Babe Ruth Ball Rejected by Heritage
 

Nothing new here, just thought I'd share my story. I brought about 100 signed items to Heritage offices in NYC about 2 years ago. All of the items were from the estate of a family member. Many of the items did not pass initial inspection, as to be expected. A few more failed PSA authentication. Almost every one had junk or no COA. There were many nice items that did pass and were sold.

This Ruth Ball had both a Match and GAI LOA.

2002 Match LOA by Christopher Schutte

2003 LOA & COA from GAI

Sadly, you can see he paid $10,995 for the ball.

I've only restarted collecting cards recently (after selling through his collection) and I am sure you all have dealt with and discussed this issue to death. Just a shame.

I let the kids play with most of the cheap junk signed balls but for some reason I can't part ways with the Ruth (or Cobb or Ott) even though they are likely not real. Knowing he paid $11,000 probably has a lot to do with it.

Joshua Van Pelt

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...7293237f34.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...9b95e6faf8.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...a348d9d2fc.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...8ed3e7aaee.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...ebf32eea79.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...4066087b58.jpghttp://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...e79a6bc3fd.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting that Heritage rejected it. Doesn't Mike Gutierrez work for them now?

Anyway, Gutierrez' name is on the Global COA, so perhaps he had a change of mind along the way...

Regardless, I do not think that Goldsmith Ball is as early as 1928 (as was stated in the letter of provenance).

That was one of their concerns. They didn't even send to PSA, they sent pic internally while I was there and sent me home with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Get ahold of Heritage and ask to speak to Gutierrez and ask him why it didn't pass authentication since he said it was real to begin with. It says right on the GAI COA "Guaranteed Authentic". Doesn't say "Our Opinion" like they say now it specificly says "Guaranteed Authentic". Worth a shot. Make these TPA's responsible for there actions and don't just blow it off as an Oh Well.

Sadly, the Ruth is no good.

I disagree with the previous authentications and agree with PSA.

I'm not to experienced with autographs but would have to agree with Heritage. It's their reputation and turning away a piece means turning away money. Their authenticators also didn't like the Ty Cobb ball. I junked everything they rejected except for 5 balls and 1 signed book.

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/2016...6b662be77f.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brendan, I know nothing whatsoever bout auto's but can you tell me what is dead give away that this is not the real McCoy?
thanks

At a quick glance.....

1. The "a" is too fat.
2. The "e" looks too much like a backwards "3". The middle should not come to a point (per se), but rather a mound if that makes sense.
3. The "u" is just off.

Tough to explain via email, is easier in person, but hopefully you understand!

Is it just me, or does the Ruth look like ballpoint? If so, that would be another giveaway, as ballpoints didn't become popular until the mid-fifties.

Towards the end of his life, Ruth signed quite a few postcard-sized photos in ballpoint.

This is a baseball I used to own, it's a Goldsmith 97 League baseball and it's signed by the 1938 Clinton Owls of the Three I League. Goldsmith was still using black and red stitching in 1938

Hi Dan,
I'm quite certain that Goldsmith used the black and red stitching in 1939 as well.
After Vander Meer's unprecedented back-to-back no-hitters in 1938, Goldsmith signed Vandy to a lucrative endorsement deal that debuted in the 1939 season.
The 1939 version of their Official League ball w/ Vandy had black and red stitching. In 1940 or 1941 they went to all red stitching. I believe that the transition year was 1940, FWIW.

I don't know how you guys shell out big bucks for Ruth autographs. I can't do it. To me there is so much fraud in this end of the pool I just can't even stick a toe in.

The only autos in my PC are from the 1980's when I was a kid. My parents took me to the bbc shows in Atlantic City and even got pictures of me getting them signed.

I can't rationalize spending crazy money on an autograph but I have paid stupid amounts for action figures. If it's not what you collect or deal in it always seems odd to spend so much.


Joshua Van Pelt

It's really a shame you feel that way - it's a very special moment when an authentic Ruth-signed item arrives in the mail. Glad to say I've had it happen three times and hope it happens at least once more.

It's really a shame you feel that way - it's a very special moment when an authentic Ruth-signed item arrives in the mail. Glad to say I've had it happen three times and hope it happens at least once more.

Well said. If you do your homework, and don't just purchase an autograph blindly, or simply rely on a cert, the outcome can be much more enjoyable.

Agree. It's like any other segment of collecting...

Know your stuff, do the necessary legwork, and subsequently you won't get burned. Most of us have made a few mistakes along the way, and there is a definite learning curve. There are fakes, fantasies and reproductions of almost every segment this hobby has to offer... Broadsides, Pennants, Ad Signs, Fans, Bats, Gloves, Balls, Statues, Programs, Cards, and yes- autographs.

But we learn from the mistakes and move on. There are many Ruth autos out there that I'd feel 100% comfortable with. OK, maybe 99.9% ;)