Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dustin Rouse on February 28, 2014 at 10:06pm

PSA, in their quick opinion, told me that it was inconclusive.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Schwartz on March 1, 2014 at 6:41am

"No question, the signature is either Ruth's or so well done that it won't matter"

William, I think this is a rather profound statement. Ruth forgeries have become so masterful, that I personally have just about thrown my hands in the air about the Babe's signature.

I have never seen such a glut of bold as if they were signed yesterday, single-signed Ruth signatures on snow-white baseballs as there are nowadays. There are half a dozen or more on ebay on any given day. And yes, most of them are certed by PSA and JSA. Where did they all come from? That's a lot of finds in grandpas' attics.

The phrase "too good to be true" is an understatement. But as long as they have that LOA and people want to believe, it really doesn't matter. It's truly autograph alchemy...lead turned into gold.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on March 1, 2014 at 5:50am

be careful with Ruth signed balls especially ones in this kind of shape:

http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=10406

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Schwartz on March 1, 2014 at 6:32am

"From initial review, I believe that it is authentic, just because the baseball is from the 1930s."

Don't let the baseball being from the correct time period weigh more than it should when it comes to authenticity. Any forger with half a brain will make sure he uses the appropriate vintage medium. Now obviously, we've seen some dumb forgers who would make a mistake like using an impossible ball, but as William pointed out, there have been plenty of master Ruth forgers at work for decades now.

It always strikes me as curious/suspicious why a seller of an item like this wouldn't bother having it authenticated before listing it. It's a small investment that would increase the value and the market greatly, especially for a piece like this. The starting bid is much lower (and I suspect the ending bid will follow suit) than many worse looking balls that have PSA or JSA authentication. Why is the seller shorting himself like that? Does he have some reason to believe he won't like the answer he gets when he sends it in, so he doesn't bother? Or did he send it in, and chooses not to share the results?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-1930s-BABE-RUTH-SIGNED-BASEBALL-Wi...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Erich Jerozal on March 1, 2014 at 7:16am

The previous owner erased Connie Mack and Jimmie Foxx.  That is screwy. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on March 1, 2014 at 10:22am

too fishy, i would stay away...

The $200 it would take to get JSA or $300 by PSA/DNA to authenticate would turn that $4000 starting bid into a $20,000 starting bid - why is the seller not doing that?  Only giving 10 days to examine the ball is basically saying it's fake too (or they suspect it is), in my opinion.  Should be at least 3 weeks (if not more!), so that it can be seen by the right people....

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin Rouse on March 1, 2014 at 12:38pm

So William, you would stay away from bidding on this ball?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 1, 2014 at 5:40pm

Two signatures were removed from the ball, so it wouldn't be a $25,000 ball in any case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Cyrkin, Admin on March 1, 2014 at 7:18pm

What I mean is it isn't an actual, single-signed ball. That's what's worth big money. It's supposedly been altered to remove two signatures, even if genuine.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Schwartz on March 1, 2014 at 3:33pm

Should have checked this earlier, but this seller also listed 10/10 condition Cy Young & Ty Cobb balls that went unsold. Definitely starting to smell funny here.

"This ball came from a friend who got it from an elderly baseball collector in Pennsylvania who has had it for many years."

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-CY-YOUNG-SIGNED-BASEBALL-Spalding-...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Original-TY-COBB-SIGNED-BASEBALL-Dated-7-4-...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Baldock on March 1, 2014 at 4:15pm

Wow looks like "Cy" signed it yesterday.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on March 4, 2014 at 4:06pm

Both the Young and Cobb baseballs also were opined "Unable to render an Opinion" by PSA/DNA "Quick Opinion."

They both look authentic to me but I wasn't willing to risk $5K with only a 10 day return option. I asked for 30 day return time frame and was told the seller was unable to give that time frame which threw up a big red flag. 

Both balls were ended before a bid was made so I assume someone bought them outside Ebay.

The Ruth also looks authentic but I agree fully with Steve that the signature removals would reduce the value of this ball to only $6-7K even if authenticated by JSA or PSA/DNA.

It would be $25K or more if a true single but not as an engineered one.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page