Replicas = fakes
 

In David's defense on this Ruth ball issue, as Brandon pointed out previously the counterfeiter replicator only needs a photograph of a real signed ball to go from, which means that all it took was one case of David showing off his ball in a public forum with a nice, large, close-up photo of it, and the counterfeiter artist who produces these has all the ammo he needs.

Like Lance! :p

question...
 

I've posted my Gehrig signed post card several times over the last few years. Now, can a "replicator and/or forger" then use my autograph to create a single signed sweet-spot on an original c. 1930's slightly toned American League Ball?

Attachment 54617

King, I think you would have to ask the replicator that question.
Maybe if we stopped showing off our stuff (me too) they would have nothing to replicate :D:D

Jimmy

One thing that can be done to make it more difficult is to add a watermark

Max

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/93/248...086abdd0_o.jpg

I think that would be the realization that, at worst, he has the same replica autograph, albeit on a better ball. Or, at best, this ball has lost much of its value with there being 'near exact' duplicates easily available.

To King , I make my own repo balls, I buy my balls custom stitched in red/black or red/blue, it would take me about 10 minutes to replicate that sample on the sweetspot of a baseball.I do not sell my creations, or even really show them,the photo I posted yesterday in the other thread was the first and only time, they are for the most part just impossible to find balls or non existant combos like Waddell and Plank or McGinnity and Matty.Today, I did a 1920 Indians team ball with Chapman and a Janis Joplin single signed Giles ball, I can use the same process for bats as well,keep in mind as I said, I am not making these for resale it's just a hobbly not looking to ruffle anyone's feathers.

That's amazing Mike. Thanks for being so straightforward. That's a quality that I deeply respect. Best regards, Jimmy

BTW... Those bats make great display pieces.

"Maybe if we stopped showing off our stuff (me too) they would have nothing to replicate"

Thanks for the input Max and Richard. However, I think my horses all left the barn a long, long time ago. ;)

BTW... That's a tough looking, well seasoned bunch of ballplayers you got there, Max. And I just love the little kid stuck at the end of the row!

Thank you for the kind words, I bought the bats through Louisville Slugger, they are the dark brown ones with the gold foil branding, I really had to spend some time on them to de-modernize them , but it was a heck of alot cheaper than trying to find vintage store bats that have become so expensive.

I don't see how the existence of 'replica' balls would much affect the value of an authentic Ruth ball. The larger problem, especially in today's 'climate,' could be establishing the authenticity of the Ruth ball to the satisfaction of potential buyers.

Henson,
I know you cant talk about it to much. But I'm curious how you print a auto on a ball or a bat.

I think the previous posters were referring specifically to the particular ball used as a template for the replicas. In and of itself, the value isn't diminished. If a collector has seen 100 replica balls that look very much to exactly like the original though, there will be that bit of doubt that makes them wonder if this one really is authentic, or if the replicas have just gotten better than their discerning eyes. Doubt in the mind of the buyer, however minor, will always affect the price they are willing to pay for an item.

As another example, consider autopen signatures. Presidents and other famous individuals have certain known autopen signature patterns. The pattern or template is based on an actual signature, so somewhere (presumably, for the sake of this example) there exists that actual hand-signed autograph that the autopen template was based on. Yet if you offered that original hand-signed autograph to a collector, it would be difficult for him to dispel from his mind all the autopen duplicates of that signature he had seen in order to pull the trigger on the purchase, despite the signature being 100% authentic.

The same thing happens in other areas of collectibles too, where counterfeits of certain items are so prolific that it becomes harder for a buyer to gain the necessary confidence when an authentic example comes up for sale.

I think we are saying much the same thing. A person who wants and can afford an authentic Ruth ball is not going to find a 'replica' ball very satisfying. However, given the 'sophistication' of the replicas, potential purchasers are likely to insist upon a high standard of proof of authenticity before making the purchase.

ball
 

Hi David,
I see in the other thread that they used your ball as a reference in the Halls Of Shame . Love to hear your story about that. Al

I wonder. Is the Grabowski signature that appears on my ball a replication, too?

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

None of the fountain pen "structure" appears on the replica balls--the double lines produced by the split nib, the places where one line crosses another, etc. All of this is easily visible on my ball because the pen was relatively dry--it did not have a strong ink flow. There are pen impressions, as well. There is no doubt the ball was signed.

i posted large close-ups of this ball--and other autographs--here years ago. I will NOT be doing so again.

I'm sure no laws were broken here, but if the artist said "Hey, that Atkaz ball has a sweet auto! I'm going to copy it for art balls," I'd at least think it'd be common courtesy to let the owner of the original know!

That's why I brought this back up, not to say that David had another bad ball or anything. I was wondering if he was even aware his ball had been copied.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

I was not aware. But my eyes have been opened, again.
Thanks.

Most of these repos look like stamped, like generic stadium bought novelty balls. I like realism,and anything can be reproduced,even fountain pen splits. David I AM NOT SAYING your ball isn't authentic, just saying with an eye for detail, and the know how,the sigs can look very good, and chipping,fading,ink slit ect. can also be manually added. Someone that is selling replicas on Ebay for 50.00 won't look that impressive,but I seem to like realism with my collection. Here are a few of mine.

There doesn't appear to be near that level of detail in the replicas which you posted. Under magnification--and even to the naked eye, at times--fountain pen writing is easily distinguishable from facsimile.

Of course, anything can be "copied." But the ball has not been out of my possession for the last ten years; if the replicas are copies of this signature they were made from photos I posted--and the replicas cannot show more detail than is present in those photos. The ball shows structure at all levels of magnification--far more detail than appears at the resolution of the photos.

C'mon, Mike. Surely you're not saying that those blotchy, thick-lined signatures look real.

All I am saying is don't be so quick to assume what is possible and what isn't . What does thick lined ink have to do with anything? These were taken from documented autographed balls that sold at auction,you commented on the split in the ink, all I did was show you it can be replicated, Here is the thick ink Chance ball real or not ,who knows? But,being splotchy and having a thick lined signature, it sold at auction. http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=68017

Notice the grain perforations in the leather. Notice where the ink has filled in some of them, producing extremely tine dots.

Did the replicator align the printed signature exactly with the microscopic pattern?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...z/ruthcu-1.jpg

Good point. That would be impossible IMO to replicate. I have always thought your ball was an ink signature, it was not replicated using the technique I use. The ball and autographs could be but you are 100% right, under a microscope it would be noticeable.

Could you please post a larger scan? 300 dpi perhaps. :D

:p

Mike,

I mean no disrespect, but I'd have to agree with David on this one. I wouldn't be fooled by either the Big Ed Walsh or Cy Young facsimile balls. Both look pretty clumsy, IMHO.....

Sorry. This is the best I have right now.

No offense taken Scott,it is not my intention to try to fool anyone.

I'd be very surprised if the various licensing agencies for the estates of the ball players didn't take a dim view of any unauthorized replication