What do you think of this Heritage offering?

[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.

[David Atkatz]

Look. Combs brings the ball to each player and tells him where to sign. It ain't that hard to understand.

[shelly]

You are talking about the 27 Yankees. I would think to have that perfect storm would be so strange that you and I would agree on anything. By the way Richard is Jewish so he would have no chance to have papal infallibility.

[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.

[David Atkatz]

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but these types of observations are the only evidence we ever have for authenticating autographs, other than provenance, and no one's interested in checking the provenance for this item.

[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.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

I think that someone that looks from the outside in is much brighter than we are.

Yeah, Shelly. The less experience with a particular signature, the more valuable the opinion. I suppose someone who's never seen a Gehrig signature at all would have the most valuable opinion. (And Jim's, of course, is worthless.)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Yeah, Shelly. The less experience with a particular signature, the more valuable the opinion. I suppose someone who's never seen a Gehrig signature at all would have the most valuable opinion.

David, you nailed it. Sometimes what you just said is completely true, but probably only if the inexperienced person has a good eye for autographs and the experienced one doesn't. But anyone can make mistakes.