Very, very, interesting...

[travrosty]

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair facing to the right. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers, weight bearing forward. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

The real ones sometimes exhibit a skip here and there, from the a to the b in Babe for instance. there is ink loss in some examples, he is signing fast.

The balls look methodically dark and uniform. Like someone was trying to put the perfect slow dark signature on it when in reality someone signs fast and if there is a skip or ink loss from one letter to another, they don't throw it away, the ball still gets handed out, but in all the questionable balls, I see a 'managed' autograph. Using a ballgame analogy, instead of playing to win, they are playing not to lose.

But that's my opinion.

I defer to Ron K. though. If he sees similar characteristics, I would go with that, with what he observes. He's the man. That's why part 4-10 should be interesting.

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

+1. The things I am learning from all these type threads, not just this one, is to look for "drawn characteristics", and pen pressure. AS Trav said, they look really slow, the ball sigs. Some would say he "took his time" signing them, well. I don't think that holds water, especially when there are many "real Ruth signed balls", that are not like that.

[mr2686]

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

[GrayGhost]

Good points by everyone, for the balls being ok, and not. I just did a Google for Babe Ruth signed balls and looked at about a dozen photos. Most, if not all, had the "standing small b", which the ones in the article do, which kinda blows my theory next to the paper exemplars.

Also, I have never closed on a house..hahaha. but that point is well taken, plus, signing a ball is very difficult too. Ive done it once in an amateur baseball league I work for, for a kid w Downs Syndrome, and my signature, back when I had more than a sloppy scribble did look very different too, than on a check.

Can't wait for the next article tho. I love this stuff.

[travrosty]

If you imagine the capital B in Babe as a stack of books, would the stack fall over?

In the real examples, the B is leaning considerably to the right. It certainly looks like the stack would fall over. On the questionable balls, I think not in most of the examples, maybe tilt to the right a little, but the book stack stays up. In the real paper examples, the stacks falls right over.

The exemplars question is interesting.

---------------------------------

Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like.


I agree. It looks like the article used some solid real signatures of Ruth to do the comparing to. Lettters and personal correspondence, a signed check.
Many times Ruth autographs that have been authenticated and stickered are now the new exemplar, which is dangerous. If you keep doing that, you end up with autographs from first (known exemplar) to last (authenticated signature using other authenticated signatures as templates) that looks vastly different from one another.

If you compare a candidate for a Ruth signature to a known exemplar, and it looks mostly the same, and you authenticate it after careful research, fine. But then the next candidate has to be compared to the known exemplar and not the second one. Otherwise you can have an autograph that looks mostly like the second one, and then another than looks mostly like the third one, and then another that looks mostly like the fourth one, and after 50 times you have a known exemplar of Ruth on one end, and something totally different on the other and you can't figure out how you got there.


One mistake has to be an isolated one, and you isolate it by doing the prudent thing and not using it as an exemplar for another candidate. Only verifiable autographs should be exemplars. Otherwise they can spawn many more mistakes.

Like a game of telephone we played as kids. Johnny went to the beach and fell asleep becomes Johnny went to the bench and felt his sleeves.

[thetruthisoutthere]

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them.

I'd love to have one. A Morales hologram would be a huge plus.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I've been reading those Nash articles with great interest and so I did a little test.

I went out and purchased some baseballs, took them home and signed them. I had never signed a baseball before, but one thing was evident, and that is my signature is slightly different on a baseball as compared to a flat surface.

The very first thing I noticed was that I signed much more deliberately. I have to mention that I signed all three baseballs on every available spot.

On some areas my signature was taller. On some areas my baseline changed. On some areas the "LL" in my last name (Williams) changed heights. One some areas there was a difference in the two "L's."

The bottom line is that the variations were incredible and ranging.

I'd also like to know who those "non-hobby" forensic people are. So far I am not impressed.

like

[egbeachley]

I think I see what he's talking about, but since I am a novice I am easily influenced. I need to read all the installments.

But if I was to choose one ball that is definitely not real, it would be the 5th one. And that is supposedly the $300,000 one.

[Mr. Zipper]

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slight, its not like signing a golf ball.

Since Ruth signed so many balls, I am sure he had his way of signing it, and didn't struggle in the least as he was pretty used to it after 25 years of practice. Most of the balls selling for record prices are 1940's and particularly later 1940's balls. I would think he would know how to dash off his signature on a ball by then.

The questionable balls look slow and contrived, like someone was trying hard. If you sign a ball slow adn deliberate, you push and labor the pen across the ball, but by signing it faster, you glide it over, and you get that more of a 'flow' look to it.

I found out that if you sign a baseball fast, it makes the most sense, as the pen glides quicker along and sticks less, with less tremors and hesitations. And yes, I signed a baseball today too. I didn't find significant differences in the way it looks compared to a flat. And I didn't find it difficult to sign, and I sign with a readable signature, I just signed it fairly quick like I sign my flats TTM that the droves of admirers send to me.

[mr2686]

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign.

That's true, in theory, however it depends on how the person first grips the ball, and how slow they turn it as they're signing it. Unless you're a machine, it's really easy to have to stop and reposition your hand to turn the ball or at the very least go "down hill" with your signing hand. Either way would cause some variation in the sig. Again, I'm not saying the balls in question are good or bad, but that it is possible for variations on balls to exist for all kinds of reasons...now whether or not those variations can legitimately be authenicated is another matter all together.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by travrosty

This is not necessarily true, you can hold a ball so the sweet spot is further to the right if you want and actually sign the first few letters (and your whole name for that matter) basically flat, by slowly rotating the ball with your left hand while you sign. Either that or rotating between first and last names. Starting even with the first letters of your first name, signing slightly downhill to finish the end of your first name, then rotate the ball for your last name, and doing the same thing. I think most people would rotate slightly between first and last names. By doing it this way the up or downhill angle of any one letter is pretty slightly, its not like signing a golf ball.

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

This is a possibility... however, we just don't know exactly how he routinely signed. Perhaps there is film somewhere that depicts his hand movements and angles as he signs. I've had a lot of baseballs signed in-person and my recollection is most signers hold the ball still and move their pen hand rather than the ball... it might not be so easy to sign a surface as it rotates.

Either way, a comparison to known authentic balls would be more valid.

I would think it would be hard to move because you are probably holding it still against a flat surface so the signature is solid.

[mschwade]

I can tell you that the flat I own was sold to me by the guy that got it as an 11 year old boy back in 1947.. It also has the slants that are exhibited on the left-hand column, but like I said, it's also on a flat (business card). When comparing mine, the photo (#8) circa 1940's appears most like mine (without the from though).

FYI - I don't own a Ruth ball, nor do I have any desire to own one. Would love to hear from someone that owns one though and knows for a fact that it is indeed authentic.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

like

[GrayGhost]

KOC's mind seems closed, so to say not really open to the chance that the alphabet guys could be wrong, but that's an informed opinion too, by many of the posts.

Chris, that is a very interesting test and certainly would debunk the theory of the signatures compared to the flats being SO DIFFERENT. Putting a test to these was an excellent idea, NICE JOB.

Even if I had the means, I'm not sure Id buy anything, cept legal documents and checks, tho there is even a chance, albeit smaller, of those being bad. Fascinating stuff though.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

KOC's mind seems closed, so to say not really open to the chance that the alphabet guys could be wrong, but that's an informed opinion too, by many of the posts.

Chris, that is a very interesting test and certainly would debunk the theory of the signatures compared to the flats being SO DIFFERENT. Putting a test to these was an excellent idea, NICE JOB.

Even if I had the means, I'm not sure Id buy anything, cept legal documents and checks, tho there is even a chance, albeit smaller, of those being bad. Fascinating stuff though.

don't like

[thekingofclout]

These two photos from my collection show the Bambino signing under normal circumstances. For three decades, Babe Ruth signed tens of thousands of BASEBALLS. Christy Walsh saw to that. Anywhere Ruth went, be it a luncheon in his honor, a hospital to cheer up the sick, a train stop on the way to the next city, were the local dignitaries and the town kinship would wait for the Yankees train to make a quick stop, Christy Walsh made damn sure that there was a never-ending supply of fresh balls for the Big Bam to sign.

He also made scores of visits to Army bases all over the country, where once again, several dozen balls would be signed and given away. Don't forget his vaudeville days. Balls, Balls, & more Balls.

I haven't even started on what the country's top Ruth Scholar Bill Jenkinson, called his "Hidden Career". Hundreds upon hundreds upon hundreds of games and appearances. They would include, Spring Training games, Exhibition Games, which were mandatory for ALL big league players to participate in, and at no extra money! It was the owners who prospered from those games.

Also included in his "Hidden Career" were the Barnstorming games and appearances. Babe Ruth played in dozens of Barnstorming games in EVERY season he was active in, as those were the games in which he made a fortune everywhere they played. More Balls. Before and after a Barnstorming game, Ruth was called upon to speak to local ladies clubs businessmen, lunch with the town's politicians, in which MORE BALLS were signed.

This is just a very brief summary of how and why Babe Ruth signed Baseballs are the commodity they are today. Here was the supply and we are the demand!

Also, if you're wondering where I got this information. Some from reading as much as I could about Ruth's life as well as books, articles, interviews, from his teammates that also shed some light on the Babe's "Hidden Career".

But the most important info that I have gotten regarding the "how did Babe Ruth sign so many Baseballs?" question that's driving us crazy...

I've been friends with the Christy Walsh Family for 10 years now, and have had multiple conversations with the Family regarding this specific issue.
The comparison was made that Christy Walsh spent more money on brand new Baseballs than he did on his office rent!

He was the brains behind the Bambino and single handedly changed the way America's big business advertised their goods. And when Babe would sign a new deal with, say Ford or Burmashave, everyone there got Babe Ruth Signed Baseballs!

So, I hope this sheds some light on why there are so many signed Ruth balls. There are probably hundreds more sitting in someones attic, basement, bottom drawer and who knows where else.

With my best regards, Jimmy

BTW... On a personal note, when I bought my very first photo from the Walsh's, Mrs. Christy Walsh Jr's wife Pat, told me that I was the first person that had bought from the family since Barry Halper! Which I thought was pretty cool.

The photo on the left was acquired from the Walsh Family.

BabeRurhChristyWalsh.jpgbabeandkidssnapshot.jpg

[Ladder7]

Signing dozens more on a barnstorming tour. Christy is beneath the table, tidying up. This is from Pat Walsh as well.