Randall is right on with his comments as far as I'm concerned.
I might add that I think the reason that vintage signed balls tend to sell for a bit of a premium over modern ones signed by the same player is that any autograph signed by an old-time player during their playing days tends to sell for more than their equivalent modern signature. In other words, it's more about the age of the autograph than the age of the item it's signed on.
I've used this analogy before (maybe even in relation to baseballs, I can't remember): Say you're thinking of collecting players' autographs on U.S. currency. Lots of people have done this with $1 and $2 bills. Would it be cooler to do it on $50 or $100 bills? Sure, but is it worth the added cost of the substrate when what you're really collecting is the signature on it.
All that said, there are dealers who make a point of carrying unsigned vintage balls (*insert shameless plug here*), but you'll be hard-pressed to find any who have a dozen Giles, Cronin, or even Feeney balls available. MacPhail maybe, as there seems to have been a lot of them that hit the market in the last few years still in the original boxes. Otherwise, you're probably going to be one- and two-at-a-timing it, unless you get lucky and find some new old stock in one of the big auctions.
|