Cy Young Authentication Help

[CMIZ5290]

Wow, if it's a fake it's a damn good one. The only thing though is the ink looks so dark and so new. That's what would worry me. What type of ball is it?

[ScottR81]

Here mine that I recently purchased from a board member here.

[AzMot]

It's a Spalding. Here are pictures of the ball logo.
[IMG][/IMG]
[IMG][/IMG]

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Wow, if it's a fake it's a damn good one. The only thing though is the ink looks so dark and so new. That's what would worry me. What type of ball is it?

I agree with Kevin on all counts. It looks real, but that signature is darker than virtually every other Cy Young signed balls that I have ever seen, FWIW...

[MGHPro]

If im correct, Giles became president in 51 and Young died in 55, so its a short window to get it signed.

[BrandonG]

I'm afraid you've got a problem here. The Giles baseball in the photo is the later 1958-1969 Model ball. Since Cy Young passed in November of 1955, it would have been impossible for him to sign that type of ball. Sorry.

+1 for the baseball expert and not an authenticator! All of this and more can be found in my future publication of: History of the Base Ball

[GrayGhost]

Dumb ? from me. what is the difference in the balls? My eyesight isn't great, so Im missing something

[Big Six]

Looks like the space between the Giles sig. And the title Pres.

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Big Six

Looks like the space between the Giles sig. And the title Pres.

Thanks , plus the s in Giles seems to slide further down and to the left on the later ball.

FASCINATING detective work. I wouldn't buy a Bugs Bunny sig from AAU, Research in this case tho, Chris, isn't easy, at least as far as knowing the ball difference. Knowing a legit Cy sig could be researched tho. But, its so hard still, knowing you really can't find anyone who is always right or even most times, seems.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

Dumb ? from me. what is the difference in the balls? My eyesight isn't great, so Im missing something

Scott,
If you look close at the giles autographs they are different.

[RichardSimon]

There are differences in the Giles baseballs, thanks for illustrating that Brandon.
I guess Drew Max could get an education here too.
Seems like that particular Cy Young baseball was signed when Cy was in his grave.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by BrandonG

I'm afraid you've got a problem here. The Giles baseball in the photo is the later 1958-1969 Model ball. Since Cy Young passed in November of 1955, it would have been impossible for him to sign that type of ball. Sorry.

+1 for the baseball expert and not an authenticator! All of this and more can be found in my future publication of: History of the Base Ball

Nice job, Brandon!
I was hoping that you would check in on the intricacies of the Giles ball. I had a feeling that it may provide a clue that would add additional questions about the liklihood that Cy could have signed it.

I would also like to state, in my experience, that later authentic examples of Cy's signature really took a dive in quality later in life. The Cy signature on the ball on this thread is pretty atypical for this time period. It appears too "strong" and "bold" if this makes sense.

[AzMot]

Thanks for all your responses. I didn't purchase the ball a friend of mine did and asked for my opinion. As I told him I only collect autographs signed in front of me and didn't know very much but had him send me some pictures and agreed to research it. The first thing I did was research the authenticator and that is when I saw the red flag.

It sucks because this was his first vintage purchase and he was pretty stoked about it. I'll finish up my research and send him everything I found , I'm sure he will do the pre-purchase research next time. Expensive lesson to learn.

Thanks again for all the help..By the way great site, lots of good information here. I have it bookmarked and will be spending a lot of time here reading.

[Bilko G]

what auction was the ball purchased at?


sorry this happened to your friend

[drc]

There are way too many Scotts in this thread. I'll let it go this time, but don't do it again.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by BrandonG

I'm afraid you've got a problem here. The Giles baseball in the photo is the later 1958-1969 Model ball. Since Cy Young passed in November of 1955, it would have been impossible for him to sign that type of ball. Sorry.

+1 for the baseball expert and not an authenticator! All of this and more can be found in my future publication of: History of the Base Ball

Very nice work and great information, Brandon.

[thetruthisoutthere]

Originally Posted by CMIZ5290

Wow, if it's a fake it's a damn good one. The only thing though is the ink looks so dark and so new. That's what would worry me. What type of ball is it?

I'm curious why you would ask if it's authentic or not after you purchased or won it? Why didn't you research the autograph before you made the purchase?

This is why buyers of forgeries, in my opinion, are 50% of the problem when it comes to forgeries in the hobby. If you don't buy crap like that, then the sellers of forgeries don't stay in business. This puzzles the crap out of me.

Secondly, that Cy Young isn't close to a "good forgery." It's pathetic.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by thetruthisoutthere

I'm curious why you would ask if it's authentic or not after you purchased or won it? Why didn't you research the autograph before you made the purchase?

This is why buyers of forgeries, in my opinion, are 50% of the problem when it comes to forgeries in the hobby. If you don't buy crap like that, then the sellers of forgeries don't stay in business. This puzzles the crap out of me.

Secondly, that Cy Young isn't close to a "good forgery." It's pathetic.

Nice. Kinda like "She deserved it, dressed like that." There's nothing quite like blaming the victim.

Sorry you got burned on that one, AzMot, but with the rock-solid proof of forgery (proof, rather than opinion), perhaps you can get your money back.
And, for future reference, there are plenty of people here who are happy to help you learn, and won't belittle you for making a mistake.

[gashouse34]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Nice. Kinda like "She deserved it, dressed like that." There's nothing quite like blaming the victim.

Sorry you got burned on that one, AzMot, but with the rock-solid proof of forgery (proof, rather than opinion), perhaps you can get your money back.
And, for future reference, there are plenty of people here who are happy to help you learn, and won't belittle you for making a mistake.

100% agree with you David.

[scooter729]

Originally Posted by gashousegang_1

100% agree with you David.

1,000% agree - let's not jump on someone with blame, when they came looking for some assistance....

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by scooter729

1,000% agree - let's not jump on someone with blame, when they came looking for some assistance....

He just needs advice that will help the next time. I've stated this before and never gotten a single response here, but I'll say it again: Before buying a signed vintage item, study as many examples of the person's signature as possible. Do this YOURSELF - don't rely on an authenticator.

If he had done this, he would have seen that on the Cy Young signatures that seem to have the most likelihood of being authentic, Cy Young almost always brings the pen back up at an acute angle from the bottom of the letters in 'Young' - on this ball, he loops slightly to the right before bring his pen up. Perhaps this in itself is not enough to judge the ball to be a forgery, but it's enough for me personally to avoid it.

The other thing - if he wasn't confident enough in his own ability to judge the authenticity of a signature, he shouldn't have bid. I wouldn't have touched this ball, purely because the signature looked too fresh. I'm sure there are lots of fresh-looking sigs out there, but you might as well go for something that looks like it has a more realistic chance of being authentic.

[gnaz01]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I'm sure there are lots of fresh-looking sigs out there

Sure are Scott, anyone can see plenty every month at the Roaches

http://www.myccsa.com/Default.aspx

[Ease]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Nice. Kinda like "She deserved it, dressed like that." There's nothing quite like blaming the victim.

Sorry you got burned on that one, AzMot, but with the rock-solid proof of forgery (proof, rather than opinion), perhaps you can get your money back.
And, for future reference, there are plenty of people here who are happy to help you learn, and won't belittle you for making a mistake.

Top class post from the doc. +1 zillion.

[travrosty]

If you look at his original post, he trusted the authenticatior. He only came on here to ask after doing some searching on the internet.

You can trust psa and jsa and buy an authenticated item with an LOA from them, then search on the internet and find criticism of psa and jsa, and then show a recently bought wife signed sonny liston on this forum slabbed like this one authenticated by psa, or the other one that was given an LOA from James Spence Authentication and sold at Geppi's, and then you can be called an idiot too by not doing your own liston research beforehand even though it had authentication certs?

If it's a problem of trusting AAU, and getting blasted for it, then what about the poor soul that trusts psa or jsa and ends up with a wife signed? that guy must be a moron too. We have to vet and check out all psa and jsa sigs from now on also. don't trust them and then ask opinions after you buy if you have misgivings about them later on.


Is that how it works? someone has a psa or jsa certed item, comes on here, shows it, asks for opinion, it fails, and he's an idiot for buying it and trusting the authenticator, or is it just someone who trusts and gets burned by an authenticator you don't like? Those are the only idiots I suppose.

Reality is that the authenticators need to be accountable for their authentication, and if someone gets burned, they aren't idiots, but should get their money back or be made whole. To all psa and jsa buyers, in the scenario presented here, if you trust them and end up with a psa or jsa dud, to be fair, you are the problem!

Just pointing out the paradox and hypocrisy in the autograph world. If you get burned by authenticator A, you asked for it, and you are a moron. if you get burned by authenticator b, it was just a mistake, you aren't a moron and no big deal.