Robert Edwards preview is up

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Do you think that the Brouthers signature on that ball is legit? I realize that a renowned TPA said it is, but it's hard to get past that 'B'.

I have no idea and almost refuse to think about too much unless I was considering buying the ball. I know I would never be 100 percent certain, but I was trying to say in my last post that if I had to be that, I would own half of the autographs that I do, because that is impossible for me if I didn't see it signed.

Let me ask you, do you think you COULD ever own a Brouthers autograph? What would it take, a legal document? Because it seems to me that the scant evidence we have of his auto (and Rochard's seemingly rhetorical question of who actually has any expertise on Brouthers) that the writing itself cannot make us 100 percent.

[prewarsports]

If you do some study on Brouthers and his life, its hard to imagine anyone would have

a. Known where he was in the 1910's to ask for his autograph

b. Cared about his autograph (people were not really collecting sports autographs in 1919, let alone those of former players)

c. Has the foresight to get his signature on a ball

etc. etc.

You basically just have to assume that every single signed ball from before about 1925 is fake until proven otherwise. People just were not getting autographs on baseballs like that back in the day unless it was a "Trophy Ball" such as the last out or whatever and they almost all come from the family. Even team signed balls back then were basically trophies and that is why so few of them exist. There are exceptions to every rule, but not many.

[drc]

I knew Hamilton as a highly respected non-sport autograph expert, focusing on Presidents and the like. You'd expect to see his LOA with an Eisenhower sign baseball. But, if you see his LOA or hear his name, he was and is a respected autograph guy.

[mighty bombjack]

Man, I love this board.

[JimStinson]

There was a collector named James Armstong who lived in New Jersey, and he actively collected signed baseballs most of them single signed from around 1930-1950. He died in the 1960's and his family sold His collection which was so massive it required a pair of big rigg tractor trailors to transport it.
A news article was written before his death and he claimed to own something like 250,000 signed baseballs in addition to rooms full of other autographed items and memorabilia . Much of what he had still turns up on the market today.
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

[HOFautosChris]

Originally Posted by JimStinson

There was a collector named James Armstong who lived in New Jersey, and he actively collected signed baseballs most of them single signed from around 1930-1950. He died in the 1960's and his family sold His collection which was so massive it required a pair of big rigg tractor trailors to transport it.
A news article was written before his death and he claimed to own something like 250,000 signed baseballs in addition to rooms full of other autographed items and memorabilia . Much of what he had still turns up on the market today.
____________________
jim@stinsonsports.com

Nuggets like this is why I love this board !

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I have no idea and almost refuse to think about too much unless I was considering buying the ball. I know I would never be 100 percent certain, but I was trying to say in my last post that if I had to be that, I would own half of the autographs that I do, because that is impossible for me if I didn't see it signed.

Let me ask you, do you think you COULD ever own a Brouthers autograph? What would it take, a legal document? Because it seems to me that the scant evidence we have of his auto (and Rochard's seemingly rhetorical question of who actually has any expertise on Brouthers) that the writing itself cannot make us 100 percent.

My thoughts and yours are completely in line.

No, unfortunately I could never own a Brouthers unless it was a handwritten letter that had what I considered unquestionable provenance (not even sure what that would take).

Also unfortunately, I might never own a Ruth. I don't like signed checks or most legal documents, wouldn't trust a single-signed ball, most signed photos or any Ruth cuts. That only leaves hand-written letters and certain balls and photos, all of which would cost a fortune. But you have to ask: why would these latter items cost a fortune? Because we feel much more certain they are real. So why would you buy a Ruth that is on the other end of the 'certainty scale'?