Question on signed balls

[honus94566]

I believe this is my first ever post on the memorabilia side of things, I am a vintage card collector but have never dealt much with memorabilia. I have a neighbor that wants to sell some signed balls, a few of them are noteworthy (Mantle, Ott) most of them are newer players such as Killebrew, Aaron etc. He also has a Babe Ruth ball that he's going to consign with REA. But as for these other balls, what is the best "smaller" auction house I should recommend him to for selling the rest of these? Also, if there is a member or two on here with a lot of expertise, I would be interested in messaging you a few photos of the balls to get an opinion on authenticity. I am no expert, but they look good to me. Thanks for any help that can be offered. Also an opinion on a Gehrig autograph he has mounted/framed. If it was vintage cards, I would know exactly what the cards are worth and what he should do with them. But these signed balls, my expertise is seriously lacking!

[David Atkatz]

Post some photos. You'll receive a number of opinions.

[honus94566]

I will get some posted later today

[honus94566]

here are the pics

[sycks22]

Can't say I'm a fan of the Gehrig or Ruth, both look off

[David Atkatz]

The Ruth and Gehrig are forgeries.

[w7imel]

Wow I would be sick to my stomach if I paid alot for the Ruth or Gehrig! Live and learn I guess.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The Ruth and Gehrig are forgeries.

as well as the Mantle

[perezfan]

I think all might be bad. Reggie and Barry could actually be ok.

Really hate to see this

[Baseba11]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

as well as the Mantle

What do you think is off about the Mantle?

I can barely see any difference between it and this one...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/MICKEY-MANTL...-/401146077140

[JMEnglish27]

The Aaron one looks pretty obviously bad to me...hopefully he's got some good ones in the batch, what a shame.

[JMEnglish27]

Originally Posted by perezfan

I think all might be bad. Reggie and Barry could actually be ok.

Really hate to see this

Yeah, Barry looks fine. Can't really see Ted's well enough to discern but that looks like it might be ok.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Baseba11

What do you think is off about the Mantle?

I can barely see any difference between it and this one...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/MICKEY-MANTL...-/401146077140

I can easily tell the difference between the 2. They look nothing alike. The PSA one is gorgeous, while the guys poor ball was an easy to spot forgery. I guess when you have looked at 100's of thousands its pretty easy actually.

[Baseba11]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

I can easily tell the difference between the 2. They look nothing alike. The PSA one is gorgeous, while the guys poor ball was an easy to spot forgery. I guess when you have looked at 100's of thousands its pretty easy actually.

I've seen 100s too. Besides the gorgeousness, what differences do you see?

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by sycks22

Can't say I'm a fan of the Gehrig or Ruth, both look off

that's my opinion as well, neither flow like you would expect. They look like someone took their time to write them down while looking at a real one.

[David Atkatz]

It has nothing to do with "flow." There isn't a letter in either "signature" that is formed correctly.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

It has nothing to do with "flow." There isn't a letter in either "signature" that is formed correctly.

the ruth is decent enough to fool someone who just has a casual knowledge of what his signature looks like. But one of the ways to judge a forgery is the flow of the letters from one to the next. When you sign your name , you don't think about how you do it, you just do it. Forgers have to make an effort to try and get as close as they can. (this link gives more information of what I am referring to)- http://www.questioneddocuments.com/s...tures-forgery/

Take late Ted Williams signatures for example, post stroke, they look different than his other, earlier signatures, but are equally authentic (if less visually appealing) but they still have a visual flow that shows it was signed quickly and casually.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

the ruth is decent enough to fool someone who just has a casual knowledge of what his signature looks like. But one of the ways to judge a forgery is the flow of the letters from one to the next. When you sign your name , you don't think about how you do it, you just do it. Forgers have to make an effort to try and get as close as they can. (this link gives more information of what I am referring to)- http://www.questioneddocuments.com/s...tures-forgery/

Take late Ted Williams signatures for example, post stroke, they look different than his other, earlier signatures, but are equally authentic (if less visually appealing) but they still have a visual flow that shows it was signed quickly and casually.

I know what "flow" means when it comes to autographs, but thanks for the lesson anyway. What I meant was that in judging the autographs one never would get to considering flow. Character formation is so bad that the signatures would be ruled out immediately.

[honus94566]

Was out of town for the weekend and haven't had time to check the forum, sorry for the slow replies. So seems like he is out of luck then, bummer. Thanks everyone for your expertise and comments.

[baseball tourist]

Originally Posted by honus94566

Was out of town for the weekend and haven't had time to check the forum, sorry for the slow replies. So seems like he is out of luck then, bummer. Thanks everyone for your expertise and comments.

Perhaps a slim chance, but does he have any recourse through the sellers of the bad items?

[Bpm0014]

The Ruth is 101% no good and is so bad that it shouldn't even fool "someone with casual knowledge". Sorry to jump on late; I just saw this thread...

[btcarfagno]

Are the Gehrig and Ruth CC Specials? They look like it.

Tom C

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

The Ruth is 101% no good and is so bad that it shouldn't even fool "someone with casual knowledge". Sorry to jump on late; I just saw this thread...

well, apparently it did

[khkco4bls]

I actually thought the Mantle looked pretty good

[vintagesportscollector]

Originally Posted by khkco4bls

I actually thought the Mantle looked pretty good

I thought the Mantle looked pretty good too (when comparing to the PSA example). Any other opinions? Autographs are from my expertise, and I have little experience, so just trying to understand what makes it an obvious forgery.

[honus94566]

Any further opinions on the Mantle? Also, any opinions on this other Ruth?

[Bpm0014]

Now that Ruth there is legit. The spacing is a little off, but the letters are all legit. Not sure why the above Ruth would be the only authentic ball out of the bunch when all others are bad??

[Bpm0014]

I have a funny feeling that the above Ruth was NOT included with the rest of the bunch and that you were just testing us....... Haha

[honus94566]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

I have a funny feeling that the above Ruth was NOT included with the rest of the bunch and that you were just testing us....... Haha

Yeah you are right... And you passed the test with flying colors! Haha.

As for the bunch, my neighbor says they were purchased from a number of different sources over the years, so he thinks at least some of the balls must be good. Clearly the Gehrig and Ruth are not good. But any more opinions on the Mantle, or any of the others that might hold a bit more value?

[Bpm0014]

I knew it!!!! I knew my poker playing people-reading skills would come in handy in real life one day!