Jackie Robinson

[jasoneggert]

I have a 1953 Brooklyn team ball signed and it is signed in about this exact same place.

-Jason

[Runscott]

Well, the name is spelled correctly and it's in the right place on the ball. So there you have it.

David - Shelly prefers to be called "the Inquisinator" or "Inquisorelli", but you can just call him "the Quiz"

[ATP]

For the record, I never said I thought it was authentic but it needs to be investigated more with at least a close up scan, preferably in hand. I was just stating that the box being with it isn't an issue to me, nor the placement, based on experience. It has a lot of the same traits as an authentic one, which doesn't mean it's not a forgery either, but it's not a CC crappy example. The of the n's in the last name look a little contrived.

[Runscott]

Yep, it was signed in the right place on the right ball, with the right box. All that is pretty easy.

That leaves just the signature. I would expect anyone who signed a ball this expensive (original Frick ball) to do a fairly decent job of it. Since a few people here like the signature, it obviously is 'good enough' to do the job.

I personally think it's an obvious fake. And while I don't generally give PSA or JSA much credit, I would be stunned if one of their certs was attached to this.

[Deertick]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Yep, it was signed in the right place on the right ball, with the right box. All that is pretty easy.

That leaves just the signature. I would expect anyone who signed a ball this expensive (original Frick ball) to do a fairly decent job of it. Since a few people here like the signature, it obviously is 'good enough' to do the job.

I personally think it's an obvious fake. And while I don't generally give PSA or JSA much credit, I would be stunned if one of their certs was attached to this.

I agree, with the clarification that the whole deal (ball, box, placement) is part of the contrived nature of the piece.