Is this Ruth real? JSA says yes
 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1920s-BABE-R...item3aac501ced

This auction just posted and claims JSA certified it. Never seen a Ruth signed ball look like this. Looks like it was stamped with same ink as the ball itself. Would anyone else have a problem with this being authentic? Maybe its just the way its pictured. Thoughts?

Doesn't look good to me

Auction search shows it was sold by Hunt originally.

It looks stamped.

Those auction letters need to be taken with a grain of salt. Looks stamped.

when I first saw it I thought it was stamped also just like the ball

Personally, I have never had an issue with the seller and has some REALLY nice stuffQQQ

This is stamped on the ball...shame on JSA, if that's a real cert.

Ruth Ball
 

I am the seller of the ball listed on eBay. The signature is not stamped, and the leather used on this particular baseball is quite porous, causing any wear to the ink to flake, making some of you think it is stamped. I recently acquired the ball in trade from the original buyer from an old Hunt auction, and I just submitted the ball to JSA yesterday in-person. The ball was examined & confirmed that indeed, it is a live, real signature, and a full-service LOA is on the way. The new LOA will be posted to the eBay listing once we receive it.

Regards,
Bryan Dec

eBay seller JKAYMAC

810-664-1790

The lively model ball had the cheaper canvas type cover didn't it. Maybe that's why

here's a picture of the authentication :)

http://net54baseball.com/attachment....1&d=1436579035

I can read the Babe ok but the Ruth part of the signature looks strange to me even at a higher screen resolution . It may be real but I would pass on it for sure, regardless of the TPA letter. There are better ones available at possibly equal cost if you are patient .

And now we are trusting 15 year old kids to authenticate Ruth autographs? Wow the hobby is in danger!!! Still looks like a stamped autograph and would not buy. Maybe Babe Was the one who stamped it.

While all you on the bandwagon jump high, I can tell you that I do not know a more honest and extremely knowledgeable sports memorabilia seller than Bryan Dec. He has been a full time seller for many years and I would trust him a hell of a lot more than most people on this board. I have done business with Bryan for years and he has been nothing but extremely honest. Bryan does not need JSA to tell him an autograph is real. If a mistake has been made, he would be the first to admit it and refund a persons money. Say what you want, but before you try to smear an honest person, you should know what the hell you are talking about. Jason

nobody is smearing him, he brought it to jsa, and jsa called it real. if people dont like the sig, they can ask jsa why they thought it was good. otherwise why get a jsa cert?

There is the distinct possibility that it is real. I know that may be hard to comprehend because of the immense amount of "experts" on the board.

I didn't see anybody bashing Bryan in this thread. From the picture provided the Babe Ruth auto ink looks exactly like the stamping on the rest of the ball to me. I have no opinion on the ball because I do not know anything about this part of collecting. I do like to read this section of the forum though.:)

Babe Ruth Ball - LOA UPDATED
 

As mentioned before, the auction-service JSA LOA was recently upgraded on this Ruth ball, and an image of the full-service JSA LOA has been added to the eBay listing, seller JKAYMAC.

Regards,
Bryan Dec

bdecsports.com

I am not a professional and have no opinion on anyone's reputation. This is solely an observation on the baseball:

If you look at the printed text on the sweetspot, the text has the same dot pattern in it that you then see in the signature. Regardless of authentication, I can't help but see the similarities between what is most definitely printed on the baseball vs what is said to be written onto it.

Chad,
Let us show some decorum here, that is the "director of authentication" that you are talking about :D.

yep, many years of toiling as an intern, an assistant authenticator, an authenticator, a senior authenticator, finally paid off as a director of authentication, it shows it can be done if you put in the time and apply yourself over decades. One thing I learned, there are no shortcuts in this business.

Listed again
 

And I still think its stamped

I still don't see how you can differentiate between the printed stamping and the supposed written on signature. The stamping, along with the dot patterns in both the known stamp and supposed signature, look exactly the same to me. So if one is stamped the other is stamped.

Well, you could have looked at it in person and the National instead of "seeing" or "thinking". OR, you could have talked to Bryan yourself. I looked at the ball myself at the national and it is clearly different, but I guess you can have your own opinion.

Well I admit I didn't travel to Chicago to look at this one particular baseball. What I have available to me is the auction photo and my eyes. To you, the stamping isn't similar? You don't see the same dot pattern in the signature and stamp?

I didn't say it doesn't appear similar, it does at first glance. I know the seller and he is a very honest person and I would give him the benefit of the doubt and did. I also looked with my own eyes and it is different. I don't think there's an issue.

I applaud the refreshing change in Jason's way of thinking.

Did anyone else see the ball at the National? I am not saying anything about the seller's reputation or honesty, I'm curious about opinions on what looks to be stamped and what doesn't. I have been unable so far to find another example of the "Youth's Lively" baseball. I found a catalog as early as 1929 advertising them for sale, but there is only an artist rendering and not a complete view of the baseball.

I am not offering an opinion on the authenticity of the signature. But the "dot pattern" is simply the grain of the leather. When the surface ink wears away, it still remains in the depressions. Thus, the dot pattern will be identical, and does not depend at all upon the way the ink was applied to the ball. Notice the dots in the Ruth signature below.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...atz/ruthcu.jpg

The "Ruth" in the signature looks too sloppy to be stamped. Most of the Babe Ruth stamped signatures show every letter more clearly, don't they? The signature also shows signs of fading in parts of the lettering while the stamps on the ball are more even.

As far as I know, there are no Ruth rubber-stamped signatures. Anyone have a photo?

So, is there a way to have something printed on the leather versus "stamped"? I also think this Ruth is not a real signature because of the size. Doesn't the signature appear to be small compared to the usual way Ruth signed? Unless this is a large ball.....that signature appears rather small and compact, which is why it seems printed or stamped on there.

It's really a shame we didn't get to meet in person at the national.

It really is. I hear you are pretty much just the same in real life.