shellack- good , bad, value??

[Archive]

Posted By: marty q

hello all,
i have a thinly shellacked ball, not very shiny, of ty cobb and 10 others, the sig. is a 9, what value or devalue does this do to a ball. oh, it is auth. by spence, thanks...

thanks mark, it's from the recent mastro auction.......the past year i have been collecting auto. balls, i asked a few friends who have done this for alot longer, the sigs. seem legit....so i took the shot....cobb, young, and wagner..amongest others, one of those pieces i needed to have if you know what i mean. this is the first ball i have bought with shellac...thanks again mark...here is a pic..

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Marty:

It would help tremendously to have a picture. Sometimes the shellac is not too big a deal.. other times, it's a huge detractor. A lot depends on how much discoloration or chipping/peeling it has caused.

Sounds like your ball has pretty minor issues. As long as there is no significant discoloration, and no cracking/chipping/peeling, the shellac probably de-values it about 20 - 25%.

I personally do not collect shellacked balls, because of the "threat" of chipping/peeling. I have seen just too many instances of the peeling shellac taking part of the signatures off along with it. But most collectors are not likely as picky as me. Hope this helps...

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Thanks for posting the pic...

Awesome Ball, Marty!! I can't imagine 3 better names to have on one panel than those. The shellac isn't a big deal on this one...

It does not appear to have compromised the overall condition, and has "yellowed" the ball only a moderate amount. Actually, "creamy" is a better descriptive color, and that toning can occur as part of the natural aging process (shellacked or not).

This is a very desirable piece, with or without the shellac. I just checked Mastro, and do think you got it for a great price... my guess is for about 20% - 25% less than is typical for a ball of this magnitude (I'm sticking with that number!)

Whether this can be attributed to the shellac, or just to an unusual/inconsistent auction (with prices all over the board), I am not sure. The one panel with LaJoie and Kid Nichols appears a bit compromised, but my guess is that those signatures were weaker to begin with. Regardless... thanks for posting, and congrats on an amazing pickup!

Edit - After looking again, it is obvious that the blue pen used by LaJoie, Kid Nichols and Clark Griffith was of inferior quality ink. Looks like it just bled into the ball a bit. The shellac would not have caused or perpetuated this.

[Archive]

Posted By: marty q

thanks mark,i was in "wow" mode when i seen these 3 on the same panel, i am going to do a nice shadow box with this ball, my bid was higher, when i won it i was happy, but then was like why did i win this a little cheaper than i thoght? the others are ok, but i bid for these 3 to be honest. hope when i get it it's just as nice as the pics...