Is it just me... [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

Archive

11-10-2008, 09:03 AM

Posted By: David AtkatzThis 1928 Yankees team signed ball is up on eBay as we speak. It has been authenticated twice by Jimmy Spence, once while working for PSA, and more recently by JSA. On both certificates the Gehrig is said to be real. In my opinion, the Gehrig is a very poor forgery, added recently. (You'd think that the fact that it's the only dark signature on the entire ball would raise a red flag.) Opinions? <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j245/datkatz/bad28.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-10-2008, 10:00 AM

Posted By: MarkTotally agree... Not only does the Gehrig sig look wrong; it is in a completely different ink than the rest. Is it possible that there was a weaker Gehrig on this ball (mentioned in Spence's letter), and that the new bolder fake was added or enhanced/traced over later? There is a prominant seller on ebay that enhances signatures AFTER the Spence or PSA Letter has been issued. It is a reprehensible practice, but has been done on numerous occasion. Beware of a Ruth/Maranville/Dean signed ball in which this very enhancement was done to the Ruth portion. The ball appeared in Mastro around 8 years ago with a "5" Ruth that had abraisions running through it. It later showed up on ebay with the same PSA LOA- but the Ruth looked bold and perfect. So there are definitely enhancement "artists" out there... Editing to add this comment... Notice how the Gehrig portion is NOT pictured on the LOA? This is how "bad" people get away with doctoring these "already authenticated" balls. In addition, many of the "Auction House" Letters from PSA/Spence do not even contain a photo (as was the case with the Ruth/Maranville/Dean Ball). Perhaps some day, these LOAs will include photos of ALL panels. That would, at least call any enhancements into question... Editing once again... William made the same point concurrently with my edit... LOAs should include photos of all panels.

Archive

11-10-2008, 10:04 AM

Posted By: WilliamI've often wondered myself, since the LOA rarely (ever?) shows a second view of the ball, what would stop someone from altering the signatures that are not pictured in the LOA, after the letter is issued. This ball is a good visual example of possible alteration. It may very well have had a Gehrig signature that once rated a 1 or 2. That weak signature could have been removed and later added in the form of a bolder forgery. A thin coat of shellac and all is hidden. Without more photos from the authenticator showing the other panels, a good number of collectors would not question it's authenticity.

Archive

11-10-2008, 10:05 AM

Posted By: WilliamYou beat me to it Mark.....

Archive

11-10-2008, 10:09 AM

Posted By: MarkWillian... I think the lightbulb "lit" over our heads at the same exact time!

Archive

11-10-2008, 10:14 AM

Posted By: David AtkatzThanks guys. I guess in my outrage I didn't look carefully enough at the CoAs. (And I wasn't clever enough to realize that there may have been a genuine, though weak, Gehrig that was replaced after authentication.) In this case Jimmy did no wrong. But if all panels were pictured, we could avoid this crap.

Archive

11-11-2008, 12:20 PM

Posted By: Fred YI saw this thread and recognized it as the ball a friend of mine is auctioning on consignment. I EM'd her about your concerns and at the same time she has recvd a question from someone asking if the Gehrig has been enhanced. I can assure you she is a very honest Seller & was upset that there were concerns, but she has the following info at hand---I told her I would post for her if she wished & she definitely wanted me to. Here is what she said & will post on EBay in response to the question: "When the current owner of this ball puchased it off of Ebay about a year and a half ago (Early May 2007) it was already authenticated by PSA. He printed out a copy of the auction and the pictures from that auction, which I have and will send to the winner. The photos in that auction show the Gehrig auto the same as it is now." "The owner then sent the ball to James Spence to authenticate (at the end of May) and he did not mention in his COA that the autograph was enhanced in any way. If you would like an enlarged close up photo of the autograph you can send me your email address and I'd be happy to send it to you if that will help." Angela is not a sports collector and does not frequent Net 54 so that's why I am posting for her. She just got in a large consignment of many more autographed baseballs, including Presidents, Astronauts, Celebrities and Sports Stars that will be up for auction in the near future.

Archive

11-11-2008, 01:42 PM

Posted By: David AtkatzThanks, Fred. But, regardless of what JSA may or may not have said, the Gehrig autograph on that ball is not real.

Archive

11-11-2008, 02:03 PM

Posted By: Fred YI assume you looked carefully at all the views on Angela's listing. Couldn't the answer be simply that the sig was added at a slightly later time in 1928 or '29 (like a few months or so) w/a different pen? I had a Ruth-Gehrig ball that was deemed authentic but enhanced by Spence that I sold w/ Lelands in 2005--That one was evident. This Gehrig looks untouched to me. Here is a litle better pic to judge by: <img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/gehrigang.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> Can you state EXACTLY WHY you think it is not good? Would love to have Jodi or anyone else familiar w/ Gehrig sig to offer their opinions.

Archive

11-11-2008, 02:12 PM

Posted By: David AtkatzI have been collecting vintage Yankee material for more than forty years. I consider myself an expert on Gehrig and Ruth. (If I do say so myself.) Let me answer your question. Aside from the fact that none of the characters are formed quite right--the "G" is particularly bad--the first and last names are written at different levels, and different angles, Nobody does that when signing his name. But it's done quite often when a "signature" is being copied. And, of course, the signature is pristine and dark, while all the other signatures have faded mostly away. But I will bow to Jodi's opinion. (On the other hand, Jodi once worked for Jimmy. So I would not be a bit surprised if he chooses to remain silent.)

Archive

11-11-2008, 02:20 PM

Posted By: Fred YI think Jodi will offer an opinion---Maybe Richard Simon will also. David--I certainly respect your expertise after 40 yrs, but you did not say WHY you think it bad.

Archive

11-11-2008, 02:25 PM

Posted By: David AtkatzI just went back and did.

Archive

11-11-2008, 04:11 PM

Posted By: Fred YThanks David. I surely am not an expert on autos by any means even tho I have quite a few in my collection. One final thought & comparison using David McDonalds card & the ball: I see enough similarities, particularly in the L and the final g, and even in the ou & hri to make me believe it is authentic---but I'll leave it at that until some others chime in! <img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/GehrigPSADNA.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/gehrigang.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-11-2008, 04:13 PM

Posted By: AnonymousThe H is different and the real Gehrig's I dont have a dot.

Archive

11-11-2008, 05:00 PM

Posted By: Tom Boblitt(couldn't afford the 'h') I'd agree with David (I know, David........WOW.....Tom agrees with me.......) and say I think MINIMALLY it's traced over after the fact or worse completely fake. Also too much room between Lou & Gehrig and the G is a complete MESS........echo the sentiments that ALL panels of a ball should be pictured on a cert. I'd hate to pay $100-$200 for a cert for something like that and get what they got.

Archive

11-11-2008, 05:14 PM

Posted By: VincentFred, I certainly do not consider myself an expert. I've been collecting vintage baseball autographs for only 12 years or so. But I do (perhaps foolishly) place a fair amount of faith in the examples represented as authentic, in on-line auction catalogs (past & current) and autograph price listings of reputable dealers/auction houses. I have on several occassions used these examples as exemplars for making my own "best guess" on the possible authenticity of an item. Foolproof, it certainly is not. Foolhardy, perhaps. But when timing and scarcity are factors, sometimes you're compelled to take a calculated risk. Perhaps this would be a useful exercise to do with your Gerhig-signed ball. If you choose to do so, make sure to match medium and period as best as possible. The signature on a baseball will differ from a signature on a flat, and signatures can vary over time. I personally emphasize the number of character similarities in comparison to the number of non-conforming. I'm looking for far more matches than misses. More misses than matches, I'd be as concerned as a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. One passing thought on your ball. If it has been noted as being traced over, or having an enhanced signature, that might explain the irregularities in some of the characters (G). Even with an outline to trace over, the tracing hand will undoubtingly stray. So the underlying signature may be good, but the trace over failed to do the original signature (or you) any favors. Best of luck to you.

Archive

11-11-2008, 05:45 PM

Posted By: Fred YHi Vincent Thanks for your helpful reply. I may have confused you somewhat. The ball in question is the ball at the top and is being auctioned by someone I know. The ball I mentioned that I sold in 2005 I knew was enhanced. There were 12 sigs on the ball--10 were 1930 Wash Senators plus Babe & Lou. The COA made note they were deemed authentic but enhanced. Here are the 2 Yanks that were traced over: <img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/1930e.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q285/fyoung17/1930d.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> TO Yanks12025: I have seen several Gehrigs that have not 1 but 2 dots at the end---some with the i dotted off to the right (almost over the g) & some w/ a dot or period at the very end of the last g like on my ball above. He was very inconsistent in that respect.

Archive

11-12-2008, 07:19 AM

Posted By: JoeyI don't know about the autograph in question but I do know Gehrig was very inconsistent with his autos and they changed quite a bit over the years. For example: <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/58902d.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/58934d.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/58941.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/58945a.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59177a.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59179c.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59683a-1.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59804a-1.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59831b.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59907a.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/59912a.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr172/zeeter/4.jpg" alt="[linked image]">

Archive

11-12-2008, 07:36 AM

Posted By: David AtkatzYes, Gehrig's signature style changed considerably over the years. (There was even a very rushed, in-person "L Gehrig," which you have pictured above as well.) In fact, the presence or absence of the correct signature style for the time is often used in determining authenticity. But note that in every single example you have shown, the first and last names lie on the same line. The example in question is a forgery.

Archive

11-12-2008, 08:01 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldDavid - while I have no opinion as to the authenticity of the ball in question above, below are a few pictures of my '35 spring training ball (note Ruth is still present [before being traded] which is why I love this ball so much). The Gehrig on my ball is not completely on a straight line as the "Lou" sits slightly above the "Gehrig" albeit the alignment on my ball is much closer than the one on the questioned ball above. <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/DSCN1518.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> <img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/DSCN1517.jpg" alt="[linked image]"> ====================================== For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit <a href="http://www.baseballandtobacco.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballandtobacco.com</a>

Archive

11-12-2008, 08:05 AM

Posted By: Jon CanfieldAnd - while we are on the subject of Gehrig, I'd appreciate your insight on this piece: <a href="http://s82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/?action=view&current=DSCN1527.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j263/jon_canfield/DSCN1527.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a> ====================================== For the premier online souce of information on baseball-related cigarette packs, visit <a href="http://www.baseballandtobacco.com" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.baseballandtobacco.com</a>