and the players treating their fitness like pro athletes unlike the lot from the early 2000s. Im pretty sure the average pro today would do the business with any bat from the last 15 years or so.
-
Geoff Boycott did well to score 8114 Test runs without hitting the ball off the square.
-
Thats more to do with how batting is coached and the players treating their fitness like pro athletes unlike the lot from the early 2000s. Im pretty sure the average pro today would do the business with any bat from the last 15 years or so.
That was my point, the acceleration in scoring rates and boundary clearing isn't due to bigger bats
-
The one argument I think you could make about bats now is that they are manufactured to perform at their optimum quicker and last less time. You hear about players in the 70s/80s using 5 bats across a season, now even guys who are not big hitters like Joe Root are taking 7/8 bats for a 6 week tour.
-
It was normal for county cricketers to get two bats for the season from their sponsors in the 1980s. (Check Peter Roebuck and Graeme Fowler's books)
-
The one argument I think you could make about bats now is that they are manufactured to perform at their optimum quicker and last less time. You hear about players in the 70s/80s using 5 bats across a season, now even guys who are not big hitters like Joe Root are taking 7/8 bats for a 6 week tour.
I'd imagine they're facing more balls now tho I'm practice, playing more games etc too
-
I don’t think bats have got better at all personally
I think the pressure to produce big bats in acceptable weights has put pay to that
I also think Jonny has a very important point with all year round cricket.
-
I think its very hard for them to get any better without some big shift in manufacturing methods/technology. At some point the bat making process as we know it will be optimised to the point where any improvements are negligible and tbh i think we have been there for a while.