Jordan Ball

[yanks12025]

Any thoughts on this jordan?

[MooseDog]

It's my understanding that the best chance of signed Jordan baseball being "good" is if it came from UDA (Upper Deck Authenticated).

I'd be extremely distrusting of any purported "in-person" signed balls.

I had very limited in-person experience with Jordan in the late 1980s early 1990s. He would not sign trading cards or balls, and rarely would sign photos. He would sign people's T-shirts and hats though and some scraps of paper.

I'm not a Jordan expert by any means but I would not want the ball you showed in my collection.

[yanks12025]

Thanks

[BruceWayne]

Brock,

Looking at the image, it is correct to assume there are signatures on the other panels?

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by BruceWayne

Brock,

Looking at the image, it is correct to assume there are signatures on the other panels?

Yes

[shelly]

My guess he was in China at the time and signed for one of the following.

http://www.ranker.com/list/famous-ba...hina/reference

[cottnat]

I am not an expert, but Jordan used to have a contract with Wilson where he could ONLY sign Wilson balls (whether that be baseball or basketball). Not sure how those contract rules work outside of private signings, but I know many of the UDA baseballs are Wilson baseballs (including the one in my collection):


I have never seen a UDA Jordan baseball (or any UDA Jordan Auto) with the tail on the "J" like the one you have pictured.

[BruceWayne]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Yes

To further clarify, who are the signatures on the other panels and can you post images of the other signatures?

[yanks12025]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CHICAGO-WHIT...item41735252a6

Here's the link, so if anyone wants to take the chance on it.

[jgmp123]

Does he mean 1994?? Don't think MJ was hanging out at White Sox spring training in 1984....also, the price would scare me off...$65 BIN for Jordan???

[vintagechris]

I believe that is a real Jordan and I believe he meant to say 1994 and not 1984.

One of the signatures on the ball is Rod Bolton who played with the White Sox from 1992-94.

Jordan's IP signature from 1992-94 was a single stroke continuation from the L in Michael to the J in Jordan and that is what this style looks like, although it looks like it got cut off at the top, probably because of signing the baseball.

Below are samples of that style signature. I believe that may very well be an authentic Jordan.

[shelly]

What gives me that warm feeling all over is that the seller says.
NO RETURNS

[dapro]

Originally Posted by vintagechris

I believe that is a real Jordan and I believe he meant to say 1994 and not 1984.

One of the signatures on the ball is Rod Bolton who played with the White Sox from 1992-94.

Jordan's IP signature from 1992-94 was a single stroke continuation from the L in Michael to the J in Jordan and that is what this style looks like, although it looks like it got cut off at the top, probably because of signing the baseball.

Below are samples of that style signature. I believe that may very well be an authentic Jordan.

So you going to buy it?

[vintagechris]

no. Even if I knew 100% it was a real Jordan, there isn't much that appeals to me about a Little League baseball signed by Jordan and some other White Sox that was played with and has a dent in it.

I still believe a very good chance it is real. The time frame, matches up perfectly to that style signature Jordan used IP from 92-94.

[cubsfan-budman]

Wow, i couldnt disagree more. It doesnt look much like any of your examples. I'm FAR from an expert but that "M" and the "J" both look very sloppy to me. I don't think it's real. Just my opinion, for sure.

Originally Posted by vintagechris

no. Even if I knew 100% it was a real Jordan, there isn't much that appeals to me about a Little League baseball signed by Jordan and some other White Sox that was played with and has a dent in it.

I still believe a very good chance it is real. The time frame, matches up perfectly to that style signature Jordan used IP from 92-94.

[djson1]

I recently came across three different Jordan signed baseballs (one that was shaped like a baseball but with basketball material). I called UDA to verify the three hologram numbers and after waiting for 10 mins, the UD rep told me that they cannot verify the authenticity of the hologram numbers and said they cannot comment any further. Does anybody else know about situations like this? Are fake UDA holograms running rampant now?

[mr2686]

Originally Posted by djson1

I recently came across three different Jordan signed baseballs (one that was shaped like a baseball but with basketball material). I called UDA to verify the three hologram numbers and after waiting for 10 mins, the UD rep told me that they cannot verify the authenticity of the hologram numbers and said they cannot comment any further. Does anybody else know about situations like this? Are fake UDA holograms running rampant now?

They cannot comment any further? What is this, a matter of national security?

[djson1]

Yeah, that's what they always say when they can't confirm a hologram number. It must have to do with some legal liability, but I think it's really a bad reflection if they cannot find a record of something that has their hologram sticker on it. I hope there isn't a batch of fake UDA holograms going around. I thought they were tamper-proof too.

[HOFAUTOS]

Originally Posted by djson1

Yeah, that's what they always say when they can't confirm a hologram number. It must have to do with some legal liability, but I think it's really a bad reflection if they cannot find a record of something that has their hologram sticker on it. I hope there isn't a batch of fake UDA holograms going around. I thought they were tamper-proof too.

UDA holograms are not tamper proof at all. I bought a lot of signed baseballs and a few had UDA holograms. On one ball the hologram was a quarter of the way off so I just peeled it off the ball.

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by djson1

Yeah, that's what they always say when they can't confirm a hologram number. It must have to do with some legal liability, but I think it's really a bad reflection if they cannot find a record of something that has their hologram sticker on it. I hope there isn't a batch of fake UDA holograms going around. I thought they were tamper-proof too.

I have seen similar anecdotes elsewhere regarding those checking up on UDA serial numbers.

One would logically conclude that either a) data was lost and Upper deck simply cannot verify serial numbers prior to a certain date, or b) counterfeit holograms exist in certain number ranges.

Given the cloak and dagger, legally restrained response Upper Deck gives, one would tend to think the latter choice makes more sense. If it was a simple matter of data loss through corrupted files or something similar, why not just say it?