We're an eBay affiliate and may be compensated on purchases made through clicks.

How Important is the Date on a PSA/DNA or JSA LOA?

I ask this question because I have a Babe Ruth signed baseball that is accompanied by a PSA/DNA LOA that is dated from 2005. The ball is also pictured in PSA's online database as being authentic, and I have no doubt that it is authentic.

However, if I ever wanted to sell this Ruth baseball in the future, would the fact that the LOA is, as of now, 11 years old possibly cause me any problems? Now I would love to have the LOA dated yesterday, but I'm not at all willing to send this very valuable baseball back to PSA to get a newer letter since it would cost me $300 to get it re-authenticated. That really would seem foolish to me to spend that much money on a ball that has already passed PSA/DNA.

So does anyone have any thoughts on this matter? Is it in any way detrimental to have an LOA more than 10 years old?

Thanks in advance.

Tags: coa, date of loa, important

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on April 3, 2016 at 5:08am

In my opinion, the date makes no difference. As long as there is no new evidence that the signature is doubtful then authentic is authentic. Few collectors care about the date of the COA, just who certified it.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on April 3, 2016 at 2:42pm

Thanks, Joe. I think you're right. And that's how I felt when I bought the ball a year and a half ago.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on April 3, 2016 at 3:38pm

sometimes the authenticating company will pass something in good faith, that might later on be determined to be a forgery, or secretarial. It does happen.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on April 3, 2016 at 3:52pm

Then I do think that the authenticating company has a responsibility to update their online record to state that fact. Don't they have some responsibility to warn the public?

But, for this discussion, I personally do not think it is necessary to update a COA unless there is some compelling information to dispute it. And I think the vast majority of collectors will not consider the issuing date an issue.

Even with certified autograph the potential buyer still has a responsibility to insure the autograph "looks right".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Halloran on April 3, 2016 at 3:58pm

It obviously would matter if the authentication company goes out of business or was found fraudulent. Then you would want to have it authenticated again.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe W. on April 3, 2016 at 3:59pm

I definitely agree with that. Or some bad reputation authenticators which happen to get one right. It depends on the "pedigree".

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Jackson on April 3, 2016 at 9:34pm

I think reauthenticating it would be a waste as others have said if you tried to sell it and it wasen't hitting your price maybe consider it but should not cause you problems

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on April 4, 2016 at 2:47pm

Post a scan of the signed ball James.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on April 5, 2016 at 12:17pm

Here's a pic, Paul.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

image.jpeg, 613 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on April 5, 2016 at 12:18pm

Here's another.

Attachments: No photo uploads here

image.jpeg, 631 KB

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul on April 5, 2016 at 2:17pm

Its big and bold , the signature.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on April 5, 2016 at 11:28pm

Yes it is, Paul. In this case, Babe Ruth used a wide-nib fountain pen to sign this ball. Plus, it was said that when Ruth signed autographs, he would apply a lot of pressure. If you see the ball up close, you can see that the ink looks very aged. The ball also has a coat of shellack on it which was used to preserve the signature.