What do you think of this Heritage offering?

[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."

[Runscott]

Compare the panel locations of each signature to the locations on David's authentic ball, or any other '27 Yankees ball, real or fake. Only the green ball has all the starters (except Collins) neatly grouped on two panels, all the pitchers (except Shawkey) on the same panel, all the catchers and coaches on another. Has anyone ever seen a ball where the signatures were organized this way?

It explains why Gehrig and Ruth avoided the sweet spot, but other than that it's just a little bit weird.

[jgmp123]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Compare the panel locations of each signature to the locations on David's authentic ball, or any other '27 Yankees ball, real or fake. Only the green ball has all the starters (except Collins) neatly grouped on two panels, all the pitchers (except Shawkey) on the same panel, all the catchers and coaches on another. Has anyone ever seen a ball where the signatures were organized this way?

It explains why Gehrig and Ruth avoided the sweet spot, but other than that it's just a little bit weird.

Which makes even more sense for a forger to simply go down the roster list....Where was Huggins on that roster list...

[David Atkatz]

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

That would be highly unusual (unique?), but I could buy that argument. What I can't buy is the slow deliberate signature of each player, perfectly spaced, same pressure applied. And even if you believe that all of those characteristics, along with the odd grouping method, there's still the actual characteristics of the signatures - at least a few of them are really horrible - how do you get past the end of 'Gehrig'? I couldn't even find one example where the 'rig' looks like the one on this ball. Gehrig had such a light, beautiful signature that it's hard for me to believe anyone could view this one as his.

I have some work to do, but I'll try to post images of the signatures on your ball, next to the ones on this one. It's kind of startling.

[travrosty]

the signatures crowd each other, ruth crowds the signature above it.

would ruth really make a concerted effort to carefully crowd the autograph above it to make room for everyone else, perhaps, or would he just let a babe ruth autograph rip? historically he signed very fast. it doesnt look like a fast fluid ruth, it looks planned and stodgy.

tony lazzeri starts his signature way to the left, on the stamping, why? just so the end of his signature can coincide with the end of gehrigs? why? so the postiion designations can all line up? there was plenty of room for lazzeri to start his siganture farther to the right, but he starts it on the stamp? weird. most of the signatures seem to start in a vertical line and a lot of them seem to end in sync too.

can anyone find any other ball like that? not saying it could be impossible, but i believe in entropy. things tend to be disordered, and over a dozen guys signing a ball, their signatures are going to be more disordered. and not line up so unnaturally like this.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Supposedly, Combs went from player-to-player getting this ball signed. It's certainly not hard to imagine that he wanted them grouped by position--outfield, infield, pitchers, catchers, mgr & coaches. It makes sense to me that a player on that team might do that. It does not make sense to me that a forger skilled enough to have produced those signatures would just "go down the roster."

And, BTW, there is a Huggins on that ball.

If this was Combs' personal ball, why didn't he get ALL the players to sign it? Certainly if some weren't around the first pass through the clubhouse, he could have gotten them to sign later? Several players who are on your ball didn't make this ball.

[Runscott]

Is this really a good Gehrig? Maybe he just wasn't himself that day.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Is this really a good Gehrig?

I think it is.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Is this really a good Gehrig.

I believe it is an authentic Gehrig sig.

[Runscott]

Chris and David - thank you. You are both much more knowledgeable about Yankees signatures than I am. I've really enjoyed discussing autographs in this forum, and appreciate how respectful the conversations have been - even if I end up being wrong about this, it's been a lot of fun digging around and learning.

I just hope I don't try to bid in the next Heritage auction and find a giant stop sign.

[shelly]

Scott, as far as the Gehrig is concerned you are correct he had a really,really bad signing that day.
You are a very smart person. I think that someone that looks from the outside in is much brighter than we are.