It is pretty well known that a Hank Aaron's autograph is normally not the best and inconsitencies can be found through the years. It got me wondering if a minor defect in a ball with a good signature is less desirable then a clean ball with a vad looking signature?

Case in point was when I noticed these two balls.

notice the "Hanl Aaron" or "Harl Aaron"

This is probably one of his better looking autographs I have seen on a ball, but then on the bottom (besides a couple of smaller lighter spots by the Commisioners name) there was this:

They are both dna authenticated so nothing besides the staining and... Any comments would be appreciated as it seemed like an interesting case.

I tend to lean toward the clean ball, but seeing how seemingly more rare a legible Aaron ball that isnt really sloppy is while being spelled correctly makes it tough.