Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 11, 2017 at 2:12pm

I've never seen a verifiable Cobb with 1 quotation-like mark written and positioned like that below the underline of the signature.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 11, 2017 at 6:59pm

BTW, I missed your mentioning the date of the baseball. You are correct. The production for this baseball was from just slightly post WW 2 until the early 50s. It's within the correct range for Cobb to have signed it. The first Ruth signed baseball I ever owned was one of these MacGregor/Goldsmith merger baseballs, signed by him in late 1946.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drew Welch on September 12, 2017 at 4:51am

Thanks for the review - appreciate the help.

I'm a bit encouraged that it looks hand signed (even if your opinion is not in Ty Cobb's hand).  It appears to me that the pen runs dry for a bit in the underline after crossing the "y" but it can be faintly seen continuing to near the bottom of the "o" and back to the center of the "C" before crossing the first underline to what looks like the quotation-like mark.  In all, the example it seems nearest to is a '46 autograph written to Charlie Gehringer that PSA offers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 12, 2017 at 10:21am

Now while I did state I've never seen one like that, I didn't opine on the authenticity. It could be Cobb, it's definitely hand written, and if under close inspection, it appears that it was written in ballpoint, it's chronologically possible for that post 1945 five or six year period. Though not in mass use as of yet, ballpoints were coming of age at the time this ball was produced. Personally, I would first get a quick PSA/DNA opinion, then, if the results of that QO are "likely genuine", submit it for a likely COA. There are some strange elements in it, and to me, it appears to have the proper characteristics of his signature from different periods mixed together in one. A Ty Cobb "hash" signature, but in PSA's eyes, it may just have enough proper elements to garner a positive reading. I think it's worth a shot.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 12, 2017 at 10:24am

OK, I see it, now that you mentioned it. Part of the track running dry. Yes, that could explain what looks "jumbled" about this for me. Definitely submit it. Based on the Cobb's I've seen them pass, this has approx. a 70% shot at passing in my estimation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Drew Welch on September 12, 2017 at 10:31am

Outstanding ... thanks for your help!

Can you share how you can tell its ballpoint?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Woody2Shoes on September 12, 2017 at 1:45pm

I can't, which is why I stated, "if under close inspection, it appears to be written in ballpoint...". Which would mean taking a good look at the track for a ball-point (a wider) channel, then a fountain tip (a narrower, sharp or wedge shaped channel rather than a round channel) impression, if in fact the impression still exists and hasn't completely relaxed under the ink. In the scan, the ink looks to me characteristic of how ballpoint pen writing would fade. My point is that if it is ballpoint, which can only be judged with any certainty in person, under magnification, or with a greatly magnified scan, like our fellow member Bernie has shown in several threads, then it's not an anachronism because the ball was produced after the introduction of ball points into use.

• ▶ Reply