Originally Posted by thebigtrain
What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.[/I][/I]BigTrain,

It's important to note that early professional baseball games did not allow patrons to keep baseballs that were hit into the stands. On the contrary, teams required that the fan return the ball to play. As such, very few baseballs were used in a game and they were used for most or all of the game.

BTW, baseballs were very expensive relative to the amount of dollars that it cost to attend a game and attendance was much lower back in the day. To put this in perspective, a baseball in the deadball era would have cost a team owner approximately $50 in todays dollars according to what that I have read.
In an attempt to reduce the cost of replacing baseballs in a game, team owners frequently hired security guards to remain in the stands and actively enforce the patron's returning of the ball to play.

Surprisingly, the practice of allowing the fan or patron to keep a ball that was hit into the stands came much later, say the 1940's or so. Even then, many teams were slow in adopting this policy. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that Bill Veeck was the 1st team owner to allow fans to keep a game ball as a souvenir that left the field of play.

My point being here, is that I don't believe it was uncommon for a fan to present a pristine ball for Ruth to sign, because game used pro balls from ballgames may not have been seen in great numbers as you might think....

I'll add to Scott's reply and say this - I think with the advent of the internet and archival baseball footage and documentaries, we all know that someone like Ruth traveled around with "a lot" of new baseballs that he would sign and then throw to his fans from his hotel window or off the platform of a train etc. That doesn't mean that they stayed "like new" or that they're even still around today, but they were new at the time.

It is a ridiculous notion that 20-30 "pristine" Ruth balls can not have survived the last 70 years. Babe Ruth was considered to be the greatest baseball player of all time (still is IMO) and something didn't have to have monetary value to have been saved. Imagine meeting Babe Ruth, your childhood idol and having him sign a baseball for you...do you just let Junior take it out in the backyard and play with it? No, you keep it hidden in a closet so Junior can't find it...and because it has sentimental value and not monetary value it stays hidden in there and forgotten until dad passes away. Junior finds the ball in 1995 and knows that it has value, gets it authenticated and places it in an auction. It is not hard to believe that this has happened more than a few times..it's not like Ruth was a difficult signer.

The number one indicator that these balls are bad, will always be the signature on the ball. That's what will make or break the ball. The fact that so many survived with ruth signatures on them that look funny, is what i have a problem with.

Obviously the balls survived in that great of shape, because there they are. but balls surviing in the ball boxes versus having been signed by ruth and kept in the sock drawer is an issue to debate. but the signatures are what matter. dozens of almost snow white balls with sigantures that match each other in one style, but dont match other groups of balls in different styles that were all suppose to be signed by ruth in the same era or window of time. Were there 2 or 3 or 4 ruths around. was he a twin or triplet?

Almost all the balls are official balls. in late 40's did ruth not sign any other balls that survived in great shape that weren't official balls? or are forgers getting greedy and signing official balls to maximize profits? did the guy back then who wanted the babe's signature care that it was on an official ball? or would any ball work for him? just questions to ponder?

i just personally don't think that many official balls could survive in pristine condition looking like they were signed yesterday. And these were just balls that went up for auction the past ten years or so. there must be multiples of these balls out there that havent gone to auction, still in peoples collections, so is there 100 balls like these out there. Isn't that a lot to be in super, almost untouched shape?

a lot of times, someone buying a ball, handling it, and then the athlete handling it, causing acidic fingerprints to oxidize and darken the ball over time, i dont see any of that on these white balls. it just kind of seems crazy.

there are balls from jsut 15 or 20 years ago signed at shows or private signing sessions that people were extremely careful to keep the balls in perfect shape, and those balls have yellowed, smudged, fingerprints on them. and they werent 65-70 years old, but recently. There were no guidelines back then to remind people to keep them out of the light, humdiity, etc. a lot of people didnt have airconditioning, i just have a hard time seeing how this many survived (especially the 9.5, 9 and 8.5 graded balls, the super condition balls,) like they were kept in a hermetically sealed box in a climate controlled room for that long.

May depend on where you live, where you stored the ball, et cetera. There are plenty of 70 year old unused baseballs out there showing up in perfect condition all the time...not surprised that autographed balls show up that way too. I'm with you though completely on the signatures will tell the tale and not the baseballs. This is where the focus should be.

I personally know of a stash of about 2 dozen signed team balls on Official League balls, in my area originating from the 1936-38 period. Mostly baseball but a few football teams from the era also included in the collection.

No doubt of the authenticity and all still stored in their original boxes. They are in simply beautiful condition.

I believe they were passed down through the family of a reporter or other newspaper employee and have sat untouched for decades.

So yeah, I know from experience there are still pristine balls out there from that era. They weren't all batted around in kids backyards.

I bought a 12 count box of signed baseball from the 1930s of a former minor leaguer in the Brooklyn Dodgers farm system...he shellacked all of them except for 4 of them...the shellacked balls were all browned, the other 4 were still snowy white and on average they'd been handled by 20 different hands. They were all stored in the original baseball boxes inside a 12 count box.

Of course there are plenty of pristine near-white balls from that era still in existence. Especially if they contain Babe Ruth's signature. Even if there was no established monetary value back in the 30s/40s, there was sentimental value and pride of ownership. Even back then, most people had the common sense to stash away a keepsake like this (as opposed to mis-handling it or playing with it).

With that said, there are undoubtedly tons of fakes as well. But to say that a large number of these balls couldn't remain near white/near mint is just a ridiculous assumption.

+1

The series continues...
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=10608#more-10608

Honestly, I am not impressed by the latest article. Everyone has an opinion; unlike stolen artifacts, there's no smoking gun there. It isn't like the Ruth sigs in question are obvious fakes like the crap in Coach's Corner. Plus it is a little misleading to compare scans of flats with pictures of signatures written on a curved surface. Not only do the conditions affect the signer but there is some flattening of the image on the latter that results in a distortion that our eyes compensate for when we look at a curved object directly.

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.

I know from an untrained eye that the signatures on the balls in the article have basically NO slant on the small b in Babe, save for one example. Many of them look nearly identical.

Point is, nobody has a signature thats identical all the time, tho there are many times they are close. What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

IMO, the article does seem to be aiming to shoot down the Alphabet guys, but from what I see, even with the "flat exemplars" only, there is ENOUGH here to at least give a serious look at some or all of those balls being fake. That is, unless you are one of those who think that the Alphabet guys' s*** doesn't stink.

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair facing to the right. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers, weight bearing forward. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

The real ones sometimes exhibit a skip here and there, from the a to the b in Babe for instance. there is ink loss in some examples, he is signing fast.

The balls look methodically dark and uniform. Like someone was trying to put the perfect slow dark signature on it when in reality someone signs fast and if there is a skip or ink loss from one letter to another, they don't throw it away, the ball still gets handed out, but in all the questionable balls, I see a 'managed' autograph. Using a ballgame analogy, instead of playing to win, they are playing not to lose.

But that's my opinion.

I defer to Ron K. though. If he sees similar characteristics, I would go with that, with what he observes. He's the man. That's why part 4-10 should be interesting.

+1. The things I am learning from all these type threads, not just this one, is to look for "drawn characteristics", and pen pressure. AS Trav said, they look really slow, the ball sigs. Some would say he "took his time" signing them, well. I don't think that holds water, especially when there are many "real Ruth signed balls", that are not like that.

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

like

like

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

Good points by everyone, for the balls being ok, and not. I just did a Google for Babe Ruth signed balls and looked at about a dozen photos. Most, if not all, had the "standing small b", which the ones in the article do, which kinda blows my theory next to the paper exemplars.

Also, I have never closed on a house..hahaha. but that point is well taken, plus, signing a ball is very difficult too. Ive done it once in an amateur baseball league I work for, for a kid w Downs Syndrome, and my signature, back when I had more than a sloppy scribble:) did look very different too, than on a check.

Can't wait for the next article tho. I love this stuff.

If you imagine the capital B in Babe as a stack of books, would the stack fall over?

In the real examples, the B is leaning considerably to the right. It certainly looks like the stack would fall over. On the questionable balls, I think not in most of the examples, maybe tilt to the right a little, but the book stack stays up. In the real paper examples, the stacks falls right over.

The exemplars question is interesting.

---------------------------------

Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like.


I agree. It looks like the article used some solid real signatures of Ruth to do the comparing to. Lettters and personal correspondence, a signed check.
Many times Ruth autographs that have been authenticated and stickered are now the new exemplar, which is dangerous. If you keep doing that, you end up with autographs from first (known exemplar) to last (authenticated signature using other authenticated signatures as templates) that looks vastly different from one another.

If you compare a candidate for a Ruth signature to a known exemplar, and it looks mostly the same, and you authenticate it after careful research, fine. But then the next candidate has to be compared to the known exemplar and not the second one. Otherwise you can have an autograph that looks mostly like the second one, and then another than looks mostly like the third one, and then another that looks mostly like the fourth one, and after 50 times you have a known exemplar of Ruth on one end, and something totally different on the other and you can't figure out how you got there.


One mistake has to be an isolated one, and you isolate it by doing the prudent thing and not using it as an exemplar for another candidate. Only verifiable autographs should be exemplars. Otherwise they can spawn many more mistakes.

Like a game of telephone we played as kids. Johnny went to the beach and fell asleep becomes Johnny went to the bench and felt his sleeves.

I think I see what he's talking about, but since I am a novice I am easily influenced. I need to read all the installments.

But if I was to choose one ball that is definitely not real, it would be the 5th one. And that is supposedly the $300,000 one.

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

I can tell you that the flat I own was sold to me by the guy that got it as an 11 year old boy back in 1947.. It also has the slants that are exhibited on the left-hand column, but like I said, it's also on a flat (business card). When comparing mine, the photo (#8) circa 1940's appears most like mine (without the from though).

FYI - I don't own a Ruth ball, nor do I have any desire to own one. Would love to hear from someone that owns one though and knows for a fact that it is indeed authentic.

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

I'd love to have one. A Morales hologram would be a huge plus.

:D

KOC's mind seems closed, so to say not really open to the chance that the alphabet guys could be wrong, but that's an informed opinion too, by many of the posts.

Chris, that is a very interesting test and certainly would debunk the theory of the signatures compared to the flats being SO DIFFERENT. Putting a test to these was an excellent idea, NICE JOB.

Even if I had the means, I'm not sure Id buy anything, cept legal documents and checks, tho there is even a chance, albeit smaller, of those being bad. Fascinating stuff though.

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slight, its not like signing a golf ball.

Since Ruth signed so many balls, I am sure he had his way of signing it, and didn't struggle in the least as he was pretty used to it after 25 years of practice. Most of the balls selling for record prices are 1940's and particularly later 1940's balls. I would think he would know how to dash off his signature on a ball by then.

The questionable balls look slow and contrived, like someone was trying hard. If you sign a ball slow adn deliberate, you push and labor the pen across the ball, but by signing it faster, you glide it over, and you get that more of a 'flow' look to it.

I found out that if you sign a baseball fast, it makes the most sense, as the pen glides quicker along and sticks less, with less tremors and hesitations. And yes, I signed a baseball today too. I didn't find significant differences in the way it looks compared to a flat. And I didn't find it difficult to sign, and I sign with a readable signature, I just signed it fairly quick like I sign my flats TTM that the droves of admirers send to me. :)

That's true, in theory, however it depends on how the person first grips the ball, and how slow they turn it as they're signing it. Unless you're a machine, it's really easy to have to stop and reposition your hand to turn the ball or at the very least go "down hill" with your signing hand. Either way would cause some variation in the sig. Again, I'm not saying the balls in question are good or bad, but that it is possible for variations on balls to exist for all kinds of reasons...now whether or not those variations can legitimately be authenicated is another matter all together.

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

I would think it would be hard to move because you are probably holding it still against a flat surface so the signature is solid.

you can sign your first name with the sweet spot a little to the right, then rotate, then sign your last name. so you are signing with the ball still, and no rotation as you sign.

you cut down on the uphill/downhill signing which isnt that negligable to begin with.

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

Have we changed the old +1 to the word "like" now ?? :)

I guess I have to cover both bases: like, +1 :)


it is a large advertising budget that has helped convince some collectors that there is a hierarchy of people in the hobby who know more than the rest of the peasants down below.
Give me a good experienced dealer or certain experienced collectors any day of the week over any combination of alphabet soups.
I would take Keuragian, Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Gordon, Keating, Cariseo, Marks, Hefner, Evans and a few more over the alphabet soups any day of the week.

One could reasonably speculate that it could vary by signer because everyone signs at a different angle, etc. And in my opinion, Mantle on a ball does look slightly different than flat signatures.

Given the seriousness of the allegations it is a legitimate question. Why not make a like comparison?

don't like ;)

Here are two Mantles, one flat and one on a ball signed within a minute of each other in 1989 for comparison

These two photos from my collection show the Bambino signing under normal circumstances. For three decades, Babe Ruth signed tens of thousands of BASEBALLS. Christy Walsh saw to that. Anywhere Ruth went, be it a luncheon in his honor, a hospital to cheer up the sick, a train stop on the way to the next city, were the local dignitaries and the town kinship would wait for the Yankees train to make a quick stop, Christy Walsh made damn sure that there was a never-ending supply of fresh balls for the Big Bam to sign.

He also made scores of visits to Army bases all over the country, where once again, several dozen balls would be signed and given away. Don't forget his vaudeville days. Balls, Balls, & more Balls.

I haven't even started on what the country's top Ruth Scholar Bill Jenkinson, called his "Hidden Career". Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of games and appearances. They would include, Spring Training games, Exhibition Games, which were mandatory for ALL big league players to participate in, and at no extra money! It was the owners who prospered from those games.

Also included in his "Hidden Career" were the Barnstorming games and appearances. Babe Ruth played in dozens of Barnstorming games in EVERY season he was active in, as those were the games in which he made a fortune everywhere they played. More Balls. Before and after a Barnstorming game, Ruth was called upon to speak to local ladies clubs businessmen, lunch with the town's politicians, in which MORE BALLS were signed.

This is just a very brief summary of how and why Babe Ruth signed Baseballs are the commodity they are today. Here was the supply and we are the demand! ;)

Also, if you're wondering where I got this information. Some from reading as much as I could about Ruth's life as well as books, articles, interviews, from his teammates that also shed some light on the Babe's "Hidden Career".

But the most important info that I have gotten regarding the "how did Babe Ruth sign so many Baseballs?" question that's driving us crazy...

I've been friends with the Christy Walsh Family for 10 years now, and have had multiple conversations with the Family regarding this specific issue.
The comparison was made that Christy Walsh spent more money on brand new Baseballs than he did on his office rent!

He was the brains behind the Bambino and single handedly changed the way America's big business advertised their goods. And when Babe would sign a new deal with, say Ford or Burmashave, everyone there got Babe Ruth Signed Baseballs! :D

So, I hope this sheds some light on why there are so many signed Ruth balls. There are probably hundreds more sitting in someones attic, basement, bottom drawer and who knows where else.

With my best regards, Jimmy

BTW... On a personal note, when I bought my very first photo from the Walsh's, Mrs. Christy Walsh Jr's wife Pat, told me that I was the first person that had bought from the family since Barry Halper! Which I thought was pretty cool.

The photo on the left was acquired from the Walsh Family.

Attachment 51923Attachment 51924

Signing dozens more on a barnstorming tour. Christy is beneath the table, tidying up. This is from Pat Walsh as well.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c3...jYlBLD9TWF.jpg

I'm gonna be bold here, and post this as an exemplar--a genuine Ruth-signed ball. I purchased it from the original owner--who, as a little girl in 1928 was taken by a family friend--a local St. Louis sportswriter--to Ruth's hotel room right before the 1928 World Series began. Ruth signed this ball for her, and so did his roommate, 2nd string catcher John Grabowski (who knew his place, and signed far from Ruth's signature.)

Now, I suppose it, too, could be a phoney, but I really doubt it. For one thing, that's a $1000+ baseball unsigned. And anyone who could forge that well would not devalue the ball by forging a Grabowski--they'd either leave it a single, or forge a Gehrig. And, oh yeah, there's that original owner.

So here it is. And it's nothing like those PSA/JSA "stunners."

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...th_350copy.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...katz/ruth2.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...owski_logo.jpg

[QUOTE=David Atkatz;949148]I'm gonna be bold here, and post this as an exemplar--a genuine Ruth-signed ball. I purchased it from the original owner--who, as a little girl in 1928 was taken by a family friend--a local St. Louis sportswriter--to Ruth's hotel room right before the 1928 World Series began. Ruth signed this ball for her, and so did his roommate, 2nd string catcher John Grabowski (who knew his place, and signed far from Ruth's signature.)

Now, I suppose it, too, could be a phoney, but I really doubt it. For one thing, that's a $1000+ baseball unsigned. And anyone who could forge that well would not devalue the ball by forging a Grabowski--they'd either leave it a single, or forge a Gehrig. And, oh yeah, there's that original owner.

So here it is. And it's nothing like those PSA/JSA "stunners.

really like!

David,
That ball is spectacular! :eek:

Awesome ball & cool story.

:)

I'd have to agree that Mantle does sign "somewhat" differently in ball-point pen on a baseball vs. on a Flat with a sharpie. He drops ink many, many times with sharpie at the beginning of his M's. With pen on a ball, there is more of a small dot where the M's almost perfectly stop & come together to make the half moon. It's obviously a lot smaller too. A few of the tells are the same and a few different, IMHO.

Great 3rd part to the story. I can't wait for more!

Bottom line in the autograph hobby...unless it has rock solid provenance or you got it in person you will never know for sure if it's legit..even if ABC soup has given it's seal of approval. We've all heard the stories of authenticators failing an autograph that you got in person, and we've all seen the Sal Bando gotcha video. Sure, there are easy to spot fakes, but there are also extremely good forgers out there. It's all a crap shoot.

That is one sweet Ruth Ball. Thank you for posting it David.

This is my view as well. I know some on the Board believe that with sufficient education one can become an expert. That's no doubt true. But, what I've learned from this and other threads is that some forgeries are of such high 'quality' that the experts cannot agree with each other.

That's true in the fine art world, as well. But museums and individuals still collect. And I, for one, am quite thankful that they (especially museums) do.

That's true, David.

For myself, I don't think I would ever feel sufficiently confident in my opinion to be comfortable owning autographs. I do now own several but, in light of what I've learned on this Board since obtaining them, I would not expect to purchase others in the future.

I have no problem with this at all, but I have to say if it were not for this board and all the educated autograph collectors I would think anything with a JSA/PSA cert was 100% legit.

A lot of people still do think that. they think 100 % legit if it has abc or xyz but the word is slowly getting out.

The well told tales like they only make 1 mistake out of 1000, or that if it has abc or xyz it is as good as gold and you can take it to the bank without any authenticity concerns really does a disservice to the collecting public.

Misinformation like these can travel halfway around the world, while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

I used to believe it, but then went looking for the truth, found it, and it was beyond my wildest dreams of what and how i thought a third party authentication firm could and should operate. totally shocking.

knowledge is power.

If you are gonna semi-quote Mark Twain, at least give him credit :D:D.

Got the mail today and saw a brochure or some kind of advertising book aimed at Cosigners from Heritage and how much money they've sold some of their high value items at. On the cover, coming from the Lou Gehrig collection, I couldn't help but notice the Babe Ruth signature on the 1926 Yankees signed baseball. There's no slanted e in Babe on this baseball either and I have serious doubts that someone else signed the Babe's name for the Iron Horse's baseball-- if in fact, it was from Lou Gehrig's collection.

http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/1080/1190057.JPG

that ball is interesting, it matches fairly well with the ball that pete nash put up as a ruth ball that ron k. thought was good, which is the one below.

Notice how both balls have flow to them, they have light portions, dark portions to the signature. The way the captial R is made, the way the h is made. You can just tell they are real.

Now let's go to the 300,000 dollar ball. It has no real flow, it is uniform, monotone, uncharacteristically even, with the same pressure throughout. so do a lot of the other questionable balls.

the two above have characteristics of a Ruth dashing off a signature on a ball. the rest have characteristics of a 'planned' signature. steady, even pressure without the flow and ebb and tide like the real ruths show.

here are the good ruths (3), then questionable ones (2), then the good one again closeup. notice the montone of the questionable balls, and the light and dark portions and flow of the good ruth balls. I think the closeups of the questionable Ruth balls really tell the tale.These high dollar ruth balls with the monotone look? Looks like they were signed very evenly and slow.

The funny thing about the LOA's is that the verbiage says that these balls are "consistent regarding flow, pen pressure" etc. with other exemplars we have seen in our professional career. Where is the flow and the varying of pen pressure? What other non flow and even, monotone pen pressure exemplars did they use to okay these questionable balls?

You've nailed it, Travis. There's no variation in pressure, at all. Nor is there any variation in line-width. For one who normally uses a fountain pen (e.g., Ruth) there are variations in line-width caused by the direction of motion of the nib. Motion perpendicular to the nib plane produces a thicker line than motion parallel to the plane. None of that in the "record-breakers."

Very, very interesting thread here guys and i am only on page 13 of the thread so i apologize if these questions/statements have been brought up already, but i wanted to get them down now, before i forgot or had other questions.

From the Hauls of shame article part 2...

The same ball that sold at the REA auction appears to have first surfaced publicly in a Sports Collectors Digest ad placed by Art Jaffe and Left Field Collectibles on April 21, 2000.

Is this is the same "Jaffe" or any relation to the Jaffe that was involved with the counterfeiting "Marino Family" and brought down in "Operation Bullpen"?

Also in part 2 of the article in the "Comments" section, there is a comment from a "Linda" who is implying that she is the granddaughter of Babe Ruth, which im sure Nash has confirmed, made a comment....

"During the Depression, his autograph kept food on the tables of his fans. He knew this and would generously sign boxes of balls for people."


What exactly does this mean?? To my understanding, it sounds like people were selling his autographed Baseballs to feed their families?? How do you guys imply this?? I know there was a debate (I believe it was in this thread, but it might have been a different one since ive been reading this forum for a few hours now tonight;)) about autographs having value or not in the 1940's? Well would this not PROVE that autographs had value back then??


Just read something else and edited it into this post...

Net54 poster says...

"Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less."

Is THIS true??? In the early 80's you could buy an autographed RUTH Baseball for $100 or less??? Wasn't the sports collectible industry really picking up steam in the early 80's?? I know collectible shows were popping up all over in the 80's and Ruth balls were less than $100 only 25-30 years ago??


Just a couple quick questions i had while reading:)

Thanks Guys!:cool:

From previous post - "Is this is the same "Jaffe" or any relation to the Jaffe that was involved with the counterfeiting "Marino Family" and brought down in "Operation Bullpen"?"

Absolutely not the same person. That person is Shelly Jaffe no relation, not the same person.

-

Ok Thank You Richard and Vintagedegu for answering a couple of my questions.



I have a couple more pics here that i think should be posted in this thread as well. I know the majority of the senior crowd here (meaning time spent at Net54 and/or in the Hobby and not age, haha;)) knows that Babe Ruth signed a TON of autographs in his time, but these pictures really show how much he was signing back then and like a few posters have mentioned im sure a number of these balls were put away and have survived in really great near mint shape.



http://i43.tinypic.com/nczdw1.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/ms0ylv.jpg

A member here has a Babe Ruth ball for sale to members and also on ebay right now. The signature is on an American Association Wilson Baseball. After the stuff we saw a few months ago with the dollar bills being not within date, I look at the COA for the ball.

Neither of the COA's took into consideration if the ball fit the time period (it did) but why not also give an opinion on the ball also. I would think that is just as important as the slant