Question re: toning on UDA baseballs
 

I've had my eye on both Ted Williams and Mickey Mantle UDA baseballs for years (one of those "I'm in no rush so I'll buy it when it's the right ball at the right price" things) and I am surprised what a high percentage of both have severe splotchy, uneven toning. I've never seen such consistently bad toning issues from any other particular athlete/certifier combination, and I assume I'm not the first to notice this. They all appear to be ROMLBs, but I'm assuming there must be a (now) known issue with UDA balls that were signed by Mantle or Williams during a certain timeframe?

Also, to those who might have a little bit more knowledge on these types of things, if you can find one that still hasn't toned as of 2017, is it reasonable to assume it probably won't?

Thanks in advance, happy collecting :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've noticed my Bobby Brown OMLB tend to tone way more than my other ones. I'm guessing a pretty fair amount, maybe all, of the UDA balls are Bobby Brown's.

I remember talking to someone about this. I heard they had used improper chemicals to treat the leather for some period of time. I'm not sure of the years though. But basically what you said is correct, if it hasn't gotten blotchy then it will not.

I think you're right, I believe all of them I've seen like this are Bobby Brown. Thanks for the info.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FWIW, I have UDA balls of Mantle w/No 7 inscription, and Williams on Bobby Brown balls and the Mabtle is Snow White with no toning, and so is the Williams. Both are over 20 years old and still look great. All luck of the draw on the UDA balls whether they are excellent or splotchy

But at this point if they haven't shown any issues yet they likely won't down the road.

Yes there was a bad chemical it the hatti balls and like he said the splochyness occured pretty soon after produced. If you find one with no splotches then chances are it will be ok.

Rawlings has had these issues off and on with different batches of balls over the years. The last huge one was the 2008/2009 specialty Baseballs (ASG, final and inaugural ayankees balls). When I was with Steiner we literally had multiple thousands of these signed by tons of players and within 12 months huge oil spots and splotchyness was occurring on nearly half of the balls due to a parasite that was infesting the core and leather. There was also an additional issue with the printed on ink not setting into the leather correctly for those balls either so the logos are often chipped, dull or display a very poor stamping. It's actually not as easy as you'd think to find clean signed balls for any of those three specialty balls.

Not relevant to this particular example but Rawlings still struggles with these issues.

Thanks for the info!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

is toning the same as spotting on a baseball? what can be done when a ball starts to tone or spot? will it continue to tone or spot? thanks

While I am just splitting hairs, as it doesn't change anything, I spoke with an exec with Rawlings a few years ago, and I was told that the brown spots that developed on the balls from the 2008-09 period was due to bad manufacturing equipment at the factory. Machine oil leaked into the adhesive during the manufacturing process and slowly migrated from the adhesive layer into the leather over time. That is why the oil spots took a year or so to develop. Just to be safe, I now buy OMLBs and let them sit around for a good amount of time before getting them signed! Just to see if they will develop any type of blemish. Better safe than sorry, since the current guys and HOFers charge so much!

This is a good idea, I think I'm going to do the same going forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sure about the official definitions, but when people say toning I think of an overall change in the general color of the ball, such as what an aged ball looks like. That I don't mind so much if it's fairly even over the ball. Like this:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...43e9374c4a.jpg

Spotting to me is the big ugly splotches on only part of the ball, like these:

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...f8eb59fab2.png

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...666bdaed0c.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you so much for teaching me the difference. I really didnt know it. after seeing th pics, i agree, toning, im ok with. spotting not so much. with spotting, once it starts does it keep spreading? thanks

Really don't know. I assume that it will occur over a period of time, and then stop. For instance, the baseballs I mentioned in my OP were probably signed no later than the mid-90s, I would guess whatever you see at this point on the ball is probably how it will be.

Whereas, if as other people have mentioned Rawlings does have these problems from time to time, there are probably some newly signed balls that haven't even started showing this problem yet but will eventually.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Everyone may have a different interpretation, but to me "toning" is an even change of color on the entire ball. Very few, if any baseballs, stay snow white... they all tone to some degree due to the aging of the organic material and the various chemicals in it.

Spotting is when there are distinct dark spots or stains. I think most collectors would avoid a ball with unappealing stains... especially of they are near the signature.