If that is authentic, it is the cleanest ball and signature I’ve ever seen from Ruth. I can’t comment on authenticity but would be surprised many of that quality would exist.
It is so clean, it almost looks stamped.
The ball hide is painted over in white, and the signature was applied on top of the paint. The signature looks like an ink transfer of some sort, not naturally signed on the ball. The deep blue ink is a shade I don't ever recall seeing on a genuine Ruth autograph and shows no ageing.
The ball looks like it was signed yesterday—but I could be off by a few days.
The stitching is so dark it's virtually black. While stitching can look similarly dark due to age, it would be on a ball with a hide that's heavily toned. A white ball has stitching that looks bright to deep red.
This is a ball to avoid like the plague.
Steve, my first impression was "this looks odd" or is this some type of replica, and that's why I enlarged and observed the feathering.
Thanks guys for all the information pertaining to the signature. I had my doubts about it being genuine. It just looked way to clean in every respect. Thanks as well Steve Cyrkin for all the additional information about the ball, I would have never guessed about repainting of the ball and an ink transfer! Once again many thanks to the group members for alerting me to the issues with Ruth’s autograph.