NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:17 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default Vintage auto'd baseball experts, help please!

I'm intrigued by this ball in the REA auction (which is ridiculously loaded, by the way). Is it common for the autos on a ball this old to be so bold? Is this due to fountain pen ink, the light shellack, or what? It just looks odd to me, but I don't collect baseballs generally so any thoughts or opinions are welcomed.

http://bid.robertedwardauctions.com/...x?itemid=22432
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-13-2012, 08:58 PM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,518
Default

It's just that great India Ink that was often used back in the day. It displays magnificently, and holds up remarkably well. Great Ball
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-13-2012, 10:55 PM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Thanks perezfan

Another question (for anyone): is it true that the clubhouse sig of Ruth on this ball is a "classic example"? Anyone know of any exemplars?
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-14-2012, 09:48 AM
Wymers Auction's Avatar
Wymers Auction Wymers Auction is offline
James Wymer
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ohio
Posts: 985
Default

Bombjack at least they are admitting that it was not signed by Ruth.
__________________
James Wymer
Wymers Auction
wymersauction.com
Always accepting quality consignments
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-14-2012, 09:51 AM
mighty bombjack mighty bombjack is offline
Wayne Walker
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 951
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wymers Auction View Post
Bombjack at least they are admitting that it was not signed by Ruth.
True, but I fear that they are blowing smoke when they call it a classic example. There is a big difference between a period clubhouse sig and a more modern forgery, and I wish I knew how they have deemed it the former.

Everything about the ball seems legit, I'm just splitting hairs.
__________________
My Hall of Fame autograph collection

http://s236.photobucket.com/albums/f...NFT/?start=all
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-14-2012, 10:06 AM
Wymers Auction's Avatar
Wymers Auction Wymers Auction is offline
James Wymer
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Hamilton, Ohio
Posts: 985
Default

I see what you are saying Bombjack.
__________________
James Wymer
Wymers Auction
wymersauction.com
Always accepting quality consignments
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-14-2012, 10:28 AM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,518
Default

I wouldn't think twice about the Ruth. It is obviously Clubhouse, and of the time period. It is not a more modern forgery. As long as you know this information going in (along with the fact that it was once mounted to a Blotter) you should be able to determine what it's worth to you.

The value is rather subjective, given the condition issues. The clubhouse Ruth and former mounting scars would drive away some "purist" collectors, while others wouldn't be put off at all.

In typical REA fashion, their estimate is quite conservative, and you can surely expect to pay more than the $1K. A strong McGraw on the sweetspot and Miller Huggins on his own panel are not features that surface very often. Regardless, Rob has provided a very accurate and detailed disclosure, along with the probable reason for the "clubhouse" Ruth. There is really nothing else to question or split hairs over, IMHO.

Hope this helps, and best of luck!

Last edited by perezfan; 04-14-2012 at 10:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-14-2012, 10:55 AM
GrayGhost's Avatar
GrayGhost GrayGhost is offline
Scott
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Connecticut.
Posts: 9,089
Default

That is one freaking awesome ball!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-14-2012, 02:06 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.

How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.

The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-14-2012, 06:21 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.

How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.

The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?
Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-14-2012, 06:59 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas View Post
Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).

I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-14-2012, 07:36 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.
The reason I ask is because if the "non-malicious" statement was in the auction lot description, it is embellishment by the auction house copy writers, not something stated by JSA. If it was in the LOA as something other than a quote from the auction description, then you've got a good point.

As I said, I don't have a copy of the catalog, so I can't say which is the case. You should probably double-check before you get too deep into an argument that should probably be a separate thread anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-14-2012, 07:59 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecatspajamas View Post
The reason I ask is because if the "non-malicious" statement was in the auction lot description, it is embellishment by the auction house copy writers, not something stated by JSA. If it was in the LOA as something other than a quote from the auction description, then you've got a good point.

As I said, I don't have a copy of the catalog, so I can't say which is the case. You should probably double-check before you get too deep into an argument that should probably be a separate thread anyway.


they specifically said that jsa determined it was a non malicious secretarial.

now if they are lying its not my fault. i cant go around getting everyone to sign notarized affidavits.

why am i deep into an argument? and who is arguing? i stated my position that jsa said (according to the auction hosue) that it was a non malicious secretarial. if jsa wants to refute that they said that, then fine.

You can always say that someone is lying. no one could report anything if we had to be there first hand. if the yankees lost 3-2- to the red sox, and the L.A. times ran the score because it came over the wire, you could say that how do we know the source is telling the truth? was the l.a. times guy who published the box score at the game in person in new york?

when the auction house says that spence said it was a non malicious secretarial. I take them at their word. spence can come on here himself and refute it if he contends it is not true.

http://robertedwardauctions.com/auction/2007/1026.html

here is says they are classic secretarials. if jsa determined they were forgeries, would the hair even make it to the auction block?

REA blogged that JSA said that. So if that is an embellishment (lie), then LIfson or his agent from REA is lying, not me. I can only take them at their word. I am not going to tap people's phones.



Also from haulsofshame.com

a blog post by REA

But in their blog post of August 7, 2007, REA revealed another reason why they decided to include Halper’s “Ruth Hair Display” in their sale:

“One positive was that it was the opinion of our autograph authenticators (James Spence Authentication) that (the) signed letter and envelope were “non-malicious classic secretarial” Ruth signatures, as opposed to malicious forgeries, suggesting that the hair was actually Ruth’s, but really, how could we or anyone know for sure?”

Last edited by travrosty; 04-14-2012 at 08:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-14-2012, 08:46 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
they specifically said that jsa determined it was a non malicious secretarial.
That was all I asked. It seemed like a pretty basic question, and when you say

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.
I think it's fair to ask that you find out the answer before continuing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
now if they are lying its not my fault. i cant go around getting everyone to sign notarized affidavits.
Nobody has asked you to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
why am i deep into an argument?
You're not. I specifically said before you get deep into an argument.

I really don't understand your hostility over a simple request for clarification. There's no reason for you to get your panties in a bunch simply because I or anyone else asks a question to get a clear idea of what you're arguing, I mean, making a lengthy statement about.

I'm not attacking you, the OP, JSA, REA, or anyone else. You've answered my question, so please get back to whatever statement you were trying to make without getting so defensive over my question.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-15-2012, 12:47 PM
perezfan's Avatar
perezfan perezfan is offline
M@RK ST€!NBERG
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,518
Default

What a shock, that this thread would go in this direction. This is getting so tiring. It's a clubhouse signature, as was a common occurrance for the period. They have properly disclosed this, so please save the splitting of hairs for another thread.

Why does EVERY autograph thread in this forum have to de-volve into this self-serving agenda garbage? Originally, I was against the idea of a separate section for autograph bashing, but now I definititely wish it would be split apart from other memorabilia. Just my opinion... not that it will change anything
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-15-2012, 12:54 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

The original question that someone asked is how they know it is a clubhouse signature on that ball vs. forgery, and if anyone knew of any exemplars from that time period to determine if it was a clubhouse.

I gave background that when someone says clubhouse, or secretarial, you have to take it with a grain of salt, because the halper babe ruth signature, which JSA claimed was non malicious secretarial, does not seem to be the case.

The JSA defenders then jumped on my case about it, but I proved to them that my assertation was correct by providing a blog post by REA themselves that said that JSA had determined it to be a non malicious secretarial, and I am happy to defend myself.

Last edited by travrosty; 04-15-2012 at 12:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-15-2012, 12:58 PM
Rob D. Rob D. is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,422
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perezfan View Post
What a shock, that this thread would go in this direction. This is getting so tiring. It's a clubhouse signature, as was a common occurrance for the period. They have properly disclosed this, so please save the splitting of hairs for another thread.

Why does EVERY autograph thread in this forum have to de-volve into this self-serving agenda garbage? Originally, I was against the idea of a separate section for autograph bashing, but now I definititely wish it would be split apart from other memorabilia. Just my opinion... not that it will change anything
You're not alone in your thoughts, Mark. Believe me, you're not alone.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-15-2012, 01:25 PM
thecatspajamas's Avatar
thecatspajamas thecatspajamas is offline
L@nce Fit.tro
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Franklin, TN
Posts: 2,432
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
The original question that someone asked is how they know it is a clubhouse signature on that ball vs. forgery, and if anyone knew of any exemplars from that time period to determine if it was a clubhouse.

I gave background that when someone says clubhouse, or secretarial, you have to take it with a grain of salt, because the halper babe ruth signature, which JSA claimed was non malicious secretarial, does not seem to be the case.

The JSA defenders then jumped on my case about it, but I proved to them that my assertation was correct by providing a blog post by REA themselves that said that JSA had determined it to be a non malicious secretarial, and I am happy to defend myself.
Travis, as I said before, my intent was neither to attack nor defend anyone. I simply asked for clarification of where one of the statements you were quoting was made, and when you said you did not know, asked that you find out before proceeding.

So far in this thread, it looks to me like you're having an argument with yourself, presenting yourself with imagined attacks, and then defending yourself from those attacks. After first saying "I don't know," you then answered my question early in the next post (thank you for that) before proceeding to go off on me or whoever else you imagined was hurling attacks at you.

To my mind, defending your "assertations" from imaginary attackers and giving responses to challenges that were never made is at best a waste of time, but if it makes you feel better to do so, please start a new thread for it. At this point, I'm sorry I ever asked for the original clarification, as that seems to have set you off for some uknown reason.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-15-2012, 03:03 PM
Bilko G Bilko G is offline
Bilko Glasier
Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 399
Default

Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-15-2012, 03:21 PM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

sorry i mentioned jsa, which is taboo to do. if i would have said GAI/global authentics, no one would have given a rats behind except maybe to join in.

that't why there are sacred cows that can never be questioned and that's a big problem in the hobby and we can't move forward until ALL can be questioned and held accountable for their authentications.

Last edited by travrosty; 04-15-2012 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-15-2012, 03:39 PM
Scott Garner's Avatar
Scott Garner Scott Garner is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Midwest
Posts: 6,597
Default

Yawn...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-15-2012, 07:44 PM
earlywynnfan's Avatar
earlywynnfan earlywynnfan is offline
Ke.n Su.lik
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,230
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travrosty View Post
sorry i mentioned jsa, which is taboo to do. if i would have said GAI/global authentics, no one would have given a rats behind except maybe to join in.

that't why there are sacred cows that can never be questioned and that's a big problem in the hobby and we can't move forward until ALL can be questioned and held accountable for their authentications.
Travis, I think I'm speaking for most here: Other than Chris, none of us have a problem with you calling out the "sacred cows." What we do have a problem with -- and this is the point that you seem to be missing -- is that you seem to take EVERY autograph thread and turn it into "Look how JSA/PSA f****d up this time!!!" I think we get the point by now. If you have some blatant errors, put them in your own posts. I will read them, and probably many others. But please stop taking everyone else's threads and turning them into your campaign.

I give Chris props on this thread; I'm happy he hasn't come on to reply to you with all the mistakes Mueller or someone else made, which just makes the cycle continue.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-16-2012, 08:21 AM
travrosty travrosty is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by earlywynnfan View Post
Travis, I think I'm speaking for most here: Other than Chris, none of us have a problem with you calling out the "sacred cows." What we do have a problem with -- and this is the point that you seem to be missing -- is that you seem to take EVERY autograph thread and turn it into "Look how JSA/PSA f****d up this time!!!" I think we get the point by now. If you have some blatant errors, put them in your own posts. I will read them, and probably many others. But please stop taking everyone else's threads and turning them into your campaign.

I give Chris props on this thread; I'm happy he hasn't come on to reply to you with all the mistakes Mueller or someone else made, which just makes the cycle continue.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com


The reason JSA came up is that they certed this ball. It's fair game to discuss them just as it is REA since it is an REA auction and a JSA certed item and someone asked how they knew it was a classic secretarial. I never said that so and so screwed up. Someone else jumped on me unfairly when I gave the Halper example and backed it up.

I never said they screwed up, i said that you have to take a clubhouse or secretarial autograph designation with a grain of salt because of their past history. That's all I said and you would think I had told little timmy that santa claus doesn't exist. Someone else first asked the question that how did they know it was a classic clubhouse. I gave the information that I had that says they have a shaky history when it comes to clubhouses and secretarials and I gave the Halper example. Why is this out of bounds or taboo?

OTHER PEOPLE want to make it into a fight. They do this because I happen to mention jsa or psa. if i was mentioning GA nobody would care. They have a problem with anyone mentioning psa or jsa. this is where the sacred cows come in. I an not going to quiet down because someone else has a bunch of psa or jsa certs and doesnt want any criticism of them ever. I never criticized the ball. I never said any of the autographs were fake.

I post plenty of comments on many other threads in memorabilia and cards and never mention psa or jsa. so there. I guess you dont have to read them if you don't want to. So in recap, please people out there, don't ever ciritcize psa or jsa, you will catch heck for it. go to a morales/cc thread and tell them they are redundant and that we "GOT IT BY NOW".

I don't care if Chris posts anybody's mistakes. I never told him he couldn't or shouldn't.

Last edited by travrosty; 04-16-2012 at 08:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vintage Baseball Experts: A Red/Blue Lace Cronin Ball? Rawlings Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used 5 07-22-2010 10:14 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:06 PM.


ebay GSB