Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on August 4, 2017 at 7:55pm

Ruth and Gehrig look ca. 1932. The ball already had divots and scuffs on the surface prior to being signed, it was enjoyed prior to the signatures being added. The Gehrig is classic early 30s by Lou's hand, the pressure, the flow, and like the Ruth and others here, the age looks right. Ruth too, is classic early 30s style, the only glitch in the whole signature, the 'b' (too wide at the bottom, a notable departure from his normal flow) can be explained if the nib was taken off track, caught at the bottom of the return up-stroke by an uneven surface due to wear, what looks to be a channel in the surface at that point.

Seemingly also genuine, the rest of the signatures present bolster the authenticity of the most important two. I like it. Nice piece, in my estimation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by JIM DESALLE on August 5, 2017 at 9:04am

thank u kindly

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on August 5, 2017 at 10:49am

Thank you for sharing this sensational Ruth/Gehrig piece of history. That is one, sweet, "Sweet Lou" signature; big, bold, open and uncrowded; the entire inked line is basically intact! There's no question concerning the authenticity in my estimation and this should garner the approval and COA of any and all the major authenticators without a problem.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Casey Melchionno on August 8, 2017 at 5:24pm

Hello Jim, if you are interested in selling this piece please let me know.  I just sent you a friend request if you would like to speak more about it.  Thanks!

• ▶ Reply