Print

[elliss]

There is a new Alex H facebook/instagram/etc clip doing the rounds where he is stating that 3,4,5-star bats are purely based on look e.g. blemishes etc and they dont impact performance. This may well be the case but previously GN have always stated that their grading is their own and that its mainly about performance (even had this in an email once). The price differences for GN suggest there should be some performance differences.
Note - to be fair we have had three GN bats in the last few years and all have been superb - raging from 4 star to players.

[Jimbo]

Pricing wise it's almost universally the case that you pay a premium for cosmetics, don't think GN are alone in that.

[Bats_Entertainment]

Or is it? No-one's really sure. Please don't shout at me.

[Bats_Entertainment]

From Gray Nicolls website:

"Bats are graded and therefore priced according to their aesthetic, and their predicted performance potential. Generally bats that look better cosmetically perform better, and are therefore priced accordingly."

[jonny77]

Depends what you want to believe. I make bats and the two bats I have made for myself are Grade 2s. I could have selected higher grades from 100 clefts, but I personally don't feel they perform better. If you go into Grade 4 territory and below, you might get larger knots, hard bars etc which can affect performance, but 1 to 3 I'd say you're paying for aesthetics.

As with everything, you pays yer money etc. Margins are better with higher grade bats, so maybe that's why some will say they perform better. Maybe they feel they do, maybe not. I can't see how anyone can tell you  with absolute certainty just how good a bat will be, just after it's been made and not even played with. Part of the reason I've never understood the 'Graded on performance' model personally.

[Bats_Entertainment]

Can anyone really tell how well a bats going to perform until it's been broken in?

(NB Have avoided using 'opened up' here.)