Black Sox Memorabilia Up For Auction

[Runscott]

...and my comment is not regarding David's expertise, but rather on the disagreement in the hobby over some very expensive items.

[kengoldin]

I wanted to comment on these comments, as a member of net54.

First off, as many of you know, I started off as a teenager collecting team signed balls. At one point, I owned what I consider the #1 or one of the #1 balls in the hobby, a 1915 Red Sox ball with Babe Ruth (which was sold to me in the late 1980s by Josh Evans). Unfortunately, I lost that ball and several other when my house was robbed while my ex wife was living in it and I was not (no comments please). I also own virtually a full run of team signed balls from every pennant winner from 1923 to the present, with a decent amount prior to that going back to 1909 Detroit.
I obviously have seen a number of 1920 or earlier balls, and from holding this ball, there is no doubt in my opinion this is definitely a 90+ year old ball. It looks like every other ball I have seen (or own) from that period.

Upon getting the consignment, I wanted to get modern letters from PSA/DNA and JSA. They now have equipment that they did not have years ago, such as the digital boxes they use to blow up images, look at in different light such as UV to spot removals, etc.
Both PSA/DNA and JSA saw the ball (JSA in NJ, PSA we shipped to CA). They both issued letters in Dec 2014.
As far as the Risberg, our site has a function to allow you to blow an item up to 10x or more the size you see. Instead of saying its a misspelling and he dotted an 'i' there, I suggest you blow it up, and then hit the little magnifying glass symbol to blow it up super HD. you will see it is not an 'i' but is an inkdrip from the prior letter. After reading the posts on the forum, I personally emailed and called JSA as well as PSA/DNA with a link to the post about the supposed misspelling. Jimmy Spence told me to grab the ball and look at it and I will see its not an 'i' but a drip. I took it out of the vault and he is correct. PSA/DNA also confirmed their LOA , issued just 2 weeks ago.
The ball does have some scattered enhancements where the shellac has peeled especially, and is noted in the description.
This ball has been sold twice previously, both at major auction houses, most recently two years ago in a platinum auction of Heritage. I am sure the public and this board has had many years and many times to look and review the ball.
I am sure the discussion will continue, ( but I apologize in advance for not being part of the back and forth banter) but in fairness to the consignor I wanted to point out this information, especially with respect to the Risberg name. The auction has not opened yet, it opens Monday. I invite any member who wishes to come to our office and inspect the ball in person any time between now and closing Feb 7. I would highly recommend that before commenting on something. I am aware of a very high value, high profile item that 'failed' authenticity based on images of the item. Based on pictures, this incredible expert (NOT being sarcastic, he is the best or one of the best) said tHe item was not authentic. However, upon seeing it in person apologized and said they were mistaken and that's the danger of giving opinions based on pictures alone. I think in some cases (not the obvious Mantle fakes....) that is a good policy for many on this board to follow.
thank you
Ken Goldin

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by kengoldin

I wanted to comment on these comments, as a member of net54.

First off, as many of you know, I started off as a teenager collecting team signed balls. At one point, I owned what I consider the #1 or one of the #1 balls in the hobby, a 1915 Red Sox ball with Babe Ruth (which was sold to me in the late 1980s by Josh Evans). Unfortunately, I lost that ball and several other when my house was robbed while my ex wife was living in it and I was not (no comments please). I also own virtually a full run of team signed balls from every pennant winner from 1923 to the present, with a decent amount prior to that going back to 1909 Detroit.
I obviously have seen a number of 1920 or earlier balls, and from holding this ball, there is no doubt in my opinion this is definitely a 90+ year old ball. It looks like every other ball I have seen (or own) from that period.

Upon getting the consignment, I wanted to get modern letters from PSA/DNA and JSA. They now have equipment that they did not have years ago, such as the digital boxes they use to blow up images, look at in different light such as UV to spot removals, etc.
Both PSA/DNA and JSA saw the ball (JSA in NJ, PSA we shipped to CA). They both issued letters in Dec 2014.
As far as the Risberg, our site has a function to allow you to blow an item up to 10x or more the size you see. Instead of saying its a misspelling and he dotted an 'i' there, I suggest you blow it up, and then hit the little magnifying glass symbol to blow it up super HD. you will see it is not an 'i' but is an inkdrip from the prior letter. After reading the posts on the forum, I personally emailed and called JSA as well as PSA/DNA with a link to the post about the supposed misspelling. Jimmy Spence told me to grab the ball and look at it and I will see its not an 'i' but a drip. I took it out of the vault and he is correct. PSA/DNA also confirmed their LOA , issued just 2 weeks ago.
The ball does have some scattered enhancements where the shellac has peeled especially, and is noted in the description.
This ball has been sold twice previously, both at major auction houses, most recently two years ago in a platinum auction of Heritage. I am sure the public and this board has had many years and many times to look and review the ball.
I am sure the discussion will continue, ( but I apologize in advance for not being part of the back and forth banter) but in fairness to the consignor I wanted to point out this information, especially with respect to the Risberg name. The auction has not opened yet, it opens Monday. I invite any member who wishes to come to our office and inspect the ball in person any time between now and closing Feb 7. I would highly recommend that before commenting on something. I am aware of a very high value, high profile item that 'failed' authenticity based on images of the item. Based on pictures, this incredible expert (NOT being sarcastic, he is the best or one of the best) said tHe item was not authentic. However, upon seeing it in person apologized and said they were mistaken and that's the danger of giving opinions based on pictures alone. I think in some cases (not the obvious Mantle fakes....) that is a good policy for many on this board to follow.
thank you
Ken Goldin

Hey Ken,
Thanks for providing the link to the pricerealized.com site. I just spent about a half hour looking it over. It's an extremely useful tool!

[shelly]

+1