Gehrig JSA
 

Looks like it was signed with a marker

If this is the real deal good to know, any time I see one THAT bold I dismiss

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1937-LOU-GEH...#ht_849wt_1157

I am not making any comments on the signature itself, because I dont want to go there with some of the wolves on this forum, however, Fountain pens from the era had several different types of "nibs" that could range from paper thin, to extremely fat. Gehrig would have used whatever pen was given him so the thickness of the pen is not a dead giveaway that it is fake. It is very bold but the ball itself has obviously been stored well so once again, black ink will hold its color on Baseballs when they are properly stored.

I will comment that the other signatures are all good, and I dont think anyone on here would dispute that. Let the "experts" on here make their statements on the Gehrig itself.

it seems like everything is jsa certed these days. does anyone know if this gehrig is any good?

No one knows if this Gehrig is any good. Some may have opinions that agree or disagree with JSA's, but no one knows.

Bo would know

http://i867.photobucket.com/albums/a...psa5942923.jpg

I think everyone has an opinion, but what is the upside of going on here and saying its good? If you are right people will bitch and disagree, if you are wrong people will call your credentials into question.

It only pays on this forum to call something a fake, you only get into "trouble" when daring to call somethin real.

Rhys

so it seems....

The sigs are good.

what type of baseball is that? It looks miniature!

It's impossible to know if you are right or wrong, but the reason we have so many fights here is because there are people on both sides. The green-ink '27 Yankees ball is an example.

Did someone yell at you for saying something was real?

That's what I thought at first too, but finally decided the seller is a giant!

I am not making any statements from personal experiences, I have gone against the grain several times on here and stand behind it and nobody has ever been rude to me for it. However, it seems the overwhelming opinion on here is that everything borderline with any issue at all is fake. While the Major Authenticators are not perfect and make mistakes, the autograph world is better for having some sort of authentication in place and they do eliminate a lot of high end forgeries. They get it right WAY more often than they get it wrong, but people love to make it seem like they are bumbling idiots. It just seems like when an authenticated signature is called into question, the popular thing to do is pretend you know more than the authenticators (and sometimes you do) and say things are bad. If we just posted things we knew were good and all agreed with the authenticator, then why post it?

Not bitter, it just seems that is the trend on here (malicious or innocent), post something borderline, call attention to it, and criticize the authenticators. Maybe thats a good thing, I dont know, but if that is the end game, you're not going to get many people to "take the bait", because the agenda is clear and its not "This thing is Good, the authenticators got it right".

Just my opinion,

Rhys

I agree Rhys. Most people take the bad apple out of the basket and throw it away. A couple here would burn the orchard. And the neighboring orchard for good measure.

In my experience, here and elsewhere, negative opinions tend to be much more contagious than positive opinions.

"If so and so thinks its might be bad, he must see something... I don't want to look like I am missing something..."

That's a nice ball.

Rhys, I agree that there are positives to card-grading; however, I think the grading companies have taken advantage of the position they are in, making profit from laziness (I'm being generous using the term 'laziness').

Also, I disagree totally with your last sentence that I quoted above, even though I may very well be in the minority. In my opinion, most of the claims here that autographs are fake, have been totally warranted. There is no "borderline" - only real or forged. That's what a lot of people are missing.

Is a really, really, really good forgery, "borderline"? No, it's fake, and has as much value as a terrible forgery.

With autographs, I think that assuming the best is a dangerous way to collect. If more of us questioned autograph authenticity, and talked about it openly (as a few of us tried to do with 'Babe Ruth' autographs, but were for the most ignored) there would be fewer forgeries.

There isn't enough scrutinization of autographs, and I'm surprised that some of you think there should be even less.

edited to remove a quote of Mr. Zipper - my comments weren't directly related to what he posted.

:confused:

You completely mischaracterized my statement. Where do I state we should assume something is real and there should be less scrutiny?

Zipper, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Very puzzling comment.

If I could ask one thing of Chris and everyone else here...I understand the Gehrig could/is authentic and I also understand that pen manufacturers obviously made many writing instruments. My only concern, and this could only be my lack of knowledge with the ink from that time period, but the seller has a Frank Frisch/Vince DiMaggio ball listed and it looks like it was done with the EXACT same writing instrument. Specifically the Frisch. Also both items were submitted to JSA on same day. Could just be me over-thinking it, but worth a look.

http://item.mobileweb.ebay.com/viewi...id=52845101319

if we believe the backstory the husband could've brought the same pen with him to both games and had the players sign with it.

i agree, not enough scrutinization of autographs and the big co's. get a free pass. It's obvious when the defenders want to shut down a debate, they get all defensive. Let's open it up and put the TPA's on the line, spence should be able to say why this passed. If he has good reasons and good exemplars, then let's see them. If not, then i can see why all the silence. He shouldn't have anyting to hide.

There isn't one boxing autograph I have ever seen Mark Ogren look at where he wasn;t able to produce exemplars and explain why it does or does not pass. when Marciano came up, he posted a couple of hundred exemplars. why is he able to do this and spence and grad can't even show one?

You guys misunderstood me.

100% you should scrutinize EVERY autograph, all the time and you CAN NOT over scrutinize.

I was just stating that on this forum, we dont simply pull out random autographs and get opinions. People ask about the ones with at least one small red flag which is what I meant by "questionable" (too bold, ball too white, too nice, etc.) So the assumption is always "Its Bad". Sometimes though (like the Hilton Smith autograph I went against the grain on a few weeks ago) they are fine. It is just hard to get someone willing to say "I think its fine" when the presumptive opinion in THESE CASES is that its bad even before the discussion begins.

I hope you understand me because I agree completely with what Scott and others have said, Question ALL signatures until you cant question them anymore and ONLY buy what you are comfortable with. I am only saying, that the reason that sometimes you hear crickets when help is asked is because you can absolutely tell when someone is really just asking for help and when people are fishing for an opinion when they already know the answer or are just looking for someone to take the bait and get a heated discussion going (usually on Ruth or Gehrig).

Just my opinion, but I 100% agree with you Scott, you just misunderstood me as I was ONLY talking about a few instances on this forum is all.

Rhys

Also, I am NOT pro third party authentication as the business model sits today. I have used PSA/DNA and JSA myself about 5 times total in 10 years with one amazing story I could tell of imcompetance but I am not going to share it here. I am 100% positive I know more than both of them combined about vintage (Pre WW2) autographs from baseball, Football, Basketball and Hockey. So for me, it is a total waste of time, and money and I just Guarantee everything I sell for life and dont worry about it unless its a Hall of Famer where the buy s going to demand it anyways (Say a Frank Selee or something like that).

I do think they have helped in some way keep SOME of the bad Ruth/Gehrig/Ott/Foxx/etc. off the market, and that is good, but I also think they do get it wrong a lot. I estimated in another thread that if they are right 60% of the time on Kurt Cobains autograph I would give them a thumbs up and I stick to that. It is just not an exact science and some are easier to nail than others.

What I do have a problem with are the fees. $150-$200 to authenticate a Ruth? $90 to authenticate an obscure pre-war signature that they have to ask you for examples of anyways? It is way too high and their services have priced the average collector who could really benefit from such a service out of the market so they take chances on stuff and get burned. AND of course those auction LOA's which serve about as much purpose as toilet paper.

This tells anyone all they need to know about the alphabets. They are not really authentication companies; they are marketing tools. That is why they want fees correlating to the potential sale price of an auto. Some of their most expensive fees are for the easiest to authenticate, but what they really want is a percentage of the sale price that sellers are going for. Use them or not with this in mind.

My apologies. I had just read Rhys' comment and then yours. I shouldn't have included your comment in quotes, and I'll remove it.

Does anyone have any insight into my comments?

James,
Though I am not sure I agree with the comment, and would really want to examine these baseballs in hand before rendering an opinion, see comment #21 above. Your question was answered.

I think someone touched on this earlier. It could have been done in the same pen( given to the players by the same man as teh story suggests). Both balls were dated 1937 within months of one another. If it was a good pen, there would be a good chance the guy didn't lose it/throw it away ect. They didn't go through pens like we do now.

Rhys, I got off on a tangent with my last response to you. I know that you aren't saying to let fakes slide - I just feel that fakes WILL get by if we don't continue to question autographs the way we do. I also completely agree with your statement about "fishing". Autographs are a messy business - no getting around it.

Well put. This always turned me off to those companies.

There is no doubt we are all here for the same purpose, which is to encourage the collecting of Autographs, eliminate as many forgeries as possible, emphasize the ethical dealers and sellers, explore all options for collecting/selling, and make the hobby a better place. Like any work or social environment with a goal in mind, there are differing opinions on the best way to do this, but we ALL want the same things and that is healthy for the hobby no matter how you interpret the individual opinions and methods! I just hope that we can emphasize the POSITIVES of the hobby I love as much as the negatives. As long as its balanced between "Here is the Bad" WITH "Here is the Good" so we are getting BOTH aspects of this hobby, its a healthy environment!

Rhys