Very, very, interesting...

[Fuddjcal]

This is one reason why I became "The Lowly Mantle Collector", not an elitist that collects Babe Ruth \

After not being able to tell a Mickey Mantle from a Fakey Fantle, I sought out to learn myself and not let the Alphabet soup companies or FDE's dictate to me what's fake and what's not. I cut my teeth on the Autograph Forums then putting in years of study on Mantle. I realized from the beginning of my Autograph journey, the power collectors give to the Soup companies. I participated in Autograph Alert which only bashed soup companies and not the FDE's like Moral ASS, Drew Max, and the boobs at STAT Unauthentic (TTA) rubber stamping every damned forgery in sight???? The Autograph industry is so sickening I can taste the throw-up in my mouth.

Pretty much continued to collect only Mantle because he was the only one I could see the differences myself between forgeries & the real McCoy. Never would I buy a Soup company certificate, I always bought the autograph. Some did have soup labels on them. Most do not, which I preferred.

This Ruth DEBACLE & that's what it is, has the potential to hurt the Autograph industry further. I'm glad I have collected only Mantle and didn't try to obtain anyone any higher on the food chain, like Ruth. I CAN'T WAIT UNTIL THE DAY COMES WHEN I GET TO SELL THE WHOLE LOT OF GARBAGE and be done with the whole autograph mess......yet again.

I was determined to collect only what I know. I knew the day will come when the soup companies would go the way of the GAI GLOBAL Dodo Bird...EXTINCT!

Much like I knew in the 80's that GM would go Bankrupt. It took a while but it happened until bailed out (LOL) It is inevitable as long as those 2 soup companies refuse to address GLARING & INHERENT issues & weaknesses with their business models. They are on a similar path, too big to fail?????? I think not.

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by fuddjcal

this is one reason why i became "the lowly mantle collector", not an elitist that collects babe ruth \

after not being able to tell a mickey mantle from a fakey fantle, i sought out to learn myself and not let the alphabet soup companies or fde's dictate to me what's fake and what's not. I cut my teeth on the autograph forums then putting in years of study on mantle. I realized from the beginning of my autograph journey, the power collectors give to the soup companies. I participated in autograph alert which only bashed soup companies and not the fde's like moral ass, drew max, and the boobs at stat unauthentic (tta) rubber stamping every damned forgery in sight???? The autograph industry is so sickening i can taste the throw-up in my mouth.

Pretty much continued to collect only mantle because he was the only one i could see the differences myself between forgeries & the real mccoy. Never would i buy a soup company certificate, i always bought the autograph. Some did have soup labels on them. Most do not, which i preferred.

This ruth debacle & that's what it is, has the potential to hurt the autograph industry further. I'm glad i have collected only mantle and didn't try to obtain anyone any higher on the food chain, like ruth. I can't wait until the day comes when i get to sell the whole lot of garbage and be done with the whole autograph mess......yet again.

I was determined to collect only what i know. I knew the day will come when the soup companies would go the way of the gai global dodo bird...extinct!

Much like i knew in the 80's that gm would go bankrupt. It took a while but it happened until bailed out (lol) it is inevitable as long as those 2 soup companies refuse to address glaring & inherent issues & weaknesses with their business models. They are on a similar path, too big to fail?????? I think not.

+100

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by Fuddjcal

sought out to learn myself and not let the Alphabet soup companies or FDE's dictate to me what's fake and what's not. I cut my teeth on the Autograph Forums then putting in years of study on Mantle.

Pretty much continued to collect only Mantle because he was the only one I could see the differences myself between forgeries & the real McCoy.

Could you please help me out, then, Chuck? I posted a Mantle ball I'd love to get opinions on. Thanks!

[travrosty]

I know exactly what you mean, you don't have to massage the meaning, I got it the first time.

The defenders will go away once this gets too hot even for them to defend.
Then they will act like they never knew the company existed. But we will know who stood for accountability and transparency, and who defended them and almost went down with the ship, jumping off at the last moment.

The defunct company GAI was once equal to these companies. And people used them. But you currently can't find anyone who proudly still thinks GAI did a great job. Nobody wants to be around their name. They have switched hat, jacket, sunglasses and moved on.

But during GAI's existence there were some that swore by them, out there defending them, stickering all their photos with the GAI sticker.

Someday that big sucking sound you hear will be thousands upon thousands of these still-in-business company stickers being peeled off of photos and cuts simultaneously as the big purge will start to commence.

Then maybe somebody can provide a careful service that puts the authentication first.

Go to the autograph alert website and read about the latest story. What do you think of that. Mr. Z? Did these comapnies do a thorough job, or justing printing off the certs? And why should it continue?

[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.

It was common practice back then to coat signed balls in shellac. I believe some of the letters Ruth sent along with signed balls (when he anwered & fufilled such requests) even noted "cover this in shellac and it will preserve my signature" or words to that effect.

Couple that with the fact that, at the time (and for a long, long time thereafter) the balls had no tangible monetary value. Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less. My argument is that these kinds of items would've occasioanlly been "pulled out" over the years to show friends and such, and as such would show more soiling/handling that evident on these examples. Hard not to imagine some guy at a cocktail party in the 1960s not whipping out the Ruth ball and passing it around, or letting his kids play with it a bit, bring it to school for show n' tell, etc. See what I'm getting at? Here are some other thoughts:

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.

B.) Ruth did sign a great deal for his era, but nowhere near the amount of a Pete Rose or other former MLB'er out on the autograph circuit. A full 40 years elapsed from the time of his death to the time his autograph became a big-$$$ collector's item. That's a LOT of time for stuff he signed to get soiled, played with, lost, tossed in the trash, etc. That's to say nothing of fading- presumably, those who possessed these artifacts for the 40 years before they became $$$ didn't all keep them in a safe deposit box or home safe. Many must have been in bookcases, on mantles and such where they'd have faded/aged much more than these examples.

I wouldn't be surprised if the balls that are verified to be authentic to the period were 'cleaned up" a great deal before the sig was forged. That's assuming that many of the balls have a marking that does in fact date them to pre-1948. I'm sure the FBI has a way to test the composition of the balls themselves to determine if they are indeed made of pre-1948 materials. If not, then no further analysis is needed, similar to the bogus $1 Ruth/Gerigh bills with the wrong Treasurer on them.

One final thought is that I believe several authentic Ruths have surfaced on Roadshow over the years, some with the old geezer bringing a photo of them having Ruth sign it for them, thus supplying an impeccable provenance. None of these balls looked anywhere near as good as the Haulsof Shame examples, and most were in downright crap condition, as you'd expect for a 70+ year old item.

[slidekellyslide]

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.

It was common practice back then to coat signed balls in shellac. I believe some of the letters Ruth sent along with signed balls (when he anwered & fufilled such requests) even noted "cover this in shellac and it will preserve my signature" or words to that effect.

Couple that with the fact that, at the time (and for a long, long time thereafter) the balls had no tangible monetary value. Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less. My argument is that these kinds of items would've occasioanlly been "pulled out" over the years to show friends and such, and as such would show more soiling/handling that evident on these examples. Hard not to imagine some guy at a cocktail party in the 1960s not whipping out the Ruth ball and passing it around, or letting his kids play with it a bit, bring it to school for show n' tell, etc. See what I'm getting at? Here are some other thoughts:

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.

B.) Ruth did sign a great deal for his era, but nowhere near the amount of a Pete Rose or other former MLB'er out on the autograph circuit. A full 40 years elapsed from the time of his death to the time his autograph became a big-$$$ collector's item. That's a LOT of time for stuff he signed to get soiled, played with, lost, tossed in the trash, etc. That's to say nothing of fading- presumably, those who possessed these artifacts for the 40 years before they became $$$ didn't all keep them in a safe deposit box or home safe. Many must have been in bookcases, on mantles and such where they'd have faded/aged much more than these examples.

I wouldn't be surprised if the balls that are verified to be authentic to the period were 'cleaned up" a great deal before the sig was forged. That's assuming that many of the balls have a marking that does in fact date them to pre-1948. I'm sure the FBI has a way to test the composition of the balls themselves to determine if they are indeed made of pre-1948 materials. If not, then no further analysis is needed, similar to the bogus $1 Ruth/Gerigh bills with the wrong Treasurer on them.

One final thought is that I believe several authentic Ruths have surfaced on Roadshow over the years, some with the old geezer bringing a photo of them having Ruth sign it for them, thus supplying an impeccable provenance. None of these balls looked anywhere near as good as the Haulsof Shame examples, and most were in downright crap condition, as you'd expect for a 70+ year old item.

Most of the shellacked balls that I've come across were 1930s...not sure I've ever owned an autographed ball from the 40s that was shellacked...and as far as pristine balls go I've seen newsreels and/or photos of Ruth hanging out of a hotel window with brand new cases of baseballs...signing them and dropping them into the crowd. Now I doubt that he did this in the 1940s though, but I don't think it would have been unusual for him to have cases of brand new balls that he kept around to sign and give to people who requested them.

I also don't think it's all that unusual for an item like that to survive 70 years in pristine shape...even in the quantity that have surfaced in the last 20 years. The internet, ebay, auction houses and the explosion in value for certain collectibles has brought a ton of stuff out of the woodwork.

With that said I know all of the variables I mentioned above also have led to an explosion in forged/fake items too so I have no idea if those Ruth balls are legitimate or not, but to think that 70 year old pristine items can not exist in any quantity I think is wrong.

[David Atkatz]

Right you are, Dan. It's the writing on those balls that will prove their authenticity--or lack thereof--not their condition.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

Most of the shellacked balls that I've come across were 1930s...not sure I've ever owned an autographed ball from the 40s that was shellacked...and as far as pristine balls go I've seen newsreels and/or photos of Ruth hanging out of a hotel window with brand new cases of baseballs...signing them and dropping them into the crowd. Now I doubt that he did this in the 1940s though, but I don't think it would have been unusual for him to have cases of brand new balls that he kept around to sign and give to people who requested them.

I also don't think it's all that unusual for an item like that to survive 70 years in pristine shape...even in the quantity that have surfaced in the last 20 years. The internet, ebay, auction houses and the explosion in value for certain collectibles has brought a ton of stuff out of the woodwork.

With that said I know all of the variables I mentioned above also have led to an explosion in forged/fake items too so I have no idea if those Ruth balls are legitimate or not, but to think that 70 year old pristine items can not exist in any quantity I think is wrong.

Dan - I have handled many baseballs from the 1950's that were shellacked.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Dan - I have handled many baseballs from the 1950's that were shellacked.

Well, I know you've handled way more than I have, but in my limited experience with shellacked balls I've not seen very many (if any) from 1950+