Heritage Hypocrisy

[Runscott]

Getting back to the Heritage 'working backwards from the fact that it is authentic' logic. We've already mentioned the fallacy of the argument that because the ball is correct, the signatures must be legitimate. We also know that because Johnson was gone after 1927, and a new patent mark was introduced in 1925, even if there was a different ball for each year (1925,1926,1927), a forger would only have to choose from three types of balls. Here, Heritage uses backwards logic again:

"It was only in the past ten years or so that an exhaustive study of the minor variations in stamping styles on Official American and National League baseballs determined that the A.L. balls used in 1927 were a one-year style..."

Why does Heritage assume that the good guys figured it out first? If I were a skilled forger, I would be doing my damnedest to figure out the differences between balls created in those three years. This ball surfaced prior to 1999. Here's more backward logic: the assumption is that it would be easier to find a signed 1927 Yankees team ball in pristine condition, than to find a 1927 ball in pristine condition. Why? Because they have one that is signed and not the other way around.

As I said, everyone makes mistakes, and I'm not picking on anyone. I think it's completely human to work backward from supposed fact. But it's sure not very scientific.

PLEASE: what little I know about baseball stamps from this period, I just learned through googling. Please feel free to correct me if I made any mistakes, which I am willing to bet I did.