Jackie Robinson

[joed25]

Can I please get opinions on this Jackie Robinson signed baseball. Thank you very much.

[joed25]

................

[joed25]

.................

[Deertick]

I don't like it, besides the weird placement for a SS ball. Another thing, it would be VERY unusual for someone in the 50's to save a ball in the original box.

[shelly]

Joe, what do you think before anyone else gives there opinion I know your smart and have stated your opin on many items.
Both you and your brother seem to better than most.

[ATP]

Is it possible to get a better close up of the signature? Would like to see if there is a hesitation in the a and if the speed is slow at the end of last name. I don't think the saving the box part is too weird I have bought a couple good signed balls still in their original box.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by ATP

Is it possible to get a better close up of the signature? Would like to see if there is a hesitation in the a and if the speed is slow at the end of last name. I don't think the saving the box part is too weird I have bought a couple good signed balls still in their original box.

Jeff, lets see what he has to say.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Deertick

I don't like it, besides the weird placement for a SS ball. Another thing, it would be VERY unusual for someone in the 50's to save a ball in the original box.

I dont think have seen a single signed Robinson on the sweet spot.Most of them have been on the side panel. Maybe more comfortable for him to sign that way.
For keeping the box why not? It would be strange but this is a strange hobbie.

[ATP]

Agreed, I forgot to weigh in on the side panel part. Every single signed Jackie that I have looked at buying in the last few years has been on the side panel, none on sweet spot, and I felt most if not all were authentic or I wouldn't have bothered looking, there were at least three that stick in my mind. In fact, if you look at dodger team signed balls Jackie usually signed in the smaller or more cramped spaces, almost never sweet spot.

[btcarfagno]

If it was on the sweet spot I would pretty much stop looking.

Tom C

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by ATP

Agreed, I forgot to weigh in on the side panel part. Every single signed Jackie that I have looked at buying in the last few years has been on the side panel, none on sweet spot, and I felt most if not all were authentic or I wouldn't have bothered looking, there were at least three that stick in my mind. In fact, if you look at dodger team signed balls Jackie usually signed in the smaller or more cramped spaces, almost never sweet spot.

I was referring to where he started the J. Too close so that he had to conform around the curve of the stiches. Also I don't like the angularity of the R, or the overall slant (JKRB).

As far as cramming in his signature, I figured he made use what what was left, maybe this was a team ball that ended at one?

[joed25]

Thanks Shelly. It looks good to me but I am not a Jackie Robinson expert so I posted it here. I'm sure many on this board have handled a lot more Jackie autographs than I have. Thank you to all who have responded.

[Runscott]

ugggghhh

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

Jeff, lets see what he has to say.

What are you, Shelly, the Grand Inquisitor?

Neither people soliciting opinions, nor those who give their opinions, need answer to you.

[jasoneggert]

I have a 1953 Brooklyn team ball signed and it is signed in about this exact same place.

-Jason

[Runscott]

Well, the name is spelled correctly and it's in the right place on the ball. So there you have it.

David - Shelly prefers to be called "the Inquisinator" or "Inquisorelli", but you can just call him "the Quiz"

[ATP]

For the record, I never said I thought it was authentic but it needs to be investigated more with at least a close up scan, preferably in hand. I was just stating that the box being with it isn't an issue to me, nor the placement, based on experience. It has a lot of the same traits as an authentic one, which doesn't mean it's not a forgery either, but it's not a CC crappy example. The of the n's in the last name look a little contrived.

[Runscott]

Yep, it was signed in the right place on the right ball, with the right box. All that is pretty easy.

That leaves just the signature. I would expect anyone who signed a ball this expensive (original Frick ball) to do a fairly decent job of it. Since a few people here like the signature, it obviously is 'good enough' to do the job.

I personally think it's an obvious fake. And while I don't generally give PSA or JSA much credit, I would be stunned if one of their certs was attached to this.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yep, it was signed in the right place on the right ball, with the right box. All that is pretty easy.

That leaves just the signature. I would expect anyone who signed a ball this expensive (original Frick ball) to do a fairly decent job of it. Since a few people here like the signature, it obviously is 'good enough' to do the job.

I personally think it's an obvious fake. And while I don't generally give PSA or JSA much credit, I would be stunned if one of their certs was attached to this.

I agree, with the clarification that the whole deal (ball, box, placement) is part of the contrived nature of the piece.