Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Randy on February 12, 2014 at 8:16am

I am not a Koufax expert but others here are and will chime in.

If the book signature is authentic it is an early signature I am unfamiliar with but since the book was published in 1966 it could be a period autograph.

The ball looks to be authentic IMO.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by GraphingMlb on February 12, 2014 at 9:02am

I am do not know vintage Koufax sigs but the ball is very nice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on February 13, 2014 at 7:11am

i agree with the others...the ball looks more like his signature that i'm used to seeing.   the book is questionable.  I have not studied his signature greatly, so can't say how his signature has changed over the years, though here is a copy of a signed contract from 1966 (first item on top. Also check out rest of page with other vintage Sigs):

http://www.sandykoufax32.com/signed-items.html

I have found several copies of this book "signed" that look somewhat similar...NONE have been authenticated.  They all seem kinda sloppy compared to his more common signature...Below are 6 examples (last one is yours)...maybe this book is a common source of forgeries

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 13, 2014 at 8:14am

those book signatures do not look like any authentic Koufax signatures I have seen

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by C F Tuke Jr on February 13, 2014 at 8:26am

in doing some investigation as to how balls are signed vs books as an example and or pictures or scorecards etc.. it appears that because of the simple setting of a book or pic or scorecard-i.e. flat vs the round ball, sometimes the signer concentrates LESS on the flat item vs signing a round item?

Koufax was known to be most generous in his signing of things.. and then if one were to see his signature on a contract in 1966 totally different in nature, again i.e. he was concentrating more cause it meant something to HIM!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on February 13, 2014 at 10:41am

Yes signatures can look different on different mediums, but this is quite drastic difference..

Here are 2 of my Koufax signatures....both on flats....they look nothing like the ones in the books (and I have never seen any authenticated signatures that look like the ones in the books.  Actually the only ones i've seen that look like that, are in different copies of this same book!)   

I would suggest you remove the book from your ebay auction.  Or, if you think still think it's real, you can submit it for a quick opinion to PSA/DNA -- only $10!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by C F Tuke Jr on February 13, 2014 at 8:59am

take a look at this pic.. Koufax signature on the back of the dust jacket.. not close to the various signatures

Attachments: No photo uploads here

• Koufax book back of dust jacket..his signature Feb 2014.jpeg, 1.1 MB
• KOUFAX SIGNED.jpg, 70 KB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on February 13, 2014 at 9:25am

I would not judge authenticity of Koufax's signature based on either of these.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David S on February 13, 2014 at 10:17am

I agree Ryan, I think all those book signatures are bad...As i mentioned above, they seem shaky and sloppy....

I just found a discussion on another site that actually discusses this exact book signature

http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=140908

look at the posts by mmcgruff, and then the later signature study by Scott Garner for some outstanding exemplars...

if you're not already a member, you'll have to register see images.

• ▶ Reply