Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John DeAngelis on December 31, 2017 at 9:22am

Here is the Ruth signature

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• Sweet Spot.jpg, 2 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Danny Francis on December 31, 2017 at 10:02am

I will look up the ball when I get home. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on December 31, 2017 at 2:21pm

The ball is fine, it was in major league use throughout the 20s. The one with the 1909 patent date until 1924, and then in 1925, the 1909 patent was renewed and the ball should have that 1925 patent date if a 1926/1928 ball. I'd lean closer to the 1928 date as the majority of pre-1927 season Ruths have quotes on the Babe, and this one doesn't.

Everything appears proper to me thus far, my only criticism being the hawkbill 'R'.

However, it is authenticated by a major league authenticator thus should limit concerns.

I've seen many instances of signed baseballs bearing the signatures of Ruth and GCA, but this is the first I remember seeing with only those two signatures.

Like the 1926 WS, Ruth was a beast, hitting 3 homeruns in each and batting .625 in the '28 series. So technically, there is a chance that this could be a ball that Ruth parked in the seats, even if that's quite a stretch. I would think that any ball Ruth parked in any WS would be duly documented, known, and on display, already in a prime collection or museum.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John DeAngelis on January 2, 2018 at 6:13pm

Thanks Woody. I couldn't see a patent year on the ball. Part of it is smudged.

I am also leaning towards the 1928 season due to the lack of quotes around Babe.

I also agree that it most likely was not a Ruth homer, but perhaps a foul ball or one of the seven home runs hit by the Yankees in games 3 & 4?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on January 3, 2018 at 3:50pm

It is remotely possible, but without some form of very solid documentation/provenance from that time period, the closer to that ball being hit the better, proving it would be very difficult indeed.

Nice piece though. As stated, I've seen many baseballs bearing Ruth and GCA signatures, but this is the only one I've ever recall seeing anywhere bearing only those two autographs!

I don't know if that possible "one of a kind" element adds much or a lot to the value, or even propels it to the level of a single signed GCA or Ruth of comparable condition. It's all up to the buyer. In the end, it's the buyer's wallet that determines the value.

• ▶ Reply