Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Autograph Forum- Primarily Sports (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Is this Babe Ruth Ball Authentic? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=272048)

MatthewL 08-05-2019 07:42 PM

Is this Babe Ruth Ball Authentic?
 
3 Attachment(s)
I've had this Babe Ruth signed ball for a little while now. I am looking to get a second opinion before potentially selling it. Thanks.

Bpm0014 08-06-2019 06:41 AM

What's the story behind the ball?

Bpm0014 08-06-2019 06:42 AM

Also, is that a regulation sized ball? Or is it a little smaller than normal?

chalupacollects 08-06-2019 08:14 AM

I think the key here will be more of dating the ball and then worrying about the signature. From what I can find the Goldsmith Company purchased MacGregor around 1936. Around 1944 both companies name appeared on balls. The MG logo on the bottom of ball came into play in 1945 and on the top of the ball both company names were represented.. However in 1952 the Goldsmith was dropped and the MacGregor with the registered symbol came into play... which is what is on this ball..

Little League was founded in 1939 and though Macgregor existed then was known as Crawford, MacGregor & Canby Co before Goldsmith purchased them.

So if the ball is from the 40's there is a short window of two or so years when the ball could have been signed by Ruth...which I can't opine on...

What worried me is the MacGregor logo on top though which does show a 1952 intro....


End of day needs more research...

Kco 08-06-2019 09:17 AM

Not a fan of that auto at all, looks slow and I wouldn’t want to own it, forgery IMO

packs 08-06-2019 09:32 AM

Looks like a stamp to me, especially the smudging.

bgar3 08-06-2019 11:10 AM

Agree dating the ball is key. Although Little League was founded in 1939, it was very limited, I think only 3 or 4 teams or small areas.
It wasn’t incorporated until the early 50’s, if I recall, and it would be more likely to have special balls made around that time, than in Ruth’s lifetime.

Bpm0014 08-06-2019 11:37 AM

There are so many things wrong with the signature HOWEVER I can’t say for certain that it’s no good. I won’t completly rule this out as being fake. Would probably need to see it in hand. But I'm going to say in all likelihood that it is GOOD.

canjond 08-06-2019 11:38 AM

Agree with others here, but in terms of dating, I did find this:

In previous years starting in 1940, Carl E. Stotz Official Little League baseballs were made by (approximate dating); Reach (1940-1945) MacGregor Goldsmith (1945-1951) Wilson (1951) and Worth. After 1955 The Official Little League baseballs did not feature a Commissioner stamp.

http://keymancollectibles.com/balls/...llbaseball.htm

w7imel 08-06-2019 04:25 PM

I wouldnt buy. Signature looks like it was fake aged. Just my 2 cents.

khkco4bls 08-07-2019 02:08 PM

I'm no expert but the top of the R looks too slowly drawn


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:39 PM.