Is it just me...

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Totally agree... Not only does the Gehrig sig look wrong; it is in a completely different ink than the rest.

Is it possible that there was a weaker Gehrig on this ball (mentioned in Spence's letter), and that the new bolder fake was added or enhanced/traced over later? There is a prominant seller on ebay that enhances signatures AFTER the Spence or PSA Letter has been issued. It is a reprehensible practice, but has been done on numerous occasion. Beware of a Ruth/Maranville/Dean signed ball in which this very enhancement was done to the Ruth portion.

The ball appeared in Mastro around 8 years ago with a "5" Ruth that had abraisions running through it. It later showed up on ebay with the same PSA LOA- but the Ruth looked bold and perfect. So there are definitely enhancement "artists" out there...



Editing to add this comment... Notice how the Gehrig portion is NOT pictured on the LOA? This is how "bad" people get away with doctoring these "already authenticated" balls. In addition, many of the "Auction House" Letters from PSA/Spence do not even contain a photo (as was the case with the Ruth/Maranville/Dean Ball).

Perhaps some day, these LOAs will include photos of ALL panels. That would, at least call any enhancements into question...


Editing once again... William made the same point concurrently with my edit... LOAs should include photos of all panels.