![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Although I have no expertise with hence no opinion on the signature in question, I did have one thought on the matter: with all we know about forgeries and difficulties associated with Ruth signatures, why would anyone with industry knowledge and a legitimate Ruth item to sell take it to eBay and sell it 'raw'? Why not just cut a deal with a reputable auction house [oxymoron, I know] and sell it that way, or, why not have it certified by a reputable third party authenticator [another oxymoron?] first? I've gotten to the point where I assume that the item is no good unless that is how it is handled. The money left on the table as a seller of a potential collection cornerstone item is just too large to justify proceeding any other way if an item isn't dodgy.
From the selling standpoint I would prefer to use an AH or a TPA too. Just throwing an item up on eBay leaves me open to attacks over the item. I have no idea who the seller of this item is but if I read negative stuff about him here and I run across one of his listings I am like to remember 'something bad' about him and pass it by. If an AH offers it, I don't have to be dragged through the mud. If I offer it with a TPA cert, the potential buyers can either decide to trust the TPA or not, but I am not warranting jack squat about the item. I realize some people here just hate that sort of approach but short of handing the item to the signer myself and watching it signed, it is all ultimately speculation based on inductive reasoning.
__________________
Read my blog; it will make all your dreams come true. https://adamstevenwarshaw.substack.com/ Or not... Last edited by Exhibitman; 02-06-2015 at 10:52 AM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Adam, good questions. In the seller's defense, he apparently only uses Keating - he also has a Greenberg card and a Spalding book for sale, both with Keating letters. I didn't look closely at Greenberg, but the Spalding looks good and it's a rather expensive autograph. I suspect that the Ruth autograph either has already failed PSA and/or JSA, or would if presented to them; hence, inappropriate for sale by any auction house.
As a sidenote, without the benefit of Mark's knowledge of the seller, I initially responded to him as I would anyone on ebay selling such a signature. After Mark posted that the seller was reputable, respecting Mark's opinion, I immediately contacted the seller with an apology. I know - unbelievable. All I will say is that any time someone refuses to accept a sincere apology, I write them off and at that point have zero respect for them until proven otherwise. So that was one-half of my research. After reading Hank's response regarding Keating, who I only knew through a couple of interactions at the National and the autographs he was selling at his table, I googled him and learned everything additional I needed to know. Research completed and I have nothing else to say about either of the two people associated with this ball. Regarding the ball itself - I ask again: $3,500 ebay price for a single-signed Ruth ball with a respected LOA? Why is it still available at such a steal? ![]()
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ Last edited by Runscott; 02-06-2015 at 11:09 AM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Unfortunately I think the ball is one which will engender no unanimity among experts.
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
It might, actually, but the results are not going to show up here.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I feel like for $3,500 you could get a way nicer Ruth signature if you're looking to fill a void in your collection. Even if authentic it doesn't present well for that price.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I was factoring in the 'ebay offer' final price, but you might be correct.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I hate baseballs like this. I am not happy at all with the characteristics of the signature. That said, I am very impressed with the baseball itself. It is an old ball, and certainly looks like it was shellacked a very long time ago--it takes a long time for shellac to yellow like that, I believe. Could it be a very old forgery? I doubt it. Ruth's autograph was just not very valuable then. And, while we have examples of secretarially signed balls--we know the patterns--I am not aware of any truly old forgeries.
So, I am unable to render an opinion. But, I would not buy the ball. |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ruth gehrig cobb forgery | khkco4bls | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 3 | 04-17-2014 11:37 AM |
Babe Ruth Forgery Ball on eBay | ruth-gehrig | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 10-09-2011 07:37 PM |
A 33K Ruth/Gehrig possible forgery..haha | GrayGhost | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 3 | 04-04-2010 09:33 PM |
Today's Ruth Forgery on the Bay | GrayGhost | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 3 | 03-09-2010 08:07 PM |
One heck of a lousy Ruth forgery on ebay | RichardSimon | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 6 | 01-27-2010 01:40 PM |