Affect of shellac on a signed baseball

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

.......

While the 1931 AS one looks a little cleaner:

That's the best you can hope for. It seems to me that these shellacked balls are now so old that we are 'probably' okay basing our purchase on how they look today.

I only have one shellacked ball (I would never say that anywhere but here), and while nowhere near as nice as yours, I think it looks pretty good:

[perezfan]

Great stuff... and with regard to this topic, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Some of those older balls look pretty cool with the shellac, as referenced above.

My personal fear is that the shellac could flake off and take the prized signatures with it. Just a little pessimism with some OCD sprinkled in for good measure. That's why I've personally avoided them. If you look at prices realized in the major auctions, you'll see the general collecting population feels the same. Of course a lot depends on the severity of the shellacking.

Not sure why some shellacs and varnishes flaked and changed color, and others didn't....

Perhaps it was the particular brand of shellac
Perhaps it was the way in which the varnish was applied (i.e. sprayed vs. brushed on)
Perhaps it was the storage method and/or exposure to the elements (light/heat/cold/humidity) over the years

Maybe someone here with a science degree can chime in and enlighten us a bit more

[1880nonsports]

such a discussion won't devolve into "when water is not a chemical".......