1927 Yankees team ball forgery

[RichardSimon]

Rich Galasso is alive but for the most part is out of the hobby, as far as I know.

[steve B]

That sort of thing does happen, and I suspect we'll see it more often as available technology gets cheaper and better.

An example from stamp collecting.
There was a group of stamps from a time when the BEP was experimenting. The group was supposedly printed on paper that had a higher clay content to help mitigate shrinkage of the sheet while drying. For the most part the paper was grayish and was known as "china clay paper" stamps on it were also rare and expensive. And nearly all the recognized ones had certs saying "it is genuine". Pretty clear cut right?

Until a couple kids (Literally) Wondered why some were more gray than others. And how you'd prove It was china clay paper. Enter a family member with access to a spectrograph, and a poor condition but certified stamp and a handful of the commo ones. Surprise! NO difference. so they asked around and got permission to test a few more of the special ones, both lighter and darker gray. Still no difference.
So the china clay papers were discredited and removed from the catalog.
They've gone from experimental rarities to oddities produced on defective paper.

And none of them would get a certificate today as anything else.

On the flip side, the once catalog listed imperforate coils that were delisted because they couldnlt be told apart from carefully cut regular stamps are now back because there are details of how they were cut that can now be checked.

Steve B

Originally Posted by travrosty

Some people see an old loa from psa and they ask for the piece to be "recertified" before they will buy it. Seems like an LOA is not all what it is cracked up to be. I have heard people say that you should look at an older psa cert with some skepticism because they didn't know as much back then.

But then what good is the LOA then if any LOA's issued before a certain year are looked at with a jaundiced eye? A guarantee would solve that problem. If they were so bad way back in the day, but issued a guarantee, let them pay for their mistakes. They took the customers money and put it in their pocket. They should be on the hook in some capacity if they screw up.

But they didnt issue a guarantee, so customers are stuck trying to figure out when the cutoff date is. Hint:there isn't any. It's as bad now as it was then.

[Frozen in Time]

As some of you may know, I am a relatively new member of the forums and focus primarily on vintage photos of Mantle. That being said, I have been absolutely fascinated by this and similar threads dealing with the authenticity of autographs, some of which have been very helpful for me in evaluating Mickey's signature.

So realizing that I am not in any way an expert on autographs but have been shocked and amazed at the number of forgeries being discussed here (and obviously on other sites and publications) I would like to ask what I suspect is a really naive (and perhaps stupid) question:

Given the almost unanimous opinion here that Coaches Corner Auctions continuously lists obvious fakes and the repeated mention in the forums of work(s) done by the same forger(s) or similar statements implying that the identity of the forger(s) may be known to someone why do those with such information not inform the branch of the FBI that deals with these matters?

Would not the FBI be interested in at least looking into these suspected cases of fraud (backed by the observations posted on the forums as reasonable cause to investigate) and would not such FBI interest deter those who continue to profit from their deception and criminal behavior?

It just seems to me that some steps have to be taken to stop this nonsense that is ruining the hobby and that (based on their posts) at least some on these forums have the knowledge (and perhaps evidence) to help.

[Bigdaddy]

I know it's been said here before, but once again, thanks David for stepping up (in a public forum even) and showing us the forged '27 Yankees ball. Any time an example can be raised and we, as a community, can learn something from it, then we're all a bit better for it.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Frozen in Time

As some of you may know, I am a relatively new member of the forums and focus primarily on vintage photos of Mantle. That being said, I have been absolutely fascinated by this and similar threads dealing with the authenticity of autographs, some of which have been very helpful for me in evaluating Mickey's signature.

So realizing that I am not in any way an expert on autographs but have been shocked and amazed at the number of forgeries being discussed here (and obviously on other sites and publications) I would like to ask what I suspect is a really naive (and perhaps stupid) question:

Given the almost unanimous opinion here that Coaches Corner Auctions continuously lists obvious fakes and the repeated mention in the forums of work(s) done by the same forger(s) or similar statements implying that the identity of the forger(s) may be known to someone why do those with such information not inform the branch of the FBI that deals with these matters?

Would not the FBI be interested in at least looking into these suspected cases of fraud (backed by the observations posted on the forums as reasonable cause to investigate) and would not such FBI interest deter those who continue to profit from their deception and criminal behavior?

It just seems to me that some steps have to be taken to stop this nonsense that is ruining the hobby and that (based on their posts) at least some on these forums have the knowledge (and perhaps evidence) to help.

Believe me we all are hoping that law enforcement does something more.
But knowledge and evidence are two different things.

[David Atkatz]

Especially when the high priests keep the knowledge secret.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Especially when the high priests keep the knowledge secret.

What do you mean by that comment?

[novakjr]

C'mon David, really? This was a somewhat reasonable and informative thread. At one point in this thread you noted that one of the reasons you began to suspect this ball is because of Chris' posts. And then you get bored and start poking at him. C'mon, seriously. You gotta knock that off...

[David Atkatz]

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.

You really are an antagonist, David.

I never wrote that your post had anything to do with me. I simply asked "What do you mean by that comment?"

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

My post had nothing at all to do with Chris. He can flatter himself and think that it does, but, regardless, it does not.

It was obvious, even before Chris mentioned something. I'm not gonna get into any arguments with you. But I call it how I see it. If you've got issues with people not going into details about what they know, then just suck it up and deal with it, instead of constantly poking them and trying to antagonize them into something.

Sorry Chris for jumping to any conclusions for you. But I thought it was that obvious, and it kinda pissed me off a bit

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

You really are an antagonist, David.

I never wrote that your post had anything to do with me. I simply asked "What do you mean by that comment?"

I never thought you did. I wasn't talking to you, Chris. I was addressing David, whose post follows yours.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by novakjr

It was obvious, even before Chris mentioned something. I'm not gonna get into any arguments with you. But I call it how I see it. If you've got issues with people not going into details about what they know, then just suck it up and deal with it, instead of constantly poking them and trying to antagonize them into something.

Sorry Chris for jumping to any conclusions for you. But I thought it was that obvious, and it kinda pissed me off a bit.

You're right on the money, David. There are some things that I won't talk about and there are other things that I can't talk about.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

You're right on the money, David. There are some things that I won't talk about and there are other things that I can't talk about.

Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by novakjr

Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

He might've mentioned you because I brought it up though. I'm just gonna bow out of this before it gets any worse.

[GrayGhost]

Enough of this please

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

My original post about "knowledge" had nothing at all to do with you, Chris. Believe me, you never came to mind when I wrote it. After David mentioned you, I answered him, letting him know that. I apologize for the "flatter himself" bit, though. That was completely uncalled for on my part.

[RichardSimon]

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.

I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

David, explain to the board, how does Richard Galasso's advertisement place him in danger of being sued? He pictures and publicizes a baseball; he does not state who forged it. Did you think that Johnny was going to sue Galasso over that ad? I know you are not stupid, but are you really serious? I can see it now, Johnny saying: "Yeah, I forged that baseball and now I am going to sue." What legal system do you live in David?


And I want to remind the board of something; you’re the one who immediately stopped posting when the Frank Prisco thread was running. You can’t make your phony claim that you stopped posting because you had nothing else to add to the thread, because you always have something to say. Richard has been sued two times because of his courage to speak out. You have no right to question Richard when it comes to that subject of confronting the bad guys. You ran when confronted; you can deny it all you want, as I know you will, but we know what really happened.

Your ridiculous attempt to have Prisco answer your silly thread, when you had to know he would never answer you was laughable. "Hey Frank, this is David, I called you a crook, please help me now." Seriously?


As for your “1927 Yankees” team-signed baseball, I for one, had never seen the complete photos of your baseball on Net54. Then one day back in August 2011, I took a look at your avatar and something struck me as "weird." It was then I emailed you and asked you to send me photos of your ball. After examining your photos, I knew the sigs on your ball were not authentic. I remember sending you an email and writing “Nice ball.” That was during the time when we were cordial and I didn’t have the heart to break the news to you. Why should I be the messenger when it is always the messenger who gets blamed

[Mr. Zipper]

In this thread and in others, there have been some who have expressed sentiments along the lines of “This is why I would never collect autographs,” etc., etc.

I think it is important to keep this in perspective. While I feel terrible for David’s situation, one assumes much higher risk when going into the deep end of the pool. High dollar items attract master forgers and con men – the types of items that may even fool credible experts.

For the vast majority of “average” collectors (of which I include myself) who collect autographs of Mantle, Williams, Koufax, et.al., there is much less risk. Certainly forgeries of these figures exist, but they are not the master forgeries that can typically fool experts. By educating yourself, networking with experienced collectors, frequenting places like this and buying from good dealers, you can have an autograph collection that is relatively worry-free. Dare I say it lest I risk the scorn of the alphabet bashers , with your Mantles, DiMaggios, etc., PSA and JSA are reliable with these types of autographs the vast majority of the time and are a relatively safe way to build a collection.

[slidekellyslide]

How did the two suits go against Richard? I would think if you have evidence that they are forgers then they sure wouldn't want to take you to court..that opens them up to a whole lot of questions they probably wouldn't want. Nobody in here is afraid to accuse Coaches Corner of all kinds of illegalities. Is the proof against this Johnny F guy too flimsy?

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

How did the two suits go against Richard? I would think if you have evidence that they are forgers then they sure wouldn't want to take you to court..that opens them up to a whole lot of questions they probably wouldn't want. Nobody in here is afraid to accuse Coaches Corner of all kinds of illegalities. Is the proof against this Johnny F guy too flimsy?

Dan - Both lawsuits against me were dismissed. Though my attorneys still got paid, they did very good work and billed me accordingly for that.
I am happy to also say that I did sue an ebay autograph seller for libel and won. He and his wife did write out a check to me and issue a formal apology.
Though the money I got from them did not come close to my expenses involved in defending myself in the two lawsuits against me.
It is not cheap to get sued in America. I could have taken ten really nice vacations for what it cost me to defend myself. The English have a much better system. If you sue someone in England and lose, you pay the legal fees for yourself and the person you sued.
Proof against Johnny is non existent. Nobody even knows where he is, though I do think I see his work at times. It migt have been work that was done many years ago.
There are lots of deserved accusations made here against CC.
Who knows what will happen there?

[GrayGhost]

[mr2686]

It's not dead, it's just pining for the fiords!

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by grayghost

hahah-awesome

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Scott, that cracked me up, but you make a good point; but at the same time I will not tolerate that kind of attack.

Some people have suggested that I ignore some of David's comments; for the most part I do, but some I cannot. I don't like getting into a pissing match here on Net54. But some comments cannot be ignored and must be addressed.

But here's an idea; let's address the below.

David, you are the self proclaimed Yankee expert. Why would you need someone else's help? Why did you have to go to Jodi? I bet you thought of yourself as the best guy in the hobby regarding Yankee autographs and yet you went to a former TPA. As a matter of fact, from what I've read here on Net54, you were studying vintage Yankees autographs well before you purchased your "1927 Yankees" team-signed ball. How did that ball fool you for twelve years?

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by grayghost

again!!!

[RichardSimon]

Anyway to stop that guy from beating his horse? .
Poor animal has taken a lot today.

[Fuddjcal]

I too share some of David's sentiments on knowing the guys ball was probably fake, but not being able to tell him??? It would have started the same pissing match we have now...probably even worse. Situation just smells foul for everyone, but no one is more damaged than the poor guy who was duped.

I also see Richard's point about putting a guys name out there and then getting sued by the crook. Sort of the way Steve Cyrkin is being sued by Christopher MoralLESS for moderating and putting up a blog that states the truth about this boob and his rubber-stamping services??????? A complete joke! But it can happen. So I can see the flip side of the coin on this as well. It is expensive to get sued in America.

I wish I knew more about the whole forgery thing going on too, like Richard and Chris do. They do share as much as they feel comfortable sharing. I personally don't care about sharing everything I know, (which isn't much) so It's a good thing they don't tell me otherwise, I could crack under pressure.

[Caseyatbat]

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.

[noserider]

Originally Posted by Caseyatbat

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.

The plot thickens. Nice observation.

[yanks12025]

I don't think those two balls look alike(Notice the B). You have to remember the autos that guy used for his reprint balls came from real ones. And I'm pretty sure David bought his ball before the guy started making those reprints you showed.

[earlywynnfan]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

I don't think those two balls look alike. You have to remember the autos that guy used for his reprint balls came from real ones. And I'm pretty sure David bought his ball before the guy started making those reprints you showed.

Those autos are exact. The bad news would be that this is a repro. The good news would be that the artist used David's ball as his exemplar. I sure hope it's the latter, for David's sake.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

[yanks12025]

Look at the loop in the B. The reprint one is alittle thinner, while David's is bigger.

[Forever Young]

same auto... Not sure if it matters but the stitching is going in opposite directions... def diff ball..so hopefully David's was used to make the reproductions.

[perezfan]

Same exact auto... note the placement of the quotes. Brock... the smaller picture may just distort it a little.

Also hoping that David's was the exemplar used to make the repros

[khkco4bls]

not the same, look at the line from the B to the E. one goes straight the other to the top of the E. I have to disagree

[batsballsbases]

Looks like the same auto to me also. Look at that small little extra line hanging down on the lower bottom of the R.

[Frozen in Time]

Looks exactly the same to me. Perhaps if the smaller image was enlarged and the ball rotated to the same angle and size as the ball in the larger image the similarities would be more pronounced.

[packs]

Looks like the same auto to me. The quotes are placed in the exact same place.

[Caseyatbat]

I don't think there is much question about whether they are the same or not. I believe they are absolutely the same. The big question is, is David's the original one? For this artist to make a replica of this ball; he either had to have possession of the original ball while doing so, or he would have to have very detailed close up images of the original in order to make a replica as detailed as that one is.

I did do a pretty thorough search through all of the major auction houses in the last 10 years to see if any of them had sold that particular Babe Ruth ball in the past and I was not able to find it. In order for the artist to get close up detailed images of the original Ruth ball he had to have gotten them from somewhere. There are not any on the internet of the original. If David has had possession of the original this whole time, where did this artist get such detailed pictures to make the replica? This ball looks like it would be a 50K+ Ball. It is usually not very difficult to find the Ruth's that sold for that much.

As much as it is going to kill many people on this forum for me to say, a simple PSA or JSA letter would be the end of this conversation. This is one of the exact reasons why I believe they are so important in this hobby. These replica's that are being made are actually pretty dam good. You really need to have the ball in person to know for sure. If you are just looking at pictures on the computer it can be very difficult to know the difference. The "indentation" of the pen really only shows up in person under magnification, or if somebody has extremely good vision they can tell the difference easily with the naked eye. But still needs to be done in person to know for sure.

[BrandonG]

I remember seeing the Replica baseballs start selling a couple of years ago on eBay, I questioned the seller as to the ball that they were on and was told that they were replicated baseballs made to look like the originals. I was also told that the "artist" only needed a photograph of a real ball to use as the digital replicated signature. David's ball was obviously the sample ball being used as this is the same signature. And I can also tell you, as I have seen one of these replicas in person, David's was absolutely not made by the same process.

[khkco4bls]

this makes me sick. Now i know why i dont do autos...

[earlywynnfan]

David, it's not like you to be so quiet. Can you tell us how the artist copied your ball? Has it been in your possession for a long time?

Regards,
Ken

[thetruthisoutthere]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I recently received an Ebay email stating that Ebay would no longer allow sellers to list replica coins. Maybe Ebay should consider banning replica signed baseballs also.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I recently received an Ebay email stating that Ebay would no longer allow sellers to list replica coins. Maybe Ebay should consider banning replica signed baseballs also.

eBay should also ban replica tickets. There seems to be a growing trend of sellers listing more and more of these. Everyone mentions that they are replicas, but it's just a matter of time that someone unscrupulous idiot buys and relists it as authentic. There undoubtedly is collector out there that will sadly get duped by the ruse....

I personally do not like replicas, period. Replicas = fake!!

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

eBay should also ban replica tickets. There seems to be a growing trend of sellers listing more and more of these. Everyone mentions that they are replicas, but it's just a matter of time that someone unscrupulous idiot buys and relists it as authentic. There undoubtedly is collector out there that will sadly get duped by the ruse....

I personally do not like replicas, period. Replicas = fake!!

To play devil's advocate, replicas can help fans on a budget build a display. But, IMO replicas should be indelibly marked.

It was my understanding that replica coins had to be marked by law... otherwise it is a counterfeit.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Mr. Zipper

To play devil's advocate, replicas can help fans on a budget build a display. But, IMO replicas should be indelibly marked.

It was my understanding that replica coins had to be marked by law... otherwise it is a counterfeit.

I wholeheartedly agree with the marking of replicas as such. There will always be those unscrupulous sellers though who either remove the marking or photograph in such a way that it doesn't show and then conveniently leave out words like "original" from their description. So when they're selling a "Babe Ruth Autograph Baseball," well, technically it is a baseball that displays a Babe Ruth autograph on one panel. The seller's feedback usually won't stand up to too many dupes like that, it happens in all areas of collecting, but if the items are marked as replicas, the marking (or scratched-out remainder thereof) should at least raise the necessary red flags for the buyer.

In David's defense on this Ruth ball issue, as Brandon pointed out previously the counterfeiter replicator only needs a photograph of a real signed ball to go from, which means that all it took was one case of David showing off his ball in a public forum with a nice, large, close-up photo of it, and the counterfeiter artist who produces these has all the ammo he needs.