1953/54 Cubs Auto Team Ball
 

Hoping someone could help me out here. A neighbor of mine just got from his uncle either a '53 or '54 Cubs autographed team ball. I am 90% certain that it isn't a "stamped" ball (if that is the correct term). He knows I collect cards and was asking my thoughts on the value. Unfortunately, I stick to T206s / T3s and am clueless on this.

Any rough ideas on the value? The signatures look great, with only a few smudges. Highlights are Kiner, Cavaretta, and Saurer. Now that I think of it, it probably is '53 since it doesn't have Banks. Appreciate the help.

Thanks,

Brian

If the ball itself has a manufacturer (Like "Official National League" or another manufacturer) than it is not stamped. The stamped balls were generic and had no manufacturer stamps except for a one word like "haiti" where it was made but no big and bold stampings on the sweet spot. That should help you determine without a scan.

Rhys

Thanks for the quick response. Assuming it is real, what is a rough value ... $300-$500???

It is impossible to assign a value to something like that without seeing it. Assuming it is real and an Official NL Ball and it has all the key signatures and it is in just perfect condition than your estimate is right. If the signatures are faded and it is not an official ball etc, it could be worth as little as $50. So there is a big range on things like this and it is really impossible to tell without seeing it.

As you are looking for a quick informal estimate, if the ball is a team ball (say, 25+ signers), the ball is nice and the signatures are in great condition, as you say, I would say $200 plus or minus. Good strong signatures are always in demand, as a lot of vintage team balls, even from the 1970s and 80s, have light signatures.

There are others on this board who know more than I about autographs, but this is 2 cents from someone who has bought and sold team baseballs.

Well I'm surely not one who knows about team baseballs. But in 1992, SCD published "Team Basballs." Despite the date, very little has changed in the past 17 years,



1953 CHICAGO (NL)
Key signatures: Fondy, Baumholtz, Kiner, Garigiola, Banks*
LESS THAN 10 GAMES: Baczewski,Baker, Moison, Schramka, Schultz, ballboy
VALUE = $275

*Allows for spring training signatures

I like how Fondy and Baumholtz are listed as keys!

You have to wonder what games they were watching. The (only) "key Player" for the 54 Pirates was Sid Gordon. Now the Bucs were their typical lousy selves that year, but they had guys like Dick Groat, Vernon Law and Bob Friend, whose careers would eclipse anything that ol' Sid ever did.

That's not quite accurate, either, as there actually were two keys on that club. Joe Page was on that team, as was the first black Pirate, Curt Roberts, who is very tough due to his early death in 1969. Gordon was added likely because the writer wasn't overly familiar with Roberts and the ball may not have contained either him or Page. Granted, Sid passed away in the mid-1970's, but his signature is far from tough. He played for a long while and was a terrific autograph signer.

JSA lists all "key" and HOF signatures as part of a full LOA for team/multi-signed items. I remember many occasions when I was authenticating a 1980's team ball and being forced to be very creative in determining who was a key. Jim Leyritz! Yeah! He's a key! Sometimes we would just have to list the most familiar names on the ball, even though it might be Matt Nokes.

Great point. Actually, the Bucs also carried, for one game (in which he played two innings) Sam Jethroe, ROY in 1950, who'd be he real key, if he'd been around long enough to sign anything. Speaking of which, the honor of being first to field a starting team of nine black players also belongs to Pittsburgh, in 1971:

Rennie Stennett, 2B
Gene Clines, CF
Roberto Clemente, RF
Willie Stargell, LF
Manny Sanguillen, C
Dave Cash, 3B
Al Oliver, 1B
Jackie Hernandez, SS
Dock Ellis, P

Two genuine HOFers and another, Oliver, who deserves greater consideration than he ever got.

Thanks for all the responses
 

Much appreciated