Why our autograph experts are often silent
 

Edited to add: Yes, in my OPINION, this is a forgery.

Unless someone who has more expertise on Ruth autographs than me, says anything to the contrary, and as of February, 6, 2015 at 7:28 a.m. Pacific, no such person had even participated in this thread, my opinion will continue to be that it is a forgery.

The original post follows.

...now these ebay creeps are throwing out Kevin Keating's name as certifying their forgeries: ebay Ruth ball forgery

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTA4MVgxNj...UjHPX/$_57.JPG

Just to play "devil's advocate"....

I think it's likely authentic. Looks almost identical to the Ruth signature on a 1926 Yankees Team Ball I once had and consigned to Leland's.

Also....

* Ted K. (pugskiddo) is a former major leaguer, and a trusted ebay seller for many many years. Definitely not one of ebay's sleezebag dealers, or a "fly by night" guy.

* I see nothing to dispel Kevin Keating's authentication of the ball. I believe it did pass Keating's authentication process.

Just my 2 cents...

Then show it, or any that look like this. If it's real, it's real, but I have never seen a Ruth signature that looks like this and would need an example to convince me.

Also, it's great that he's not a sleezebag dealer, but being a former major leaguer doesn't add credibility to his autograph authentication abilities.

The listing/image no longer resides on Leland's site. Guess it's too early a listing. The ball was part of a trade to Brock L. and then later I believe was sold to Paul (Shoeless Moe), both Forum members here. I could be mistaken on the latter. Perhaps one of them still has an image, and can post a picture of the 1926 Yankees Ball.

Also of note.... the shellac appears vintage and of the era, and the Ruth signature is underneath the shellac. So if it's a forgery, it is an extremely early one. I still say it's real, and authenticated by Keating.

Also, it's great that he's not a sleezebag dealer, but being a former major leaguer doesn't add credibility to his autograph authentication abilities.[/QUOTE]

The fact that he's a former major leaguer is a side-note, and has no bearing on his authentic skills.... that's correct. I included that info in response to labeling him one of "these ebay creeps". He has been a reputable seller for many years (perhaps since ebay's inception), and I know many people on this forum have successfully bought/sold/traded with Ted over the years.

If it's real, there should be others out there that look like it - I haven't seen any.

The shellac thing is unconvincing - I've seen plenty of Ruth forgeries beneath similar-looking shellac, with the predictable chips.

I don't believe it's real, but have no problem changing my mind if someone can convince me. Nothing so far.

I heard you. Just to make sure you understand that I heard you: he's a reputable seller, has been around a long time, and has had many great deals with people you know. I get it - he's not a creep. That doesn't mean he can't sell a forgery.

Ok Scott... a healthy debate, and I respect your opinion. Debate/disagreement is a good thing on this forum.

That said.... where the hell is everyone else :confused:

haha. Well, if you can sound more convincing, I know of three people who will jump in and say "it is real", simply because I said it isn't.

Also, you have to remember that the items that convince most Net54 members that a Ruth is real...are missing: PSA and JSA letters. That leaves them having to do their own thinking.

OK here you go. A very similar example, authenticated by PSA...

http://bidami.com/Auctions/AuctionIt...d=35142&t=&p=0

The 1926 Team Ball mentioned earlier is pictured about 3/4 of the way down on this link...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/56713...our+Collection

Of course there are subtle differences, as is always the case. I now have a migraine, and this used up all the available time I had tonight. So I will leave it to Scott and others to debate/nitpick/shoot down Keating/rip the seller/say that I'm an idiot/etc. :rolleyes:

No offense Mark, but not even close - either of them. Your two examples definitely look similar to each other, but not to the ebay example in question.

Mark, I didn't have much time either - just read the bottom part of your post.

The differences aren't subtle and it isn't a matter of nitpicking. Sure, they are subtle to some, which his why forgeries sell. And I would never call you an idiot or rip Keating - I respect you and have no reason not to respect Keating. I don't think my initial post inferred in any way that I had issues with Keating - I didn't actually believe it had been authenticated by Keating. The seller is another matter.

I've said this so many times on this forum that it probably doesn't need to be repeated, but there is no need to put words or thoughts in my mouth - I pretty much say what I think.

Edited to add: (image of 3 sigs at very bottom, for comparison). Rather than prolong this, I'm just adding to this last post. I've been searching for examples similar to the ebay one, and can't find any. Also, I would really like to see a better view of the pic that shows 5 views of the 1926 ball and clearer, larger pics of the other example. The Ruth signatures on the two examples you provided have a couple of distinct oddities that I also can't find examples of in authentic Ruth signatures;however, also can't find the characteristics in any forgeries. Doesn't mean they are bad, only that I can't find examples. And while PSA and JSA 'good' opinions don't mean much to me, their rejections are worth considering.

Although I stand by my assertions regarding the ebay example, I wouldn't touch any Ruth-signed item that doesn't look good - I would rather miss out on an authentic oddball example of a signature than end up with a $3,500 (or more) forgery. I'm very curious about the other signatures on the 1926 example.

Here's my favorite - classic Ruth signature that leaves no doubts, and a perfect exemplar to compare possible purchase to:

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

Interesting post, Scott. I'm just curious, as I've only recently been really scrutinizing Ruth balls, but what do you think is so off about this signed Ruth ball? What are some of the subtleties (or not so subtle) tip-offs that should be looked at? I'm referring to the first ball pic you posted, of course. Thanks.

Jason, compare:

Thanks for the pics, Scott. I still think the signed ball in the original pic looks very close, IMO. I see that the "R" is slightly different (ie- the loop part doesn't touch top to bottom like the samples you show), but it's still seems like the same flow. Maybe I just don't have a very good eye for those things. I have a hard time with Ted Williams, Joe D, and Mantle's even.

Does Kevin Keating ever frequent this board? Would be nice to hear his perspective, and interested to know whether or not his name/LOA was really implicated without consent.

I sent Kevin the link, but he's in Phoenix and away from his Net54 password so he won't be able to respond until next week. He said he did authenticate a number of items in the collection of the former major league player who is selling this ball on eBay, but didn't remember this ball specifically.

Speaking for myself, I actually find the title of this thread to be bordering on libelous. Unless Scott has proof that this ball is a forgery, (and assuming that Kevin did write a letter for it), it's just his opinion against Kevin's. Needless to say, under those circumstances I would take Kevin's word for it a thousand times out of a thousand over Scott's or anyone else's for that matter.

Seriously? "Unless Scott has proof that this ball is a forgery"?

Hank, this isn't about me against Keating - it's about an ebay seller trying to sell an autograph that I feel is a forgery, and who I assumed was throwing out Keating's name erroneously. He hasn't shown any proof that Kevin Keating even authenticated it; however, ANY LOA offered on a Ruth autograph is ALSO just a matter of opinion, whether it's PSA, JSA, Keating or anyone else. We render opinions here every week on certified autographs that we feel are forgeries. Does that make our posts libelous?

I don't get the personal attack on me for rendering my own opinion in a discussion forum, but if you feel it necessary to get behind Keating on an autograph that you don't even have the ability to give your own opinion about, then I guess we can at least respect your loyalty.

I, like others who have NOT participated in this thread, have absolutely nothing to gain by bringing up a baseball like this. I did it purely to educate and it did serve its purpose, if nothing else, through the absence of the only opinions on this ball that really have any validity.

I've changed the title, as I agree that Keating's name shouldn't be in the title - it's a bit misleading, since this isn't about him.

I don't have a response to this other than thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It's you, Mark and Keating's proxy: 3 for, and me 1 against.

I guess that makes it real. Having said that, and given what Babe Ruth signed balls go for in such condition, it is clearly a steal. I recommend offering the seller about $500 less and becoming the proud possessor of a single-signed Babe Ruth baseball.

Good luck.

I will chime in and say that I too have doubts about the signature being Ruth's. I cannot say that it is not authentic, but personally I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing based on what I have seen/heard. Kudos to Scott for changing the title of the thread as I think it was misleading. Until Kevin can chime in and give his position, I think that was a responsible thing to do.

That was my point, Scott, and I don't know what you find personal in my response. You can disagree about any autograph with any authenticator, and that's fine, we all do it. And Kevin will be the first to tell you that none of them is perfect, they all make mistakes. But to put his name in the same title with "forgery" implies that he knowingly had something to do with a forgery, and that's just not true, it's something he would never do.

Thanks for the clarification. Stand-alone, the title did sound bad, but the post was clear that I thought his name was being thrown out there to sell a forgery and that I didn't believe he had authenticated it. Now I'm seeing that there is a photo of a Keating LOA in the listing. I didn't notice it before or I probably would have pursued this differently.

I'm very well aware of how collectors here respond to anyone questioning a respected hobbyist or seller (in this case, both) - the reaction is always one of support for the seller/hobbyist and antagonism toward the person doing the questioning. 100% of the time. Given that I have absolutely nothing to gain by outing a bad Babe Ruth signature, I generally avoid such situations - nothing productive will come out of the discussion, as no one is focused on the item in question. Not questioning Keating's or the seller's ethics, but he could have written 'Babe Ruth' on the ball himself, and if it had a Keating letter, I believe that collectors here would defend it, or minimally not say anything at all.

Although I have no expertise with hence no opinion on the signature in question, I did have one thought on the matter: with all we know about forgeries and difficulties associated with Ruth signatures, why would anyone with industry knowledge and a legitimate Ruth item to sell take it to eBay and sell it 'raw'? Why not just cut a deal with a reputable auction house [oxymoron, I know] and sell it that way, or, why not have it certified by a reputable third party authenticator [another oxymoron?] first? I've gotten to the point where I assume that the item is no good unless that is how it is handled. The money left on the table as a seller of a potential collection cornerstone item is just too large to justify proceeding any other way if an item isn't dodgy.

From the selling standpoint I would prefer to use an AH or a TPA too. Just throwing an item up on eBay leaves me open to attacks over the item. I have no idea who the seller of this item is but if I read negative stuff about him here and I run across one of his listings I am like to remember 'something bad' about him and pass it by. If an AH offers it, I don't have to be dragged through the mud. If I offer it with a TPA cert, the potential buyers can either decide to trust the TPA or not, but I am not warranting jack squat about the item. I realize some people here just hate that sort of approach but short of handing the item to the signer myself and watching it signed, it is all ultimately speculation based on inductive reasoning.

Adam, good questions. In the seller's defense, he apparently only uses Keating - he also has a Greenberg card and a Spalding book for sale, both with Keating letters. I didn't look closely at Greenberg, but the Spalding looks good and it's a rather expensive autograph. I suspect that the Ruth autograph either has already failed PSA and/or JSA, or would if presented to them; hence, inappropriate for sale by any auction house.

As a sidenote, without the benefit of Mark's knowledge of the seller, I initially responded to him as I would anyone on ebay selling such a signature. After Mark posted that the seller was reputable, respecting Mark's opinion, I immediately contacted the seller with an apology. I know - unbelievable. All I will say is that any time someone refuses to accept a sincere apology, I write them off and at that point have zero respect for them until proven otherwise. So that was one-half of my research.

After reading Hank's response regarding Keating, who I only knew through a couple of interactions at the National and the autographs he was selling at his table, I googled him and learned everything additional I needed to know. Research completed and I have nothing else to say about either of the two people associated with this ball.

Regarding the ball itself - I ask again: $3,500 ebay price for a single-signed Ruth ball with a respected LOA? Why is it still available at such a steal? :confused:

Unfortunately I think the ball is one which will engender no unanimity among experts.

It might, actually, but the results are not going to show up here.

I feel like for $3,500 you could get a way nicer Ruth signature if you're looking to fill a void in your collection. Even if authentic it doesn't present well for that price.

I was factoring in the 'ebay offer' final price, but you might be correct.

I hate baseballs like this. I am not happy at all with the characteristics of the signature. That said, I am very impressed with the baseball itself. It is an old ball, and certainly looks like it was shellacked a very long time ago--it takes a long time for shellac to yellow like that, I believe. Could it be a very old forgery? I doubt it. Ruth's autograph was just not very valuable then. And, while we have examples of secretarially signed balls--we know the patterns--I am not aware of any truly old forgeries.

So, I am unable to render an opinion.
But, I would not buy the ball.

Thanks, David. If it did not have the aged varnish, would your opinion be more definite? I refinish antique pool cues and have both lacquer and Bullseye shellac handy. I suspect that if I am able to replicate the aged look, I could write 'Babe Ruth' on the ball myself and get away with it.

Given the prior responses here, I won't need much encouragement to try. David and Jay can vouch for this :)

I was able to quickly find to examples that matched one almost perfectly in terms of aging - not commenting on authenticity of the actual signatures, but one was discussed here a month ago and the other is a Mears 1928 Yankees team-signed ball. That is the look I will be going for.

If you can duplicate that patina, Scott, it would certainly reshape my thinking about signed balls.

The guy who provided the provenance also owned a Sports Card Shop: Saybrook Sports Cards.

According to him, when he was 8 or 9 (he died in 2003 at age 75), Babe Ruth walked into a hotel where a breakfast was being held for a 'Father and Son get together', and the boy's father had to ask him "who the man was" "I couldn't believe he didn't know who Babe Ruth was." Apparently young Bill and his father attended this event with his father somehow being unaware that Babe Ruth would be attending.

I'm sorry, but this stinks.

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMz...UjHfm/$_57.JPG

I find it hard to believe that any adult , or anyone over 10 years old in the USA did not know who Babe Ruth was in the 1930s when this supposed breakfast occurred. Especially in Conn. where this occurred since it is in the New York proximity.
Again a story that does not quite mesh in my opinion.

Seems to me I've seen many more posts here questioning the opinions and ethics of authenticators and sellers, including Keating, than posts defending them. I just don't remember a lot of gushing defenses of TPAs.

Keating isn't generally considered a TPA. He buys and sells autographs, so there is an obvious conflict-of-interest. Autograph collectors don't generally want to get on the bad side of a legitimate autograph seller, especially a respected one.

Also, I don't recall ever seeing anyone question the ethics or opinions of Keating here on this board. I'll search and see what I can find, but I think I would remember - you and I discussed him at the National, and I don't remember anything negative as far as ethics.

One of my first hits: http://www.net54baseball.com/showpos...3&postcount=18

Quite frankly, if I had remembered that you set up with him, out of respect for you I would not have posted this thread at all. There are plenty of bad Ruth balls to discuss and this one really wasn't that important.

From that perspective alone, sorry about that, Hank.

The main problem I had with your post was the title, which you changed, and also the implication that this was without doubt a forgery, and if it had a legitimate Keating LOC he therefore must have OK'd a forgery, intentionally or not. Seems to me the premise that the ball was a forgery is far from a foregone conclusion, and in fact is no more than your opinion. As I stated, I will take his opinion over anybody's. I've seen Spence and Grad walk too many items over to Kevin at shows to ask him what he thought of them to think anything else. As for Net54 posts, I do recall a thread questioning his opinion on an Addie Joss item, and several others I remember forwarding him to see if he wanted to respond, so I assume those were negative in some way, also, maybe they were just about his prices, I can't remember. I also remember lots of Net54 threads involving apparent errors by JSA and PSA and not too many saying how great they were. I would actually encourage you to keep raising questions about possible fraudulent activity in the hobby, it needs all the vigilance it can get, but just be more careful about it. And I can assure you that NOBODY hates forgeries and frauds more than Kevin, since his entire business depends on the overall reputation of the hobby among collectors. In fact, he has devoted an enormous amount of his time in the last 15 years working with the FBI's Operation Bullpen and others to try to eliminate it.

The positive things about Keating that you posted are all good to hear.

As you say, it's no more than my opinion and it's no more than his opinion. Everyone makes mistakes and I think Keating made one here. I am very limited in the autographs that I know, which is both a strength and a weakness - the strength is that I spend a lot of time on the ones I'm interested in because I never want to purchase a forgery, even if I can re-sell it and make money. I don't view autographs as commodities.

I do not know how Keating goes about authenticating Ruth signatures, so making excuses for him would be a waste of time - he might have reasons for his mistakes that are every bit as valid (and honest) as the ones that PSA and JSA have (lack of time to spend on each, my lackey did it, etc.,etc). But just as you would take his opinion over mine any day of the week, any day of the week I couldn't care less who believes my opinion or who doesn't (other than a select few autograph experts, which does not include Keating, Spence or Grad).

No offense to you, or anyone else, but I have no skin in the game as far as my opinion about autographs, as #1 - I'm not making a living authenticating them;i.e-there is no conflict of interest, and #2 - almost any autograph I sell does actually come with a PSA or JSA's 'opinion', so to a collector who doesn't know me, my opinion is irrelevant.

As it probably is here - so carry on.

Scott, I usually value your opinions and comments on here, but your comment above is pretty snide. I was asking as you didn't provide any reason for why you thought it was not authentic and I was genuinely asking because I like to learn the "why"s from others on here. It's not about you, me, versus them. And who said that just because it's 3 vs 1 that "makes it real"?

It's funny when we see some people on here getting so sensitive when people ask them questions of their opinions. We're all on here trying to learn from each other on here and not all of us are as sharp when it comes to spotting the fakes.

You're sounding pretty sensitive yourself.

My comment was not meant at all to be snide, but as I clearly stated, I couldn't really respond to such a comment. I did that to NOT insult you, as I am fully aware that you are trying to learn.

But given that you feel no need to avoid insulting me, here you go: I provided examples which you didn't appear to spend much time looking at. As regards flow, there isn't any - it flows like a dammed-up river. The 'R's are not even vaguely similar, the 'u' is even more ridiculously off, and the entire signature is printed on a crescent.

I hope that helps, but I'm guessing it won't.

Edited to add: I'm done with this thread, so you might as well be hurt silently. I stated my opinion, I learned a little from Hank regarding Keating, and I also had my thoughts reinforced regarding autograph collectors on this forum. As far as actually adding any new knowledge to the forum, this thread did NOT do so, other than to possibly convince a few collectors that Keating should be added to their 'always trust' list, along with PSA and JSA. I'll be sure to take a much more selfish attitude about sharing autograph knowledge in the future. Adios.

You weren't meaning to be snide, but your last comment sure was. Should I feel the need to "avoid" insulting you? I didn't even realize I DID insult you, but if I did, that's your issue. As I stated, I did appreciate the pics, but was asking for clarification.

Well, see there - if you are being honest, then we both took things the wrong way. In any event, sit back and wait - you should have some support soon from the usual suspects, via PM if not publicly. That should make you feel better.

Adios #2

Here is another fake item this supposedly 'good guy' is selling. If he's such a nice guy, he needs to at least see an eye doctor before he loses all credibility:

http://net54baseball.com/showpost.ph...66&postcount=1

http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTQwM1g5MD...U2kjj/$_57.JPG

Other than the C. Anson at the bottom looking odd, what else tells u this is a fake? Just asking, as I'm not schooled on these old cards. Thank you in advance for your response.

Sorry, just hit the link you provided. Missed it earlier

Nothing personal but if you can't immediately, in literally one second, see that this card is really, really bad, you probably don't collect pre-war cards. I don't collect autographs so understand not knowing what I don't collect..... On that card Anson's image is as fuzzy as my beard after 2 weeks. It's horribly fake. :eek:

Leon, the funny thing is that I feel the same way about the Ruth ball he is selling.

To put it in perspective, people post bad Mantle and Williams autographs all the time, and people who know those autographs pop in and immediately say how horrible they are. Not me - I really can't tell the difference between a halfway-decent 1980's Mantle or Williams forgery and a real one. I'm sure that if one of the experts here pointed out what was wrong with them, I could learn pretty quickly, but I was given the advice that spreading myself out too thin would dilute my expertise on particular signatures that I know/am learning, and I think that is good advice.

So I get it that a few people here see similarities between this Ruth signature and a real one. I also think the shellac job is tainting their thinking.

One thing I'm sure about: given that this seller sells a lot of legitimate stuff, but we've seen two forged items from differing hobby areas in the last two weeks, we will see more bad stuff from him. I doubt he's doing it on purpose - I think he just doesn't know cards or autographs, selling so many different baseball-related things that he has not become an expert on many, if any.