Affect of shellac on a signed baseball

[Topnotchsy]

I'm pretty new to the vintage and signed baseball markets but I've noticed that many auction house listings mention that the signatures on a given item were preserved under a layer of shellac. In some cases the ball appears pretty browned, but other times it appears to be pretty close to white.

I was wondering how shellac was viewed by collectors? Are signatures with the same "grade" valued differently if one is on a ball that has shellac? Is it more a matter of aesthetics when it comes to coloring? Is there anything else worth knowing?

Also, does a layer of shellac mean there is less of a concern about fading and sunlight? I have the balls displayed in a place where they get no direct sunlight, (and in general not a ton of light) but definitely don't want an 60-90 year old item to fade because I was careless.

Any help is very much appreciated! After being a fan of baseball for a long time I've ventured into this world knowing very little, and this board has been a huge help.

[perezfan]

Always best to collect balls without shellac, in my opinion. If two balls have comparable sigs, the non-shellacked ball will be the more desirable...

* Shellac can turn color over tme (anything from beige to yellow to dark brown)

* Shellac can flake off over time, leaving an uneven surface.

* Shellac can actually lift off and can chip the signature off the ball.

I have seen extreme examples where the shellac starts flaking off, and lifts the ink right off with it.

In many cases, the shellac doesn't do this, but why take the chance? I always hold out for non-shellacked balls for these reasons. As a general rule, a shellacked ball will sell for 25 - 30% less than a comparable non-shellacked ball. Of course there are exceptions that go both ways.

There is a reason that this practice is now antiquated and obsolete. If the auction house is putting a positive spin on it (such as "Signatures are well preserved under a protective layer of shellac"), they are just engaging in puffery and trying to inflate its value. Hope this helps.

[Runscott]

Given the way signatures can sometimes fade or blur with time, is there anything that can be sprayed over a ball that is undetectable, but protects them?

[UnVme7]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Given the way signatures can sometimes fade or blur with time, is there anything that can be sprayed over a ball that is undetectable, but protects them?

A UV ballcube is the best way to go.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

.................is there anything that can be sprayed over a ball that is undetectable, but protects them?

a little sunscreen SPF 15, but it could burn a little



On a serious note, I would listen to Perezfan above...

[packs]

Personally I like the look of shellacked baseballs as long as they aren't destroyed. For me it's a connection to the original owner, which I find cool. Like when you buy a card with a name stamp on the back.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Always best to collect balls without shellac, in my opinion. If two balls have comparable sigs, the non-shellacked ball will be the more desirable...

* Shellac can turn color over tme (anything from beige to yellow to dark brown)

* Shellac can flake off over time, leaving an uneven surface.

* Shellac can actually lift off and can chip the signature off the ball.

I have seen extreme examples where the shellac starts flaking off, and lifts the ink right off with it.

In many cases, the shellac doesn't do this, but why take the chance? I always hold out for non-shellacked balls for these reasons. As a general rule, a shellacked ball will sell for 25 - 30% less than a comparable non-shellacked ball. Of course there are exceptions that go both ways.

There is a reason that this practice is now antiquated and obsolete. If the auction house is putting a positive spin on it (such as "Signatures are well preserved under a protective layer of shellac"), they are just engaging in puffery and trying to inflate its value. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the extensive response. I don't know that the auction houses were putting a positive spin on it this way. Just that they were mentioning it and I wanted to understand the ramifications.

The focus of my collection are items that are at the nexus between baseball and general history so there aren't a ton of items I am really looking to buy (especially since my preference is signed baseballs). I picked up a couple of WWII team signed baseballs from the Musial Estate Auction from Heritage a year ago and both of them have shellac on them, and picked up a 1931 US tour to Japan team signed ball and it too has a layer of shellac. Aesthetically for me they all look great (I actually like the look of the browned Musial ball) partially because of the uniqueness of the item and the fact that this is how Musial had the ball and I was comfortable with the prices I paid, but I wanted to better understand the relevance of the shellac.

This Musial definitely displays some of the effects you mention:




While the 1931 AS one looks a little cleaner:

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

A UV ballcube is the best way to go.

Are the ball cubes that come from the auction houses (like Heritage) UV protected? Thanks

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by UnVme7

A UV ballcube is the best way to go.

The fading and blurring on my balls (1972-73 signatures) is due to the ink and leather, as they have rarely been exposed to light. I got one signed in 1972 and in 1973 - all of the signatures from 1972 are now blurry. The other was signed in 1973 and all of the signatures on one piece of leather are now virtually gone, while the others still look brand new.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by packs

Personally I like the look of shellacked baseballs as long as they aren't destroyed. For me it's a connection to the original owner, which I find cool. Like when you buy a card with a name stamp on the back.

For me it depends on the item but I definitely agree for many items. I got a baseball signed by the WWII team from the Stan Musial collection (he served in the Pacific theater and they had an 8 team league there... action was not nearly as intense as it was in Europe.) It's totally brown and covered in shellac but I love that that was how he had it (and it's been really interesting researching the people who signed the ball...)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

.......

While the 1931 AS one looks a little cleaner:

That's the best you can hope for. It seems to me that these shellacked balls are now so old that we are 'probably' okay basing our purchase on how they look today.

I only have one shellacked ball (I would never say that anywhere but here), and while nowhere near as nice as yours, I think it looks pretty good:

[perezfan]

Great stuff... and with regard to this topic, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Some of those older balls look pretty cool with the shellac, as referenced above.

My personal fear is that the shellac could flake off and take the prized signatures with it. Just a little pessimism with some OCD sprinkled in for good measure. That's why I've personally avoided them. If you look at prices realized in the major auctions, you'll see the general collecting population feels the same. Of course a lot depends on the severity of the shellacking.

Not sure why some shellacs and varnishes flaked and changed color, and others didn't....

Perhaps it was the particular brand of shellac
Perhaps it was the way in which the varnish was applied (i.e. sprayed vs. brushed on)
Perhaps it was the storage method and/or exposure to the elements (light/heat/cold/humidity) over the years

Maybe someone here with a science degree can chime in and enlighten us a bit more

[1880nonsports]

such a discussion won't devolve into "when water is not a chemical".......

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

For me it depends on the item but I definitely agree for many items. I got a baseball signed by the WWII team from the Stan Musial collection (he served in the Pacific theater and they had an 8 team league there... action was not nearly as intense as it was in Europe.) It's totally brown and covered in shellac but I love that that was how he had it (and it's been really interesting researching the people who signed the ball...)

I am very sorry, but I have to correct you here. Action in WWII in the Pacific was arguably MORE intense than in Europe. However, after Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was pretty much combat free, and many service teams went to islands that had already been secured.

Ken

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I am very sorry, but I have to correct you here. Action in WWII in the Pacific was arguably MORE intense than in Europe. However, after Pearl Harbor, Hawaii was pretty much combat free, and many service teams went to islands that had already been secured.

Ken

I appreciate the correction. I was referring to the units that people like Musial served in (which had plenty of time for baseball leagues) and not the fighters who were constantly on the front lines. That said, I definitely could use getting more familiar with this part of the war...

[steve B]

No science degree, but.........I do a bit of woodworking. It's nearly as good as staying at a holiday inn express

Shellac is dissolved in alcohol, and some older stuff was DIY rather than sold premixed in cans. It still comes that way of you look for it.

So the amount of shellac mixed in and it's color will affect the end result. Anywhere from almost clear to dark brown.

Shellac is itself somewhat UV resistant, and supposedly doesn't darken with age. I'd almost bet that in some finishes it was mixed with other stuff that does, or that "shellac" has been used generically to cover any finish applied to a ball.

Being Alcohol soluble it generally doesn't like getting wet with water. Think of the cloudy rings you'd get on some furniture with a cold drink glass and no coaster, and you'll get an idea of the exact effect of water on shellac.

Fun trivia- most 78 rpm records are made of shellac.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Steve, that 'old orange' look that you see on shellacked balls is similar to what I often find on old store-bought pool cues, especially the ones that were refinished by amateurs, and most of those were seldom, if ever, exposed to sunlight;i.e-if it's similar stuff, I don't think the darkening of the shellack has much to do with sunlight. As you suggest, it might be something in the shellack (or whatever it really is) that is 'going bad' with age. My guess is that whatever the amateur cue refinishers painted onto the cues is the same stuff that people painted on their baseballs (the ones that went bad, anyway).

[steve B]

It very well could be. Shellac comes in a really wide range of color, so someone using whatever the hardware store had on hand probably got something in the reddish brown range. Pretty good for making pine shelves look like cherry form a distance.

Some of the older polyurethanes were pretty bad. I don't know much about the ones from the 50's when they were new, but the stuff I used in the 70's was horrid.

Steve B

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

It very well could be. Shellac comes in a really wide range of color, so someone using whatever the hardware store had on hand probably got something in the reddish brown range. Pretty good for making pine shelves look like cherry form a distance.

Some of the older polyurethanes were pretty bad. I don't know much about the ones from the 50's when they were new, but the stuff I used in the 70's was horrid.

Steve B

From my experience refinishing pool cues and stripping crappy refinish jobs, I'm fairly sure they started off light and then darkened, and I'm guessing the same happened with these baseballs.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by steve B

It very well could be. Shellac comes in a really wide range of color, so someone using whatever the hardware store had on hand probably got something in the reddish brown range. Pretty good for making pine shelves look like cherry form a distance.

Some of the older polyurethanes were pretty bad. I don't know much about the ones from the 50's when they were new, but the stuff I used in the 70's was horrid.

Steve B

From my experience refinishing pool cues and stripping crappy refinish jobs, I'm fairly sure they started off light and then darkened, and I'm guessing the same happened with these baseballs. No one would have intentionally refinished a maple cue forearm with reddish-brown shellac, and I'm certain they didn't come that way from Brunswick, yet many of the old Brunswick forearms have turned yellow-orange with age.

[murphusa]

It is made from bugs that nest in trees so the color and traits of the tree comes through in the process. It also has a short shelf life and if old will give a darker color

Orange was the top color in the US for years.

So many things go into what color you get