Print

[uknsaunders]

the pictures aren't particularly helpful - i can't stand attempts at arty photo's as they are misleading.

The classic ways of telling who made a bat is by looking at the handle and binding, the shoulders and the toe shape, then looking at the profile.

In this case with the way the photo's are there are no clear ways of looking at them.

If I were to guess it could be a GM Epic after a massive refurb and the toe guard removed - but it could equally be any number of indian made bats (although the thickness of the shoulder suggests otherwise.)

The shape is a little pakistani - so it could be an AS bat too.

frankly - put up decent pics and it would be more fun.

Arty? lol - Nothing that good when I take photos! more concerned why people can't see the pics in the first place.

Just for Buzz:-

[WalkingWicket37]

Is the splice slightly off centre?

[WalkingWicket37]

Having looked at the shoulders, the binding and the profile, I'd guess that it used to be a GM Epic.
Looks to have had some use and whoever refurbed it could do with a bit more practice! 

[cricketrob]

Mars cricket ? Purely going by the shape of the handle


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[amritpremi]

I think I saw a similar profile for sale which was OnHand Sports bat.

[Optical]

Is it an M&H Amplus 2.11?

[uknsaunders]

I think we are done here.

If you said GM pat yourselves on the back.

If you said a high middled bat like an Amplus, you were close.

It's a GM Icon+ . Any further guesses on the weight, without stickers and after a refurb?

[WalkingWicket37]

Ah an icon plus!
I thought it was icon shaped, but the one I had was more concaved which threw me off the scent a bit, hence why I guessed at an epic.

And following a refurb I'd guess it weighs around 2lb11?

[uknsaunders]

Ah an icon plus!
I thought it was icon shaped, but the one I had was more concaved which threw me off the scent a bit, hence why I guessed at an epic.

And following a refurb I'd guess it weighs around 2lb11?

Icon+ has slightly bigger edges/spine/toe and a some extra wood along the spine I guess. It's a surprisingly long extended middle.

[WalkingWicket37]

Icon+ has slightly bigger edges/spine/toe and a some extra wood along the spine I guess. It's a surprisingly long extended middle.

The "standard" Icon I had surprised me with the coverage, it had a rather generous sweet spot and the pick up was stupidly light for the weight.
Having more wood in that shape will make an absolute weapon of a bat!

Damn it, I want to buy another Icon now... 

[trypewriter]

I'm not surprised it's light I haven't been able to see anything 

[uknsaunders]

Weighed it yesterday - currently 2'7.5! It was a light cleft to start with - 2'10 rather than the standard 2'12 for a GM Icon+. A sticker removal/refurb and it's a wand. John from Red Ink did a refurb but mainly concentrated on fixing the delamination on the front. It does fly.

[WalkingWicket37]

Weighed it yesterday - currently 2'7.5! It was a light cleft to start with - 2'10 rather than the standard 2'12 for a GM Icon+. A sticker removal/refurb and it's a wand. John from Red Ink did a refurb but mainly concentrated on fixing the delamination on the front. It does fly.

A 2lb10 GM+ to start with, that's a naughty bat right there!
Crown density cleft and great profile, when's this one going up for sale then 

[uknsaunders]

A 2lb10 GM+ to start with, that's a naughty bat right there!
Crown density cleft and great profile, when's this one going up for sale then 

I have mentioned it before but in the end I decided to get the delamination fixed first. To be honest i dont know what its worth anyway. This thread was more about how preconceived ideas of bats can be wrong and I thought this bat was a great example. Gm icon bats are typically thought of as high middle bats but in general they are good balanced bats.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[uknsaunders]

ps - if you are using Tapatalk the pics may not appear. Go to the settings and change to web view.