[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?