Opinions on this Griffey Jr ball

Any opinions if this is a real or fake auto. I'm leaning towards fake but curious to hear others input.

0 members like this

Attachments: No photo uploads here

Screenshot_20200607-095632.png, 2.3 MB

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 7, 2020 at 7:27am

I agree with you

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by RTL5062 on June 7, 2020 at 7:30am

I like it, it might be real. Just not a great signature for him.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R on June 7, 2020 at 8:16am

Griffey is the one person I feel pretty comfortable with. This ball actually looks like the period he signed between his early, sloppy signature and the clean attractive signature we all know today. Forgeries tend to be one of the other. I’m actually leaning towards real on this one, probably signed in 1990-1991.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 7, 2020 at 8:31am

could be. It would help to know what kind of ball its on.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 7, 2020 at 8:35am

I dont know about that. Here are signature examples from '90 and '91, and there is more flair to these than shown in the ball in the OP:

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R. Tanner on June 7, 2020 at 2:23pm

I don't like it. I have an IP ball I obtained at a game in 91 and it doesn't look close. My signature resembles the examples terrier posted.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R on June 7, 2020 at 5:45pm

Terrier, your top photo was after he “transitioned” to the signature with more flair, probably signed deep into the 1991 season. He was becoming a superstar and he needed his signature to reflect that. Your second one was signed prior, during the transition, probably late 1990, early 1991.

Here is a genuine example signed towards the end of the 1989 season. The OP photo looks somewhere between this 1989 version and your second photo.

Forgers don’t generally target the sloppy older Griffey signatures because they are less recognizable, and even the real ones draw a discerning eye (like this one is doing.) I’d put my money that the original one is good.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 7, 2020 at 6:14pm

You make a strong case but what concerns me the lost is when you enlarge the one in the op, it really has no flow. It looks slowly drawn to me.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R on June 7, 2020 at 5:46pm

Original posters ball

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by R. Tanner on June 7, 2020 at 6:04pm

Still off Imo from this 1989 JSA authenticated example.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by D R on June 7, 2020 at 9:03pm

Again, the OP’s is not a 1989 example, so it is not going to match a 1989 signature.

It is (at least supposed to be) a signature from the period between his sloppy rookie year, and the cleaner more attractive signature of the early to mid 90s

But it does have a lot of the same characteristics, especially in “en” of Ken. Even though it doesn’t match completely, similarities can be seen in all of the letters)

Terrier, have you looked at a lot of Griffey’s early signatures? They all have that ‘unsure, slowly drawn’ personality to them. Here is a 100% genuine late 1989 Griffey right on top of the OP’s photo. You really don’t think these were done by the same hand?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by terrier8HOF on June 8, 2020 at 5:27am

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I see similarities but even comparing it to the one you last posted, which does have nice flow to it, it looks slow. Look at the G to ff transition and compare the baselines. I have no doubt that you know Griffey signatures very well. I am just not comfortable with this one.