Ruth ball on eBay - questionable?

[Archive]

Posted By: chris

For the sake of possibly getting abused for outing an auction, well, who cares...j/k.

Not too many will have missed it anyhow...


http://tinyurl.com/ysprz4


At first glance, it looks like a top selection out of a Coach's Corner offering, no? I'm not an expert, but, something just does not look right on this ball. I emailed the seller and asked if they would guarantee it passing PSA or JSA. They said no, Global was good enough. They did however guarantee no signatures have been removed, painted over, etc.

Who takes what very well could be a $30k ball if legit, and has Global authenticate it?

Interested in opinions...

Take care,
Chris

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

If I remember correctly wasn't Global one of only two authentication companies (Richard Simon being the other) that passed HBO's authentication test?

[Archive]

Posted By: brian

there is something about that auction that just doesn't seem right. Seller hasn't had any activity since last year.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

This ball does indeed pose a dilemma. Normally, Global is reliable with autographs of this calibur, but is certainly not regarded in the same league as Spence or PSA. It interesting that the seller chose Global as their sole authenticator for such a potentially monumental piece.

At first glance, I thought this ball looked very similar to those offered by Coach's Corner. The signature appears to be rather slowly penned and deliberate, and the slant looks suspect to me. Would love to hear what Jodi, Richard and the other experts here think...

The forgers continue to get more skillful, and it is often becoming harder for us collectors to identify the fakes. In this case, the ball and autograph are both pristine and immaculate, which I believe is a strike against it. But the fact that it's on an official Harridge Ball is a positive (as this would be a difficult/expensive ball for a forger to obtain).

It's already up over $15,000... will be interesting to see what this one fetches with only the Global LOA (and no guarantee of passing PSA or Spence). I personally would stay away.

[Archive]

Posted By: chris

is right, at least for now.

With all due respect to Mr. Simon and Global, a ball of this stature will not sell for top value without the PSA or JSA letter attached with it. They simply have the market cornered on such high end pieces.

If the seller is so convinced it is authentic, why would they not let Spence or PSA take a look and stand behind the product?

Perhaps I/we are rushing to judgement, but, as it looks Global may have let the forgers in a bit closer. Who knows...


Anyone read the listing in full? The quoted letter of provenance says nothing of the ball itself, just generalities...hmmm...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I don't know...the baseball looks good to me, but I'm no expert on autographs. There was a Carl E. Olsen that played for the Springfield Ponies in 1924 and had a very good year going 16-10 with a 1.25 ERA. Maybe one could ask the seller if the 'C' in CE Olson stands for 'Carl'.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Chris...

Great catch... you are right. The Global Certificate has no image of the ball included anywhere. Only the "family letter" contains a picture of the ball. The Global document is a generally worded certificate that could have applied to anything Ruth signed.

All that someone would have to do is switch the Global sticker over to this "new" ball, and it would then match that Global Cert... an "easy fix". If the GAI sticker was previously removed from a "good" piece, it would cost only a nominal amount of money to get the good piece re-certified.

Especially considering what these sellers will be getting for this ball.... this one is really suspicious

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

There was also an Olsen that played with Mark Koenig at Des Moines in 1923, and in 1925 for the Eastern League Pittsfield team...he is listed as a pitcher on all three of those teams. I believe that is the same CE Olsen that played for the 1924 Springfield team. I think the ball is the real deal. Just my opinion though.

edited to add: I hadn't thought of the possibility of a switched sticker until you mentioned it Mark. I don't know about the ball in that case, but the story sounds right and makes it plausible that CE Olsen did get a Ruth signed ball...is it the same one though???

[Archive]

Posted By: chris

Dan,

I wish I could be as optimistic as you on this one, but cannot.

The Global cert number does not verify on their site...although that happens sometimes (rarely) on PSA or JSA site too.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Doesn't ebay offer a PSA quick check on autographs? Certainly the bidders on this have done that....wouldn't you think?

[Archive]

Posted By: chris

Dan,

Maybe. The ball looks good to most anyone, and Global certed it.

I would say the majority have not had an opinion done. I don't feel like wasting 7.49 right now, but might tomorrow

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I'm glad I never really went the autograph route...I would certainly love to own a Ruth single signed ball, but there would always be a part of my brain that couldn't rest easy even if it was certed by JSA or PSA.

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

Not commenting on the authenticity of the signature, but the ball does seem to have good provenance. The owner appears to have indeed been in the Yankees organization in the 1920s (didn't make the bigs but evidently knew Ruth and Gehrig), threw out the first ball at the 1984 World Series and has a baseball stadium named after him at Texas A & M. As a secondary information source, the Texas A & M University website states that Olsen joined the Yankees organization after graduating from A & M in 1923. This provenance doesn't in and of itself prove authenticity (That he played with the Yankees in the 1920s doesn't automatically mean he obtained the signature in person. Perhaps he obtained the ball for his collection years later). However, it's more substantial than than the ball being traced as far back as a garage sale last Tuesday.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

The provenance and Harridge Ball both are positives... perhaps you guys are correct in being optimistic.

It is just so rare to find an "untouched" example like this... especially on Ebay (as opposed to an REA, Mastro, Hunt or Lelands).

If the ball is good, the seller is hurting himself by not having Spence or PSA Authentication.

And even lower marks for Global, for providing such a minimal (cheap) Certificate... especially for a piece of this magnitude. That certificate might work for a Feller or Spahn signed ball. But one of the premier Ruth examples in the world (if it's real) is at least worthy of a real letter, inclusive of a photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard S. Simon

Dan - To answer your question, yes, Global and myself were the two that passed the test on the HBO show.
However, I think the person who was tested for Global, is no longer with Global.
As to the ball,, I would not jump in and buy it myself without inspecting it in my hands. There are things in that signature that require further study.
And doesn't Global issue a COA with the picture of the item on it usually?
That pictured COA seems like one of those controversial PSA auction certs.
--

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

That item eminates from the Neighborhood of Make Believe.

"Would you be mine, could you be mine?..."

[Archive]

Posted By: Anonymous

So to recap...

* No Global Cert. verification on their website
* No picture of the ball on the Global Cert.
* Perfectly clean ball with blazing "10" signature
* Buyer does not accept PayPal (always a red flag)
* Jodi- thumbs down, Richard - suspicious

Not to mention..
Who in the **** would sticker a ball like this? Who would deface an otherwise perfect ball with an ugly modern sticker? This type of piece is ALWAYS photographed, with the photo appearing on the LOA.

I think there is a good chance that the Global Cert originally applied to another piece and the sticker was switched to this ball. As for the family letter, I don't know...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Further recap:

-The baseline is terrible. The first and last names are on two different plains.
-The ink looks like it was applied ten minues ago.
-The ball was manufactured after Ruth's death!

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Jodi, I don't question your's or Richard's opinion...if you guys say it's bad then it's bad, but I'm curious as to how you can tell that ball was manufactured after 1948.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

A few folks in the industry have access to a very detailed list which can date a ball down to its years of manufacture using the various markings. I used this list extensively in my past position, and became quite familiar with it as a result. Aside from saying that, not much info from the list is generally shared with the public to prevent it slipping into the wrong hands.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard S. Simon

Just went to take another look at this and it has been removed from ebay.
--

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: chris

Feel good about starting this thread...I knew it did not look right.

Take care...

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard S. Simon

Those so called original letters of provenance, at times, mean less than nothing.
One of the biggest autograph scams came accompanied by fake letters of provenance from sportswriter Fred Lieb. If a forger can forge an autograph they can also forge a letter of provenance.
--

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

In the first years of GAI, an autographed item or group lot would come with a LOA and a COA. The LOA would contain the description and picture, while the COA was generic except for the serial number which you could presumably type in on the website to verify the item (Was an item picture shown on the website? I don't know). I never knew why they did this, but someone dishonest would receive two certificates for, say, a single Mickey Mantle baseball.

I know they later discontinued this and you'd receive either the LOA or COA. I have seen just the generic GAI COA, but it was for stuff like a Gary Payton signed ball or Torii Hunter signed jersey, not a Babe Ruth signed ball. For their entire history, their auction house LOAs were the full kind with photo and description. Meaning, if you won even a single lot Valeri Bertinelli signed tennis ball in a Mike Gutierrez or Mastro Auction, you'd receive the full LOA.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard S. Simon

GAI did authenticate that Ruth ball. The information, though not a picture, is up on the website now. The cert # is GV322662.
Nobody on this board liked the ball.
--

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Well, I'd like to hear more about how it's impossible since this ball was manufactured after 1948. Not sure exactly why that should be a state secret...seems like collectors should have that kind of information.

[Archive]

Posted By: William

It's not exactly a state secret. Dave Bushing and Joe Phillips published a guide ten years, or so, ago. Generally the dates can be determined by the stamping, both in placement and design. For example, starting with the 1940 season, AL baseballs were stamped with (star) OFFICIAL (star) American League Ball stampings (stars before and after OFFICIAL). Starting in 1946, a star was also placed below William Harridge's signature. The guide does not list any further specifics for late Harridge baseballs. As a collector of these balls, I'd also love to have some more information regarding their dating.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

I hate to repeat myself, but if general access was given to this detailed list, all of a sudden every forger out there would have it too. Doesn't that make sense? And please do not forget all the years of experience and manpower that went into the creation of such a list. Even if it were within my power to distribute it, I would not. It's not a matter of being selfish on the part of those in possession of such information, it's a matter of protecting the public as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: George Dreher

There isn't any way to tell the difference between a Harridge ball manufactured from 1946-48 or 1949-1959. They have all the same markings from 46-59.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

George,

With all due respect, you couldn't be further off the mark. And I realize such a statement would normally call for further explanation, but I have already stated why this can not be done.

EDIT: spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: Andrew S.

I've looked at hundreds of balls from that time period. After the star was added in 1946, all Harridge balls from the last 14 years of his presidency are non-distinguishable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jodi Birkholm

Well, those responsible for the list and those who have continued to improve upon it (myself included) have examined tens of thousands of baseballs over each of our lifetimes to come to these determinations. People like myself and my former employer wouldn't make such claims if they were untrue. Believe what you wish, though. I would advise you to tread lightly if pondering the purchase of a Ruth ball if you feel your thoughts on this matter are so solid.

[Archive]

Posted By: Larry

Baseballs from 1948-59 have a star below his name, so Ruth signatures with a star of any kind are fakes.