Quote:
Originally Posted by vintagesportscollector
|
Thanks. Brandon got back to me and I sent him scans of my ball. I checked out the 'baseball museum', which has great examples;unfortunately, it doesn't have an exact example of my ball.
The thread you linked to implies that forgeries of old balls are generally easy to spot because the forgers generally use balls with protruded laces and/or they use laser-printing instead of real stamps. I was under the impression that there were some pretty good forgeries of Ruth-era baseballs, and the balls themselves often proved that the autograph had to be bad, since the balls were forgeries. Now I'm wondering if I misread something during those discussions. It seems to me that it would make much more sense for a forger to use a supply of well-made forged balls than to pay $500 or so for real ones and risk screwing up while signing. But I guess you could screw up quite a few single-signed Ruth balls and still make money, and besides - a lot of money has been spent for fairly bad Ruth forgeries, so the demand for them is there.