Just read HOS. This response by Heritage is thought-provoking, but Heritage is working backward from the end product. Using this logic, if I signed a real 1927 ball, then because the ball is real, the signatures would be as well.

"The Combs team ball is the correct 1927 one-year style. So the suggestion that a supposed forger would have known this fact prior to the ball’s first public appearance in 1999, then could have tracked down a pristine example of that exceedingly rare style to use for his forgery, and lastly had the skill to perfectly execute these autographs to pass the finest authenticators in the industry is truly preposterous."

Compare the panel locations of each signature to the locations on David's authentic ball, or any other '27 Yankees ball, real or fake. Only the green ball has all the starters (except Collins) neatly grouped on two panels, all the pitchers (except Shawkey) on the same panel, all the catchers and coaches on another. Has anyone ever seen a ball where the signatures were organized this way?

It explains why Gehrig and Ruth avoided the sweet spot, but other than that it's just a little bit weird.

Which makes even more sense for a forger to simply go down the roster list....Where was Huggins on that roster list...:confused:

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

That would be highly unusual (unique?), but I could buy that argument. What I can't buy is the slow deliberate signature of each player, perfectly spaced, same pressure applied. And even if you believe that all of those characteristics, along with the odd grouping method, there's still the actual characteristics of the signatures - at least a few of them are really horrible - how do you get past the end of 'Gehrig'? I couldn't even find one example where the 'rig' looks like the one on this ball. Gehrig had such a light, beautiful signature that it's hard for me to believe anyone could view this one as his.

I have some work to do, but I'll try to post images of the signatures on your ball, next to the ones on this one. It's kind of startling.

the signatures crowd each other, ruth crowds the signature above it.

would ruth really make a concerted effort to carefully crowd the autograph above it to make room for everyone else, perhaps, or would he just let a babe ruth autograph rip? historically he signed very fast. it doesnt look like a fast fluid ruth, it looks planned and stodgy.

tony lazzeri starts his signature way to the left, on the stamping, why? just so the end of his signature can coincide with the end of gehrigs? why? so the postiion designations can all line up? there was plenty of room for lazzeri to start his siganture farther to the right, but he starts it on the stamp? weird. most of the signatures seem to start in a vertical line and a lot of them seem to end in sync too.

can anyone find any other ball like that? not saying it could be impossible, but i believe in entropy. things tend to be disordered, and over a dozen guys signing a ball, their signatures are going to be more disordered. and not line up so unnaturally like this.

Look. Combs brings the ball to each player and tells him where to sign. It ain't that hard to understand.

You are talking about the 27 Yankees. I would think to have that perfect storm would be so strange that you and I would agree on anything. By the way Richard is Jewish so he would have no chance to have papal infallibility.:D

What are you talking about, Shelly? Perfect storm? WTF?

Players keep signed souvenirs of teams they played on. I've seen Gehrig's personal scrapbooks at the HoF library. He had the player photo page from the 1926 WS program, signed in beautiful, bold, black fountain pen by every teammate appearing there. George Pipgras had the famous 1927 team photograph signed by every player. I could go on. It's not so hard to believe that Combs had that ball signed for himself.

Please do go on. Your background on the 27 Yankees is well known and respected. I just think that this ball stinks.

Is this really a good Gehrig? Maybe he just wasn't himself that day.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, Shelly.

I think it is.

Derek,
FWIW, you just mentioned an extremely trustworthy, long-time dealer in this hobby, Kevin Savage. That being said, Kevin's forte is not high end game used memorabilia.

I believe it is an authentic Gehrig sig.

Chris and David - thank you. You are both much more knowledgeable about Yankees signatures than I am. I've really enjoyed discussing autographs in this forum, and appreciate how respectful the conversations have been - even if I end up being wrong about this, it's been a lot of fun digging around and learning.

I just hope I don't try to bid in the next Heritage auction and find a giant stop sign.

Scott, as far as the Gehrig is concerned you are correct he had a really,really bad signing that day.:D
You are a very smart person. I think that someone that looks from the outside in is much brighter than we are.:)

Yeah, Shelly. The less experience with a particular signature, the more valuable the opinion. I suppose someone who's never seen a Gehrig signature at all would have the most valuable opinion. (And Jim's, of course, is worthless.)

David, you nailed it. Sometimes what you just said is completely true, but probably only if the inexperienced person has a good eye for autographs and the experienced one doesn't. But anyone can make mistakes.

I just re-read my post and I see how that was confusing, but I was not trying to lump Savage, nor Heritage for that matter, in with Coaches Corner. I was only trying to state that I see a lot of auction adverts in SCD and when something as notable as this '27 Yanks ball was called into question, it made me wonder how reputable any one of the houses really is. Sorry for the confusion, no offense intended towards Savage or anyone else. I have never dealt with auction houses, so I'm trying to find out from the people here who have expertise in the matter, who are good ones to deal with. Thanks for the info!

David, I did not say the your opinion or Jim's is not useful. I was saying I appreciated what Scott brought to the table. If you have a problem with that I really do not care.
I never saw where Jim said the Gehrig was good. I know that both you and Chris like it. I do not. Now who is really going to tell us who is right and who is wrong. I think that the ball is bad. You and Chris thinks it just fine. Now who is right and who is wrong? We can go back and forth and nothing is going to be solved. I have gone over six months not fighting with you and it stops here.:D

What this thread shows me is that the vintage autograph hobby is fraught with peril. When the country's best experts can't agree on an item as popular as a '27 Yankees baseball, what chance do we grundoons have?

I respect Scott's opinion, Shelly, but not because I think he's an "outsider," with very little experience. Unlike you, I don't believe Scott brings that to the table. (If I felt that that was what one had to offer, I would not hold that opinion in very high esteem at all.)

I'm not sure what Jim thinks. From his Brother Ray comment, I suppose he thinks the ball is bad. But I believe his opinion is one of the most valued, not the least.

Again, unlike you, I don't weight one's opinion by whether it coincides with my own, or not.

The last person in my informal survey, well known in the hobby, has responded to me and has reiterated his opinion that he does not think the ball is authentic, but he wishes to remain anonymous on this issue. I have to respect his request.

I hate to have to quote myself but this seems to have generated into a murky, heated, and controversial subject not to mention one of the longest threads I've ever seen on this board. I am not defending or attacking anyone. EVERYONE is entitled to an opinion. And anyone can spend their money how they like and where they like. Its cynical but at the end of the day maybe its not a case of how good a DEAL you got but how good a deal you THINK you got.
BUT ...I have said this before what an autograph LOOKS like is the first and ultimately last step in a series of steps, leading to a determination of authenticity. The very, very good forgers can fool ANYONE based on looks alone (Counterfeiters can draw twenty dollar bank notes FREEHAND) and they have found a very lucrative nitch in the field of autograph collecting because all of the parties involved WANT an expensive museum quality item to be real.
So looking at the autograph in question is the first step, some are so off base they immediately go to the trash heap , This ball is NOT one of those (as evidenced by this debate) So then comes the fun part Research , looking at subtle intangibles like labeling, format, etc. Then using the various "authentication secrets" that inevitably every good autograph collector/dealer/authenticator is going to learn over the course of his lifetime (The ones he won't share with anyone....THOSE secrets), then morph into Philip Marlowe and do the hard core detective work and back track to the source , If the trail goes COLD, that speaks volumnes and you PASS case closed.
If it dosen't you trudge on, until eventually you are able to prove your case to any critic with evidence a mile long. Done properly you'd make any critic look like a fool. Then finally the last step is LOOKING at the item again to confirm what research has already proven to you and then and only then , you make your determination. Which by now is no longer an "opinion" its a fact.
________________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Great post.

So the thing left to ask is this: While it seems you yourself sell only what you deem to be "facts," what is your opinion of Heritage selling what seems to be an "opinion"?

<Ray Charles picture> :):)

The Nash story, on his website, about Heritage includes nine other items.
My opinion is that I agree with what he has said and disagree with the COA's issued by the TPA's.
What do you guys think about these other items in the auction that Nash has discussed?
There have been many opinions expressed on the board about Nash, pro and con.
Let us just discuss the items.
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=17835#more-17835

Agreed - Jim's post is a great one (like many in this thread). I don't see the 'heat' as all that bad...yet - nothing like some of the autograph threads have turned into.

Thanks Shelly and David, for your comments. I have been collecting autographs for about ten years, but most of that time it just amounted to studying and comparing them. Ruth and Gehrig have always bothered me, primarily because I would like to eventually own something signed by each, but the comfort level has rarely been there for the affordable ones.

The following by Jim is something I wanted to say as well, but I didn't want Chris or David to think I was referring to them (I wouldn't have been). But I think it's the reason that the authenticators get away with shoddy work, and why the auction houses patronize us. By the way, the bold part of that last sentence is what pisses me off more than anything. They don't want to take the time to do due diligence, but they dismiss the opinions of those who do.

"all of the parties involved WANT an expensive museum quality item to be real."

I don't authenticate autographs, so I have the benefit of being able to 'stop' looking when I get to the point where I've decided the item doesn't look good enough for me to want; however, if I ran an auction house I would not accept items I felt uncomfortable with, even if I thought they might be real - unless it was just 'presentability' that got me to that point.

This ball was authenticated in 2002 and sold for 86 thousand. No matter what, neither one of them could change there minds. What do you think would happen if they did that.
That is why I feel that Heritage should have someone else look at the ball. That way there would be no conflict of interest. When I say someone else I mean anyone that has never worked or has any interest in Heritage. As most of you have pointed out there are some very good people on this site.
I keep on saying this but look how many pieces have been found to be bad. Why for this kind of money would you not try and make sure that every I is dotted and every t is crossed.
Richard also brings up a good point. There are nine other items in question. Do any of you have opinions on them?

If this was Combs' personal ball, why didn't he get ALL the players to sign it? Certainly if some weren't around the first pass through the clubhouse, he could have gotten them to sign later? Several players who are on your ball didn't make this ball.

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but these types of observations are the only evidence we ever have for authenticating autographs, other than provenance, and no one's interested in checking the provenance for this item.

I have no expertise at all in autographs, but my gut tells me this ball is real...I do think it's hard to believe that a forger would get the exact 1927 ball for the 1927 team with what little knowledge was/is out there regarding balls...the crowded sigs and perhaps deliberate could be a sign that the guys wanted to make their best signature for Combs, and perhaps he even told them to make sure where to sign and to not make it too big since he had plans to get everyone on it.

Just my completely uneducated opinion. :)

Dan, I went out to people that you would not have any idea who they are. I questioned them about the ball not what was signed on the ball. Here is there reply.

The 1927 ball was a one year style because it was Ban Johnsons last year and Barnard followed him. There is a newer top logo with the patent date and the cursive logo.
This has been known for 20-30 yrs its nothing new. Any forger would have figured it out looking at the many 1927 attributed balls (including many Phila A's balls) To say its authentic based upon the style of ball is so flawed, I don't know what to say.
These are from people that I trust.

That being said, I have a question to David. Would you buy this ball? No Caveat emptor.

A forger would have to be an idiot to buy a 1928 ball, as it wouldn't have Johnson's name on it, and he would have to be an even dumber idiot not to buy the one with the 1925 patent stamp. Even if he ONLY had these two bits of obvious information and guessed from there, he still would have a 1 out of 3 chance of getting it right by complete accident. Not bad odds.

Dan - I completely understand going with your gut. If my gut agreed with your gut, my next step would be to prove that it is a good ball (not the opposite) - we need to adapt the Communist approach of 'guilty until proven innocent' (in my opinion), rather than the opposite, Democratic style. The Communist method caught all the guilty and some of the innocent. Not good for human beings, but great for baseballs. If we did this, the ball would have to be tossed in the trash, as there is nothing other than alleged circumstantial evidence - can you get any worse?

The Democratic style would be to assume the ball is real (which is what we are doing here), and have to prove that it is 'guilty'. But we are further limited by the Democratic approach, in that we can't even produce evidence - provenance is apparently disallowable in our 'autographed ball court', as is questioning the authenticators, and as is any sort of forensic testing.

The above is why so many forged baseballs are floating around.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach when it comes to autographs...I think that same approach should be used with game used memorabilia as well. Maybe I'm off on the ball...don't know, I sure wouldn't buy anything like that with out rock solid provenance.

That is what anyone with a brain would say.:)

In fairness, you can't argue with Chris' willingness to satisfy any doubts the winning bidder might have:

"If the winning bidder would like to have the baseball sent to the FBI labs at Quantico, VA, then we would be pleased to work with them to help facilitate that process prior to the settlement of the auction and as long as the process did not damage the baseball in any manner."

Sure, anybody can walk into the FBI lab at Quantico and say "gentlemen, please examine this." Easy to say lets get the FBI to take a look, but is that really a possibility? My guess would be no it is not possible but that is only my guess.
It is not a criminal case, the FBI is not investigating the individuals involved with this (at least I don't think they are), so is the FBI really going to just take a baseball that walks in off the street and submit it to vigorous testing?

If I where the third largest auction house in the world, with the most respected authenticators in this hemisphere. I sure would like to make sure before anyone of my customers would pay $ 1000,000 or more that what was purchased is authentic. Why not make sure now. Why would anyone send it to the FBI unless they thought it was not real. If you are so sure why in the hell would you even make that statement?:confused:
The only way that ball would be damaged is if some idiot bought it.

Hey, now I'm laughing as hard at me as you are. But on the other hand, I know nothing about the workings of the FBI (and I'm happy for that), and maybe Chris doesn't either.

Just returned from the pre-auction reception. Looked at the ball as carefully as I could.
I still think it's good.

Well, I guess that settles it. ;)

Actually, it does. If someone wants that ball, and thinks it is real, that's the end of it - they wouldn't bid on it otherwise, they certainly aren't sending it to a lab to get it tested, and the last thing they want is to find out ten years from now that it's a fake. When it's sitting up on their mantel, if anyone even looks at it and winces a little, they'll change the subject to the latest Lexus models.

In my opinion it's a bad way to buy collectibles, but you have a much larger selection to choose from, and you have less future angst to deal with.