Why our autograph experts are often silent

[Runscott]

Edited to add: Yes, in my OPINION, this is a forgery.

Unless someone who has more expertise on Ruth autographs than me, says anything to the contrary, and as of February, 6, 2015 at 7:28 a.m. Pacific, no such person had even participated in this thread, my opinion will continue to be that it is a forgery.

The original post follows.

...now these ebay creeps are throwing out Kevin Keating's name as certifying their forgeries: ebay Ruth ball forgery

[perezfan]

Just to play "devil's advocate"....

I think it's likely authentic. Looks almost identical to the Ruth signature on a 1926 Yankees Team Ball I once had and consigned to Leland's.

Also....

* Ted K. (pugskiddo) is a former major leaguer, and a trusted ebay seller for many many years. Definitely not one of ebay's sleezebag dealers, or a "fly by night" guy.

* I see nothing to dispel Kevin Keating's authentication of the ball. I believe it did pass Keating's authentication process.

Just my 2 cents...

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Just to play "devil's advocate"....

I think it's likely authentic. Looks almost identical to the Ruth signature on a 1926 Yankees Team Ball I once had and consigned to Leland's.

Then show it, or any that look like this. If it's real, it's real, but I have never seen a Ruth signature that looks like this and would need an example to convince me.

Originally Posted by perezfan

Also....

* Ted K. (pugskiddo) is a former major leaguer, and a trusted ebay seller for many many years. Definitely not one of ebay's sleezebag dealers, or a "fly by night" guy.

Also, it's great that he's not a sleezebag dealer, but being a former major leaguer doesn't add credibility to his autograph authentication abilities.

[perezfan]

The listing/image no longer resides on Leland's site. Guess it's too early a listing. The ball was part of a trade to Brock L. and then later I believe was sold to Paul (Shoeless Moe), both Forum members here. I could be mistaken on the latter. Perhaps one of them still has an image, and can post a picture of the 1926 Yankees Ball.

Also of note.... the shellac appears vintage and of the era, and the Ruth signature is underneath the shellac. So if it's a forgery, it is an extremely early one. I still say it's real, and authenticated by Keating.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The listing/image no longer resides on Leland's site. Guess it's too early a listing. The ball was part of a trade to Brock L. and then later I believe was sold to Paul (Shoeless Moe), both Forum members here. I could be mistaken on the latter. Perhaps one of them still has an image, and can post a picture of the 1926 Yankees Ball.

Also of note.... the shellac appears vintage and of the era, and the Ruth signature is underneath the shellac. So if it's a forgery, it is an extremely early one. I still say it's real, and authenticated by Keating.

If it's real, there should be others out there that look like it - I haven't seen any.

The shellac thing is unconvincing - I've seen plenty of Ruth forgeries beneath similar-looking shellac, with the predictable chips.

I don't believe it's real, but have no problem changing my mind if someone can convince me. Nothing so far.

[perezfan]

Also, it's great that he's not a sleezebag dealer, but being a former major leaguer doesn't add credibility to his autograph authentication abilities.[/QUOTE]

The fact that he's a former major leaguer is a side-note, and has no bearing on his authentic skills.... that's correct. I included that info in response to labeling him one of "these ebay creeps". He has been a reputable seller for many years (perhaps since ebay's inception), and I know many people on this forum have successfully bought/sold/traded with Ted over the years.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by perezfan

The fact that he's a former major leaguer is a side-note, and has no bearing on his authentic skills.... that's correct. I included that info in response to labeling him one of "these ebay creeps". He has been a reputable seller for many years (perhaps since ebay's inception), and I know many people on this forum have successfully bought/sold/traded with Ted over the years.

I heard you. Just to make sure you understand that I heard you: he's a reputable seller, has been around a long time, and has had many great deals with people you know. I get it - he's not a creep. That doesn't mean he can't sell a forgery.

[perezfan]

Ok Scott... a healthy debate, and I respect your opinion. Debate/disagreement is a good thing on this forum.

That said.... where the hell is everyone else

[djson1]

Interesting post, Scott. I'm just curious, as I've only recently been really scrutinizing Ruth balls, but what do you think is so off about this signed Ruth ball? What are some of the subtleties (or not so subtle) tip-offs that should be looked at? I'm referring to the first ball pic you posted, of course. Thanks.

[Runscott]

Jason, compare:

[djson1]

Thanks for the pics, Scott. I still think the signed ball in the original pic looks very close, IMO. I see that the "R" is slightly different (ie- the loop part doesn't touch top to bottom like the samples you show), but it's still seems like the same flow. Maybe I just don't have a very good eye for those things. I have a hard time with Ted Williams, Joe D, and Mantle's even.

[perezfan]

Does Kevin Keating ever frequent this board? Would be nice to hear his perspective, and interested to know whether or not his name/LOA was really implicated without consent.

[Hankphenom]

I sent Kevin the link, but he's in Phoenix and away from his Net54 password so he won't be able to respond until next week. He said he did authenticate a number of items in the collection of the former major league player who is selling this ball on eBay, but didn't remember this ball specifically.

Speaking for myself, I actually find the title of this thread to be bordering on libelous. Unless Scott has proof that this ball is a forgery, (and assuming that Kevin did write a letter for it), it's just his opinion against Kevin's. Needless to say, under those circumstances I would take Kevin's word for it a thousand times out of a thousand over Scott's or anyone else's for that matter.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by djson1

I see that the "R" is slightly different (ie- the loop part doesn't touch top to bottom like the samples you show), but it's still seems like the same flow.

I don't have a response to this other than thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It's you, Mark and Keating's proxy: 3 for, and me 1 against.

I guess that makes it real. Having said that, and given what Babe Ruth signed balls go for in such condition, it is clearly a steal. I recommend offering the seller about $500 less and becoming the proud possessor of a single-signed Babe Ruth baseball.

Good luck.

[RelicSports]

I will chime in and say that I too have doubts about the signature being Ruth's. I cannot say that it is not authentic, but personally I wouldn't feel comfortable purchasing based on what I have seen/heard. Kudos to Scott for changing the title of the thread as I think it was misleading. Until Kevin can chime in and give his position, I think that was a responsible thing to do.

[djson1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I don't have a response to this other than thanks for taking part in the discussion.

It's you, Mark and Keating's proxy: 3 for, and me 1 against.

I guess that makes it real. Having said that, and given what Babe Ruth signed balls go for in such condition, it is clearly a steal. I recommend offering the seller about $500 less and becoming the proud possessor of a single-signed Babe Ruth baseball.

Good luck.

Scott, I usually value your opinions and comments on here, but your comment above is pretty snide. I was asking as you didn't provide any reason for why you thought it was not authentic and I was genuinely asking because I like to learn the "why"s from others on here. It's not about you, me, versus them. And who said that just because it's 3 vs 1 that "makes it real"?

It's funny when we see some people on here getting so sensitive when people ask them questions of their opinions. We're all on here trying to learn from each other on here and not all of us are as sharp when it comes to spotting the fakes.

[Runscott]

Thanks, David. If it did not have the aged varnish, would your opinion be more definite? I refinish antique pool cues and have both lacquer and Bullseye shellac handy. I suspect that if I am able to replicate the aged look, I could write 'Babe Ruth' on the ball myself and get away with it.

Given the prior responses here, I won't need much encouragement to try. David and Jay can vouch for this

[Runscott]

I was able to quickly find to examples that matched one almost perfectly in terms of aging - not commenting on authenticity of the actual signatures, but one was discussed here a month ago and the other is a Mears 1928 Yankees team-signed ball. That is the look I will be going for.

[David Atkatz]

If you can duplicate that patina, Scott, it would certainly reshape my thinking about signed balls.

[Runscott]

The guy who provided the provenance also owned a Sports Card Shop: Saybrook Sports Cards.

According to him, when he was 8 or 9 (he died in 2003 at age 75), Babe Ruth walked into a hotel where a breakfast was being held for a 'Father and Son get together', and the boy's father had to ask him "who the man was" "I couldn't believe he didn't know who Babe Ruth was." Apparently young Bill and his father attended this event with his father somehow being unaware that Babe Ruth would be attending.

I'm sorry, but this stinks.

[Klrdds]

I find it hard to believe that any adult , or anyone over 10 years old in the USA did not know who Babe Ruth was in the 1930s when this supposed breakfast occurred. Especially in Conn. where this occurred since it is in the New York proximity.
Again a story that does not quite mesh in my opinion.

[Runscott]

Here is another fake item this supposedly 'good guy' is selling. If he's such a nice guy, he needs to at least see an eye doctor before he loses all credibility:

http://net54baseball.com/showpost.ph...66&postcount=1

[VAYankee]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Here is another fake item this supposedly 'good guy' is selling. If he's such a nice guy, he needs to at least see an eye doctor before he loses all credibility:

http://net54baseball.com/showpost.ph...66&postcount=1

Other than the C. Anson at the bottom looking odd, what else tells u this is a fake? Just asking, as I'm not schooled on these old cards. Thank you in advance for your response.

[VAYankee]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Here is another fake item this supposedly 'good guy' is selling. If he's such a nice guy, he needs to at least see an eye doctor before he loses all credibility:

http://net54baseball.com/showpost.ph...66&postcount=1

Sorry, just hit the link you provided. Missed it earlier

[Leon]

Originally Posted by VAYankee

Sorry, just hit the link you provided. Missed it earlier

Nothing personal but if you can't immediately, in literally one second, see that this card is really, really bad, you probably don't collect pre-war cards. I don't collect autographs so understand not knowing what I don't collect..... On that card Anson's image is as fuzzy as my beard after 2 weeks. It's horribly fake.

[Runscott]

Leon, the funny thing is that I feel the same way about the Ruth ball he is selling.

To put it in perspective, people post bad Mantle and Williams autographs all the time, and people who know those autographs pop in and immediately say how horrible they are. Not me - I really can't tell the difference between a halfway-decent 1980's Mantle or Williams forgery and a real one. I'm sure that if one of the experts here pointed out what was wrong with them, I could learn pretty quickly, but I was given the advice that spreading myself out too thin would dilute my expertise on particular signatures that I know/am learning, and I think that is good advice.

So I get it that a few people here see similarities between this Ruth signature and a real one. I also think the shellac job is tainting their thinking.

One thing I'm sure about: given that this seller sells a lot of legitimate stuff, but we've seen two forged items from differing hobby areas in the last two weeks, we will see more bad stuff from him. I doubt he's doing it on purpose - I think he just doesn't know cards or autographs, selling so many different baseball-related things that he has not become an expert on many, if any.

[perezfan]

Seller disclosed the concerns, and subsequently pulled the auction. He isn't a "card guy" but admittedly should have performed due diligence with this one before posting it (as it is dreadful...)

Bottom line is that he wasn't likely trying to deceive, or "pull a fast one". He employed Kevin Keating to authenticate the autographs he's selling. If the Babe Ruth Ball is still a major concern, then the person who should comment here is Keating (who provided the LOA).

[VAYankee]

Originally Posted by Leon

Nothing personal but if you can't immediately, in literally one second, see that this card is really, really bad, you probably don't collect pre-war cards. I don't collect autographs so understand not knowing what I don't collect..... On that card Anson's image is as fuzzy as my beard after 2 weeks. It's horribly fake.

Correct, I do not collect Pre-war cards. Have always had an interest, just never pursued it.