'38 Yankees ball

[CMIZ5290]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The ball's real, Jarrod. It's got a clubhouse Gehrig, that's all.

(Don't know about that $10,000, though.)

+1

[shelly]

The ball is real. It sounds like the Heritage auction. Yes the ball is real but the most important autograph on the ball is a forgery. It is not a club house signing it is a forgery. I have no idea if Lou told him to sign it but it is not an authentic autograph. I have no idea when club house and fake took place but they are the same.

[David Atkatz]

Whether or not you--or anyone else--wants to buy this baseball is completely irrelevant.
The ball is a genuine 1938 Yankees team-signed baseball, with a clubhouse Gehrig (and perhaps other clubhouse signatures).
It is not "a forgery."

[shelly]

When baseball where signed by someone else in the 30's 40's and 50's they where call club house signings. Now they would be a forged ball. You want to buy a ball with autographs that are not authentic go for it. The main person on that ball is Lou Gehrig he might have allowed someone to sign his or not. It still is not his autograph. You can call it what ever you want but it is not authentic.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by shelly

When baseball where signed by someone else in the 30's 40's and 50's they where call club house signings. Now they would be a forged ball. You want to buy a ball with autographs that are not authentic go for it. The main person on that ball is Lou Gehrig he might have allowed someone to sign his or not. It still is not his autograph. You can call it what ever you want but it is not authentic.

True. But don't you think the market views them differently? One was the product of the times, not much different than a printed ball you could buy at the souvenir stand. Whereas one has malicious intent with no other purpose other than to deceive and rip someone off.

For the right price, I could accept a ball in my collection that had a clubhouse or two mixed in with real. I would not want anything with a forgery on it.

[packs]

The intent is entirely different. I don't know how you can call a clubhouse signed ball a forgery. The most likely explanation is that the player was busy and someone just wanted to make a kid happy. That has zero in common with someone signing a ball to sell for money knowing its fake.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by shelly

When baseball where signed by someone else in the 30's 40's and 50's they where call club house signings. Now they would be a forged ball. You want to buy a ball with autographs that are not authentic go for it. The main person on that ball is Lou Gehrig he might have allowed someone to sign his or not. It still is not his autograph. You can call it what ever you want but it is not authentic.

Shelly, is English your first language?

[shelly]

David ,being dyslexic is a hard think to deal with. You, being a complete ass seems for you to be a simple task.
I do apologize to the rest of you.

[shelly]

I will agree that if they had the players permission to do the signing then it is not as you say a forgery.

[Jerry42]

Does a key clubhuse signature render the ball a fake? Shelly says it is a fake. Others disagree. My experience is with Charlie DiGiovanna "Dodger" balls. They sell for about $300. Although I would not pay that much, I like a couple that I have since it is a part of Dodger history. It's a historical icon.

I also agree with the view expressed that a forged ball would pollute my collection, and I would destroy it. I have several team balls that have four or five clubhouse signatures according to the authenticators. Since none of the clubhouse signatures are Campy or Jackie, those balls are worth close to a grand. But, as Shelly would say, the '38 Yankee ball had a clubhouse Gehrig. Although the value is greatly diminished because it lacks a real Gehrig, it is part of history.

The debate is basically semantical. Whether a clubhouse ball is fake or real is not the point. As long as we don't pay the price that they'd be worth without clubhouse signatures.

No need to attack each other over different views.