Very, very, interesting...

[Exhibitman]

Actually, I typed the two sentences as separate paragraphs. They got together when I posted. Kind of a "Nice guys. Finish last." thing.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thebigtrain
What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.[/I][/I]BigTrain,

It's important to note that early professional baseball games did not allow patrons to keep baseballs that were hit into the stands. On the contrary, teams required that the fan return the ball to play. As such, very few baseballs were used in a game and they were used for most or all of the game.

BTW, baseballs were very expensive relative to the amount of dollars that it cost to attend a game and attendance was much lower back in the day. To put this in perspective, a baseball in the deadball era would have cost a team owner approximately $50 in todays dollars according to what that I have read.
In an attempt to reduce the cost of replacing baseballs in a game, team owners frequently hired security guards to remain in the stands and actively enforce the patron's returning of the ball to play.

Surprisingly, the practice of allowing the fan or patron to keep a ball that was hit into the stands came much later, say the 1940's or so. Even then, many teams were slow in adopting this policy. I'm not 100% sure of this, but I believe that Bill Veeck was the 1st team owner to allow fans to keep a game ball as a souvenir that left the field of play.

My point being here, is that I don't believe it was uncommon for a fan to present a pristine ball for Ruth to sign, because game used pro balls from ballgames may not have been seen in great numbers as you might think....

[mr2686]

I'll add to Scott's reply and say this - I think with the advent of the internet and archival baseball footage and documentaries, we all know that someone like Ruth traveled around with "a lot" of new baseballs that he would sign and then throw to his fans from his hotel window or off the platform of a train etc. That doesn't mean that they stayed "like new" or that they're even still around today, but they were new at the time.

[slidekellyslide]

It is a ridiculous notion that 20-30 "pristine" Ruth balls can not have survived the last 70 years. Babe Ruth was considered to be the greatest baseball player of all time (still is IMO) and something didn't have to have monetary value to have been saved. Imagine meeting Babe Ruth, your childhood idol and having him sign a baseball for you...do you just let Junior take it out in the backyard and play with it? No, you keep it hidden in a closet so Junior can't find it...and because it has sentimental value and not monetary value it stays hidden in there and forgotten until dad passes away. Junior finds the ball in 1995 and knows that it has value, gets it authenticated and places it in an auction. It is not hard to believe that this has happened more than a few times..it's not like Ruth was a difficult signer.

[travrosty]

The number one indicator that these balls are bad, will always be the signature on the ball. That's what will make or break the ball. The fact that so many survived with ruth signatures on them that look funny, is what i have a problem with.

Obviously the balls survived in that great of shape, because there they are. but balls surviing in the ball boxes versus having been signed by ruth and kept in the sock drawer is an issue to debate. but the signatures are what matter. dozens of almost snow white balls with sigantures that match each other in one style, but dont match other groups of balls in different styles that were all suppose to be signed by ruth in the same era or window of time. Were there 2 or 3 or 4 ruths around. was he a twin or triplet?

Almost all the balls are official balls. in late 40's did ruth not sign any other balls that survived in great shape that weren't official balls? or are forgers getting greedy and signing official balls to maximize profits? did the guy back then who wanted the babe's signature care that it was on an official ball? or would any ball work for him? just questions to ponder?

i just personally don't think that many official balls could survive in pristine condition looking like they were signed yesterday. And these were just balls that went up for auction the past ten years or so. there must be multiples of these balls out there that havent gone to auction, still in peoples collections, so is there 100 balls like these out there. Isn't that a lot to be in super, almost untouched shape?

[travrosty]

a lot of times, someone buying a ball, handling it, and then the athlete handling it, causing acidic fingerprints to oxidize and darken the ball over time, i dont see any of that on these white balls. it just kind of seems crazy.

there are balls from jsut 15 or 20 years ago signed at shows or private signing sessions that people were extremely careful to keep the balls in perfect shape, and those balls have yellowed, smudged, fingerprints on them. and they werent 65-70 years old, but recently. There were no guidelines back then to remind people to keep them out of the light, humdiity, etc. a lot of people didnt have airconditioning, i just have a hard time seeing how this many survived (especially the 9.5, 9 and 8.5 graded balls, the super condition balls,) like they were kept in a hermetically sealed box in a climate controlled room for that long.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by travrosty

a lot of times, someone buying a ball, handling it, and then the athlete handling it, causing acidic fingerprints to oxidize and darken the ball over time, i dont see any of that on these white balls. it just kind of seems crazy.

there are balls from jsut 15 or 20 years ago signed at shows or private signing sessions that people were extremely careful to keep the balls in perfect shape, and those balls have yellowed, smudged, fingerprints on them. and they werent 65-70 years old, but recently. There were no guidelines back then to remind people to keep them out of the light, humdiity, etc. a lot of people didnt have airconditioning, i just have a hard time seeing how this many survived (especially the 9.5, 9 and 8.5 graded balls, the super condition balls,) like they were kept in a hermetically sealed box in a climate controlled room for that long.

May depend on where you live, where you stored the ball, et cetera. There are plenty of 70 year old unused baseballs out there showing up in perfect condition all the time...not surprised that autographed balls show up that way too. I'm with you though completely on the signatures will tell the tale and not the baseballs. This is where the focus should be.

[D. Bergin]

I personally know of a stash of about 2 dozen signed team balls on Official League balls, in my area originating from the 1936-38 period. Mostly baseball but a few football teams from the era also included in the collection.

No doubt of the authenticity and all still stored in their original boxes. They are in simply beautiful condition.

I believe they were passed down through the family of a reporter or other newspaper employee and have sat untouched for decades.

So yeah, I know from experience there are still pristine balls out there from that era. They weren't all batted around in kids backyards.