Very, very, interesting...

[David Atkatz]

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=8280#more-8280

[howard38]

.

[ruth-gehrig]

Yeah that is interesting. Looking forward to the 9 remaining parts to the story.

[GrayGhost]

It never ends. damn...

[barrysloate]

I agree Scott. The amount of fraud in this hobby seems boundless. Ultimately, many of the deep pocketed collectors will leave. Very bad for the hobby's future, and it does adversely affect even the legitimate Ruths, as it creates suspicion and doubt as to their authenticity. Crazy business.

[travrosty]

Dozens of snow white Ruth balls. Where are the dozens of Ty Cobb's, Jimmie Foxx, and Honus Wagner?

[Leon]

Dozens of snow white Ruth balls. Where are the dozens of Ty Cobb's, Jimmie Foxx, and Honus Wagner?

Hang on a minute......where did I put that box of balls again?

[HRBAKER]

I can hear the fall back, "All we did was offer an opinion here. Opinions are not guarantees, buyer beware."
Why does this hobby attract so many people who are allergic to an honest day's work? Because we collectors will put up with just about anything and come right back for more.

[ruth-gehrig]

I never thought I'd say this but "I'm glad I don't own a Ruth signed ball." :confused: It would bug me always wondering if it was genuine or not.

[benjulmag]

Buying an autographed anything without provenance or some other corroborating information atttesting to its genuiness requires a large leap of faith, regardless who gives the LOA. Given that the value of genuine single signed Ruth balls can be well into six-figures, probably as we speak there are forgers practicing their Ruth signatures. There is little down-side to the crooks. Period balls are relatively inexpensive and easy to find, and if even the signature doesn't pass muster with an authentication company, the forger can simply say he bought it at some flea market and got duped himself. I think that as time goes on, just as with baseball cards with pedigrees, autographed baseballs with pedigrees will sell for substantial premiums over balls with no pedigrees.

EDITED TO ADD that the notion of Peter Nash putting himself out as the good guy in exposing such forgeries raises the bar of hypocrisy to a new level.

[travrosty]

most of these balls are touted as late 40's. and they show up snow white.

where are the mid 20's era quotes "Babe Ruth" snow white balls with "babe ruth" in quotes? I don't see those in any quantity at all in this type of condition.

Nobody put any of those away in a shoe box? It's seems to be the majority is a 1940's type autograph. A number of the auctions list later 40's as the year they were signed.

[travrosty]

here is psa certing a ruth ball, then since it is sealed in the ballcube by psa, jsa SEEMS to cert it through the glass, the picture shows it still in the psa ballcube.

IF jsa didnt open the cube to inspect a BABE RUTH ball, what kind of inspection could this ball have gotten from jsa if they are looking at it through a ballcube?

It's a grade 7 ball and jsa cant take it out of the cube? Please JSA come on here and please show us you took the ball out of the cube to authenticate it yourself without foreign material in the way of you and the autograph. All I can go by is the picture they provided, and it looks like it was certed in the ballcube to me.

I don't care who sealed it in a ballcube, if it came to me, i am busting it out of there, breaking the seal, and giving it a proper inspection before my name would go on a cert. If the customer wanted to then get it resealed by psa, more power to him, but you have to look at it up close and unencumbered with NO plexiglass in the way. It's a purported high quality Babe Ruth signed baseball for heaven's sake.

Also, one of the first things JSA says they do on these single signed balls is to check for erasures and make sure it wasn't a multi-signed ball with some signatures erased to mask that fact. They even have a fancy machine to check for these things.

How can they seemingly check for erasures or other signatures on the ball, (with the ball still in the cube) when not all of the ball is even visible to the observer? You can't trust someone elses work when the person is bringing the ball to YOU and giving money to YOU for your inspection.

I am not saying the ball was certed in the cube 100%, I wasn't there, but it sure looks like that. If it was, what kind of meticulous attention did it get versus what it deserved?

Please come and show us the ball was taken out of the cube so our fears can be assuaged and this mystery can be solved.

[RichardSimon]

Yeah that is interesting. Looking forward to the 9 remaining parts to the story.

+1

[batsballsbases]

It is stories just like this why I stopped collecting autographed anything many years ago. And as for the experts really what it still comes down to is unless you were there when any item was signed is just an educated guess! That could end up costing the buyer alot of money years later when the item is deemed "BAD" by another educated expert years down the road!

[ibuysportsephemera]

It is stories just like this why I stopped collecting autographed anything many years ago. And as for the experts really what it still comes down to is unless you were there when any item was signed is just an educated guess! That could end up costing the buyer alot of money years later when the item is deemed "BAD" by another educated expert years down the road!

+1

[base_ball]

Perhaps the Ruth estate should consider licensing forgeries. That way they could receive royalties, collectors would know what they are getting, and PSA/ JSA/FBI/DNA can get a piece of the action with these "authenticated forgeries". Hey, even honest jobs would be created for the forgers.

[A2000]

who knew Babe Ruth's granddaughter was an expert on Babe Ruth autographs? :confused:

[D. Bergin]

who knew Babe Ruth's granddaughter was an expert on Babe Ruth autographs? :confused:


......and I thought I was the only one who thought of this.


Maybe she just wants a piece of the action. ;)

[RichardSimon]

Ruth's granddaughter aside, I respect the opinion of Ron Keurajian, over the alphabet soup guys, every day of the week.

[mr2686]

Ruth's granddaughter aside, I respect the opinion of Ron Keurajian, over the alphabet soup guys, every day of the week.
+1

[travrosty]

"who knew Babe Ruth's granddaughter was an expert on Babe Ruth autographs?"


I guess if psa or jsa aren't, someone has to be.

I would go with Ron too, the guy has the pulse on Ruth auto's.

[RichardSimon]

If Peter Nash and his investigation conclusively prove that PSA and JSA have make these mistakes what does that mean for the autograph hobby?
Who is responsible for refunding the buyers if buyers demand a refund?
If people are holding $50,000 Babe Ruth baseballs and a report comes out, that conclusively proves that those baseballs are forgeries, what happens then?
I have discussed this with several very knowledgable people. Their conclusions, based on the pictures that Peter Nash has shown, are that at least three different people signed those baseballs. These opinions are based on pictures of the baseballs obviously not the actual item, but opinions, based on pictures, in this instance do have value.
I would also think that such prolific forgers, if Peter Nash is correct, who have proven that they can consistently beat PSA and JSA, have forged many other expensive and historic baseballs too. That is where the big money is.

[HRBAKER]

Richard,
Does anybody really believe that there are that many nearly pristine single signed Ruth balls around today?

[David Atkatz]

it is extremely likely that a number--possibly even a large number--of those high-end Ruth singles are forged. But every photo that Peter has posted is taken directly from the catalog of a high-end sports auction house--Mastro, Lelands, SCP, REA, Heritage, etc., and these auctions took place over the past 10-15 years or so.

Where have all the knowledgeable people (myself included) been? Why has no one spoken up before this? We all, to some degree or other, have been found wanting.

That doesn't speak well for the autograph hobby.

[19cbb]

I would also think that such prolific forgers, if Peter Nash is correct, who have proven that they can consistently beat PSA and JSA, have forged many other expensive and historic baseballs too. That is where the big money is.

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

[RichardSimon]

Richard,
Does anybody really believe that there are that many nearly pristine single signed Ruth balls around today?

Well, I have my doubts. But so many have been sold I guess not everybody is doubting them the way we do here.
Good ol' P.T. Barnum could have made himself a home in this hobby. He must have been thinking of pristine Babe Ruth signed baseballs when he said "there's a sucker born every minute."

[RichardSimon]

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

Or you have to be an auction house that wants to sell these items with as few questions as possible.
And all of them use the same authenticators except for Lelands.

[David Atkatz]

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.PSA and JSA are most certainly not casinos. Casinos are quite a bit more knowledgeable about their own bread-and-butter (gambling), especially since they would be the ones to lose by making a mistake, rather than their customers.

[drc]

I'm no autograph expert, but even I was struck by the number of Ruth balls that looked as if they were signed yesterday in major auctions. It made me wonder, but I knew Ruth signed a lot and, as I said just once sentence earlier, I'm not an expert on the subject.

[doug.goodman]

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

I don't know the specifics of "authentication" cost versus retail value of the ball after it's checked, but it seems to me that even a Mendoza line success average would add up to a substantial profit, and nobody knows about your strikeouts in these "plate appearances".

Doug

[travrosty]

I am interested in seeing the next part of the investigation. One of these balls went for 300k.

They believe in the ball, it's pasted several places on their website, and they used it for the first item certed with the new LOA.

------------------


'The first item to receive the new LOA is one of the most famous and admired of all sports collectibles, the finest known single-signed Babe Ruth baseball. It is graded PSA/DNA Mint+ 9.5, and is considered the most valuable, single-signed baseball in the hobby.'


------------------

So they are hitching their star to this ball.

[prewarsports]

Two thoughts on this story with full disclosure that do not own a high end Ruth ball and never have.

1. Why do we assume that just because someone is a relative that they are also handwriting experts? I had a lady e mail me about an autograph I had (one of 25 on a MINOR LEAGUE team ball vintage from the 1930's) and she insisted that the autograph of her grandfather on the ball was a forgery. He was a complete common who died in the 1990's, totally worthless autograph. She was REALLY pissed that I would have the audacity to sell a forgery of her grandfather! She was 100% wrong but standing on the soapbox of "I'm his granddaughter and I know for sure!", no amount of evidence was going to prove her wrong, she was the expert by birthright appearantly. We give relatives and descendants WAAAY too much credit in this hobby. Aside from a signed letter of provenance stating that the item comes from the relative or ther persons estate, their opinions shouldn't mean much when evaluating a signature 80 years after it was signed. Unless this Ruth relative was sitting in a room watching Ruth's secretary sign for him or some other intimate first hand knowledge, why would we care what her opinion is?

2. By the end of Ruth's life autograph collecting was pretty big so it makes sense to me that there would be WAY more people getting his autograph and keeping it nice (in the sock drawer or something) as opposed to getting a signed Ruth ball in the 1930's when he was still playing when people did not collect autographs as much and the value was merely intrinsic. By the mid-late 1940's people were already thinking of autographs as "valuable" and "collectible" so it does not surprise me at all that SOME of these would survive in High Grade. How many is a completely different story that I would not dare to even guess at. I bet the optomists will be shocked at how many are fake and I bet the pessimists will be shocked that a large number of them are actually real, but regardless of how this ends, some people will be pissed!

Just my 2 cents worth (1 cent for each thought)

Rhys

[David Atkatz]

You may be correct, Rhys, about the number of balls Ruth may have signed in the 1940s, but I must disagree with your contention that these autographs were regarded as particularly valuable then. Even up to the early 1960s--when I began collecting--widows were still giving away signed checks--Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson... the list goes on. In 1966 I was given a signed and inscribed Gehrig photo by a relative of the original recipient. These autographs held only sentimental value in those days. I can only imagine the situation in the 1940s!

[RichardSimon]

You probably could have bought a Ruth signed ball for a buck in the 1940's, if someone even thought enough of it to sell one.
I don't think money was any kind of influence in the baseball autograph hobby in the 1940's.

[travrosty]

I agree, just read a story yesterday about a guy who had ruth sign some balls, and later sold them for 1 dollar or 1.50 and now he is kicking himself for doing so but back then that's what they were worth. Another guy sold babe ruth baseball cards for 10 dollars each.

People were not thinking about collectible value back then. If they were and bought the highest condition material, they could have cleaned up, but it didnt happen. People saved a ruth ball for sentimental reasons only.

even as late as 1980's boxing collectors were selling Jake kilrain signed letters for 10 dollars each, now they are 2000 each or more.


They just werent worth much money at all and people didnt think about the collecting for future value until the 1980's, with a few early birds who collected in the 1970's and saw a financial future for it. The term 'dealer' and 'collectible show' wasn't even a glint in peoples eyes.

[prewarsports]

I wasn't saying that autographs were worth money in the 1940's necessarily, but that people by the 1940's were starting to think of these signed baseballs as more than just whimsical things and started to put them away and keep them nice. A much higher percentage put some type of value on a Babe Ruth ball in 1947 than in 1927 absolutely 100% for sure. If a kid got a Babe Ruth signed ball in 1930, he would show his friends and then a few weeks later probably play with the ball or handle it A LOT. By the 1940's shortly before Ruths death people were starting to understand that signed baseballs of Ruth were a treasure and SOME people (not everyone obviously) were starting to keep stuff like this in sock drawers and treasure them. And yes a small percentage of the population (again, not everyone) put a monetary value on autographs increasingly by the 1940's, if you dont believe me I can post the fly page of any Watermans Autograph Contest Album from 1932 where they spend a full page talking to kids about collecting and saving autographs for their future monetary value! I bet only 1 in 1000 people put any type of value on autographs in the 1940's, but that is better than the 1 in 1,000,000 who put any type of value on them in the 1920's and that is why you see some high grade Ruth balls from the 1940's but never any mint or near mint ones from the 1920's in my opinion. How many fakes there are I have no idea, I am just speaking to why there will be more high grade ones from later in Ruths life than during his career.

[David Atkatz]

An exception to every rule. Here's a mint Ruth from 1928:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth_grabowski_ruth_350copy.jpg

[Mr. Zipper]

This is disturbing and we'll see how it plays out.

What is a little odd to me is that there is more anger directed at the "alphabet soup" companies than the forgers themselves. :confused:

I am not qualified to be the judge of who is the absolute best Ruth authenticator, but I have to presume JSA and PSA are far better than your run-of-the-mill sports memorabilia dealer. Perhaps there are a handful better than PSA and JSA. But if the allegations are true, is it safe to presume these forgeries would also get by 95% of other dealers?

[travrosty]

I wasn't saying that autographs were worth money in the 1940's necessarily, but that people by the 1940's were starting to think of these signed baseballs as more than just whimsical things and started to put them away and keep them nice. A much higher percentage put some type of value on a Babe Ruth ball in 1947 than in 1927 absolutely 100% for sure. If a kid got a Babe Ruth signed ball in 1930, he would show his friends and then a few weeks later probably play with the ball or handle it A LOT. By the 1940's shortly before Ruths death people were starting to understand that signed baseballs of Ruth were a treasure and SOME people (not everyone obviously) were starting to keep stuff like this in sock drawers and treasure them. And yes a small percentage of the population (again, not everyone) put a monetary value on autographs increasingly by the 1940's, if you dont believe me I can post the fly page of any Watermans Autograph Contest Album from 1932 where they spend a full page talking to kids about collecting and saving autographs for their future monetary value! I bet only 1 in 1000 people put any type of value on autographs in the 1940's, but that is better than the 1 in 1,000,000 who put any type of value on them in the 1920's and that is why you see some high grade Ruth balls from the 1940's but never any mint or near mint ones from the 1920's in my opinion. How many fakes there are I have no idea, I am just speaking to why there will be more high grade ones from later in Ruths life than during his career.



its not true, his autograph in the 40's was worth about zero, and people werent socking them away for future resale monetary value. just didnt happen. a few socked them away because they wanted a sentimental momento but not because they were 'worth' anything or had the potential to be 'worth' anything. there was no resale market for ruth balls, because there was no demand, thus no expectation of demand in the future.

[travrosty]

This is disturbing and we'll see how it plays out.

What is a little odd to me is that there is more anger directed at the "alphabet soup" companies than the forgers themselves. :confused:

I am not qualified to be the judge of who is the absolute best Ruth authenticator, but I have to presume JSA and PSA are far better than your run-of-the-mill sports memorabilia dealer. Perhaps there are a handful better than PSA and JSA. But if the alegations are true, is it safe to presume these forgeries would also get by 95% of other dealers?



The anger at the companies is because they potentially take a forgery and legitimize it! Before it was a forgery that might get by someone, might not.

Now it has been 'deemed authentic', and gets by everyone because there is a sticker on the cert, which has been signed by someone.

Now instead of consumers doing their own homework and vetting a ball by carefully inspecting it, getting multiple opinions, - they buy the ball because abc said it was good. If you say that consumers weren't doing that before, and getting stuck with bad balls, they are just doing the same thing now, only they feel better about it.

Never in history have people felt so good at buying potential forgeries. It's now backed up with a hologram! It's feel good authenticating, feel good buying, but what are they truly getting.

If there were no certs on these balls, people would be cautious and check them out, and maybe not pay 300000 dollars for something they dont know anything about, and buy it from anybody anywhere instead of a lifelong dealer who might back up the ball with a lifetime guarantee.

Instead they could buy it from joe blow's beanie baby show, and Joe blow just points to the certificate, and the buyer can be ignorant, the seller can be ignorant, because they trust the comapny. How about educated buyers and sellers and let the company certify coco crisp and milton bradley?

Instead some guy now has a ruth ball that he paid 20 grand for and now we see dozens of blazers all over the place over the last 10 years. Where were these balls 20, 30 years ago? They all come out of the woodwork now?

Where are the 7 dwarfs? because snow white is here!

You stated the problem perfectly.

"but I have to presume JSA and PSA are far better than your run-of-the-mill sports memorabilia dealer."

first of all , how do you know they are good? second, the problem is that now any run of the mill sports memorabilia dealer feels he can sell a ruth ball. just point to the cert.

I am really tired of the excuse. "they probably screw up less than the others so let's go with them."

let's demand competance, and if there is no one here right now, let's wait. Don't reward the best of the worst. Demand better, then you will get it. If you support the way it is being done right now, that's all you will ever get. You will never get anything better than this if this is a great system for you.



we have taken a scholarly pursuit and fastracked it. There is a picture of a jsa cert with a photo on the cert of a psa certed ruth STILL IN THE BALLCUBE! Why? did they not want to break the PSA seal? Is that authenticating, through the glass?

Please answer how that is the right thing to do? Why are these guys good? It's circular logic, the auction houses say they are good, so the collector believes them, they buy from the auction house with the abc cert. they are happy it has an abc cert, because they can resell later at an auction house, so someone else can buy it, and the seller, buyer, auction house, and the abc company all say ABC is good? The auction house makes money, abc makes money, the reseller makes money. Of course they think abc is good, everyones making money.

The problem is the person who will lose money is the guy who gets stuck with the bad autographs LAST! He is the loser. And if the company goes under or proves it is not up to snuff, like GAI, everyone who had a gai cert gets stuck and there are thousands upon thousands of losers. No one learned anything at all from GAI. Speeding into the sun and and future is so bright we gotta wear shades. But it's alright because we all have our pristine Babe Ruth signed baseballs at our side!

[GrayGhost]

:)Instead they could buy it from joe blow's beanie baby show, and Joe blow just points to the certificate, and the buyer can be ignorant, the seller can be ignorant, because they trust the comapny.

That just made me laugh hysterically.:p:p:p

This is really crazy. I had lots of faith in the alpha bits authenticators, but now I don't know. To me, if I had the means to buy an expensive ball, I would study it carefully, vs many known examples, and make my own judgment. Yes, its GREAT to have an authenticator be it the Alphabet guys, or anyone else. Soem are better than others, but in the end, unless you were THERE WHEN BABE SIGNED IT. NOBODY KNOWS FOR SURE> We all must take a "leap of faith" and IMO, our own minds and research may be less risky, than a company that authenticates so many sigs they kinda are blue in the face.

Its just an opinion, and this whole thing is making my head spin.

[David Atkatz]

The anger at the companies is because they potentially take a forgery and legitimize it! Before it was a forgery that might get by someone, might not...

Now instead of consumers doing their own homework and vetting a ball by carefully inspecting it, getting multiple opinions, - they buy the ball because abc said it was good...

Never in history have people felt so good at buying potential forgeries. It's now backed up with a hologram! It's feel good authenticating, feel good buying...Gee... How long have I been saying this?

[travrosty]

the question that is most important to answer is that - after the 10 part series, and you feel like haulsofshame is correct, and that ruth balls have totally been botched, would that be enough to shake your confidence in these companies where you feel like we need something else?


or would that not be enough? and if it wasn't enough, then what would be enough. It's already babe ruth, the biggest name ever, what would it take to say 'enough'? Is there no scenario that you would say "enough, even I couldn't support this craziness anymore?"

[Fuddjcal]

The anger at the companies is because they potentially take a forgery and legitimize it! Before it was a forgery that might get by someone, might not.

Now it has been 'deemed authentic', and gets by everyone because there is a sticker on the cert, which has been signed by someone.

Now instead of consumers doing their own homework and vetting a ball by carefully inspecting it, getting multiple opinions, - they buy the ball because abc said it was good. If you say that consumers weren't doing that before, and getting stuck with bad balls, they are just doing the same thing now, only they feel better about it.

Never in history have people felt so good at buying potential forgeries. It's now backed up with a hologram! It's feel good authenticating, feel good buying, but what are they truly getting.

If there were no certs on these balls, people would be cautious and check them out, and maybe not pay 300000 dollars for something they dont know anything about, and buy it from anybody anywhere instead of a lifelong dealer who might back up the ball with a lifetime guarantee.

Instead they could buy it from joe blow's beanie baby show, and Joe blow just points to the certificate, and the buyer can be ignorant, the seller can be ignorant, because they trust the comapny. How about educated buyers and sellers and let the company certify coco crisp and milton bradley?

Instead some guy now has a ruth ball that he paid 20 grand for and now we see dozens of blazers all over the place over the last 10 years. Where were these balls 20, 30 years ago? They all come out of the woodwork now?

Where are the 7 dwarfs? because snow white is here!

You stated the problem perfectly.

"but I have to presume JSA and PSA are far better than your run-of-the-mill sports memorabilia dealer."

first of all , how do you know they are good? second, the problem is that now any run of the mill sports memorabilia dealer feels he can sell a ruth ball. just point to the cert.

I am really tired of the excuse. "they probably screw up less than the others so let's go with them."

let's demand competance, and if there is no one here right now, let's wait. Don't reward the best of the worst. Demand better, then you will get it. If you support the way it is being done right now, that's all you will ever get. You will never get anything better than this if this is a great system for you.



we have taken a scholarly pursuit and fastracked it. There is a picture of a jsa cert with a photo on the cert of a psa certed ruth STILL IN THE BALLCUBE! Why? did they not want to break the PSA seal? Is that authenticating, through the glass?

Please answer how that is the right thing to do? Why are these guys good? It's circular logic, the auction houses say they are good, so the collector believes them, they buy from the auction house with the abc cert. they are happy it has an abc cert, because they can resell later at an auction house, so someone else can buy it, and the seller, buyer, auction house, and the abc company all say ABC is good? The auction house makes money, abc makes money, the reseller makes money. Of course they think abc is good, everyones making money.

The problem is the person who will lose money is the guy who gets stuck with the bad autographs LAST! He is the loser. And if the company goes under or proves it is not up to snuff, like GAI, everyone who had a gai cert gets stuck and there are thousands upon thousands of losers. No one learned anything at all from GAI. Speeding into the sun and and future is so bright we gotta wear shades. But it's alright because we all have our pristine Babe Ruth signed baseballs at our side!

I have to agree with you 100% Travis. Also, to add: "No one learned anything at all from" Donald Fryingpangianniand his rubber stamping operation either. I certainly see what you mean about the potential the alphabet soup companies have to cost people a bundle. It's beyond a mess.

[Mr. Zipper]

The anger at the companies is because they potentially take a forgery and legitimize it! Before it was a forgery that might get by someone, might not.

Now it has been 'deemed authentic', and gets by everyone because there is a sticker on the cert, which has been signed by someone...

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.

[David Atkatz]

Can't agree, Steve. We all know to be wary of the seller--that's why TPAs exist. "Don't worry my child, I'm an expert, and I assure you you're not being ripped-off this time."

[Sportsnutcards]

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.

That is what I do not understand about those who are so against JSA and PSA. If they didn't exist how would someone find out who to trust? Where would a novice autograph collector start? How would they even find someone whose opinion they could trust? Everyone makes mistakes, even major dealers, auction houses etc, but they are not brought into the spotlight because their mistakes are usually not out there for everyone to see. That is why 3rd part authentication exists, to give you an extra level of comfort when buying something. They are just certifying their opinion just like every other major dealer in this industry. It is then up to the consumer to make a decision how to weight that opinion.

[vintagechris]

You either have to be the second coming of Houdini or have a very friendly croupier dealing you the cards to 'consistently beat' a Casino.

I think I get what Jimmy is saying and I agree.

[prewarsports]

Hi

I never said people were stashing Ruth balls away for monetary future value. Here is what I am trying to say for the third time, and I am 100% correct and have researched this extensively.

1. People in general were saving things like Ruth signed balls more in the late 1940's because they recognized them as a keepsakes/heirloom etc more than they were in the 1920's. Absolutely 100% true. Not because "they were going to be worth something someday" but because they recognized that they were collectible items. I am NOT saying everyone did this, but more people were keeping things like this in sock drawers and trying to keep them nice because they were special items by 1947 then they were in 1927. This is an absolute fact and if you dispute this you dont know autograph collecting history.


2. Autographs WERE being collected by the 1940's by larger numbers of people who viewed them as "valuable" but not in the same way we do today. While there was no set value, there are recorded events where things like Babe Ruth signed baseballs sold for money or traded at a premium for other items and this is 100% true as well. Whether you want to admit it or not, there were small groups of people who were buying and selling and trading autographs in clubs by the 1930's and there were lots of them by the 1940's. If you want an education on the autograph clubs of this time period and how they operated I would be happy to give you one, but you are wrong to state that nobody placed monetary value on autographs in the 1940's because SOME people did, the same way they did baseball cards in this era. Maybe only 10 people in the world wanted a T206 Wagner in 1949 but the facts are there to prove that SOME people did even though baseball cards were worthless to 99.9% of America. Just because some Wagners were being sold at yard sales and thrown away in 1950 does not mean they did not already have monetary value to SOME PEOPLE!

Were people getting Ruth to signed baseballs so they could sell them? No. Were people by the 1940's getting Ruth to sign baseballs because they were highly prized collectibles that did have value and should be kept nice and in nice condition? 100% YES and this is the point I was trying to make.

You are speaking in way too many absolutes. All it takes is 1 person that thought their Ruth ball was worth money in 1947 to prove your statement wrong.

Not trying to start something here, but I am right and I have spoken to people who were members of autograph clubs in the 1940's when I bought their collections who have explained to me first hand how they worked and how they would sell some of their autographs (yes for money in the 1940's including Ruth). They did have some monetary value to some people by the 1940's and to deny this entirely is not knowing the history of autograph collecting in America.

[David Atkatz]

To think that sports autographs had any value other than sentimental in the 1940s is to not know the history of autograph collecting. Through the 1960s no autograph dealer--Mary Benjamin, Charles Hamilton, to name the biggest--would touch a sports autograph.

(Don't believe me? Take a look at Hamilton's 1960 book "Collecting Autographs and Manuscripts," or Benjamin's "Autographs: A Key to Collecting.")

[vintagechris]

The sad thing with these authenticators is it is not just the high dollar stuff, is the lower stuff as well. I bought a signed football card lot from a well known auction house, awhile back and the lot had been ok'd by one of the "respected" authenticators.

When I got the lot and started looking through it it took me no more than two minutes to realize it was LITTERED with bad signatures. For example, there were autographs of Charlie Joiner and Harry Carson where it literally looked like a child was just playing around and writing their name.

They looked like whoever did it wasn't even trying to copy those players signatures they were that bad. I am used to getting a small % of bad signatures in autograph lots like this but this was closer to 40 or 50% and that was just the ones I knew for sure.

I will say this, this lot was so littered with forgeries that the only conclusion is the authenticator didn't actually look at the lot or they passed them without caring because the auction house is paying them.

The auction house allowed me to return them for a refund but I wonder if they held that authentication company accountable for that, especially since they still use said authenticator. Does the auction house just not care because they are getting their cut?

These forgeries were so obvious that if they didn't confront the authenticator, I would tend to believe they don't care as long as they get their cut, which is really sad.

[travrosty]

The auction house allowed me to return them for a refund but I wonder if they held that authentication company accountable for that, especially since they still use said authenticator. Does the auction house just not care because they are getting their cut?
These forgeries were so obvious that if they didn't confront the authenticator, I would tend to believe they don't care as long as they get their cut, which is really sad.


People are still trying to figure that out, is it just shoddy work or are they not even trying, or worse yet, they are trying but have different motives. We don't know.

auction houses never hold the authentication companies responsible.

[travrosty]

Travis:

You make some good points, but part of the logic is flawed in my view.

In essence, your point is that these companies "legitimize" some fakes and create a false sense of security, the collectors don't do their homework, etc. In effect, it is the fault of these companies that these fakes are allowed to flourish.

Following your logic, if these companies didn't exist approving questionable items, collectors would be more educated, they'd all do their homework, go to the proper dealer/experts, have everything reviewed my muliple trusted sources, etc., etc. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I just don't buy it.

Big money will attract fraud. Ruth balls would be selling for big bucks whether PSA existed or not. And collectors would be just as lazy and look to some source of expertise whether PSA existed or not. Instead of trusting the opinion of PSA, they'd be trusting the opinion of some dealer or auction house, who is no less prone to the same shortcomings of a TPA.

I think your view of the hobby sans "alphabet soup" is not realistic.





but alphabet soup isnt working. we had no soup before 1999. this isnt any better.

maybe authentication companies would work and be good for the hobby, but they have to operate in a business model that doesnt cut corners.

you cut corners, you get this, and wife signed listons, and manager signed fitzsimmons, and wife signed fitzsimmons, and secretarial signed Sullivan, and wife signed Marciano, and secretarial signed Louis, should I keep going?

They need a lot more experts in all fields, they need to slow down, they need to stop promising instant turnaround, they need to do about 30 other things.

They have known this for years, they implement NO reforms. Sorry, not a big fan of the status quo. I can't wait to see parts 2-10.

[travrosty]

To think that sports autographs had any value other than sentimental in the 1940s is to not know the history of autograph collecting. Through the 1960s no autograph dealer--Mary Benjamin, Charles Hamilton, to name the biggest--would touch a sports autograph.

(Don't believe me? Take a look at Hamilton's 1960 book "Collecting Autographs and Manuscripts," or Benjamin's "Autographs: A Key to Collecting.")



i would agree.

[travrosty]

That is what I do not understand about those who are so against JSA and PSA. If they didn't exist how would someone find out who to trust? Where would a novice autograph collector start? How would they even find someone whose opinion they could trust? Everyone makes mistakes, even major dealers, auction houses etc, but they are not brought into the spotlight because their mistakes are usually not out there for everyone to see. That is why 3rd part authentication exists, to give you an extra level of comfort when buying something. They are just certifying their opinion just like every other major dealer in this industry. It is then up to the consumer to make a decision how to weight that opinion.



The reason is because people dont know these authenticating companies, they just see abc, or xyz and trust them. Who looked at your autograph when you sent it in?

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW, DO YOU? nobody does. how can you gauge trust in an authenticator that is a mystery man to you?

If Richard Simon looked at a ruth ball i was considering buying, i can take richard's opinion for what i value it. But if the ruth ball comes with abc or xyz, just whose opinion am i valuing? Give me a name. They don't tell you who looked at it.

Please answer that question and dont dodge it.

[doug.goodman]

... where it literally looked like a child was just playing around and writing their name...

Laughing.

I crossed paths with a Cy Young winning all-star pitcher a few times a couple of years back thru my job. As a thank you for the "help" I had provided him, he sent me an autographed baseball from his most recent All Star game. I can barely read any of the autographs on that ball. I think it's a sign of the times.

We will see very few modern autographs in the "nice looking signature" thread.

Doug

[vintagechris]

Laughing.

I crossed paths with a Cy Young winning all-star pitcher a few times a couple of years back thru my job. As a thank you for the "help" I had provided him, he sent me an autographed baseball from his most recent All Star game. I can barely read any of the autographs on that ball. I think it's a sign of the times.

We will see very few modern autographs in the "nice looking signature" thread.

Doug

Trust me, I have gotten my share of sloppy sigs, but this is not what this was. None of the letters were even remotely formed the way the players signatures are. Charlie Joiner and Harry Carson have very distinctive sigs that have not changed much if at all in 30 years, and these signs didn't even look like the person who signed them tried to make them look remotely like theirs.

Picture the Joiner signature with a printed capital "J" like we all learned to write in school, now go look at a real Charlie Joiner signature. That is how bad some of these signatures were. That is just one example.

funny thing was, when I called the auction house and told them, they pulled the auction up online and from the few pics they had online, said yea, some don't look right. They literally looked for about 35 seconds. Left me really wondering about this and other auction houses.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[scgaynor]

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

[HRBAKER]

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

Maybe, even probably, and doesn't make either any less an issue.

[Leon]

I’M SHOCKED, SHOCKED: Not really

The thing is, for you guys that don't to buy autographs because you are concerned about authenticity, my guess is that the problem of high end doctored cards sitting in holders is 100X worse than high end forged Ruth signatures that pass 3rd party authenticators.

Actually 100X might be conservative.

It is much easier to doctor a card than do a really good Ruth forgery.

Just sayin.


Scott

I think there are problems with a lot of high grade vintage cards. Other lower grade ones I don't think have as many problems. I own around a thousand lower grade to mid grade vintage baseball cards.
I sleep well at night. If I had a thousand autographs, purchased in the last 15 yrs (as that is when I started) I am not sure I could say the same thing.

[Runscott]

I think there are problems with a lot of high grade vintage cards. Other lower grade ones I don't think have as many problems. I own around a thousand lower grade to mid grade vintage baseball cards.
I sleep well at night. If I had a thousand autographs, purchased in the last 15 yrs (as that is when I started) I am not sure I could say the same thing.

Well-said. In addition, a forged Ruth autograph is better compared to a forged card. I doubt Leon has any card forgeries. An altered card would be compared to an altered autograph.

(I had an apple this morning and not once confused it with an orange.)

[David Atkatz]

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing. The only "alteration" is an enhancement, and that is easy to spot. I think paying NM-MT money for a VG card that's been doctored (and therefore should not have been graded at all) is analogous to buying an authenticated forged autograph.

(There's no point in forging cards, when there's no shortage of low-grade genuine examples that can be restored.)

[Leon]

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing. The only "alteration" is an enhancement, and that is easy to spot. I think paying NM-MT money for a VG card that's been doctored (and therefore should not have been graded at all) is analogous to buying an authenticated forged autograph.

(There's no point in forging cards, when there's no shortage of low-grade genuine examples that can be restored.)

David- stick to autographs....... :) Have you ever tried to alter a vg card into a NRMT-MT one? Yes, there are a very, very few that could have a surface wrinkle but otherwise be NMT-MT, but mainly a vg card, true vg with honest wear, would have to be trimmed down to a toothpick size to make it have pointy corners. I agree about altered autographs and that there wouldn't be many of those either. I will go back to 1000 cards in mid grade vs 1000 autographs? I will take the cards as having less issues. Now if you were to change the question to be "are there more NRMT+ pre-war cards with problems vs pre-war autographs, I think the difference is much closer. We sure don't see the amount of over-sized cards that were around 20+ yrs ago, I wonder why? (so I do understand the point being made)

Even though this is a nice card it could never be made into NRMT-MT, imo....and get pass anyone with any knowledge of the series..

[David Atkatz]

I'm sure you've heard of building up corners, Leon. I wasn't talking about trimming cards. I was talking about restoring them.

[Leon]

I'm sure you've heard of building up corners, Leon. I wasn't talking about trimming cards. I was talking about restoring them.

Like I said David....stick to autos and I will stick to cards :).

[David Atkatz]

Right, Leon. There are no restored cards in PSA slabs.
And this Christmas we'll all see peace on Earth and good will towards men.

(I'm sure Bill Mastro knows what I'm talking about. ;))

[Leon]

Right, Leon. There are no restored cards in PSA slabs.
And this Christmas we'll all see peace on Earth and good will towards men.

(I'm sure Bill Mastro knows what I'm talking about. ;))

Seriously David.....think of this as yourself in knowing autos as I know cards. I study cards and know card doctors and am personal friends with several senior graders. Do we really need to continue discussing this? It would be analogous to me telling you about Yankees autos and memorabilia.

[David Atkatz]

And I know Jimmy Spence personally. That must mean there are no forgeries with JSA certificates.

[David Atkatz]

I seem to recall a number of threads a few years back regarding restored cards being slabbed. I don't recall the names, but the guy was an expert in card doctoring, and he claimed that a great number of slabbed cards belonging to a major PSA collector and board member were almost certain to have been doctored.

[David Atkatz]

Some examples:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=86061&highlight=doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115212&highlight=doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84685&highlight=doctored+cards

[insidethewrapper]

I have had baseballs signed in person in the 1960's and they have been out of the sunlight etc and many of the signatures have faded over the years. How in the heck can these older signatures still look so good ? They can't.

Also how can these older cards like 1933 Goudey's look mint. White borders, no nicked corners , no creases etc. They can't . In 1933 etc, are you telling me kids never touched these cards and not once in all these years a corner has been nicked ? That's impossible. How in the heck were they stored all those years before being slabbed .

Is there anyone on here that is old enough to remember collecting Goudey's as a kid ? My dad is 89 and he collected them and he laughs when he sees cards in that shape.

Cards are restored and auto's are faked if they look that good.

[David Atkatz]

I have had baseballs signed in person in the 1960's and they have been out of the sunlight etc and many of the signatures have faded over the years. How in the heck can these older signatures still look so good ? They can't.

Cards are restored and auto's are faked if they look that good.Nonsense. Here's an Isaac Newton signature from 1703. Looks pretty good.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/newton_sig.jpg

This was written in 1864. Not bad, either.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/lincolnaes.jpg

[Leon]

Some examples:

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=86061&highlight=doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=115212&highlight=doctored+cards

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=84685&highlight=doctored+cards

David
I have been on this board longer than anyone except the person who started it. You can't show me a thread on the memorabilia side or card side that I haven't read. Except for one person I have more than 2x as many posts as anyone else. I agree with everything you said. I have had many hours of conversations with Dan Markel and was all set to testify in court when it was settled. I am not sure what else I can say except you haven't said anything I haven't already known for years and years. I know there are a ton of altered high grade cards in holders etc etc......I am a preacher of that issue. After one of our discussions on the board, several years ago, I had someone call me and his introduction was literally "Hi Leon, I am a card doctor and I want to let you know more about the things your board members are saying."

[David Atkatz]

I don't understand, Leon. First you ridicule me for suggesting that doctored/altered/restored cards get graded and slabbed, and now you say "Of course they do. I've known that forever."

[insidethewrapper]

David: Must have used better ink back then ( or are they forged), but my 1960's are faded and they have rarely seen the light of day. Maybe something else is destroying these signatures. But color movies from around the late '60's and '70's are also very faded and look terrible.

[David Atkatz]

They did use better ink back then. Museums and archives are full of 1000+ year old documents. as dark and bold as the day they were written.

[Leon]

I don't understand, Leon. First you ridicule me for suggesting that doctored/altered/restored cards get graded and slabbed, and now you say "Of course they do. I've known that forever."

First of all David, sorry if you think I was ridiculing you. That wasn't my intention. I am only having a friendly debate. What I have a problem with is when folks that don't know cards too well lump them all together. My whole thought is that the lower grade cards have far fewer altering problems and that is what I collect. If I collected only PSA 8 and above, then I wouldn't feel so good. If I collected autographs, and taking into account what I have read and seen on this board, I wouldn't feel so good either (unless I was an expert and could authenticate them myself) Sorry if I miss communicated.

[David Atkatz]

I agree with you, too, Leon. Perhaps we each misunderstood the other. My contention was not that low/mid grade slabbed cards have been altered, but rather that raw mid-grade cards are altered to produce high-grade cards, which are then slabbed.

[base_ball]

After one of our discussions on the board, several years ago, I had someone call me and his introduction was literally "Hi Leon, I am a card doctor and I want to let you know more about the things your board members are saying."

Did this person tell you anything worth sharing with this board? Or with law enforcement?

[Leon]

Did this person tell you anything worth sharing with this board? Or with law enforcement?

I have shared everything I know with law enforcement. In different threads and posts I have also shared many details. I am not a card doctor so don't know it all. Most things are actually common sense and have been rehashed on the board over and over.

[Frozen in Time]

Let me start by saying that I don't really know anything about grading cards or determining whether or not a Ruth autograph is authentic. But, aside from the comparisons to known "real" autographs of Ruth, I would think that the surface properties of a vintage ball would change enough over a period of 70 or 80 years that a modern forgery might display some disparities in the interaction of the ink with the ball surface that could be examined and quantitated.

If this were true, some type of physical measurement (e.g., refractive index or absorption spectrum) would at least remove some of the subjectivity out of the process.

Does anyone know if this kind of approach has ever been used?

[David Atkatz]

As a physicist, Craig, I'm sure that 60+ years of ink-leather interaction must have some measurable effects. The key, of course, would be to measure them non-destructively.

[Mr. Zipper]

As a physicist, Craig, I'm sure that 60+ years of ink-leather interaction must have some measurable effects. The key, of course, would be to measure them non-destructively.

Along these lines, wouldn't fresh ink on 60 year old leather feather or spider-web to some degree?

[scgaynor]

Leon and David are both correct.

The reason that I made my statement about cards being even more problematic than autographs is because it makes me smile when I read people making comments about how they don't collect autographs because of forgeries and authentication companies that make mistakes.

Both doctored cards and forged autographs are problems in a relatively young hobby with easy money available to somebody who puts in the effort to deceive.

But, in my opinion, The problem of altered cards is much worse than some forged Ruth balls. If you are going to devote 10 articles to forged Ruth balls, you should be devoting 50 articles to doctored cards.

It would take alot of $300,000 Ruth balls to equal the amount spent on cards that used to be 4's and 5's and have been turned into 7's and 8's.

Scott

[RichardSimon]

So Scott you are basically saying the the card graders are really bad, correct?
Shocked, shocked to find that out,,, here are your winnings sir.

[scgaynor]

Long time, no talk, hope that you are doing well Richard. I would be shocked, shocked to hear otherwise!

Some are worse than others, and some are pretty good. That goes for both cards and autographs.

I know that fighting to bring to light autograph forgeries has been your crusade for years and it is a problem that needs to be addressed and fixed.

My point is that there are problems everywhere and I would not have much more confidence in high grade expensive cards than I would in high grade expensive autographs.

Scott

[RichardSimon]

Doing well,thanks for asking and your point is well taken.

[RichardSimon]

Along these lines, wouldn't fresh ink on 60 year old leather feather or spider-web to some degree?

Obtaining old ink is easy.
I can remember being at the Atlantique City show some years ago.
Turned a corner and in a corner booth a dealer had a pyramid of old ink in those little bottles. A forgers wet dream come true.
I actually thought of "slipping" into the pyramid, and damaging all the bottles, but I knew it would mean trouble :).

[TexasLeaguer]

There's an interesting documentary called "The Man Who Forged America" about a guy named Mark Hoffman who was a master forger. It's not about sports memorabilia at all, but it's worth watching because it shows a number of forgery techniques he used that are definitely relevant to a number of the things people here might collect. His story also has a crazy and unfortunate ending after he gets caught in his web of lies...

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YORKKIAT
(hit play, close pop-up window, hit play again)

[David Atkatz]

"Old" ink is still "fresh" ink. It's liquid, and would feather when applied to a porous medium.

[RichardSimon]

His story is an eye opener.
He literally tried to rewrite Mormon history, then killed two people to try to cover up his crimes.

[Runscott]

What's an "altered autograph"? No such thing.

David - that's my point. There's almost no chance of a halfway knowledgeable card collector buying a forgery; however there's a very good chance of a halfway knowledgeable autograph collector getting stuck with a forgery at some point.

But if I had to choose, I would much rather get stuck with an altered Ruth card than a forged Ruth signature. The former would still have value.

[Runscott]

I seem to recall a number of threads a few years back regarding restored cards being slabbed. I don't recall the names, but the guy was an expert in card doctoring, and he claimed that a great number of slabbed cards belonging to a major PSA collector and board member were almost certain to have been doctored.

I'm with you on this one. I could post a very personal example, but I think Leon would fly to Seattle and kick me in the butt.

I think the doctored cards in slabs are a despicable aspect of card-collecting, but I still don't think it is as rampant as forgeries. Trimmed cards in slabs might be - not sure. I still have to wonder if a trimmed card in a slab is as bad as a forged autograph with an LOA. I wouldn't think so.

[Scott Garner]

There's an interesting documentary called "The Man Who Forged America" about a guy named Mark Hoffman who was a master forger. It's not about sports memorabilia at all, but it's worth watching because it shows a number of forgery techniques he used that are definitely relevant to a number of the things people here might collect. His story also has a crazy and unfortunate ending after he gets caught in his web of lies...

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=YORKKIAT
(hit play, close pop-up window, hit play again)

TexasLeaguer,
Excellent Mark Hoffman documentary. Very interesting & thanks for posting! I like your avitar. Why your interest in Lon Warneke "The Arkansas Hummingbird"?

[TexasLeaguer]

Why your interest in Lon Warneke "The Arkansas Hummingbird"?

My collecting focus recently has been pre-war pitchers, and I like Warneke because he was a hard-throwing country boy from nearby Arkansas. Even though he didn't actually play in the Texas League, he tried out for the Houston Buffaloes as a first baseman, and was converted to a pitcher by their manager Frank Snyder.

[Mr. Zipper]

"Old" ink is still "fresh" ink. It's liquid, and would feather when applied to a porous medium.

Yes, that's what I meant. It feathers when it hits old paper and sometimes wood... you'd think it would be true to a degree for leather as well.

:confused:

[19cbb]

Operation Bambino. Part II

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=10406

[mr2686]

Keurajian is the author of McFarland Publishing’s soon-to-be-released baseball autograph study, Signatures From Cooperstown

Looks like his book will soon be coming out.

[Leon]

It sounds like the "leap" of faith is getting further and further.....

[GrayGhost]

Due to what Leon and others have said. I think we may see a big drop in values on rare, vintage signatures. There is just too much "risk", compared to say, pieces of memorabilia, tho some like programs, have been reprinted/faked.

Altered Cards is still an issue, but as most have said on other threads, I don't think thats near as big a problem, as forgeries, esp w SGC, PSA, Beckett and your REPUTABLE grading services.

[RichardSimon]

Perhaps we will see a rise in value in rare, vintage signatures that are not authenticated. :rolleyes:

[alanu]

As far as doctored cards go, "if a card is doctored and you can't tell, is it really doctored", I say this in jest, but there's some truth to it.

[drc]

Makes about as much sense as 'If you are on vacation and don't know your house is being robbed, is your house really being robbed?"

The answer for both questions is Yes.

[doug.goodman]

But if your house is robbed while you are on vacation, you will be able to tell as soon as you get home.

Unless they only stole 1 sock, that you seldom wear...

Doug

[drc]

The defendant's argument in court will be, "The house was robbed, but it wasn't really robbed."

[Mr. Zipper]

You see the same scenario in comic book collecting.

Has a microscopically thin sliver been taken off an edge to sharpen an tiny abrasion? One expert says maybe, another says "can't tell." Some collectors make the decision to not lose sleep over something that is so minute that 999 out of 1,000 people would never know the difference anyway.

As much as I love autograph collecting, it is riskier than most hobbies in that a forgery is worth zero. In other hobbies, if something has undisclosed restoration or some sort of alteration, it can be worth far less, but it is still worth something.

[drc]

The real question is 'If a card is doctored and no one knows, does it matter?"

Clearly, the card has been doctored. Even the question says it is.

[RichardSimon]

As much as I love autograph collecting, it is riskier than most hobbies in that a forgery is worth zero.

But if you have an autograph forgery encased in a plastic tomb or with some chemical smeared on it, it is not worth zero.

[Leon]

But if you have an autograph forgery encased in a plastic tomb or with some chemical smeared on it, it is not worth zero.

However, if you have a forgery encased in a plastic tomb, and the forgery is discovered, then it is back to being worth the plastic it is encased in. (I realize many, if not most, don't get corrected or found out about)

[travrosty]

i agree, a forgery in plastic is impossible to undo. its not worth zero , it has alphabet soup certification, and many people collect the certs, not the autographs.

[Mr. Zipper]

But if you have an autograph forgery encased in a plastic tomb or with some chemical smeared on it, it is not worth zero.

So cynical, Richard! :D

I see the point. However, the same could be said for non-TPA autographs that have been deemed forgeries. Nothing is stopping an unethical owner from passing it along to an unsuspecting buyer.

[RichardSimon]

So cynical, Richard! :D

I see the point. However, the same could be said for non-TPA autographs that have been deemed forgeries. Nothing is stopping an unethical owner from passing it along to an unsuspecting buyer.

True Zip, but if it is in a plastic tomb it most likely won't even get questioned by most.

[travrosty]

exactly right, if it is encased with a cert label, people wont question it, because it has been 'deemed authentic' by the worlds experts, and since they most likely arent a world expert, they wont question it.

if it is not encased, and it is a forgery that is loose, people might ask questions, have skepticism, which is good. If you encase it with a cert label, it better be good, you had better have done your homework, which they don't do in my opinion. several wife signed sonny listons in holders selling for 1000 dollars apiece. with no refund coming from the company that certed it. that's real money.

forgeries encased with a cert label are bought, sold, traded as authentic without question, except by a few people like me who question them but are labeled as troublemakers. That's why this whole system needs to be reformed.

[thebigtrain]

If it does turn out that the FBI forensics experts deem the pristine Ruths on Hauls of Shame as forgeries (which I firmly believe they all are), that will pretty much be the end of sports autograph collecting. PSA will be tarnished beyond repair, and the lawsuits will likely bankrupt them.

From a common sense perspective, it seems unlikely that such a large quantity of Ruths in that condition would have survived. Also, why did they all surface around the same time (late 90s/early 00s)?

Be pretty funny if PSA ends up out of business and Coach's Corner survives. :eek:

Seems the only way to be sure of your Ruth is to build a time machine, go back to pre-1948, and have him sign it in front of you. Short of that, there will always be questions, which kind of sucks all the fun out of it.

[David Atkatz]

The end of sports autograph collecting? Hardly.
How many of those Ruths would have sold for such extraordinarily high prices had they not been vetted by the TPAs? How many would have been rejected by buyers or even the auction houses had they not been given that TPA imprimatur?

If those balls are found to be fraudulent--and I, too, believe they will--it is the TPAs who (hopefully) will disappear. Sports autograph collecting (at least for those who educate themselves) will be better for it.

[E93]

I am not an autograph collector so I have no dog in this, but I missed the part where Nash presented any evidence. I am not doubting there are forgeries out there - just saying Nash does nothing here but try to set off alarms IMHO. I take everything that guy says with a grain of salt. Hasn't he been accused of some of the largest memorabilia fraud in the hobby? His Hall of Shame website seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
JimB
P.S. I have not read through this whole thread so excuse me if anyone has already said this.

[David Atkatz]

It's reasonably obvious that no fewer than three distinct hands were involved in signing those baseballs. Thus, regardless of what Nash has done in the past, at least 2/3 of them are forgeries.

[travrosty]

that first photo where it shows three distinctly different styles, that says it all for me.

[Leon]

I am not an autograph collector so I have no dog in this, but I missed the part where Nash presented any evidence. I am not doubting there are forgeries out there - just saying Nash does nothing here but try to set off alarms IMHO. I take everything that guy says with a grain of salt. Hasn't he been accused of some of the largest memorabilia fraud in the hobby? His Hall of Shame website seems like the pot calling the kettle black.
JimB
P.S. I have not read through this whole thread so excuse me if anyone has already said this.

Good points Jim. I too have some issue with the "pot" here but, as has been said, if the forensic experts deem (prove) the signatures bad it won't be who turned them in but what they are, that matters. Actually, I feel most bad for the collectors in all of this. They are the ones falling short on the leap they made, all the while relying on experts to help pave their way. I have a feeling PSA and the other TPA's will rely on their wording in their certs to not be legally liable though. I would guess there will eventually be some court cases about this so the lawyers might be the winners in the long run. It will be interesting how this plays out.

[19cbb]

Pots, kettles ... whatever.

Forgers, authenticators and auction houses have been profiteering for years and it's about time they are held accountable.

An organized criminal ring? It could be possible in an industry where everybody knows your name [insert Cheers theme song] ... but that will be up to authorities to determine.

[RichardSimon]

There are forensic examiners who do excellent work.
Ten years ago I was the instigator of an investigation by the NYC Dept of Consumer Affairs into bogus autographs on ebay.
I filed a formal complaint with the Dept of Consumer Affairs.
A DCA attorney and investigator were assigned to the case.
Two autographs were purchased from ebay sellers upon my direction (both purported autographs were of Christy Mathewson).
The autographs were submitted to the forensic examiners of the NYC Police Dept. along with exemplars which I supplied.
After their examinations they concluded that the autographs were indeed forgeries.
The findings were forwarded to the FBI (they were in the midst of Operation Bullpen at the time) and to ebay. About a dozen ebay sellers were removed as a result of this investigation.
My feelings are that Peter Nash will be working with forensic examiners who can also do excellent work. I look with interest to their findings.
-
I am happy to repeat this from an earlier post: that I feel ebay is doing excellent work now in having the site policed and that they are promptly responding to reports of forgeries and crooked sellers.

[doug.goodman]

If it does turn out that the FBI forensics experts deem the pristine Ruths on Hauls of Shame as forgeries (which I firmly believe they all are), that will pretty much be the end of sports autograph collecting.

With all due respect...

that made me laugh out loud.

It will be the end for people who collect pretty plastic cases, maybe.

Doug

[slidekellyslide]

I don't feel bad for anyone who drops 50-300 grand on a Babe Ruth "Blazer" just because some dude at ABC Authentication said it was good...same way I don't feel bad for the guy who wrecks his Ferrari while driving 50 miles over the speed limit..it's reckless. Without ROCK SOLID PROVENANCE why would you ever spend that kind of money of something that can, has and always will be faked?

[Leon]

I don't feel bad for anyone who drops 50-300 grand on a Babe Ruth "Blazer" just because some dude at ABC Authentication said it was good...same way I don't feel bad for the guy who wrecks his Ferrari while driving 50 miles over the speed limit..it's reckless. Without ROCK SOLID PROVENANCE why would you ever spend that kind of money of something that can, has and always will be faked?

Pertaining to the collectors I agree with you Dan but those guys are still passionate collectors. They have only made mistakes and I think it's a shame when honest people get defrauded, even if they did make a bad decision. They should still get what they paid for and they aren't. As for the guys that are driving expensive cars over the speed limit and crashing them, they are doing something illegal. The guys buying the fake autographs aren't.

[Mr. Zipper]

I don't feel bad for anyone who drops 50-300 grand on a Babe Ruth "Blazer" just because some dude at ABC Authentication said it was good...

I feel bad for anyone who gets defrauded out of their hard-earned money.

That said, all the evidence is not in yet and there seems to be a tone of Monday Morning Quarterbacking taking shape here. One would almost get the impression that it's "obvious" these Ruth balls are fakes and "only" the TPAs thought they were good.

Prior to this development, has anyone else been consistantly identifying these balls as forgeries?

[RichardSimon]

Many people have been questioning the proliferation of high end Babe Ruth ss baseballs, for quite some time now.
But when certain auction houses gets a potential $50,000 in, what do you think can happen?

[slidekellyslide]

Pertaining to the collectors I agree with you Dan but those guys are still passionate collectors. They have only made mistakes and I think it's a shame when honest people get defrauded, even if they did make a bad decision. They should still get what they paid for and they aren't. As for the guys that are driving expensive cars over the speed limit and crashing them, they are doing something illegal. The guys buying the fake autographs aren't.

I tend to think that more money than brains have led to the proliferation of fraud in our hobby. People need to be more careful and more questioning... With that said it doesn't mean that I don't think the fraudsters should be dealt with harshly...I won't go as far as Br*ce and say they deserve the death penalty, but I think millions of dollars in forgeries deserves a good long prison sentence.

[slidekellyslide]

Many people have been questioning the proliferation of high end Babe Ruth ss baseballs, for quite some time now.
But when certain auction houses gets a potential $50,000 in, what do you think can happen?

What specifically are you implying Richard?

[travrosty]

I feel bad for anyone who gets defrauded out of their hard-earned money.

That said, all the evidence is not in yet and there seems to be a tone of Monday Morning Quarterbacking taking shape here. One would almost get the impression that it's "obvious" these Ruth balls are fakes and "only" the TPAs thought they were good.

Prior to this development, has anyone else been consistantly identifying these balls as forgeries?



Of course it's obvious.


These balls have sold over a dozen different auction houses over a period of 15 years or longer. No one has catalogued them lilke this before. It takes a lot of effort to catalogue these and show the different distinct styles. Now that they are side by side, it is pretty obvious. The bottom one is most neutral as far as slant some parts almost straight up and down, and some parts with only slight slant to the right, the second one has an acute right slant, the top one only a slight right slant and the small e in ruth even slants the other way.

Almost all of the balls are advertised as 40's balls or late 30's. With a substantial part of them advertised as 45' - '48, where you would expert a pretty consistent signature, but you see balls 'deemed auithentic' that look very much different.

Nobody has been consistently identifying these balls as forgeries previously. Thats why this is groundbreaking! a big deal! its a bombshell and i think the tpa's wish nobody would have done the work to go way back and catalogue these and show them. Let's hear their defense. If they are confident in all of these dozens of snow white balls being legit, let's see their study to back it up. they do studies on mantle, williams, dimaggio, let's see them do ruth!

Why is it monday morning quarterbacking when someone wants to get to the bottom of this? Unless people just want more and more of these to continue to be sold at auction with the precious LOA and auction loa, and precertification, and coa, and ... aw forget it.

Remember, these go for 50 k to 300k. Anyone questioning them are monday morning quarterbacks?

Only to the people who don't want any investigation and anybody to get to the bottom of this so the hobby can be cleaned up and this mess straightened out. What is Nash suppose to do with this information, just sit on it, and do nothing?

It's a ten part series, if part 2 is getting peoples hackles up, just think what part 10 will bring?

[RichardSimon]

What specifically are you implying Richard?

Auction houses want the high priced items to be authenticated by TPA's.
A lot of money is at stake.
They earn zero if the authenticators deem an item to be not authentic.
When a lot of money is at stake perhaps pressure is placed on authenticators to authenticate things that maybe should not be authenticated.

[slidekellyslide]

Auction houses want the high priced items to be authenticated by TPA's.
A lot of money is at stake.
They earn zero if the authenticators deem an item to be not authentic.
When a lot of money is at stake perhaps pressure is placed on authenticators to authenticate things that maybe should not be authenticated.

I thought that's what you were getting at...anyone ever put pressure on you to pass something?

[RichardSimon]

I thought that's what you were getting at...anyone ever put pressure on you to pass something?



I worked for several auction houses over the years. Phillips, American Memorabilia and Guernsey's.
The only one of those three who put pressure on the authentication team (3 of us) was American Memorabilia. Screaming, shouting matches used to break out as we refused to give in to the pressure. Eventually we were asked to leave their employ and they switched authenticators. Apparently they get along a lot better with PSA.
The negative reports about American Memorabilia did not come to light until long after they changed authenticators.
But I see autograph auction items where the players name is misspelled and I wonder why the TPA's would authenticate such items and how could they not even make a note of that misspelling in the COA. I see TPA's authenticating items (very rare boxing) that have no known exemplars and wonder in astonishment how their ethics could allow them to do that.
Pressure from the auction house??

[travrosty]

Go to ebay, and look at every single one of the 'authenticated' babe ruth signatures, all of them, and look at them and compare, and you can see there is a problem here. Go to all the auction houses, look at the all the ruth sigs that have been authenticated over the past 10 years. It's amazing.

Not just the baseballs, but the flats, cuts, etc. so many differences but many are cited as being signed in the same era.

How many babe ruth's were there floating around signing stuff? I always thought there was only suppose to be one. i have spent hours and hours looking at them on ebay and auction houses, and i suspect the people who say there is no obvious differences or problems with the autographs uncovered at the haulsofshame investigation haven't looked at too many.

Richard mentioned the rare boxing signature with no exemplars.

It was 'deemed authentic' by two companies, then the certs were pulled after people complained and called them on it. But instead of pulling the item from the auction, the auction house mentioned that although due to a lack of exemplars, these companies both feel this piece is authentic. Based on what?

The auction place still wanted to sell the item. And they kept the listing up, and sold it. No exemplars, still sold it.

Based on what? We are looking into a crystal ball now? Why were the certs issued in the first place? They didn't have exemplars. They knew they didn't have any, and this auction listing should be investigated to figure out what is going on with these authenticators.

People want answers, because if they issue certs without exemplars in this instance, what other signatures have they done the same thing, only it went through undetected? The free pass has expired.

One of these companies recently certified a James Jeffries (boxing) autograph at a sunday memorabilia show and they listed the name as 'James Jeffers' on the certificate. If you look at the sig, the last name does look like it is signed jeffers, only because that's how his signature sometimes looks to the naked eye. They had no idea who this guy's name was, they went with what they saw. It's gone beyond silly now to crazy.

But they know Babe Ruth, and don't ever question them or you are a Monday morning quarterback!!! They can't get James Jeffries, Luis Firpo, John L. Sullivan, Robert Fitzsimmons, Joe Louis, Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Battling Nelson, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Max Schmeling, or Mike Tyson correct, and those screwups were no brainers, but let's trust them with one of the most expensive autographs in the hobby because these world experts must know something we don't.

Travis Roste-boxing expert

[RichardSimon]

Now the TPA's must be using crystal balls to authenticate the signature of someone who could not write (boxer Tom Sayers).

"Both PSA/DNA and James Spence believe this piece to be authentic, but are unable to issue paperwork due to an absence of exemplars."
-- from the Heritage Auction catalog. and this after the TPA's issued COA's and then withdrew them, when the auction house was called to task on a handwritten piece, allegedly written by Tom Sayers.

Oh, they believe it to be authentic. Well, considering that we are in a hobby that is free of fraud :rolleyes:, who can blame them for their beliefs?
The Sayers item sold for over $10K, I guess the person who bought it has the same beliefs as the TPA's. In this case I think I would be an atheist.
Is this just ridiculous or am I being too much of a cynic?
I can accept the fact that mistakes can be made, we have all made them, but this instance cannot be described as a mistake.

[GrayGhost]

That Sayers mess is VERY disturbing. This has got a lot of steam in a real hurry. Again. at some point, this is going to blow up in some people's faces. For those that like Drama, or don't like Certain "authenticators", it'll be kinda satisfying.

For collectors/other dealers who relied, often to the tune of thousands of dollars, on "expert" opinions and got taken, its simply AWFUL.

Oh, BTW, a friend of mine has a handwritten copy of The Gospel. signed by St. Matthew. Should I "send it in". I mean, hey, no reason to NOT believe its real, just because nobody has seen his signature?:rolleyes:

[mr2686]

I will be sending in my Adam and Eve signed Fig leaf.

[Mr. Zipper]

...and don't ever question them or you are a Monday morning quarterback!!!

Travis,

This is a complete mischaracterization of what I wrote and you know it. It's quite clear my reference to "Monday Morning Quarterback" was in regard to people who are suddently acting like this potential Ruth situation was so obvious and "they just knew it all along." Maybe Richard did. Maybe some others did. But if it was "so obvious," why did it take 10 years to put together a study? In all your previous rants and diatribes, where did YOU provide any evidence and comparisons of Ruth signed balls? If it was "so obvious," it should have been easy, right?

Th truth will be the truth and I will watch as the situation unfolds. There is nothing wrong with questioning as I have done it many times myself. I won't comment any further in this thread other than to note that your happy schadenfreude dance is unseemly and sickening.

[travrosty]

It IS quite obvious, These questions have been raised before, but fell on deaf ears, it is just now picking up steam. I brought something up over 2 years ago that most people still don't know about but will know about soon. It not babe ruth baseballs but is related to all of this. It's hard to break through the defenders and protectors of these companies who keep telling people to be quiet, because these companies are doing a great job. That day and age has passed and people are waking up. TPA could be such a good tool to use if it was done right. I am not against TPA's in theory, but don't see any value in the way it is being done now. I wouldn't even have a problem with a serious mistake made here or there. But with the plethora of incredibly ridiculous mistakes, one after another after another, when a coa is issued for jack johnson signed on a card produced a few years after he died, and the back of the card even states that johnson died in a car accident, there is something seriously wrong here.

I have made a mistake and given a refund to a customer for 75 dollars when it turned out not to be legit, so I am not perfect either, but holy cow, let's get some perspective here on the gravity of this situation. It is dire.

Richard, you are not being too cynical. Some of this stuff is just being shown the light of day, and they desparately don't want it to be shown, because it shows how they operate internally. Is a piece authentic based on how they feel that day, or are there objective standards they follow?

Steve Z., just tell us how you feel about these companies and these disparities. Please, I want to know. Are they doing a good job? Is 50k, 100k, not enough money to warrant a serious introspection on these balls? Or should it just be swept under the rug? Shouldn't we also hear from the companies that certified these? shouldn't they give us their explanation as to why they certed these balls that are all over the map? Will we ever hear from them? I seriously doubt it because they believe in the silent treatment, hoping it will go away.

A question I have is why does it take someone from the outside to scour through hundreds of auctions over a dozen year period to figure this out, when the TPA's had images of all these balls all along right there in their database, and they couldn't put two and two together? They had it right there. There wouldn't be any need for Monday morning quarterbacking if the PAID Sunday game time quarterbacks were on the stick.

Here we have a guy doing it for FREE and taking flak for it? Can't wait for part 3.

Remember it is Ron K's opinion in contrast to the TPA's opinion who don't put the name of the authenticator who looked at the balls on their COA's. I will take Ron K's word first and foremost over authenticator X hiding behind a company banner. He has the guts to put his name to it and say he is the one who believes these balls not to be in the hand of Ruth. You have to respect that.

[Runscott]

Pertaining to the collectors I agree with you Dan but those guys are still passionate collectors. They have only made mistakes and I think it's a shame when honest people get defrauded, even if they did make a bad decision. They should still get what they paid for and they aren't. As for the guys that are driving expensive cars over the speed limit and crashing them, they are doing something illegal. The guys buying the fake autographs aren't.

Leon, I would love to own a signed Babe Ruth baseball. I have looked at many of them on auction sites and almost pulled the trigger more than once. One thing I noticed: the ones that I feel the most comfortable bidding on end up going for a lot more than the ones that I don't. When looking at high-$ autographs, I never look at the COAs - I instead look at the ball and the signature, and I compare the signature to others that I find that appear to have good provenance. Wouldn't you do a little research if you were about to drop such money on something like an autograph?

The people who didn't are idiots. They don't deserve to be defrauded, as that's an illegal act committed against them, but they do deserve to have to put up with the bullshit of trying to get recompense. It's a life lesson that will hopefully be a good one for them.

[Mr. Zipper]

Steve Z., just tell us how you feel about these companies and these disparities. Please, I want to know. Are they doing a good job? Is 50k, 100k, not enough money to warrant a serious introspection on these balls? Or should it just be swept under the rug?

Travis:

I've clearly stated the truth should come out and there should be a reasoned examination and discourse. Just because I'm not running down the street with a pitchfork and torch, you equate that with sweeping something under the rug. Rubbish.

[Fuddjcal]

This is one reason why I became "The Lowly Mantle Collector", not an elitist that collects Babe Ruth :p\

After not being able to tell a Mickey Mantle from a Fakey Fantle, I sought out to learn myself and not let the Alphabet soup companies or FDE's dictate to me what's fake and what's not. I cut my teeth on the Autograph Forums then putting in years of study on Mantle. I realized from the beginning of my Autograph journey, the power collectors give to the Soup companies. I participated in Autograph Alert which only bashed soup companies and not the FDE's like Moral ASS, Drew Max, and the boobs at STAT Unauthentic (TTA) rubber stamping every damned forgery in sight???? The Autograph industry is so sickening I can taste the throw-up in my mouth.

Pretty much continued to collect only Mantle because he was the only one I could see the differences myself between forgeries & the real McCoy. Never would I buy a Soup company certificate, I always bought the autograph. Some did have soup labels on them. Most do not, which I preferred.

This Ruth DEBACLE & that's what it is, has the potential to hurt the Autograph industry further. I'm glad I have collected only Mantle and didn't try to obtain anyone any higher on the food chain, like Ruth. I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE DAY COMES WHEN I GET TO SELL THE WHOLE LOT OF GARBAGE and be done with the whole autograph mess......yet again.

I was determined to collect only what I know. I knew the day will come when the soup companies would go the way of the GAI GLOBAL Dodo Bird...EXTINCT!

Much like I knew in the 80's that GM would go Bankrupt. It took a while but it happened until bailed out (LOL) It is inevitable as long as those 2 soup companies refuse to address GLARING & INHERENT issues & weaknesses with their business models. They are on a similar path, too big to fail?????? I think not.

[GrayGhost]

this is one reason why i became "the lowly mantle collector", not an elitist that collects babe ruth :p\

after not being able to tell a mickey mantle from a fakey fantle, i sought out to learn myself and not let the alphabet soup companies or fde's dictate to me what's fake and what's not. I cut my teeth on the autograph forums then putting in years of study on mantle. I realized from the beginning of my autograph journey, the power collectors give to the soup companies. I participated in autograph alert which only bashed soup companies and not the fde's like moral ass, drew max, and the boobs at stat unauthentic (tta) rubber stamping every damned forgery in sight???? The autograph industry is so sickening i can taste the throw-up in my mouth.

Pretty much continued to collect only mantle because he was the only one i could see the differences myself between forgeries & the real mccoy. Never would i buy a soup company certificate, i always bought the autograph. Some did have soup labels on them. Most do not, which i preferred.

This ruth debacle & that's what it is, has the potential to hurt the autograph industry further. I'm glad i have collected only mantle and didn't try to obtain anyone any higher on the food chain, like ruth. I can't wait until the day comes when i get to sell the whole lot of garbage and be done with the whole autograph mess......yet again.

I was determined to collect only what i know. I knew the day will come when the soup companies would go the way of the gai global dodo bird...extinct!

Much like i knew in the 80's that gm would go bankrupt. It took a while but it happened until bailed out (lol) it is inevitable as long as those 2 soup companies refuse to address glaring & inherent issues & weaknesses with their business models. They are on a similar path, too big to fail?????? I think not.


+100;)

[David Atkatz]

sought out to learn myself and not let the Alphabet soup companies or FDE's dictate to me what's fake and what's not. I cut my teeth on the Autograph Forums then putting in years of study on Mantle.

Pretty much continued to collect only Mantle because he was the only one I could see the differences myself between forgeries & the real McCoy. Could you please help me out, then, Chuck? I posted a Mantle ball I'd love to get opinions on. Thanks!

[travrosty]

I know exactly what you mean, you don't have to massage the meaning, I got it the first time.

The defenders will go away once this gets too hot even for them to defend.
Then they will act like they never knew the company existed. But we will know who stood for accountability and transparency, and who defended them and almost went down with the ship, jumping off at the last moment.

The defunct company GAI was once equal to these companies. And people used them. But you currently can't find anyone who proudly still thinks GAI did a great job. Nobody wants to be around their name. They have switched hat, jacket, sunglasses and moved on.

But during GAI's existence there were some that swore by them, out there defending them, stickering all their photos with the GAI sticker.

Someday that big sucking sound you hear will be thousands upon thousands of these still-in-business company stickers being peeled off of photos and cuts simultaneously as the big purge will start to commence.

Then maybe somebody can provide a careful service that puts the authentication first.

Go to the autograph alert website and read about the latest story. What do you think of that. Mr. Z? Did these comapnies do a thorough job, or justing printing off the certs? And why should it continue?

[thebigtrain]

What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

It was common practice back then to coat signed balls in shellac. I believe some of the letters Ruth sent along with signed balls (when he anwered & fufilled such requests) even noted "cover this in shellac and it will preserve my signature" or words to that effect.

Couple that with the fact that, at the time (and for a long, long time thereafter) the balls had no tangible monetary value. Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less. My argument is that these kinds of items would've occasioanlly been "pulled out" over the years to show friends and such, and as such would show more soiling/handling that evident on these examples. Hard not to imagine some guy at a cocktail party in the 1960s not whipping out the Ruth ball and passing it around, or letting his kids play with it a bit, bring it to school for show n' tell, etc. See what I'm getting at? Here are some other thoughts:

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.

B.) Ruth did sign a great deal for his era, but nowhere near the amount of a Pete Rose or other former MLB'er out on the autograph circuit. A full 40 years elapsed from the time of his death to the time his autograph became a big-$$$ collector's item. That's a LOT of time for stuff he signed to get soiled, played with, lost, tossed in the trash, etc. That's to say nothing of fading- presumably, those who possessed these artifacts for the 40 years before they became $$$ didn't all keep them in a safe deposit box or home safe. Many must have been in bookcases, on mantles and such where they'd have faded/aged much more than these examples.

I wouldn't be surprised if the balls that are verified to be authentic to the period were 'cleaned up" a great deal before the sig was forged. That's assuming that many of the balls have a marking that does in fact date them to pre-1948. I'm sure the FBI has a way to test the composition of the balls themselves to determine if they are indeed made of pre-1948 materials. If not, then no further analysis is needed, similar to the bogus $1 Ruth/Gerigh bills with the wrong Treasurer on them.

One final thought is that I believe several authentic Ruths have surfaced on Roadshow over the years, some with the old geezer bringing a photo of them having Ruth sign it for them, thus supplying an impeccable provenance. None of these balls looked anywhere near as good as the Haulsof Shame examples, and most were in downright crap condition, as you'd expect for a 70+ year old item.

[earlywynnfan]

Leon, I would love to own a signed Babe Ruth baseball. I have looked at many of them on auction sites and almost pulled the trigger more than once. One thing I noticed: the ones that I feel the most comfortable bidding on end up going for a lot more than the ones that I don't. When looking at high-$ autographs, I never look at the COAs - I instead look at the ball and the signature, and I compare the signature to others that I find that appear to have good provenance. Wouldn't you do a little research if you were about to drop such money on something like an autograph?

The people who didn't are idiots. They don't deserve to be defrauded, as that's an illegal act committed against them, but they do deserve to have to put up with the bullshit of trying to get recompense. It's a life lesson that will hopefully be a good one for them.

"If God didn't want them to be sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep."

YESSS!! I've always wanted to use that line! Now I need to go watch the movie again.

Ken

[travrosty]

And if he didn't want them to be eaten, he wouldn't have made them out of meat!

[mr2686]

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?!

[murphusa]

I am a logical person, so think about it
Babe Ruth is famous for hitting Home Runs and he was also famous for having an insatiable appetite for food and drink. He ate hot dogs during games.
All day long where ever he went people wanted to be near him, shake his hand, buy him a drink.
So if that is how he lived his life, His hands were always dirty.

[drc]

Not quite. He hands were regularly wiped clean on the women.

[slidekellyslide]

What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

It was common practice back then to coat signed balls in shellac. I believe some of the letters Ruth sent along with signed balls (when he anwered & fufilled such requests) even noted "cover this in shellac and it will preserve my signature" or words to that effect.

Couple that with the fact that, at the time (and for a long, long time thereafter) the balls had no tangible monetary value. Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less. My argument is that these kinds of items would've occasioanlly been "pulled out" over the years to show friends and such, and as such would show more soiling/handling that evident on these examples. Hard not to imagine some guy at a cocktail party in the 1960s not whipping out the Ruth ball and passing it around, or letting his kids play with it a bit, bring it to school for show n' tell, etc. See what I'm getting at? Here are some other thoughts:

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.

B.) Ruth did sign a great deal for his era, but nowhere near the amount of a Pete Rose or other former MLB'er out on the autograph circuit. A full 40 years elapsed from the time of his death to the time his autograph became a big-$$$ collector's item. That's a LOT of time for stuff he signed to get soiled, played with, lost, tossed in the trash, etc. That's to say nothing of fading- presumably, those who possessed these artifacts for the 40 years before they became $$$ didn't all keep them in a safe deposit box or home safe. Many must have been in bookcases, on mantles and such where they'd have faded/aged much more than these examples.

I wouldn't be surprised if the balls that are verified to be authentic to the period were 'cleaned up" a great deal before the sig was forged. That's assuming that many of the balls have a marking that does in fact date them to pre-1948. I'm sure the FBI has a way to test the composition of the balls themselves to determine if they are indeed made of pre-1948 materials. If not, then no further analysis is needed, similar to the bogus $1 Ruth/Gerigh bills with the wrong Treasurer on them.

One final thought is that I believe several authentic Ruths have surfaced on Roadshow over the years, some with the old geezer bringing a photo of them having Ruth sign it for them, thus supplying an impeccable provenance. None of these balls looked anywhere near as good as the Haulsof Shame examples, and most were in downright crap condition, as you'd expect for a 70+ year old item.

Most of the shellacked balls that I've come across were 1930s...not sure I've ever owned an autographed ball from the 40s that was shellacked...and as far as pristine balls go I've seen newsreels and/or photos of Ruth hanging out of a hotel window with brand new cases of baseballs...signing them and dropping them into the crowd. Now I doubt that he did this in the 1940s though, but I don't think it would have been unusual for him to have cases of brand new balls that he kept around to sign and give to people who requested them.

I also don't think it's all that unusual for an item like that to survive 70 years in pristine shape...even in the quantity that have surfaced in the last 20 years. The internet, ebay, auction houses and the explosion in value for certain collectibles has brought a ton of stuff out of the woodwork.

With that said I know all of the variables I mentioned above also have led to an explosion in forged/fake items too so I have no idea if those Ruth balls are legitimate or not, but to think that 70 year old pristine items can not exist in any quantity I think is wrong.

[David Atkatz]

Right you are, Dan. It's the writing on those balls that will prove their authenticity--or lack thereof--not their condition.

[RichardSimon]

Most of the shellacked balls that I've come across were 1930s...not sure I've ever owned an autographed ball from the 40s that was shellacked...and as far as pristine balls go I've seen newsreels and/or photos of Ruth hanging out of a hotel window with brand new cases of baseballs...signing them and dropping them into the crowd. Now I doubt that he did this in the 1940s though, but I don't think it would have been unusual for him to have cases of brand new balls that he kept around to sign and give to people who requested them.

I also don't think it's all that unusual for an item like that to survive 70 years in pristine shape...even in the quantity that have surfaced in the last 20 years. The internet, ebay, auction houses and the explosion in value for certain collectibles has brought a ton of stuff out of the woodwork.

With that said I know all of the variables I mentioned above also have led to an explosion in forged/fake items too so I have no idea if those Ruth balls are legitimate or not, but to think that 70 year old pristine items can not exist in any quantity I think is wrong.


Dan - I have handled many baseballs from the 1950's that were shellacked.

[Exhibitman]

Richard mentioned the rare boxing signature with no exemplars.

It was 'deemed authentic' by two companies, then the certs were pulled after people complained and called them on it. But instead of pulling the item from the auction, the auction house mentioned that although due to a lack of exemplars, these companies both feel this piece is authentic. Based on what?

The auction place still wanted to sell the item. And they kept the listing up, and sold it. No exemplars, still sold it.

Based on what? We are looking into a crystal ball now? Why were the certs issued in the first place? They didn't have exemplars. They knew they didn't have any, and this auction listing should be investigated to figure out what is going on with these authenticators.

People want answers, because if they issue certs without exemplars in this instance, what other signatures have they done the same thing, only it went through undetected? The free pass has expired.

One of these companies recently certified a James Jeffries (boxing) autograph at a sunday memorabilia show and they listed the name as 'James Jeffers' on the certificate. If you look at the sig, the last name does look like it is signed jeffers, only because that's how his signature sometimes looks to the naked eye. They had no idea who this guy's name was, they went with what they saw. It's gone beyond silly now to crazy.

But they know Babe Ruth, and don't ever question them or you are a Monday morning quarterback!!! They can't get James Jeffries, Luis Firpo, John L. Sullivan, Robert Fitzsimmons, Joe Louis, Jack Sharkey, Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Battling Nelson, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Max Schmeling, or Mike Tyson correct, and those screwups were no brainers, but let's trust them with one of the most expensive autographs in the hobby because these world experts must know something we don't.

Travis Roste-boxing expert

That Sayers thing was appalling but not surprising; big packs of whores on both sides of that table when there's money to be made. No expert is beyond question; they are human beings and prone to human errors.

I spend a lot of time and study on the autographs I want and usually try to get them on a legal document, a contract, or a check. To me those are better media for likely authenticity than some random scrap of paper. But nothing is perfect. I've been burned a few times, fortunately on cheap items that I could return.

Sometimes the forgeries are innocent and look damned good; I was very disappointed with a Marciano 1950s postally used PC that turned out to have his wife's signature and I have secretarials of La Motta and some others on vintage postmarked PCs.

Even with the truth of everything said in this thread, and given the demonstrable incompetence of the TPAs, the vast majority of the public accepts their verdicts and that makes their products fungible. I don't think that is ever going to change. It is too entrenched. After all, misgraded cards abound but PSA and SGC chug along.

Ad@m W@rsh@w

[RichardSimon]

That Sayers thing was appalling but not surprising; big packs of whores on both sides of that table when there's money to be made. No expert is beyond question; they are human beings and prone to human errors.

Ad@m W@rsh@w

No human error in the Sayers thing,, just greed, unethical behavior and "faith based" authenticating.
autographalert.com has a picture of Sayers' passport, dated one year AFTER the supposed handwritten note was written.
In the space for Sayers' signature is a big X. He could not write his own name.

[slidekellyslide]

Dan - I have handled many baseballs from the 1950's that were shellacked.

Well, I know you've handled way more than I have, but in my limited experience with shellacked balls I've not seen very many (if any) from 1950+

[travrosty]

That Sayers thing was appalling but not surprising; big packs of whores on both sides of that table when there's money to be made. No expert is beyond question; they are human beings and prone to human errors.

I spend a lot of time and study on the autographs I want and usually try to get them on a legal document, a contract, or a check. To me those are better media for likely authenticity than some random scrap of paper. But nothing is perfect. I've been burned a few times, fortunately on cheap items that I could return.

Sometimes the forgeries are innocent and look damned good; I was very disappointed with a Marciano 1950s postally used PC that turned out to have his wife's signature and I have secretarials of La Motta and some others on vintage postmarked PCs.

Even with the truth of everything said in this thread, and given the demonstrable incompetence of the TPAs, the vast majority of the public accepts their verdicts and that makes their products fungible. I don't think that is ever going to change. It is too entrenched. After all, misgraded cards abound but PSA and SGC chug along.

Ad@m W@rsh@w



That's the status quo and it is only going to change if the public demands change, and a regulatory agency forces them to change. The vast majority accepts it because they havent even seen one of these ridiculous errors but they need to be reached. The sayers autograph is not human error, as Richard has pointed out.

That listing started out as psa/dna LOA - JSA LOA,

then one of them dropped out first and it just listed the other company as issuing an LOA.

Then it was changed to no authentication, just a belief by these companies that they believe it is real. We have screenshots of all three scenarios.

It wasn't an error, even heritage acknowledged that there was no authentication due to lack of exemplars. so psa and jsa never had exemplars to begin with, but still felt that they could issue LOA's for the piece.

I honesty believe that they think they can do what they want because they don't think people are paying attention, but many, many people are constantly paying attention, every auction, every auction house.

[aaroncc]

No human error in the Sayers thing,, just greed, unethical behavior and "faith based" authenticating.
autographalert.com has a picture of Sayers' passport, dated one year AFTER the supposed handwritten note was written.
In the space for Sayers' signature is a big X. He could not write his own name.

I have been told before that his manager John Gideon wrote for him on occasions. Since his literacy was very low. I know somewhere in H.D. Miles, Tom Sayers, 1866 that he was reported as signing some articles for a match. Can't remember the specifics. Anyway the buyer of this letter took a leap of faith. The same as the seller did when he bought it a few years ago in the Sotheby's auction.

[Exhibitman]

Actually, I typed the two sentences as separate paragraphs. They got together when I posted. Kind of a "Nice guys. Finish last." thing.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thebigtrain
What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.[/I][/I]BigTrain,

It's important to note that early professional baseball games did not allow patrons to keep baseballs that were hit into the stands. On the contrary, teams required that the fan return the ball to play. As such, very few baseballs were used in a game and they were used for most or all of the game.

BTW, baseballs were very expensive relative to the amount of dollars that it cost to attend a game and attendance was much lower back in the day. To put this in perspective, a baseball in the deadball era would have cost a team owner approximately $50 in todays dollars according to what that I have read.
In an attempt to reduce the cost of replacing baseballs in a game, team owners frequently hired security guards to remain in the stands and actively enforce the patron's returning of the ball to play.

Surprisingly, the practice of allowing the fan or patron to keep a ball that was hit into the stands came much later, say the 1940's or so. Even then, many teams were slow in adopting this policy. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that Bill Veeck was the 1st team owner to allow fans to keep a game ball as a souvenir that left the field of play.

My point being here, is that I don't believe it was uncommon for a fan to present a pristine ball for Ruth to sign, because game used pro balls from ballgames may not have been seen in great numbers as you might think....

[mr2686]

I'll add to Scott's reply and say this - I think with the advent of the internet and archival baseball footage and documentaries, we all know that someone like Ruth traveled around with "a lot" of new baseballs that he would sign and then throw to his fans from his hotel window or off the platform of a train etc. That doesn't mean that they stayed "like new" or that they're even still around today, but they were new at the time.

[slidekellyslide]

It is a ridiculous notion that 20-30 "pristine" Ruth balls can not have survived the last 70 years. Babe Ruth was considered to be the greatest baseball player of all time (still is IMO) and something didn't have to have monetary value to have been saved. Imagine meeting Babe Ruth, your childhood idol and having him sign a baseball for you...do you just let Junior take it out in the backyard and play with it? No, you keep it hidden in a closet so Junior can't find it...and because it has sentimental value and not monetary value it stays hidden in there and forgotten until dad passes away. Junior finds the ball in 1995 and knows that it has value, gets it authenticated and places it in an auction. It is not hard to believe that this has happened more than a few times..it's not like Ruth was a difficult signer.

[travrosty]

The number one indicator that these balls are bad, will always be the signature on the ball. That's what will make or break the ball. The fact that so many survived with ruth signatures on them that look funny, is what i have a problem with.

Obviously the balls survived in that great of shape, because there they are. but balls surviing in the ball boxes versus having been signed by ruth and kept in the sock drawer is an issue to debate. but the signatures are what matter. dozens of almost snow white balls with sigantures that match each other in one style, but dont match other groups of balls in different styles that were all suppose to be signed by ruth in the same era or window of time. Were there 2 or 3 or 4 ruths around. was he a twin or triplet?

Almost all the balls are official balls. in late 40's did ruth not sign any other balls that survived in great shape that weren't official balls? or are forgers getting greedy and signing official balls to maximize profits? did the guy back then who wanted the babe's signature care that it was on an official ball? or would any ball work for him? just questions to ponder?

i just personally don't think that many official balls could survive in pristine condition looking like they were signed yesterday. And these were just balls that went up for auction the past ten years or so. there must be multiples of these balls out there that havent gone to auction, still in peoples collections, so is there 100 balls like these out there. Isn't that a lot to be in super, almost untouched shape?

[travrosty]

a lot of times, someone buying a ball, handling it, and then the athlete handling it, causing acidic fingerprints to oxidize and darken the ball over time, i dont see any of that on these white balls. it just kind of seems crazy.

there are balls from jsut 15 or 20 years ago signed at shows or private signing sessions that people were extremely careful to keep the balls in perfect shape, and those balls have yellowed, smudged, fingerprints on them. and they werent 65-70 years old, but recently. There were no guidelines back then to remind people to keep them out of the light, humdiity, etc. a lot of people didnt have airconditioning, i just have a hard time seeing how this many survived (especially the 9.5, 9 and 8.5 graded balls, the super condition balls,) like they were kept in a hermetically sealed box in a climate controlled room for that long.

[slidekellyslide]

a lot of times, someone buying a ball, handling it, and then the athlete handling it, causing acidic fingerprints to oxidize and darken the ball over time, i dont see any of that on these white balls. it just kind of seems crazy.

there are balls from jsut 15 or 20 years ago signed at shows or private signing sessions that people were extremely careful to keep the balls in perfect shape, and those balls have yellowed, smudged, fingerprints on them. and they werent 65-70 years old, but recently. There were no guidelines back then to remind people to keep them out of the light, humdiity, etc. a lot of people didnt have airconditioning, i just have a hard time seeing how this many survived (especially the 9.5, 9 and 8.5 graded balls, the super condition balls,) like they were kept in a hermetically sealed box in a climate controlled room for that long.

May depend on where you live, where you stored the ball, et cetera. There are plenty of 70 year old unused baseballs out there showing up in perfect condition all the time...not surprised that autographed balls show up that way too. I'm with you though completely on the signatures will tell the tale and not the baseballs. This is where the focus should be.

[D. Bergin]

I personally know of a stash of about 2 dozen signed team balls on Official League balls, in my area originating from the 1936-38 period. Mostly baseball but a few football teams from the era also included in the collection.

No doubt of the authenticity and all still stored in their original boxes. They are in simply beautiful condition.

I believe they were passed down through the family of a reporter or other newspaper employee and have sat untouched for decades.

So yeah, I know from experience there are still pristine balls out there from that era. They weren't all batted around in kids backyards.

[slidekellyslide]

I bought a 12 count box of signed baseball from the 1930s of a former minor leaguer in the Brooklyn Dodgers farm system...he shellacked all of them except for 4 of them...the shellacked balls were all browned, the other 4 were still snowy white and on average they'd been handled by 20 different hands. They were all stored in the original baseball boxes inside a 12 count box.

[perezfan]

Of course there are plenty of pristine near-white balls from that era still in existence. Especially if they contain Babe Ruth's signature. Even if there was no established monetary value back in the 30s/40s, there was sentimental value and pride of ownership. Even back then, most people had the common sense to stash away a keepsake like this (as opposed to mis-handling it or playing with it).

With that said, there are undoubtedly tons of fakes as well. But to say that a large number of these balls couldn't remain near white/near mint is just a ridiculous assumption.

[David Atkatz]

Of course there are plenty of pristine near-white balls from that era still in existence. Especially if they contain Babe Ruth's signature. Even if there was no established monetary value back in the 30s/40s, there was sentimental value and pride of ownership. Even back then, most people had the commmon sense to stash away a keepsake like this (as opposed to mis-handling it or playing with it).

With that said, there are undoubtedly tons of fakes as well. But to say that a large number of these balls couldnt remain near white/near mint is just a ridiculous assumption.+1

[David Atkatz]

The series continues...
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=10608#more-10608

[Exhibitman]

Honestly, I am not impressed by the latest article. Everyone has an opinion; unlike stolen artifacts, there's no smoking gun there. It isn't like the Ruth sigs in question are obvious fakes like the crap in Coach's Corner. Plus it is a little misleading to compare scans of flats with pictures of signatures written on a curved surface. Not only do the conditions affect the signer but there is some flattening of the image on the latter that results in a distortion that our eyes compensate for when we look at a curved object directly.

[GrayGhost]

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.

I know from an untrained eye that the signatures on the balls in the article have basically NO slant on the small b in Babe, save for one example. Many of them look nearly identical.

Point is, nobody has a signature thats identical all the time, tho there are many times they are close. What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

IMO, the article does seem to be aiming to shoot down the Alphabet guys, but from what I see, even with the "flat exemplars" only, there is ENOUGH here to at least give a serious look at some or all of those balls being fake. That is, unless you are one of those who think that the Alphabet guys' s*** doesn't stink.

[travrosty]

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair facing to the right. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers, weight bearing forward. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

The real ones sometimes exhibit a skip here and there, from the a to the b in Babe for instance. there is ink loss in some examples, he is signing fast.

The balls look methodically dark and uniform. Like someone was trying to put the perfect slow dark signature on it when in reality someone signs fast and if there is a skip or ink loss from one letter to another, they don't throw it away, the ball still gets handed out, but in all the questionable balls, I see a 'managed' autograph. Using a ballgame analogy, instead of playing to win, they are playing not to lose.

But that's my opinion.

I defer to Ron K. though. If he sees similar characteristics, I would go with that, with what he observes. He's the man. That's why part 4-10 should be interesting.

[GrayGhost]

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

+1. The things I am learning from all these type threads, not just this one, is to look for "drawn characteristics", and pen pressure. AS Trav said, they look really slow, the ball sigs. Some would say he "took his time" signing them, well. I don't think that holds water, especially when there are many "real Ruth signed balls", that are not like that.

[mschwade]

What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

[thekingofclout]

Honestly, I am not impressed by the latest article. Everyone has an opinion; unlike stolen artifacts, there's no smoking gun there. It isn't like the Ruth sigs in question are obvious fakes like the crap in Coach's Corner. Plus it is a little misleading to compare scans of flats with pictures of signatures written on a curved surface. Not only do the conditions affect the signer but there is some flattening of the image on the latter that results in a distortion that our eyes compensate for when we look at a curved object directly.

like

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

like

[mr2686]

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

[GrayGhost]

Good points by everyone, for the balls being ok, and not. I just did a Google for Babe Ruth signed balls and looked at about a dozen photos. Most, if not all, had the "standing small b", which the ones in the article do, which kinda blows my theory next to the paper exemplars.

Also, I have never closed on a house..hahaha. but that point is well taken, plus, signing a ball is very difficult too. Ive done it once in an amateur baseball league I work for, for a kid w Downs Syndrome, and my signature, back when I had more than a sloppy scribble:) did look very different too, than on a check.

Can't wait for the next article tho. I love this stuff.

[travrosty]

If you imagine the capital B in Babe as a stack of books, would the stack fall over?

In the real examples, the B is leaning considerably to the right. It certainly looks like the stack would fall over. On the questionable balls, I think not in most of the examples, maybe tilt to the right a little, but the book stack stays up. In the real paper examples, the stacks falls right over.

The exemplars question is interesting.

---------------------------------

Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like.


I agree. It looks like the article used some solid real signatures of Ruth to do the comparing to. Lettters and personal correspondence, a signed check.
Many times Ruth autographs that have been authenticated and stickered are now the new exemplar, which is dangerous. If you keep doing that, you end up with autographs from first (known exemplar) to last (authenticated signature using other authenticated signatures as templates) that looks vastly different from one another.

If you compare a candidate for a Ruth signature to a known exemplar, and it looks mostly the same, and you authenticate it after careful research, fine. But then the next candidate has to be compared to the known exemplar and not the second one. Otherwise you can have an autograph that looks mostly like the second one, and then another than looks mostly like the third one, and then another that looks mostly like the fourth one, and after 50 times you have a known exemplar of Ruth on one end, and something totally different on the other and you can't figure out how you got there.


One mistake has to be an isolated one, and you isolate it by doing the prudent thing and not using it as an exemplar for another candidate. Only verifiable autographs should be exemplars. Otherwise they can spawn many more mistakes.

Like a game of telephone we played as kids. Johnny went to the beach and fell asleep becomes Johnny went to the bench and felt his sleeves.

[egbeachley]

I think I see what he's talking about, but since I am a novice I am easily influenced. I need to read all the installments.

But if I was to choose one ball that is definitely not real, it would be the 5th one. And that is supposedly the $300,000 one.

[Mr. Zipper]

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

[mschwade]

I can tell you that the flat I own was sold to me by the guy that got it as an 11 year old boy back in 1947.. It also has the slants that are exhibited on the left-hand column, but like I said, it's also on a flat (business card). When comparing mine, the photo (#8) circa 1940's appears most like mine (without the from though).

FYI - I don't own a Ruth ball, nor do I have any desire to own one. Would love to hear from someone that owns one though and knows for a fact that it is indeed authentic.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

[Mr. Zipper]

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them.

I'd love to have one. A Morales hologram would be a huge plus.

:D

[thekingofclout]

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

like

[thekingofclout]

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

like

[GrayGhost]

KOC's mind seems closed, so to say not really open to the chance that the alphabet guys could be wrong, but that's an informed opinion too, by many of the posts.

Chris, that is a very interesting test and certainly would debunk the theory of the signatures compared to the flats being SO DIFFERENT. Putting a test to these was an excellent idea, NICE JOB.

Even if I had the means, I'm not sure Id buy anything, cept legal documents and checks, tho there is even a chance, albeit smaller, of those being bad. Fascinating stuff though.

[travrosty]

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.



This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slight, its not like signing a golf ball.

Since Ruth signed so many balls, I am sure he had his way of signing it, and didn't struggle in the least as he was pretty used to it after 25 years of practice. Most of the balls selling for record prices are 1940's and particularly later 1940's balls. I would think he would know how to dash off his signature on a ball by then.

The questionable balls look slow and contrived, like someone was trying hard. If you sign a ball slow adn deliberate, you push and labor the pen across the ball, but by signing it faster, you glide it over, and you get that more of a 'flow' look to it.

I found out that if you sign a baseball fast, it makes the most sense, as the pen glides quicker along and sticks less, with less tremors and hesitations. And yes, I signed a baseball today too. I didn't find significant differences in the way it looks compared to a flat. And I didn't find it difficult to sign, and I sign with a readable signature, I just signed it fairly quick like I sign my flats TTM that the droves of admirers send to me. :)

[mr2686]

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign.

That's true, in theory, however it depends on how the person first grips the ball, and how slow they turn it as they're signing it. Unless you're a machine, it's really easy to have to stop and reposition your hand to turn the ball or at the very least go "down hill" with your signing hand. Either way would cause some variation in the sig. Again, I'm not saying the balls in question are good or bad, but that it is possible for variations on balls to exist for all kinds of reasons...now whether or not those variations can legitimately be authenicated is another matter all together.

[Mr. Zipper]

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slightly, its not like signing a golf ball.

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

[mschwade]

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

I would think it would be hard to move because you are probably holding it still against a flat surface so the signature is solid.

[19cbb]

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.


Like

[travrosty]

you can sign your first name with the sweet spot a little to the right, then rotate, then sign your last name. so you are signing with the ball still, and no rotation as you sign.

you cut down on the uphill/downhill signing which isnt that negligable to begin with.

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

[GrayGhost]

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? Because they don't look different. Only ruth? Its the twilight zone.

like

[RichardSimon]

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

Have we changed the old +1 to the word "like" now ?? :)

I guess I have to cover both bases: like, +1 :)


it is a large advertising budget that has helped convince some collectors that there is a hierarchy of people in the hobby who know more than the rest of the peasants down below.
Give me a good experienced dealer or certain experienced collectors any day of the week over any combination of alphabet soups.
I would take Keuragian, Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Gordon, Keating, Cariseo, Marks, Hefner, Evans and a few more over the alphabet soups any day of the week.

[Mr. Zipper]

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

One could reasonably speculate that it could vary by signer because everyone signs at a different angle, etc. And in my opinion, Mantle on a ball does look slightly different than flat signatures.

Given the seriousness of the allegations it is a legitimate question. Why not make a like comparison?

[thekingofclout]

KOC's mind seems closed, so to say not really open to the chance that the alphabet guys could be wrong, but that's an informed opinion too, by many of the posts.

Chris, that is a very interesting test and certainly would debunk the theory of the signatures compared to the flats being SO DIFFERENT. Putting a test to these was an excellent idea, NICE JOB.

Even if I had the means, I'm not sure Id buy anything, cept legal documents and checks, tho there is even a chance, albeit smaller, of those being bad. Fascinating stuff though.

don't like ;)

[mr2686]

Here are two Mantles, one flat and one on a ball signed within a minute of each other in 1989 for comparison

[thekingofclout]

These two photos from my collection show the Bambino signing under normal circumstances. For three decades, Babe Ruth signed tens of thousands of BASEBALLS. Christy Walsh saw to that. Anywhere Ruth went, be it a luncheon in his honor, a hospital to cheer up the sick, a train stop on the way to the next city, were the local dignitaries and the town kinship would wait for the Yankees train to make a quick stop, Christy Walsh made damn sure that there was a never-ending supply of fresh balls for the Big Bam to sign.

He also made scores of visits to Army bases all over the country, where once again, several dozen balls would be signed and given away. Don't forget his vaudeville days. Balls, Balls, & more Balls.

I haven't even started on what the country's top Ruth Scholar Bill Jenkinson, called his "Hidden Career". Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of games and appearances. They would include, Spring Training games, Exhibition Games, which were mandatory for ALL big league players to participate in, and at no extra money! It was the owners who prospered from those games.

Also included in his "Hidden Career" were the Barnstorming games and appearances. Babe Ruth played in dozens of Barnstorming games in EVERY season he was active in, as those were the games in which he made a fortune everywhere they played. More Balls. Before and after a Barnstorming game, Ruth was called upon to speak to local ladies clubs businessmen, lunch with the town's politicians, in which MORE BALLS were signed.

This is just a very brief summary of how and why Babe Ruth signed Baseballs are the commodity they are today. Here was the supply and we are the demand! ;)

Also, if you're wondering where I got this information. Some from reading as much as I could about Ruth's life as well as books, articles, interviews, from his teammates that also shed some light on the Babe's "Hidden Career".

But the most important info that I have gotten regarding the "how did Babe Ruth sign so many Baseballs?" question that's driving us crazy...

I've been friends with the Christy Walsh Family for 10 years now, and have had multiple conversations with the Family regarding this specific issue.
The comparison was made that Christy Walsh spent more money on brand new Baseballs than he did on his office rent!

He was the brains behind the Bambino and single handedly changed the way America's big business advertised their goods. And when Babe would sign a new deal with, say Ford or Burmashave, everyone there got Babe Ruth Signed Baseballs! :D

So, I hope this sheds some light on why there are so many signed Ruth balls. There are probably hundreds more sitting in someones attic, basement, bottom drawer and who knows where else.

With my best regards, Jimmy

BTW... On a personal note, when I bought my very first photo from the Walsh's, Mrs. Christy Walsh Jr's wife Pat, told me that I was the first person that had bought from the family since Barry Halper! Which I thought was pretty cool.

The photo on the left was acquired from the Walsh Family.

5192351924

[Ladder7]

Signing dozens more on a barnstorming tour. Christy is beneath the table, tidying up. This is from Pat Walsh as well.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c327/oche16/Vintage%20BB%20memorabilia/BgGZHLB2kKGrHqMH-EEEsMEYijYlBLD9TWF.jpg

[David Atkatz]

I'm gonna be bold here, and post this as an exemplar--a genuine Ruth-signed ball. I purchased it from the original owner--who, as a little girl in 1928 was taken by a family friend--a local St. Louis sportswriter--to Ruth's hotel room right before the 1928 World Series began. Ruth signed this ball for her, and so did his roommate, 2nd string catcher John Grabowski (who knew his place, and signed far from Ruth's signature.)

Now, I suppose it, too, could be a phoney, but I really doubt it. For one thing, that's a $1000+ baseball unsigned. And anyone who could forge that well would not devalue the ball by forging a Grabowski--they'd either leave it a single, or forge a Gehrig. And, oh yeah, there's that original owner.

So here it is. And it's nothing like those PSA/JSA "stunners."

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth_grabowski_ruth_350copy.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth2.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruthgrabowski_logo.jpg

[thekingofclout]

[QUOTE=David Atkatz;949148]I'm gonna be bold here, and post this as an exemplar--a genuine Ruth-signed ball. I purchased it from the original owner--who, as a little girl in 1928 was taken by a family friend--a local St. Louis sportswriter--to Ruth's hotel room right before the 1928 World Series began. Ruth signed this ball for her, and so did his roommate, 2nd string catcher John Grabowski (who knew his place, and signed far from Ruth's signature.)

Now, I suppose it, too, could be a phoney, but I really doubt it. For one thing, that's a $1000+ baseball unsigned. And anyone who could forge that well would not devalue the ball by forging a Grabowski--they'd either leave it a single, or forge a Gehrig. And, oh yeah, there's that original owner.

So here it is. And it's nothing like those PSA/JSA "stunners.

really like!

[Scott Garner]

I'm gonna be bold here, and post this as an exemplar--a genuine Ruth-signed ball. I purchased it from the original owner--who, as a little girl in 1928 was taken by a family friend--a local St. Louis sportswriter--to Ruth's hotel room right before the 1928 World Series began. Ruth signed this ball for her, and so did his roommate, 2nd string catcher John Grabowski (who knew his place, and signed far from Ruth's signature.)

Now, I suppose it, too, could be a phoney, but I really doubt it. For one thing, that's a $1000+ baseball unsigned. And anyone who could forge that well would not devalue the ball by forging a Grabowski--they'd either leave it a single, or forge a Gehrig. And, oh yeah, there's that original owner.

So here it is. And it's nothing like those PSA/JSA "stunners."

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth_grabowski_ruth_350copy.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruth2.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/ruthgrabowski_logo.jpg

David,
That ball is spectacular! :eek:

[Ease]

Awesome ball & cool story.

[GrayGhost]

Awesome ball & cool story.

:)

[Fuddjcal]

One could reasonably speculate that it could vary by signer because everyone signs at a different angle, etc. And in my opinion, Mantle on a ball does look slightly different than flat signatures.

Given the seriousness of the allegations it is a legitimate question. Why not make a like comparison?

I'd have to agree that Mantle does sign "somewhat" differently in ball-point pen on a baseball vs. on a Flat with a sharpie. He drops ink many, many times with sharpie at the beginning of his M's. With pen on a ball, there is more of a small dot where the M's almost perfectly stop & come together to make the half moon. It's obviously a lot smaller too. A few of the tells are the same and a few different, IMHO.

Great 3rd part to the story. I can't wait for more!

[slidekellyslide]

Bottom line in the autograph hobby...unless it has rock solid provenance or you got it in person you will never know for sure if it's legit..even if ABC soup has given it's seal of approval. We've all heard the stories of authenticators failing an autograph that you got in person, and we've all seen the Sal Bando gotcha video. Sure, there are easy to spot fakes, but there are also extremely good forgers out there. It's all a crap shoot.

[sox1903wschamp]

That is one sweet Ruth Ball. Thank you for posting it David.

[mark evans]

Bottom line in the autograph hobby...unless it has rock solid provenance or you got it in person you will never know for sure if it's legit..even if ABC soup has given it's seal of approval. We've all heard the stories of authenticators failing an autograph that you got in person, and we've all seen the Sal Bando gotcha video. Sure, there are easy to spot fakes, but there are also extremely good forgers out there. It's all a crap shoot.

This is my view as well. I know some on the Board believe that with sufficient education one can become an expert. That's no doubt true. But, what I've learned from this and other threads is that some forgeries are of such high 'quality' that the experts cannot agree with each other.

[David Atkatz]

That's true in the fine art world, as well. But museums and individuals still collect. And I, for one, am quite thankful that they (especially museums) do.

[mark evans]

That's true, David.

For myself, I don't think I would ever feel sufficiently confident in my opinion to be comfortable owning autographs. I do now own several but, in light of what I've learned on this Board since obtaining them, I would not expect to purchase others in the future.

[slidekellyslide]

That's true in the fine art world, as well. But museums and individuals still collect. And I, for one, am quite thankful that they (especially museums) do.

I have no problem with this at all, but I have to say if it were not for this board and all the educated autograph collectors I would think anything with a JSA/PSA cert was 100% legit.

[travrosty]

A lot of people still do think that. they think 100 % legit if it has abc or xyz but the word is slowly getting out.

The well told tales like they only make 1 mistake out of 1000, or that if it has abc or xyz it is as good as gold and you can take it to the bank without any authenticity concerns really does a disservice to the collecting public.

Misinformation like these can travel halfway around the world, while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

I used to believe it, but then went looking for the truth, found it, and it was beyond my wildest dreams of what and how i thought a third party authentication firm could and should operate. totally shocking.

knowledge is power.

[RichardSimon]

Misinformation like these can travel halfway around the world, while the truth is still putting its shoes on.




If you are gonna semi-quote Mark Twain, at least give him credit :D:D.

[mschwade]

Got the mail today and saw a brochure or some kind of advertising book aimed at Cosigners from Heritage and how much money they've sold some of their high value items at. On the cover, coming from the Lou Gehrig collection, I couldn't help but notice the Babe Ruth signature on the 1926 Yankees signed baseball. There's no slanted e in Babe on this baseball either and I have serious doubts that someone else signed the Babe's name for the Iron Horse's baseball-- if in fact, it was from Lou Gehrig's collection.

http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/1080/1190057.JPG

[travrosty]

that ball is interesting, it matches fairly well with the ball that pete nash put up as a ruth ball that ron k. thought was good, which is the one below.

Notice how both balls have flow to them, they have light portions, dark portions to the signature. The way the captial R is made, the way the h is made. You can just tell they are real.

Now let's go to the 300,000 dollar ball. It has no real flow, it is uniform, monotone, uncharacteristically even, with the same pressure throughout. so do a lot of the other questionable balls.

the two above have characteristics of a Ruth dashing off a signature on a ball. the rest have characteristics of a 'planned' signature. steady, even pressure without the flow and ebb and tide like the real ruths show.

here are the good ruths (3), then questionable ones (2), then the good one again closeup. notice the montone of the questionable balls, and the light and dark portions and flow of the good ruth balls. I think the closeups of the questionable Ruth balls really tell the tale.These high dollar ruth balls with the monotone look? Looks like they were signed very evenly and slow.

The funny thing about the LOA's is that the verbiage says that these balls are "consistent regarding flow, pen pressure" etc. with other exemplars we have seen in our professional career. Where is the flow and the varying of pen pressure? What other non flow and even, monotone pen pressure exemplars did they use to okay these questionable balls?

[David Atkatz]

You've nailed it, Travis. There's no variation in pressure, at all. Nor is there any variation in line-width. For one who normally uses a fountain pen (e.g., Ruth) there are variations in line-width caused by the direction of motion of the nib. Motion perpendicular to the nib plane produces a thicker line than motion parallel to the plane. None of that in the "record-breakers."

[Bilko G]

Very, very interesting thread here guys and i am only on page 13 of the thread so i apologize if these questions/statements have been brought up already, but i wanted to get them down now, before i forgot or had other questions.

From the Hauls of shame article part 2...

The same ball that sold at the REA auction appears to have first surfaced publicly in a Sports Collectors Digest ad placed by Art Jaffe and Left Field Collectibles on April 21, 2000.

Is this is the same "Jaffe" or any relation to the Jaffe that was involved with the counterfeiting "Marino Family" and brought down in "Operation Bullpen"?

Also in part 2 of the article in the "Comments" section, there is a comment from a "Linda" who is implying that she is the granddaughter of Babe Ruth, which im sure Nash has confirmed, made a comment....

"During the Depression, his autograph kept food on the tables of his fans. He knew this and would generously sign boxes of balls for people."


What exactly does this mean?? To my understanding, it sounds like people were selling his autographed Baseballs to feed their families?? How do you guys imply this?? I know there was a debate (I believe it was in this thread, but it might have been a different one since ive been reading this forum for a few hours now tonight;)) about autographs having value or not in the 1940's? Well would this not PROVE that autographs had value back then??


Just read something else and edited it into this post...

Net54 poster says...

"Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less."

Is THIS true??? In the early 80's you could buy an autographed RUTH Baseball for $100 or less??? Wasn't the sports collectible industry really picking up steam in the early 80's?? I know collectible shows were popping up all over in the 80's and Ruth balls were less than $100 only 25-30 years ago??


Just a couple quick questions i had while reading:)

Thanks Guys!:cool:

[RichardSimon]

From previous post - "Is this is the same "Jaffe" or any relation to the Jaffe that was involved with the counterfeiting "Marino Family" and brought down in "Operation Bullpen"?"

Absolutely not the same person. That person is Shelly Jaffe no relation, not the same person.

[Vintagedegu]

-

[Bilko G]

Ok Thank You Richard and Vintagedegu for answering a couple of my questions.



I have a couple more pics here that i think should be posted in this thread as well. I know the majority of the senior crowd here (meaning time spent at Net54 and/or in the Hobby and not age, haha;)) knows that Babe Ruth signed a TON of autographs in his time, but these pictures really show how much he was signing back then and like a few posters have mentioned im sure a number of these balls were put away and have survived in really great near mint shape.



http://i43.tinypic.com/nczdw1.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/ms0ylv.jpg

[murphusa]

A member here has a Babe Ruth ball for sale to members and also on ebay right now. The signature is on an American Association Wilson Baseball. After the stuff we saw a few months ago with the dollar bills being not within date, I look at the COA for the ball.

Neither of the COA's took into consideration if the ball fit the time period (it did) but why not also give an opinion on the ball also. I would think that is just as important as the slant