[collectbaseball]

The argument that a clubhouse/secretarial signature is no different from a forgery is rather absurd. Do they have the same level of “realness”? Yes. Obviously the player did not sign it. Neither one is an authentic autograph of the player. They are both zero percent real. Do they have the same level of “truth”? No. The clubhouse/secretarial is more truthful than the forgery—most importantly it is actually from the period it is supposed to be from, whereas nearly all forgeries are from significantly later. Unlike the forgery, the clubhouse/secretarial was made with either implicit or explicit permission from the player. The motive behind the clubhouse/secretarial is also different—the motive for the deception is not economic gain. [Note that I am only talking about older things, not the Classic fiasco or whatever].

I would much rather have a team-signed ball with clubhouse signatures on it than one with forgeries on it (in fact, the latter would really have no place in my collection barring some exceptional circumstance).

I also disagree with the notion that a clubhouse signature would not resemble the player’s signature (I don’t know if we are grouping secretarials into the same category here). Consider the Sinclair Oil Babe Ruth baseballs—I don’t think a single-signed clubhouse baseball is out of the realm of possibility.