What do you think of this Heritage offering?

[David Atkatz]

Precisely what it says, Shelly. Some here don't believe they could ever get it wrong.

[Runscott]

David, what's wrong about being sure of yourself? Sometimes I am, sometimes I'm not. I have opinions about the Cy Young letter that Dan posted, but I'm not as confident as I am about this ball. I even compared this Yankees ball, signature for signature, with the signatures on the '27 ball that you now own, as well as with the one that you used to own. I did this because I'm trying to learn.

It was clear to me that your first ball, and this one, were signed by two different people, and neither of those two signed the ball that you currently own. To me, what I just stated was very obvious. But that's easy for me to say, since I'm not in the market for any of those three balls, so my opinion means absolutely nothing.

[David Atkatz]

Scott, there's nothing wrong with being sure of yourself. There is something wrong, though, in believing you always speak Ex Cathedra.

(And, FWIW, you are not one of the people I had in mind.)

[Runscott]

Thanks, I knew you weren't talking about me - I can be obnoxiously certain about cards and photos, but autographs are you guys' domain.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Last Saturday (Feb. 16th) someone on this board asked me my opinion on this baseball, and it is still my opinion that the autographs are authentic.

[shelly]

David, whether you think it or not. I do not believe there is not one person on this site that has not made more than a few mistakes. If you are talking about Richard I can guarantee he has. His knowledge of Jeter has gotten him in trouble over the years. I am only saying there are people I trust on here more than others. Some people just do not like to come on here and say "I made a mistake." I remember it took you a very long to time to admit your first 27 Yankee ball was not what you thought it was. There is no shame in being wrong.
I will say this again. I do hope I am wrong. I do not want to see someone loose money on just a few peoples opinion. People that we have no idea who they are. I agree with Jim. There can be a much greater back ground check on that ball that has yet to be done. I am sure that would give much more credence to the authenticity of said 27 Yankee ball.
Chris, do you think that anyone with a half of brain would not know who that person is? Just saying.
Last but not least why is everyone afraid to say who they are talking about. I heard, someone told me, a person on site. Just say there name.


Just a late addition to this thread. Nash has posted the questioned ball on his site.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Just a late addition to this thread. Nash has posted the questioned ball on his site.

Just read HOS. This response by Heritage is thought-provoking, but Heritage is working backward from the end product. Using this logic, if I signed a real 1927 ball, then because the ball is real, the signatures would be as well.

"The Combs team ball is the correct 1927 one-year style. So the suggestion that a supposed forger would have known this fact prior to the ball’s first public appearance in 1999, then could have tracked down a pristine example of that exceedingly rare style to use for his forgery, and lastly had the skill to perfectly execute these autographs to pass the finest authenticators in the industry is truly preposterous."