Help for the Unenlightened!

[darkhorse9]

It's always hard to judge from a photo, but those show every sign of being printed signatures to me.

There's no feathering in the signatures. They all appear very similar in pressure and size. One would expect much more fading on the signatures consistent with the fading on the ball.

Just my opinion, though

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

I disagree, they are not uniform in intensity, they're not signed in perfect placement, even over the top of printing, and the ball is nowhere near complete. Also don't understand Frankie Drews on the ball unless he coached for STL. I can't say definitively if they are authentic, but I am fairly certain they are actual signatures.

EDIT: OK guessing he got this at a Boston Braves vs Cardinals game in 1944 or 1945. Tommy Holmes was a Brave as was Drews. Drews only appeared in the majors in 1944 and 45. Almost guarantees it's not a stamp. You don't have stamped balls of a handful of players from two teams. Unfortunately multi signed balls without a real theme aren't the most valuable things in the world even with a Musial signature.

[roarfrom34]

definitely not printed

[Bonk!]

Thanks - so based on this (I knew the value would be less with multiple signatures) do you think it's worth having them authenticated? I am in the Boston area so we'll donate the Braves ball to a charity auction, so I'll focus on the Cards ball.

[charlietheexterminator]

What I can tell is, they are some really strong autographs. Like they were done yesterday....I would prefer to see a little more wear, but that’s me

[Bonk!]

Originally Posted by charlietheexterminator

What I can tell is, they are some really strong autographs. Like they were done yesterday....I would prefer to see a little more wear, but that’s me

Thanks - the family can trace the balls back 50 years - not quite back to the signatures which, from the names I can read, are from 1943.

We also have a ball signed by all the Fisk-era Red Sox. It's pretty beat up - that one we know is real because my father-in-law was a news anchor out here and got those autographs personally. That one we're hanging on to....

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Oh I thought we were looking at one ball. Team balls year becomes very important if it was a world series year etc. Sorry for my confusion but they are better than I was thinking.

[Bonk!]

Originally Posted by Aquarian Sports Cards

Team balls year becomes very important if it was a world series year etc.

Interesting, because the Cards went to the series in '43 and '44, the latter they won. I guess I need to pin the year down on that one.

[bmattioli]

Originally Posted by Bonk!

We also have a ball signed by all the Fisk-era Red Sox. It's pretty beat up - that one we know is real because my father-in-law was a news anchor out here and got those autographs personally. That one we're hanging on to....

That ball I would love to see, on the two shown they look very well preserved and would have to see them in person..

[Bonk!]

Originally Posted by bmattioli

That ball I would love to see, on the two shown they look very well preserved and would have to see them in person..

Where are you located?! The Sox ball's condition is nowhere near the others. The signatures are faded and the ball is roughed up. I don't know if it was a game ball or played with in later years. I can take some photos if you'd like.

[Joe Hunter]

Those are definitely not printed and I would say they are authentic. I've owned some printed balls from the forties, and they are easy to spot. These are nice baseballs, but probably not worth the extra cost of having then authenticated. How many signatures are on each ball? That would make a difference.

[Bonk!]

Originally Posted by Joe Hunter

How many signatures are on each ball? That would make a difference.

Both probably have 15 - 20 signatures.