Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy on March 4, 2014 at 4:33pm

The JSA authenticated basically Gem Mint 10 true Ruth single in the last Grey Flannel auction only brought about $30K with buyer's premium.

No one will count this one as a single whether latent signatures are professionally removed or not.

The signature is no better than 8 and the ball a 5.

It is closer to $6-7K than $25K in this condition IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on March 4, 2014 at 6:10pm

True single graded 8 signature/7 ball(Harridge) 7.5 overall sold for $26,000 in a Heritage auction in late 2012. Lesser true singles go for $15,000 or so.

This ball does not compare with true singles.

There is currently a dated 1927 single on Ebay with a buy it now of $6500. The date could be professionally removed and it would rival this ball except having the " marks around "Babe" would make it better in my opinion but I would personally leave the signing date.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin Rouse on March 7, 2014 at 2:05pm

William- I see that there is now a bidder for the baseball on ebay.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin Rouse on March 7, 2014 at 4:13pm

You are not going to outbid me on this item, are you William? lol

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin Rouse on March 7, 2014 at 4:21pm

I thought that I would share this with you, William. Tell me please what you think. I paid the $100 fee, and got Jim Stinson of Stinson Sports to provide me with his opinion on the ball.

This is what he came up with, and I do not like it very much to be honest with you! I think that he beats around the bush, not really telling me anything that I did not already know. He says at first that he thinks that the signature looks perfect, and then tells me at the end that in his opinion, it is likely not genuine.

Thank you for your scans , based only on scans there would be other things I would be looking for under magnification and in person.

First let me say that since Babe Ruth died in 1948 we are dealing with an autographed item that is at least 66 years old minimum, Certain characteristics present themselves with age in relation to autographs , especially on baseballs as opposed to paper , mostly because baseballs being made of leather tend to be more porous with a higher rate of ink absorption which occurs over time , many factors contribute to this including humidity , light and other variables.

Babe Ruth autographs do tend to hold up better with regards to contrast as he signed with a very heavy hand , and it is not unusual to see team signed or multi signed baseballs in which the other signatures have faded over time and that of Babe Ruth has remained bolder than the rest. Based on the scans this factor is exaggerated with your baseball and let me explain why.

First in examining the labeling on the ball including the commissioners stamp you’ll note a uniform degree of fading throughout , this is normal. Some have held up better than others but for the most part this would be typical of a 1930’s era baseball in which it is not unusual to have the labeling fade completely over time. BUT the fading of the actual signature (ink to leather) should usually exhibit fading traits of its own. although usually not quite as extreme.

In addition certain portions of the actual signature itself should especially under close examination be somewhat lighter than others , many factors could contribute to this as well , Which brings me to the actual signature itself. Typically when examining any autograph the formation and “look” of the signature is the first and last thing thing I look at. Based on the scans presented here the signature itself “looks” the way it is supposed to look , (formation etc) in fact in relation to the actual ball itself (and its condition) and the time frame we are dealing with it looks TOO good. We can only speculate why.

Without having the ball in hand and basing an opinion solely on scans there would be a few things that should be apparent if you were to use a simple magnifying glass and black light, there will be points where the ink intersects in the signature that should be slightly darker than others , assuming the ball was not signed using a modern day laser or computer process , secondly there should be very pronounced “stress marks” from where the pen made an indentation , With Babe Ruth’s autograph this could be particularly obvious in the beginning of the capitol “B” in Babe , the capital “R” in Ruth , and especially the point in which he ends the line that intersects the “t” in Ruth , By using the black light you could see if any modifications were done to the ball , i.e. Removal of other signatures or other enhancements which is often done with an old baseball in order to produce a “single signed” ball which will sell at a premium, None the less the above paragraph ( I think would only help to prove my case).

Its my opinion based on the scans alone that the autograph  of Babe Ruth on the baseball presented here is “Likely Not Genuine”. Should you have any additional questions or comments please feel free to direct them my way.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on March 7, 2014 at 4:56pm

You have an "unable to render an opinion" from PSA/DNA and a "Likely not Genuine" from Jim Stinson. There are reasons for those conclusions even though PSA/DNA doesn't reveal their reasons.

I would steer clear of this baseball as I think the chances of it passing a 3rd party opinion is slim. If you must bid, I would ask for a 30 day return if it fails 3rd party authentication.

You already know for certain signatures have been removed which greatly reduces the value even if the Ruth were deemed authentic.

Good luck with it either way but I would be very cautious.

Permalink Reply by Ryan Maxwell on March 8, 2014 at 6:21pm

Ball has been bid up to $6260. this is quickly going from a potential steal to a potential nightmare. 

I think many are bidding knowing that eBay will help if it fails authentication. But you would still be out the several hundreds of dollars if it fails. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fuddjcal on March 9, 2014 at 11:15am

Dustin...I'm proud of you seeking out the experience and opinion  of a noted expert and only 1 or 2 dealers I would by a Ruth from. This is what I was telling you I do on many many issues that can cost me money. Now you have to LISTEN!  Don't try to get tricky with that "something for nothing" mentality and think you are going to out smart someone.

I haven't looked for a Ruth in all these years because I didn't want to invest the time, effort and money...Should I ever buy one in the future it would be from Jim Stinson or Richard Simon PERIOD.

With the work you're doing, you are another step closer to acquiring an Authentic Ruth signature. Good luck.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin Rouse on March 9, 2014 at 3:18pm

With all of the fees and taxes that I have to build into the price of the item, it has now gone too high for me. Thank you to everybody who gave me great feedback!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Kaminski on March 9, 2014 at 3:35pm

"Free Trade"

:(

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on March 9, 2014 at 3:31pm

One of the two other bidders, a 2 feedback and a 7 feedback, could have easily been shill bidders.

Without them, it would have sold for the minimum bid and the chances of either of them actually paying for a $7000 item was not great based on Ebay history so I think the seller came out pretty well either way. Basically a $3000 gain.

I said it was a $6-7K item with signatures removed. Looks like I was pretty close.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randy on March 9, 2014 at 3:50pm

Maybe $7000 was the magic number for a sale!

Obviously not a $25K ball at any rate.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page