Babe Ruth Ban Johnson Ball

[ATP]

It's been kind of slow over here the last couple days, so what better than posting a Ruth auto to opine on. I passed on this one a couple months ago, I just couldn't get comfortable with it not being a clubhouse. The ball type would place it 1926 or earlier, but the B seems so angular and the Ruth having the crossed up R? I still look at the photos every once and awhile to try to assure myself that I made the right decision in passing on it. I am using my iPad and for some reason cannot get it to load more than one photo at a time so I will reply below with the others. Thoughts?

[ATP]

Photo number two

[ATP]

Photo number three

[ATP]

Photo number four

[Nyygameused]

I agree with your initial feelings

[ATP]

Bump to see if I can get any more opinions and a consensus on this, and whether to add it to my file as a circa 1925 clubhouse signature, for future reference.

[Runscott]

Jeff, it is not a clubhouse signature.

[Runscott]

From yesterday's thread regarding forgeries:

http://net54baseball.com/showpost.ph...69&postcount=8

[shelly]

It really makes very little difference if a ball has a club house signiture or a forged one. The bottom line is Ruth did not sign it thus makeing the ball worth more than the scribble that is on it.
Just my opinion.

[ATP]

I passed on it a few months ago because I knew it didn't look right one way or another, but to me, personally I do like to know if it might be clubhouse or outright forgery. I add them to my file and allows me to see trends, or patterns if forgery and I find that valuable information...but then again I am overly analytical of things.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by ATP

I passed on it a few months ago because I knew it didn't look right one way or another, but to me, personally I do like to know if it might be clubhouse or outright forgery. I add them to my file and allows me to see trends, or patterns if forgery and I find that valuable information...but then again I am overly analytical of things.

I think David Atkatz' post sums up the difference very well. People who signed as clubhouse or secretarial would not have had forgery skills, so it should be very obvious. Also, I have never heard of a single-signed clubhouse ball.

[ATP]

Good point, thank you.

[shelly]

Please answer this. If a ball has a single signed clubhouse signiture. Another ball has a single signed forgery of the same player is the clubhouse worth more.
I know that I have never seen a single signed clubhouse signiture but just asking .

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Please answer this. If a ball has a single signed clubhouse signiture. Another ball has a single signed forgery of the same player is the clubhouse worth more.
I know that I have never seen a single signed clubhouse signiture but just asking .

Both are worth what you would pay to buy Fido a chew toy.

Keeping it more real, and along the same lines - if you have two 1927 Yankees balls, one with 20 real signatures and 2 forgeries (Ruth and Gehrig), and the other with 20 real signatures and 2 obvious clubhouse (Ruth and Gehrig), which is worth more? ...or is there no difference in value?

As a collector, the one with the forgeries would be much less appealing, primarily because the forgeries were not intended to be on the ball and are almost certainly much more recent. And they were used with the intent of screwing someone.

[ATP]

To me neither would be of interest or value to buy, to some the clubhouse might be worth something. I just wanted to know, for information purposes only, nothing at all to do with value.

[Nyygameused]

I go to a game, ask the ballboy if after the game he can get me an autograph. He proceeds after the game into the clubhouse and comes out with a signed baseball.

Assuming we have a "clubhouse" signature, while this baseball may mean the world to me not knowing it is a "clubhouse" sig. The story and feelings mean nothing, once it changes hands it's a forgery.

[David Atkatz]

No, it's not a forgery. There is precise terminology used by serious autograph collectors. It's used for a reason. Take the time to learn and understand it, and you may actually sound like you know what you're talking about.

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

No, it's not a forgery. There is precise terminology used by serious autograph collectors. It's used for a reason. Take the time to learn and understand it, and you may actually sound like you know what you're talking about.

David what is my autograph signed by anyone other than me considered? A fake, a fraud, not authentic, non genuine. If someone handed me a baseball and said hey I signed it with David's name so be happy, I'd say what? I understand what a clubhouse sig is, but I'm my opinion it is simply a forgery that came from within

[Mr. Zipper]

A forgery is by definition an unauthorized reproduction that is created for fraudulent purposes.

A proxy signature (clubhouse / secretarial) is an authorized reproduction that emanated from a source known by the intended signer.

With historical material (and most other genres of collecting), there is always a clear distinction between forgery and proxy. The terms are not used interchangeably.

Not sure what it is about the sports crowd, but we have seen this same discussion here numerous times where some insist forgery and proxy are one and the same. Perhaps they both have an equivalent level of desirability to some (zero), but that does not make them the same. Words matter.

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

A forgery is by definition an unauthorized reproduction that is created for fraudulent purposes.

A proxy signature (clubhouse / secretarial) is an authorized reproduction that emanated from a source known by the intended signer.

With historical material (and most other genres of collecting), there is always a clear distinction between forgery and proxy. The terms are not used interchangeably.

Not sure what it is about the sports crowd, but we have seen this same discussion here numerous times where some insist forgery and proxy are one and the same. Perhaps they both have an equivalent level of desirability to some (zero), but that does not make them the same. Words matter.

Just my opinion, I'm familiar with both terms. For me an auto in the hand of anyone other than the person implied is an imposter/ forgery.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

A forgery is by definition an unauthorized reproduction that is created for fraudulent purposes.

A proxy signature (clubhouse / secretarial) is an authorized reproduction that emanated from a source known by the intended signer.

With historical material (and most other genres of collecting), there is always a clear distinction between forgery and proxy. The terms are not used interchangeably.

Not sure what it is about the sports crowd, but we have seen this same discussion here numerous times where some insist forgery and proxy are one and the same. Perhaps they both have an equivalent level of desirability to some (zero), but that does not make them the same. Words matter.

+1

It's surprising how many collectors can't grasp the difference or don't care, even when it's spelled out very clearly as you have done. But I guess that is why forgers can get away with adding their work to team balls - worst that can happen is the AH describes them as secretarial, and collectors who don't care about the difference buy them as such. Best case is JSA or PSA authenticates them as real.

[shelly]

Ok I really did not want to bring this up. Most of you know ball players are sent cards to be signed and then placed into a pack. I know for a fact that one of those players had his brother sign all the cards.
What would you call that. I think Ken Golden has heard about this as well.
Remember these cards are being sold as being an authentic autograph.

[SikSyko]

Originally Posted by shelly

Ok I really did not want to bring this up. Most of you know ball players are sent cards to be signed and then placed into a pack. I know for a fact that one of those players had his brother sign all the cards.
What would you call that. I think Ken Golden has heard about this as well.
Remember these cards are being sold as being an authentic autograph.

I was told by an NHL player who played in the mid to late 90's that Classic gave him a bunch of cards to sign at the draft. It was him, his girlfriend and a few friends signing them in the hotel room. There is 6 of them on eBay right now.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Nyygameused

Just my opinion, I'm familiar with both terms. For me an auto in the hand of anyone other than the person implied is an imposter/ forgery.

And, of course, your opinion is just as good as fact.

We live in a country where stupidity and ignorance are prized, and an education is something to be derided. It's no wonder then that one would continually, consciously, and most of all, proudly, ignore important distinctions.

[Runscott]

..and I am at a bar that does not have popcorn...ratz

Sent from my SM-G730V using Tapatalk

[David Atkatz]

I don't think it's gonna be like getting into an argument with you, Scott. I think you and I are a bit more evenly matched.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by shelly

Ok I really did not want to bring this up. Most of you know ball players are sent cards to be signed and then placed into a pack. I know for a fact that one of those players had his brother sign all the cards.
What would you call that. I think Ken Golden has heard about this as well.
Remember these cards are being sold as being an authentic autograph.

The signature is a proxy.

However, the player committed fraud if he entered into a contract to provide authentic autographs, and he provided proxy signatures instead.

[Shoeless Moe]

How much was the seller asking for it?

[shelly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

The signature is a proxy.

However, the player committed fraud if he entered into a contract to provide authentic autographs, and he provided proxy signatures instead.

Now it is proxy. He did just what other players have done over the years. They where paid to sign and they had some one else do there job. If you want some of the most famous players in the history of sports to go to jail I am with you. Let us throw HOF baseball football and basketball players in for fraud.

What if I where to tell you that the company knew that it happened and did nothing. I know for a fact at least a dozen or more players did what I said. It was a joke. Just like auto companys cheaper to let people die than to spend the money to what is right.
People own autographs signed from sisters brothers and friends. They belive there authentic because companys say they are good.
Just remember the HBO special. One card sold for 80,000 dollars because UD said it was good.

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And, of course, your opinion is just as good as fact.

We live in a country where stupidity and ignorance are prized, and an education is something to be derided. It's no wonder then that one would continually, consciously, and most of all, proudly, ignore important distinctions.

David I respect you as a collector, and would hope you value my opinion as much as I'd value yours. I'm just not a fan of the term "clubhouse" if a signature is not authentic, it's not authentic. Just one mans point of view, I am not attempting to persuade anyone to think alike.

[Nyygameused]

Hostility runs rampant on this forum I see

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Nyygameused

Hostility runs rampant on this forum I see

You are participating in a forum where people who know a lot more than you are giving you a free education. A better response would be "thank you".

[RichardSimon]

I was told this story by a friend so it is an anecdote but I think it is true.
A famed former player, a very controversial well known player, agreed verbally to a deal to sign 1000 autograph pieces for $5000 for someone he was friendly with. This guy was a photographer whose work was used by the card companies. (this incident took place quite a few years ago).
The guy shows up the next day lugging 1000 photos , balls, cards, etc.
He goes into the clubhouse to meet the player and the player arrives with two other people. The three of them sit down and start signing the players name.
The photographer is taken aback and after a few minutes he says "wait a minute, I paid you (pointing to the player) to sign, not these guys." The former player says, "don't worry, these guys can write my name as good as I can." The photographer keeps complaining, the former player throws the pen down and says "f--- this, I don't need this s--t" and he gets up with his guys and leaves.

[Lordstan]

Guys, Guys, Guys, Calm down.

Look, NO ONE is saying that a proxy signature is authentic. What is being said is this..
There are 2 different categories of unathentic autographs
1) Name signed by a person unknown or unathorized by the person whose name is being signed is a forgery. This auto is not authentic and illegal as the intent of signing the item is to defraud a purchaser out of money.

2) Name signed by a person who is authorized by the person whose name is being signed is a proxy. This auto is not authentic and not illegal with one exception, that I can think of. The reason it isn't illegal most times is that there is no purchase or money exchanged. A ball boy who signed a team ball for Ruth didn't do it so the kid getting the ball would pay more for it, but, more likely, to save the Babe some time or if the Babe had already let the clubhouse or if the Babe was "indisposed".
2a) The one exception is the one that has been described by others already. If the named person(player/celebrity) is being paid, by anyone, to sign items and tells, or pays, someone else to sign the items being paid for, and then represents to the party who is paying for them that he signed them all, then the named person is the one who committed fraud. I guess the person who signed the items could be held as an accessory to the fraud if they knew, but I'm not a lawyer, so I can't say for sure.

All the scenarios above result in autographs that are not authentic.
All the scenarios above result in autographs that may not be considered collectible by the autograph community.

The point being made by David, Steve, and Scott is that proxy sigs and forged sigs are different, even though both are not real.

Carmelo,
The reason you've received hostility is because you are kind of making up rules. What you are saying is like walking up to an animal expert and taking, and then refusing to budge, the position that Polar, Brown, Black, and Pandas are all the same, to you, because they are all bears. While it is true that they all are bears, it doesn't mean that there aren't real differences between them. It also doesn't mean that you want to get caught alone in the woods with any of them.
Same thing goes for proxy vs forged autographs. Both are not authentic, but there are real differences between them. This doesn't mean you want to collect either of them.

Shelly,
No one is saying what those players did is legal or right. What they did, in fact, is probably illegal. If the card companies are paying them to provide their own autographs and they provide something else, I think that would definitely be considered defrauding the company who paid them. The only difference is that the autos signed by the other people are defined as proxy signatures, because the player asked the person to sign it in their place.

Best to all,
Mark

[David Atkatz]

Extremely well put, Mark.

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by Runscott

You are participating in a forum where people who know a lot more than you are giving you a free education. A better response would be "thank you".

Yes Scott, I bow down to everyone and their memorabilia wisdom and holiness.

[shelly]

Mark, yes they broke every rule and yes the company should have done something to them.
That is why I tried to make it clear to the people on here that the companys did nothing. They packed up the cards and sold them to the public as authentic even when they where told what happened.
My question then becomes if the company knew that they where selling a proxy signiture does it then become a forgery because the company knows its not authentic.
It Sunday the world cup is not on yet I just want to kill some time

[Nyygameused]

Totally agree mark, thank you.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Nyygameused

Yes Scott, I bow down to everyone and there memorabilia wisdom and holiness.

And here's a free grammar lesson, too: It's "their," not "there."

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And here's a free grammar lesson, too: It's "their," not "there."

And an eye test for you sir, edited at 2:28.

[David Atkatz]

That's why I quoted you in my post. There's your error, appearing for all eternity.

Now, who needs that eye test?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by shelly

My question then becomes if the company knew that they where selling a proxy signiture does it then become a forgery because the company knows its not authentic.
It Sunday the world cup is not on yet I just want to kill some time

Hmmm. Good question.
The autographs were done with the knowledge of the person who is supposed to be signing, so it is still a proxy signature, BUT the entire situation is fraudulent. I think it could even be illegal as the card company is hoping to entice buyers to purchase packs to get an authentic autograph. If they KNOW the auto isn't authentic, I would think that would be fraud and illegal.
If the card company paid a third party to sign a bunch of cards, without informing and getting the player's consent, those would be forgeries and also fraudulent and illegal.

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

That's why I quoted you in my post. There's your error, appearing for all eternity.

Now, who needs that eye test?

Appearing for all eternity? I would say your a funny guy but I prefer dry humor.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

My question then becomes if the company knew that they where selling a proxy signiture does it then become a forgery because the company knows its not authentic.
It Sunday the world cup is not on yet I just want to kill some time

No, Shelly. A proxy is a proxy. If it was authorized by the (supposed) signer it is a proxy. Period. But in the case where the "signer" was paid to provide a genuine autograph, but did not, fraud was committed. (But not by the person who put pen to paper, as in the case of forgery.)

It's really not very difficult.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Nyygameused

Yes Scott, I bow down to everyone and their memorabilia wisdom and holiness.

Keep going - I think there are still a couple of forum members you haven't yet gotten wise with.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Nyygameused

Appearing for all eternity? I would say your a funny guy but I prefer dry humor.

Evidently you don't understand dry humor.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Nyygameused

Appearing for all eternity? I would say your a funny guy but I prefer dry humor.

And here's another grammar lesson for ya (before you go back and fix things): it's "you're."

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Evidently you don't understand dry humor.

Yes sir I agree.

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

And here's another grammar lesson for ya (before you go back and fix things): it's "you're."

Introducing professor david atkatz.............

Damn I should have capitalized his name......... Oh well

[Nyygameused]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Keep going - I think there are still a couple of forum members you haven't yet gotten wise with.

Not the first time I've been called a wise guy.