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