Cy Young Authentication Help
 

This ball was purchased at auction with AAU (Drew V Max) certification. After numerous searches on this site and others I am very worried.:eek: Could I get your opinions.

http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/m...51560/CY-5.jpg[/IMG]

Wow, if it's a fake it's a damn good one. The only thing though is the ink looks so dark and so new. That's what would worry me. What type of ball is it?

Here mine that I recently purchased from a board member here.

It's a Spalding. Here are pictures of the ball logo.
[IMG]<a href="http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm189/mot51560/?action=view&amp;current=CY-7.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm189/mot51560/CY-7.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>[/IMG]
[IMG]<a href="http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm189/mot51560/?action=view&amp;current=CY-6.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm189/mot51560/CY-6.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>[/IMG]

I agree with Kevin on all counts. It looks real, but that signature is darker than virtually every other Cy Young signed balls that I have ever seen, FWIW...

If im correct, Giles became president in 51 and Young died in 55, so its a short window to get it signed.

I'm afraid you've got a problem here. The Giles baseball in the photo is the later 1958-1969 Model ball. Since Cy Young passed in November of 1955, it would have been impossible for him to sign that type of ball. Sorry.

+1 for the baseball expert and not an authenticator! All of this and more can be found in my future publication of: History of the Base Ball :D

Dumb ? from me. what is the difference in the balls? My eyesight isn't great, so Im missing something

Looks like the space between the Giles sig. And the title Pres.

I'm curious why you would ask if it's authentic or not after you purchased or won it? Why didn't you research the autograph before you made the purchase?

This is why buyers of forgeries, in my opinion, are 50% of the problem when it comes to forgeries in the hobby. If you don't buy crap like that, then the sellers of forgeries don't stay in business. This puzzles the crap out of me.

Secondly, that Cy Young isn't close to a "good forgery." It's pathetic.

Cy
 

Scott,
If you look close at the giles autographs they are different.

There are differences in the Giles baseballs, thanks for illustrating that Brandon.
I guess Drew Max could get an education here too.
Seems like that particular Cy Young baseball was signed when Cy was in his grave.

Does Drew Max look at anything "forensically?" Geez.

Thanks , plus the s in Giles seems to slide further down and to the left on the later ball.

FASCINATING detective work. I wouldn't buy a Bugs Bunny sig from AAU, Research in this case tho, Chris, isn't easy, at least as far as knowing the ball difference. Knowing a legit Cy sig could be researched tho. But, its so hard still, knowing you really can't find anyone who is always right or even most times, seems.

True, Scott, but the fact is, the buyer came here to ask questions after his purchase, which means he began his research after-the-fact.

Nice. Kinda like "She deserved it, dressed like that." There's nothing quite like blaming the victim.

Sorry you got burned on that one, AzMot, but with the rock-solid proof of forgery (proof, rather than opinion), perhaps you can get your money back.
And, for future reference, there are plenty of people here who are happy to help you learn, and won't belittle you for making a mistake.

If you look at his original post, he trusted the authenticatior. He only came on here to ask after doing some searching on the internet.

You can trust psa and jsa and buy an authenticated item with an LOA from them, then search on the internet and find criticism of psa and jsa, and then show a recently bought wife signed sonny liston on this forum slabbed like this one authenticated by psa, or the other one that was given an LOA from James Spence Authentication and sold at Geppi's, and then you can be called an idiot too by not doing your own liston research beforehand even though it had authentication certs?

If it's a problem of trusting AAU, and getting blasted for it, then what about the poor soul that trusts psa or jsa and ends up with a wife signed? that guy must be a moron too. We have to vet and check out all psa and jsa sigs from now on also. don't trust them and then ask opinions after you buy if you have misgivings about them later on.


Is that how it works? someone has a psa or jsa certed item, comes on here, shows it, asks for opinion, it fails, and he's an idiot for buying it and trusting the authenticator, or is it just someone who trusts and gets burned by an authenticator you don't like? Those are the only idiots I suppose.

Reality is that the authenticators need to be accountable for their authentication, and if someone gets burned, they aren't idiots, but should get their money back or be made whole. To all psa and jsa buyers, in the scenario presented here, if you trust them and end up with a psa or jsa dud, to be fair, you are the problem!

Just pointing out the paradox and hypocrisy in the autograph world. If you get burned by authenticator A, you asked for it, and you are a moron. if you get burned by authenticator b, it was just a mistake, you aren't a moron and no big deal.

100% agree with you David.

Nice job, Brandon! ;)
I was hoping that you would check in on the intricacies of the Giles ball. I had a feeling that it may provide a clue that would add additional questions about the liklihood that Cy could have signed it.

I would also like to state, in my experience, that later authentic examples of Cy's signature really took a dive in quality later in life. The Cy signature on the ball on this thread is pretty atypical for this time period. It appears too "strong" and "bold" if this makes sense.

Thanks for all your responses. I didn't purchase the ball a friend of mine did and asked for my opinion. As I told him I only collect autographs signed in front of me and didn't know very much but had him send me some pictures and agreed to research it. The first thing I did was research the authenticator and that is when I saw the red flag.

It sucks because this was his first vintage purchase and he was pretty stoked about it. I'll finish up my research and send him everything I found , I'm sure he will do the pre-purchase research next time. Expensive lesson to learn.

Thanks again for all the help..By the way great site, lots of good information here. I have it bookmarked and will be spending a lot of time here reading.

what auction was the ball purchased at?


sorry this happened to your friend:(

This is where he purchased it:

http://azfirearms.auctionflex.com/sh...enum=1&lang=En

Very nice work and great information, Brandon.

1,000% agree - let's not jump on someone with blame, when they came looking for some assistance....

He just needs advice that will help the next time. I've stated this before and never gotten a single response here, but I'll say it again: Before buying a signed vintage item, study as many examples of the person's signature as possible. Do this YOURSELF - don't rely on an authenticator.

If he had done this, he would have seen that on the Cy Young signatures that seem to have the most likelihood of being authentic, Cy Young almost always brings the pen back up at an acute angle from the bottom of the letters in 'Young' - on this ball, he loops slightly to the right before bring his pen up. Perhaps this in itself is not enough to judge the ball to be a forgery, but it's enough for me personally to avoid it.

The other thing - if he wasn't confident enough in his own ability to judge the authenticity of a signature, he shouldn't have bid. I wouldn't have touched this ball, purely because the signature looked too fresh. I'm sure there are lots of fresh-looking sigs out there, but you might as well go for something that looks like it has a more realistic chance of being authentic.

Sure are Scott, anyone can see plenty every month at the Roaches :D:D

http://www.myccsa.com/Default.aspx

Greg, this just drives me crazy every time I read one of these 'forged signature' threads. Don't get me wrong, I love reading them. But I don't understand how all the experts on this board can't tell when a signature is obviously a fake, just from looking at it. This one is not close - it's obviously fake (and I say this a little hesitantly, because some of my friends think it looks close to real and I honestly don't want to insult people here).

I've said the same thing about id'ing photos - very few in the hobby will actually use their eyeballs to identify anything. They will look at almost everything else first, starting with COA's and LOA's. It's baffling to me. It's sad that the guy purchased it to begin with, but not because he didn't come here first and ask questions. It's much simpler than that: google 'Cy Young signature', images, and see what comes up. It won't take long to realize this is a fake. It's not like this is a Mel Ott.

I can tell you that it looks very close to the 1953 postcard i had, and it passed psa/jsa. For whatever that's worth.....

Top class post from the doc. +1 zillion.

Kevin, I'd love to see an image of that signature, or any others that passed a reputable authenticator and look like this one.

I posted a 1953 post card in this thread.....please tell me your not referring to mine??!

No, I saw yours and it doesn't have the same loop characteristic at the bottom of the letters. Looks much different in my opinion.

Edited to add: Scott, I'm just a guy with eyeballs and an attention to detail - not an authenticator. I have seen many authenticated autographs that might be good, but I wouldn't touch them. I've also seen plenty that weren't authenticated that I would not hesitate to purchase. The obvious rebuttal to my comments on Young's signature would be: "Yeah, but he COULD have signed it that way." Similar to the comments about the Ted Williams one that I didn't like: "Perhaps it was after his stroke". Hell I even got bashed on that thread for insensitivity toward stroke victims. Same for the Gehrig-signed items that feature one of his oddball, seldom-seen signatures. Or balls like the Gehrig/Ruth one owned by the 'super base-ball collector'. If you want to buy something like that, that you think 'could have' been signed by the player, then you need to be ready for the bad news down the road.

Just my opinion. I don't acquire any of my signed items for re-sell, so what others think about them really doesn't matter to me, and whatever I write here is probably just of entertainment value, if that. I am certainly entertained by these threads, and have learned a lot from guys like Richard Simon who post here.

hope that means different in a good way..lol.

Scott,
He posted the 1953 Cy Young GPC on this thread. Go back a couple of pages or so and you will see the front and back of the GPC.

Yeah, I did. It didn't look similar in my opinion, so I figured Kevin was talking about a different item.

delete, sorry

There are way too many Scotts in this thread. I'll let it go this time, but don't do it again.

Here are a few we could talk about :)

Going clockwise from top-left, in each photo, there are eight (1-4 and 5-8). I picked these to show as many different styles as I could find. Obviously, #3 in photo 1 is the bad signature from the ball. But #2 in photo 1 is also bad in my opinion. I'm just using my eyeballs and my brain's ability to recognize patterns, so tell me I'm wrong, and why.

I hope not :)

They all look so different! :0

Besides the wearing factor of the actual signature on whatever item has been signed how do you really know?

As far as how many Scott's there are, the 81 in my name is my birth year so can I at least claim that Im the youngest :)

The postcard next to the ball was mine....how do they not look similar? especially, compared to the other ones that are supposedly good?

At this point now all I want to know about is the postcard left of the ball.

Because it is mine.

I need a stress test.

Kevin, out of all the Cy Young signatures I could find by googling, your postcard has the closest 'first glance' look to the ball's as any - I think he might have used yours as his model.

But the big giveaway in my opinion is the way he brings his pen up from the bottom of the 'u' and 'n' (bringing the pen up to the right). He loops out a little in the ball signature, but forms a 'v' angle on your old card. Another extreme example is that other one I think is a fake - it looks like he does the opposite of a loop, more like Connie Mack's style. Another habit was when he brought his pen back up to the left, he tended to relax and form a loop rather than an angle, but sometimes there was sort of an angle - on the bad one (the ball), and the other one I think's a fake, you see angles rather than loops.

An exception was that when he signed in a hurry, he didn't come back up with his pen (like in the return address and the one where he writes 'Peoli' underneath).

If you practice writing 'Young', trying to duplicate the loop vs the angle vs the inverted loop, for the 'u' and 'n', you'll find that you can probably only do it one of the three ways without the signature looking very unnatural.

:p ;)

Should we all post copies of our signatures, to compare how we write "Scott"?

If I write out the name Scott, would it be a forgery?:rolleyes:

Not of my name - I always sign 'Bucky Dent'.

No Mike,
We'll invite you into the club with no prior authorization and no disclaimers! :)

My name is Scott too. What do i get?

A free bowl of soup? No soup for you! ;):D