[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

If it is not identified that the names have been removed from a baseball, it could be argued that this is a form of forgery-- as the essential identity of the ball has been changed to fool others (the hobby considers a team signed ball and a single singed ball two different things and values them differently). If it is identified that names the have been removed, it would be distasteful to many (including myself), but would not be forgery. If the hobby values a natural single signed Jimmy Foxx baseball higher than an artificially created single signed Foxx ball, a ball owner can't get names removed and represent it as a natural single signed ball during resale.

As in alterations, restorations and reprinting, it's all about disclosure and honesty. Sellers don't get in trouble for saying a restored item was restored. They get in trouble for saying a restored item wasn't restored.

This also makes good provenance for a single signed ball that much more important. If you can establish that the Ruth signed ball has been around a long time, it likely will be a better investment. A simple test for the worried potential buyer is to have the seller prove he bought the ball as a single signed ball. The seller who had the names removed himself isn't going to be able to come up with the Mike Gutierrez or Robert Edwards receipt for a single signed ball.

Lastly, if you see a baseball with signatures of Eric Estrada and Ty Cobb on the same panel, you can be confident it hasn't had signatures professionally removed.