Vintage auto'd baseball experts, help please!

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Wymers Auction

Bombjack at least they are admitting that it was not signed by Ruth.

True, but I fear that they are blowing smoke when they call it a classic example. There is a big difference between a period clubhouse sig and a more modern forgery, and I wish I knew how they have deemed it the former.

Everything about the ball seems legit, I'm just splitting hairs.

[Wymers Auction]

I see what you are saying Bombjack.

[perezfan]

I wouldn't think twice about the Ruth. It is obviously Clubhouse, and of the time period. It is not a more modern forgery. As long as you know this information going in (along with the fact that it was once mounted to a Blotter) you should be able to determine what it's worth to you.

The value is rather subjective, given the condition issues. The clubhouse Ruth and former mounting scars would drive away some "purist" collectors, while others wouldn't be put off at all.

In typical REA fashion, their estimate is quite conservative, and you can surely expect to pay more than the $1K. A strong McGraw on the sweetspot and Miller Huggins on his own panel are not features that surface very often. Regardless, Rob has provided a very accurate and detailed disclosure, along with the probable reason for the "clubhouse" Ruth. There is really nothing else to question or split hairs over, IMHO.

Hope this helps, and best of luck!

[GrayGhost]

That is one freaking awesome ball!

[travrosty]

Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.

How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.

The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by travrosty

Halper had a lock of Ruth's hair with Ruths signature on a letterhead attesting to the hair being his. The Ruth signature on that letterhead was no good, but JSA said it was a non malicious secretarial signature of Ruth.

How did JSA know it was a secretary and non malicious, instead of a forgery? Nobody can find out, JSA ain't talking.

The only other signature that matched that one was the Ruth signature on the 500 home run sheet that Halper also owned. So how was it a non malicious secretarial rather than outright forgery when the only two examples belonged to halper on two totally different pieces and no other correspondence can be found featuring that 'secretary's' handwriting?

Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Was the "non-malicious" statement in JSA's LOA or the auction lot description? (I've been meaning to pick up a copy of the auction catalog(s), but haven't gotten around to it yet, so can't see for myself).

I don't know the answer. I think it was in the description. not sure about the loa.