Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on February 19, 2014 at 8:18am

Not an example I would want in my collection, but I would not be shocked if the Rivera was authentic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GraphingMlb on February 19, 2014 at 8:53am

It sure looks a lot like the Rivera on Erichs 96 WS ball.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Null on February 19, 2014 at 8:56am

Ehh not too much. I like the "M" on the Mariano in the OP, but not much else... and definitely not the "Rivera"... 

Erich's is almost textbook example of old school Mo'

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on February 19, 2014 at 9:08am

It would be helpful to know what kind of ball this is on.

Assuming it is a Budig or earlier ball, in my opinion, it is likely a rushed mid-90s example. I have seen the Rs that cross over like that before. There are subtleties to the baseline that are spot on. No signs of hesitation or drawing. Lastly, it is signed in black and appears to have naturally aged as I would expect a 15+ year black ink signature would.

So we are left with two options: an elaborately staged fake of a less common early signature style, or a real, but less than prime, exemplar. Everything considered, I would choose the latter.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on February 19, 2014 at 10:38am

Here is a full scan of the ball:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on February 19, 2014 at 10:52am

Now that the ball type is confirmed Budig, I'll stick my neck out and say this Rivera is good.

One lesson I have learned over time is that it's easy to call the obvious good ones and fakes. The challenge is in the "real, but atypical" examples. Maybe I am wrong on this one, but I doubt it. :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike P on February 19, 2014 at 10:58am

Very true Zipper.  The coa would lead one to think this one is bad along with the earliness of the signature, but education with regard to signature styles is key.  

Given the seller's story and the fact that the Pettitte looks dead on to most examples, I would give the benefit of the doubt if I had to choose a side.  I wouldn't buy it, but definitely wouldn't call it a malicious forgery; probably just an atypical example

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anthony Bautista on February 19, 2014 at 10:46am

At first glance I had thought the M and R was spot on . As well as the aria part. But the n just threw me off , as I hadnt seen Mariano with a n like that . It looks like he even added a extra line . Also I hadnt seen early sigs where he didnt write at least three letters of his last name . There are alot of signs to point to authentic , but a few that dont . The first time I got Mariano was 96 . I am gonna try and find that one and see what how that looks . This ball could have been signed pre 96 .
I would never judge a autograph off a coa alone .

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page