Mordecai Brown auto
 

A friend of mine has a baseball signed Mordecai Brown that has been passed down since his great grandfather had it signed. He was not looking to sell it just curious what a ball like this might get at auction. What do you guys think? Not a very common autograph. Thanks guys

Wow!!! :eek:

:eek::eek::eek::eek:
If you want to donate it I think I can make some room :D

Holy...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is awesome, I would love to hear the story of how the great grandfather got this.

Is that a good "holy"? his great grandfather passed it down and down in a box and only until recently has it been displayed in a UV protect cube. How rare is this ball?

Not 100 percent sure. We live in indiana and chicago borders us. He mentioned it was his favorite player and may have met him. I will ask him tommorow when I see him if he has more details.

I'll second that wow and raise you a GEEZ LUISE!

He said it was his grandfathers ball and he was a farmer as well as brown and they farmed in same part of the state. He remembered his dad having the ball boxed up as a kid. Ball was tucked away in attic after his dad died and his step mom was about to throw it away! That would have sucked.

One sold in Heritage Auction's 2010 Signature Auction for $65,725

A good Holy, like this may be the finest example known.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Am I the only one who doesn't like this ball even one little bit? (Especially after seeing the Heritage ball.)

I thought the same thing but kept to myself cause I'm not a expert and everyone posted how they love it.

Dave like I said its not mine but a friends what is it you dont like?

It looks drawn, shaky, and many letter forms are off.
Other than that, it's fine.

it has 1928 written on ball so not sure if age would be a factor. The ball itself looks bumpy but who knows. It has been in his family for 80 some years so I doubt it would be a malicious forgery. Looked like other samples I compaired to but again no expert. I believe he is going to send off to PSA for their opinion but that opens up a whole new can of worms around here....haha The ball is a "dandy ball" and you can see big threads in it, not a smooth ball like the one in the herritage auction. Makes for an interesting conversation for sure.

Dave, from what I have seen all his autos look slow and shakey...There only a few balls out there with his auto so I dont think it was a common signed item at the time and dude only had 3 fingers....haha that couldnt have helped. Is around same timeframe as joe jackson and look at his writing. safe to say back then they didnt get as many balls handed to them to sign as these modern atheletes...Try autographing a ball sometime and it really does feel wierd. Again just some thoughts on the ball

I'm not familiar with Brown, but my comments were on the basis if it were authentic.

I can totally see this being signed slowly etc., how was his health later in life?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From 1920 to 1945, Brown ran a filling station in Terre Haute that also served as a town gathering place and an unofficial museum. He was also a frequent guest at Old-Timers' games in Chicago. In his later years, Brown was plagued by diabetes and then by the effects of a stroke. He died in 1948 of diabetic complications. My friends grandfather farmed near this towm so I imagine that is where he got it

Nonsense. Take a look at the Heritage ball--also signed in the late twenties.

Can only offer that the Heritage ball has "1919" dated on it, not late twenties.

My mistake re: date. Still don't like the ball shown here. According to Wikipedia, he pitched an exhibition game in 1928 against the House of David, and did very well, indeed. The ball in question is dated 1928--no reason to believe he wasn't still in fine shape.

dave all I can tell you is the baseball he has , it has been in his families possition for the past 8 decades and pretty sure back in 1928 there wasnt some person going around signing baseballs for mordicaei brown. The man who asked me to show it to you guys is not lying to me about the ball. he is as surprised about the rarity of the ball as any of us. It is not like today where we have pages and pages of auto samples to copy. where even would someone come up wiyh a known example to copy? Oh well everyone has an opinion, there always has to be a doubter in the crowd I guess.

Hey Michael,

I wouldn't focus too much on the date and what "auto samples" were around then. If it's a forgery, it likely wasn't forged in 1928. You may want to have someone take a look at the ink and try to date it first. I do believe it look slowly drawn and the "three finger" thing has nothing to do with it.

Take a look at this non-shaky example from 1946 (2 years before his death and almost 20 years after yours):

Jim-I think yours is the fake :D

JK-That really is a nice example!

I have one that can be dated to end of 1933/early 1934 at the World's Fair in Chicago...not sure if this helps in comparison or not, but definitely closer to late 20's...

No expertise to chime in with but I would think signing a ball that looks like it was wrapped in canvas would be harder than a flat piece of paper.

I think that signature is authentic.

If You look at the baseball itself it is very poorly strung and you can see from that the signature being wablly. That is most likely due to lumps in the baseball itself. It is not like he is signing a flat document or a MLB Grade Sphere.

Just my two cents.

Same here... a very difficult surface to sign. If it has truly been in the family for that long, I vote GOOD.

My friend is taking the ball to the Chicago autograph convention this weekend and having psa/dna look at it. I will keep you posted as to how it goes.

Any update to this?
Best,
Jeff

Bump


So what's the update on this ball???

Hi Mike, what ever ended up happening regarding the M. Brown ball?
Jeff

PSA did not pass it, Jim said they gave him reasons but I didnt press him too much about it as I could tell he was really bummed out due to the fact the ball had been in the family so long. My only thought as to why not authenticated was that if you look at the ball there is a date written on it that is very faint, Maybe the signature was also at one point and either his dad or grandpa might have "touched it up" to make it dark again. Again just a idea. Dont think anyone will ever know.

It doesn't look touched up to me. I'm guessing that PSA is being overly cautious due to the value of this ball.

and that could be he is going to send to JSA after the holidays to get their thoughts as well.

Jeremy,
Have you ever seen the single signed balls that PSA authenticates for the big auction houses???
They are not shy about authenticating single signed "high value" baseballs.
And I agree that ball does not look touched up but don't they authenticate touched up balls?

Thats kind of what I thought Richard..Seems PSA has never been worried about authenticating big item stuff almost like they love the attention that it was them deemed item authentic! JMO on it all

Richard- Don't get me wrong. I'm not a PSA/JSA defender. Maybe I'm just gullible, but the story behind the ball sounds legit to me. If the owner of the 3 Finger ball wanted to sell the ball, I wouldn't be surprised to see it in a major auction w/both a PSA & a JSA letter.

Jeremy heres the thing The guy that has the ball is a friend of mine and I dont believe he had selling the ball as an intent, a few of us that know him sort of coaxed him into getting it authenticated and appraised he has had it either in its origional box or displayed in a UV cube off and on over the years. Was a prized possesion of his dads and has always been glad to still have it.

Maybe PSA didn't pass it for the reason I previously stated. It's a forgery.

Dave Im not ruling it out. Its not my ball. All I was ever saying is he had this ball in family possesion for several decades. Longer than it became cool to forge Mordicei Brown balls. Where would you get exampliers and the reason to forge in the early part of century?

As Isaac Newton said concerning gravitation's strange action-at-a-distance, "hypothesis non fingo" (I frame no hypothesis.)
But I do know this: That ball is no good.

Dave I have only been on site for a short while but from all the dealings I have had with you, you are of the opinion you are always 100 percent right and there isnt any room for even 1 percent of you to be wrong. I have known several people like you in my 44 years and to this day I ask myself "why do I even bother?" so with that being said Dave have a good day your right as always (if your not you will argue with the person until they give up). Im sure my buddy who has not ever collected a autograph in his life just decided to pick this one up from coaches corner and make up a lifetime full of stories about the ball just to have me hear listning to you about how you always have the answers. No need to reply Im over guys like you!

Much has been said about the poor quality of the ball as a writing surface. I am more concerned with the poor quality of the pen in question. Take a look at the d. It appears to me as if there was an initial attempt to create a d which failed due to lack of ink or poor tip, then a second d was made. If the pen was not performing well it is possible the signer might have taken his time more than typically, creating the effect of a labored signature. The one element I don't love is the capital b. very rarely does brown use such a large loop between the first and second humps of the b. having said all of that I cannot be sure as to its authenticity.

All I have done from the beginning of this thread is asked what you guys thought about a ball that has been in a guys possion for decades. He was the one who asked me to ask this forum. Not sure of its background Barely heard of Brown until this forum let alone realize value of an autograph. Not my ball so It effects me none just a thread for disscusion thats all

David, thanks, I think I'm going to try and work that one in on next semester's final exam essays. Sounds like a good phrase to use.

Mike

Mike... just make sure you correct the misspelling... it's "Hypotheses non fingo", not "Hypothesis non fingo".

LOL thanks!

Spelling has never been my strong suit. And, of course, in this case it makes the difference between singular and plural.