Any Opinions on This Authenticated Baseball?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p><a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5158303498" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5158303498</a><br /><br />I have PSA's exemplars of Hugh Jennings signature. They do not compare to this baseball in any way at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>I don't have a clue on this autograph, however, I would never even consider an auction house LOA from PSA/DNA. A cursory review does not deserve an LOA and they continually fail these when they are sent in for a specific LOA.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Sean Coe</b><p>The signature is so faint its hard to tell. The closest matches I can find are a Tony Murnane benefit ball that was in the Oct 25, 26 2003 Hunt Auction and a 1922 all star type ball in the same auction. Both were PSA authenticated.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p>I've bought from Rotman before with no complaints,although never any "big ticket" items. The problem I have with this particular ball is the condition.<br /> It is so poor,that if I had bought it, I would not feel 100% that I had actually added a Jennings signature to my collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>This item had been listed two or three times before it sold. Who knows if the reserve was lowered but each time out, it reached the $500-650 range without the reserve having been met. How much would this bring at Mastro if it was pristine? Five figures...Easy.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>Here is a comparison of the questioned ball (top picture) with a ball that is in the current Hunts Auction. Both have been authenticated by PSA/DNA. Although the "J" is clearly different, the rest of the autographs seems comparable. This is a tough one.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1107474375.JPG"> <br /><br /><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1107474391.JPG"> <br /><br />Rob L

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred</b><p>I've purchased a few things from Rotman and have been satisfied with them. I've nothing against them but in light of today's climate of questionable authentication I did find a bit of humor in the following (copied from the Jennings signed ball item description): <br /><br /><br /><b>Rotman Auction takes pride in providing unquestionable authenticity on all autographed items. We therefore commissioned an independent source, PSA/DNA, to verify the authenticity of this item and several others that we currently have available for auction.</b><br /><br />I'm not doubting that the signature is real but can ANYONE be 100% (unquestionably) certain about anything game used or autographed these days?<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MW</b><p>You can be if it's authenticated/graded as A10.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>kevin pope</b><p>It seems during the teens and early twenties that there was definitely a lot of players who signed there names on baseballs as if they were printing the letters instead of a typical cursive flow. I have a few examples of signed teamballs from the teens and Jake Daubert, Ed Konetchy, and Grover Cleveland Alexander, along with too many others to name have signed in the fashion that this Jennings ball was apparently signed. I feel that a lot of players signed this way on balls so you could read their names. I also think the Waterman fountain pens of that time were prone to bleeding and leather wasn't the best surface to get a good script signature on it. A more simple version of their signature was then used. Just my theory and with experience collecting team balls from that era.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Josh Evans</b><p>No way this is good<br />I am shocked one so obvious was passed as good<br /><br />Remember, with the current state of hobby affairs (sadly) it is no longer the reputation of the auction house or dealer that determines the authenticity of the material unless they do their own authentication<br />It is some outside firm with little or no direct stake<br />Josh