Babe Ruth's balls

[Runscott]

I recently had a non-baseball friend send me a link to a Ruth-signed baseball that was up around $10K in the bidding. He was very excited about the price it was getting.

I sent a simple email reply: "forgery". He wanted to know why, as it looked like the other Ruth autographs he had looked up, and it had this great COA attached to it. I told him that there were various characteristics that linked it to a forger who had been getting his wares authenticated by PSA and JSA for years. I have no idea when the forger created these pieces, or if he still does, but the point, I told him, is that the buyers don't care. As long as the piece has the COA it is a marketable item and will get traded as such. It might as well be a bitcoin.

[bravos4evr]

you have a link for us to check it out? I'd love to take a peek!

[Runscott]

No need.

There are a hundred balls like the one I'm alluding to. It's a well-known elephant in the room that no one is interested in dealing with - too much money is being made.

The last Ruth forgery baseball that I complained about here had a letter from a highly-respected authenticator, and the only person who said a word about it was one of the best friends of the authenticator, who bad-mouthed me and said that I don't have half the knowledge that his friend had. He's probably right - the difference is that I don't use what little knowledge I have to make money off of idiots. Everyone knew it was a forgery except the authenticator's friend. But all I heard here was crickets chirping.

I posted because I thought it was worth mentioning that there are non-collectors out there who think that because a ball is old and has a Ruth-like signature, a COA from a major auction house, and a $10K bidding war going on, that it must be real.

[witster]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No need.

There are a hundred balls like the one I'm alluding to. It's a well-known elephant in the room that no one is interested in dealing with - too much money is being made.

The last Ruth forgery baseball that I complained about here had a letter from a highly-respected authenticator, and the only person who said a word about it was one of the best friends of the authenticator, who bad-mouthed me and said that I don't have half the knowledge that his friend had. He's probably right - the difference is that I don't use what little knowledge I have to make money off of idiots. Everyone knew it was a forgery except the authenticator's friend. But all I heard here was crickets chirping.

I posted because I thought it was worth mentioning that there are non-collectors out there who think that because a ball is old and has a Ruth-like signature, a COA from a major auction house, and a $10K bidding war going on, that it must be real.

You at least had the balls to say something. You can't save the unwilling. witster

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by witster

You at least had the balls to say something. You can't save the unwilling. witster

When I received the link from my friend I almost got sick to my stomach. I won't even look at Ruth baseball photographs in my auction catalogs any more - I always just hope that the suckers who are buying them deserve the screwing they are getting. But my friend doesn't, and if he's considering buying one of these piles, then I'm sure there are other good people who are doing the same. I guess you could argue that they deserve it if they aren't willing to become Ruth autograph experts...or could you?

I deleted the link my friend sent to the auction, but I have asked him to re-send. I will either post a picture of the baseball, or find one just like it on Nash's site.

[Sophiedog]

If your friend does buy the ball, since its authenticated, its money in the bank...as long as he sells it before the shit hits the fan.

[mrmopar]

Anyone dropping that kind of money on something that have no clue about either has so much money that they don't care or they are destined to go broke from foolish decisions.

Originally Posted by Runscott

I posted because I thought it was worth mentioning that there are non-collectors out there who think that because a ball is old and has a Ruth-like signature, a COA from a major auction house, and a $10K bidding war going on, that it must be real.

[Bpm0014]

I'd love to see a pic...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Bpm0014

I'd love to see a pic...

I will go to the Nash site and find one that is exactly like it, and post the image here. It's a well-known forgery type. But no, I'm not going to post the exact example. If you want to assume I'm making this up and move on, I understand. Or if it just bores you not having a picture, I also understand. I'm posting about a non-educated collector mentality - not about a particular example.

Nash did a great job of categorizing Ruth forgeries to a point that some of them are simple to spot. But most of them are still getting authenticated and so much money is tied up in these items that it's not going to stop. You take a baseball that you paid $15,000 for from a guy who paid $12,000 for from a guy who paid.....you get the point. The authenticators and auction houses are not going to stop that train at this point.

By the way, I discovered a Ruth forgery tell a few years ago and discussed it with one of Nash's friends. Guess what? That tell is now documented on his website. I did not want it out in the open and only a few people were aware of it, but now it's common knowledge and I've even begun to see a few very questionable Ruth signatures where the forger has attempted to hide the tell. These guys are not dumb - there is a heckuva lot of money tied up in Ruth forgeries.

The other thing to consider: If a particular forgery becomes accepted and is commonly authenticated, the forgers who can more easily duplicate that type of forgery will now start forging in that style. Why not? It's easier and you still get $10K+ per baseball.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No need.

There are definitely many people out here who do care and may not be educated. In my mind there are 2 reasons for “need”
1) as mentioned, to educate those who are not in the know
2) you are making a pretty big claim here but one that is impossible to judge or consider. Without any images or anything, no other experts can comment and/or agree or disagree. I’m not sure of the point of this post if you aren’t willing to at least point to an item specifically...

[MGHPro]

Was the ball personalized ?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

There are definitely many people out here who do care and may not be educated. In my mind there are 2 reasons for “need”
1) as mentioned, to educate those who are not in the know
2) you are making a pretty big claim here but one that is impossible to judge or consider. Without any images or anything, no other experts can comment and/or agree or disagree. I’m not sure of the point of this post if you aren’t willing to at least point to an item specifically...

1) I am not trying to educate anyone on how to determine whether or not a Ruth signature is real.
2) If you are not sure about the point of this post, then re-read my second post in the thread. It spells out exactly what my point is.

Yes, I know people want to see pictures of Ruth baseball forgeries. We could post image after image of them and all that would occur would be that the experts would be silent and others would argue that the authenticators are better judges than the rest of us.

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

1) I am not trying to educate anyone on how to determine whether or not a Ruth signature is real.
2) If you are not sure about the point of this post, then re-read my second post in the thread. It spells out exactly what my point is.

Yes, I know people want to see pictures of Ruth baseball forgeries. We could post image after image of them and all that would occur would be that the experts would be silent and others would argue that the authenticators are better judges than the rest of us.

I wasn't trying to be a jerk (sorry if it came off that way). At the same time, I am definitely someone who before I came to this website, would have simply relied on one of the major authentication companies, and so I would love to know more.

The Ruth auto's I've owned have all had interesting storylines (1934 US Tour of Japan team-signed ball for example) and I can't imagine they were forged but I would definitely appreciate an education...

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

No need.

There are a hundred balls like the one I'm alluding to. It's a well-known elephant in the room that no one is interested in dealing with - too much money is being made.

The last Ruth forgery baseball that I complained about here had a letter from a highly-respected authenticator, and the only person who said a word about it was one of the best friends of the authenticator, who bad-mouthed me and said that I don't have half the knowledge that his friend had. He's probably right - the difference is that I don't use what little knowledge I have to make money off of idiots. Everyone knew it was a forgery except the authenticator's friend. But all I heard here was crickets chirping.

I posted because I thought it was worth mentioning that there are non-collectors out there who think that because a ball is old and has a Ruth-like signature, a COA from a major auction house, and a $10K bidding war going on, that it must be real.

my bad, I misunderstood and thought you were referencing one ball in particular as a warning or something.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

my bad, I misunderstood and thought you were referencing one ball in particular as a warning or something.

It would be a total waste of time to point out auctions of high-end Babe Ruth single-signed baseballs that are forgeries. You guys would all be yawning and nothing new would be learned. If you check out Nash's website, you'll see that he doesn't even bother trying to explain 'why' the balls he points out as forgeries are actually forgeries. It's very complicated to explain the nuances of most good forgeries, and it takes a lot of studying to learn how to spot them. Even those who consider themselves experts probably have their doubts at times.

[earlywynnfan]

And this thread is yet another reason I'm SOOOO glad I bought a Ruth check!

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I recently had a non-baseball friend send me a link to a Ruth-signed baseball that was up around $10K in the bidding. He was very excited about the price it was getting.

I sent a simple email reply: "forgery". He wanted to know why, as it looked like the other Ruth autographs he had looked up, and it had this great COA attached to it. I told him that there were various characteristics that linked it to a forger who had been getting his wares authenticated by PSA and JSA for years. I have no idea when the forger created these pieces, or if he still does, but the point, I told him, is that the buyers don't care. As long as the piece has the COA it is a marketable item and will get traded as such. It might as well be a bitcoin.

I know Peter Nash is a con artist and a douche, but his articles about all the NM Ruth balls out there was one of the most interesting and scary pieces I've ever read in our hobby.

[Stampsfan]

Maybe it's just me, but when I read the title of this thread, I thought the topic might have been about something other than autographed baseballs...

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Maybe it's just me, but when I read the title of this thread, I thought the topic might have been about something other than autographed baseballs...

And yet you looked anyway...

[ronniehatesjazz]

Originally Posted by Stampsfan

Maybe it's just me, but when I read the title of this thread, I thought the topic might have been about something other than autographed baseballs...

I sadly thought the same Bob. Was afraid it may be a new gruesome "game used" card by panini. Was happy to see I was wrong.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by earlywynnfan

I know Peter Nash is a con artist and a douche, but his articles about all the NM Ruth balls out there was one of the most interesting and scary pieces I've ever read in our hobby.

Agreed, Ken. If anyone wants to see examples of forged Ruth signatures on baseballs that have been authenticated by the big TPA's, just look at Nash's examples - they suffice.

A question you might ask yourself: Why do we talk here about everything EXCEPT authenticated Ruth signatures on baseballs that are selling for $10K+ in the large auctions?

The answer is simple: no one wants to get on the bad side of the big TPA's or the big auction houses. I don't want to either! But I posted because my friend, who has the bucks to buy a $10K+ Ruth-signed baseball, would blindly do so simply because of the reasons I stated previously, and he could very well be buying a forgery.

Seriously, does ANYONE actually disagree with me?