Opinions on this Babe Ruth auto
 

I have had this ball in my collection for about 20 years.
It has never been reviewed by any third party authenticator.
It is not for sale. I am asking for opinions as to authenticity because
I value the opinions of many of you on the board.
There is glare in the photo because the ball is heavily shellacked.
So... Good or Bad?

Form and ball look good, would like to hear from others about the ink.

Any background on where the signature was obtained? Do you have doubts about the authenticity of the ball? Me personally I think if I had a ball that looked this nice that I had no doubts about I would have already sent to PSA or JSA to be looked at. Just my opinion on it. If authentic this would be a high dollar ball at an auction.

Looks very similar to one I recently bought with a COA from both PSA and JSA (There is a thread with a link, you can see for yourself)

Letter by letter is a very good match, and the crossover of the teardrop on the R is also uvery similar

Only observation: On mine, the "bottom of the Ruth can be traced with a straight line and all4 letter bottoms align. On yours there appears to be a "step" so I would want to look into that detail.

So all in all it appears to be real and in excellent shape

Compare to this one (not as good a shape)

http://sports.ha.com/c/lot-image.zx?...=0&id=11851503

Bernie go out and look at the authentic examples of ruth and you will see alot of exampliers that have a similar up and down to the ruth part of the signature. This ruth check has both if you notice.

Bernie, let me see if I've gotten this straight.

You have absolutely no experience with autographs in general, and Babe Ruth's autograph in particular.

You bought a 1929 Yankees ball from Heritage Auctions, with a Babe Ruth signature which had been "authenticated" by both PSA and JSA.

Still, you wanted further opinions from members here.

And now, mere days later, you feel confident enough in your new-found knowledge to offer your own opinion on a Ruth's authenticity.

Have I missed anything?

Nope Dave you pretty much hit the ball out of the park! And Bernie in case you haven't met David he is really good source of Ruth autograph info and has helped me alot in my pursuit of Ruth signature Knowledge.

I purchased this ball at auction about 20 years
ago from "Broadway" Rick Kohl. A phone auction
advertised in SCD.

From what I could research "Broadway" Rick Kohl did not have the best reputation in the business and if the auto looks "too good to be true", I would be very wary that this is authentic. I am by far no "expert" but hope you didnt pay alot of money for it.

Well, I believe you have missed a few things

For starters, I never said I had no experience, as I do have a NYY HOF collection of autographs which I have compiled over the years. I said I was new to the site, and wanted to get opinions. Being new and being inexperienced are not equivalent, so whatever assumptions you make, are yours to keep, but are not quite correct. I do not consider myself a Ruth expert, but I can compare to something I have studied (which is what I did) and have spent some time researching. My wanting further opinions is primarily a mathematical exercise on my part to establish a high confidence level on authenticity.
Why should I not feel confident to offer my own opinion? It is my opinion, and I am not representing myself as an expert. I observed a difference in the straight vs step on teh "Ruth" part, which is correct, and I stated I needed to look more into it, which w7imel has provided an example.
I am also a practicing engineer with graduate degrees and 34+ years experience in my field, considered a Subject Matter Expert in my industry. It does not make me a Ruth expert, but it helps me state what I see and observe. I am willing to listed to other opinions and discuss them, but I will not be "intimidated" even if you are the living incarnation of Mr Ruth

I would not question being a good source, and would respect that capability. Attacking on a furum is not something I will not tolerate, so let's keep this civilized. If you believ I am incorrect, point it out, if the inntent is to "come out swinging" because one considers themselves the "site's unpaid expert", I do not have time for that. I do not know who any one of you is, but I do treat all with respect. Let's keep it civilized

Great another MIT grad who knows everything "because math can prove it". Sorry Bernie couldn't resist. Please don't take offensive I really am just joking. The NYY collection you have where did you obtain?

Michael,
I have not sent this ball to JSA or PSA because
I have no interest in selling it. I am aware that
some people had issues with Rick but I think that
the autograph should be judged on its merits not based
on who sold it. We are not talking Coach's Corner
here. The ball is heavily shellacked and had some
newsprint struck to it when I bought it as it was
apparently wrapped in newspaper at some point. I am
at a point in my life when I would like to get my
affairs in order and give my family instructions as to
what to do with my collection. I probably will
eventually send this to an authenticator unless the
consensus here is that that would be a waste of time.

Just one thing
MIT is over rated
Go Stanford

So, Bernie... Should bigtrain's "confidence level" be raised after seeing your opinion?

BTW, I know a bit of mathematics myself, having obtained my PhD in theoretical physics in 1979, and retired as a physics prof. in 2010. And I can, without reservation, tell you this: None of that mathematics applies to determining an autograph's authenticity, or even to how "confident" a buyer should feel.

I am personally not the one to ask if good or no good. All I am saying is if the person you bought from is questionable then I would have alot of questions to its authenticity. Let the others weigh in on it. If authentic it is a rare find for sure!

For what it's worth, Tom, I like the ball.

Big Train

FWIW, I would agree with having it authenticated, if nothing else for liquidity, but I just would not go through a lot of hassle to do it (ie would choose a local or nearby show vs mailing) Worst case regret is that an heir, not knowing, falls prey to a con artist and is told not to bother or under sells it. I suggest that, if you believe it is real (which I think you do) and you have favorable opinions, which I also believe you do, it becomes a necessary evil for future liquidity of the asset. As you (should) know, It will cost the better part of $300 for a cert. I do not have enough data to say that either PSA or JSA should do it, but, again, quoting from my personal experience and facts, I was far more impressed with JSA III's COA ability to identify 18 of 21 signatures on my ball (not an easy task and something that takes minutes, or in my case a couple of hours) This may be more appropriate for a multi signed ball, (PSA only lists HOFs and they did miss Pennock) so take it with a grain of salt.

Thank you, David. I have followed your posts for many
years and value your opinion.

If it is real It is a great ball for sure!!! Bernie just because you have a better success rate with a different authentication company does not mean they are the better company. All that it means is their standards are looser in order to get more money.

David
Feel free to sue statistics ay way you choose, most people do
Fact is I will go to my grave not knowing if the signature is 100% authentic
I was pretty much there with the ball authenticity, and my ??? was whether Ruth was a "clubhouse" or not. A somewhat simpler problem to solve in my minds, as a good forgery is likely to have the basic characteristics of the original, but a clubhouse has specific "features" which may not be common and which I was trying to identify. I was looking for specifics matches to a "known" good signature, and trying to maximize the "matches" This is why I paid attention to the horizontal, the straight b, t, the epsilon e, the loops and teardrops etc. Not trying to prove A= Truth, but basically following the "zeroth Law of Thermodynamics" (If A=B and B=C, then A=C) so my work was not to establish he entire spectrum of Ruth, just the 1929.
As luck has it, there is a lot of common details on bigtrain, which, also helps me "zero in" on the "thin" areas of mine, so i do get some benefit from evaluating the better signature. If you have the time, pls compare one to the other and you will see a high degree of correlation.

I'll save the confidence level for a future date, suffice to say I like to use a Weibull distribution with different weigh factors for experts and non experts (hence JSA, PSA get a higher weigh) but, it is very helpful to have an extra dozen knowledgeable people contribute. After all, the future liquidity market will not be driven by "truth", but by the perception of the truth. If everyone believes an outcome to be the truth, it will become the truth....

As you may know by now, it is hard to find 2 PhDs to agree on anything, and, when they do, thy will agree for different reasons, just the nature of the beast.

Sorry USE not sue. A Freudian slip....

I would send for authentication, not for the purpose of selling, but for confirmation/validation of its authenticity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bernie your Ruth was not clubhouse! If it was JSA or PSA would have noticed! and on top of that Dave would have told you by now! Ruth clubhouses for companies like JSA and PSA are not hard to spot. What are you so hung up on this ball? Again it is not the only 29 yanks team ball in existance.

Simple answer: I like it.
What I am describing is the process I used to get comfortable with it's authenticity. What I suggested was to compare these as they were very similar. I bought the ball to have in my collection, but also I study it and analyze it to get "dividends" out of the investment.

I still have not solved Koenig's sig. Both Gutierrez and JSA say it is there. I can not find it. I have enjoyed deciphering the other sigs, though

Any other opinions on the Ruth ball in question? Would like to know what the more experienced thought of it.

A few points:

• If it looks like a Ruth, then it will get a COA from both PSA and JSA. A good forger will be able to make it 'look' like Ruth's signature. So what is the point of sending it in, other than for re-sell?
• If it looks like a Ruth but is not, it is not 'clubhouse', it is a forgery. PSA and JSA both seem to be good at spotting Ruth clubhouse sigs, not so good with Mantle.
• If it is a bad forgery, PSA and/or JSA might catch it. If this is a forgery, it isn't a bad one, so expect it to pass both.
• To new guys: tone down your expectations of what "civilized" behavior is - this is the autograph sub-forum. There are no pedestals in here and some people don't wear their gloves.

I wouldn't buy this baseball - it doesn't have the characteristics I look for, and it has some of the ones I avoid, such as shellac and a bold signature that, to put diplomatically, certainly does not look rushed. That doesn't mean it isn't good.

Ok, one point at a time:

So in essence, your conclusion is PSA and JSA are not able to screen out a good forgery (not the first time I hear this comment BTW, just re stating)

Having seen some TPA Ruth's which I would not be comfortable owning, I can not argue with the conclusion you reach

This forum can be a help to others if doubts exist. It remains to be seen how much more effective the forum's "forger filter" can be if it has go past PSA/JSA, but I have seen a PSA which the forum rejected with ease so it can work

[QUOTE=Runscott;1359738]A few points:

• To new guys: tone down your expectations of what "civilized" behavior is - this is the autograph sub-forum. There are no pedestals in here and some people don't wear their gloves.

If you refer to my post (which I am sure you did) I can take it and deal with it, you and I can have an intelligent conversation and have done so, without having to get personal. I appreciate that

When someone gets a bit personal, and sarcastic, I find it appropriate to put them back in their place. I do not expect church like behavior here, but I think all readers benefit from some professionalism in the discussion. Agree with the no pedestals, will fight with no gloves. Personal attacks/innuendos not acceptable to me. Other than that, I'm good.

As long as you can deal with some of your forum decorum rules being ignored. Each member feels like they are the one who knows what correct behavior is. But we do have rules and moderators, so no need to tell us.

Also, it really does not "remain to be seen" with regard to the forum's abilities. This is a very old forum in internet time - what you can learn from it is not only proven, but we also have a search function.

Just to put the record straight, Bernie, nothing I said--absolutely nothing--was "personal." I simply--and sarcastically, because that's just me--questioned your autograph expertise, based on what you yourself previously posted.

And I still do. My PhD in physics has absolutely no bearing upon my autograph expertise--or lack thereof. Neither does your PhD. My considerable mathematical training and experience has no bearing--none whatever--upon my autograph expertise--or lack thereof. Neither does yours. And to imply that it does is wrong--at best.

if I do possess any special knowledge in this area--and I will let my colleagues be the judges--it has to do with the fact that I have been collecting historical autographs, and vintage Yankee autographs, since 1961. I have had scores of Ruths and Gehrigs pass through my hands, as the only way an academic physicist can afford this hobby is by dealing autographs as well. This is not to say that I haven't made mistakes--serious mistakes. I certainly have. But when I have, I believe I have learned from them.

And finally, I don't know where "my place" is, nor where it should be. But I do know that you haven't "put me back in it."

Best of luck with your collecting.

Also Bernie, I have no desire whatsoever to alienate you. Some day when a rich relative passes and leaves you a nice inheritance, I'm hoping to sell you this at an inflated price:

I believed I credited the forum for actuals, the abilities are there. Not challenging the past, in fact, that's why I decided to join. Would like to benefit in the future. If it comes down to PSA/JSA becoming the final authority, and, we know good forgerers can get past them, then the hobby would be permanently tainted......

Bernie Silverman, from NYC. A landsman. I love it!

PSA/DNA is not the final authority, they are simply the monetizers.........

Not sure you get it. I was comparing 2 autographs, one of which there is a preponderance of evidence it is legitimate. I identified similarities and differences. You challenged (and still do) my expertise. I am not an "expert" but I am capable of reaching my own conclusions. You felt the need to "attack" when reading a statement which was factual, not subjective, and, I took the action I thought was appropriate. I do not need to know your CV to respect your opinions, just want to be exposed to them. If you disagree with mine, challenge the point, not the person.

Get a PSA/JSA on it and we can start discussing price

Whether I agreed or disagreed with your "point" is totally irrelevant. I objected to the hubris you displayed in making it at all.

I still do.

It is a shame that you feel that way. I do not see us ever having an intelligent conversation, so let's just drop it and move on.

I forgot, but you just reminded me - it comes with a full JSA letter and was pre-certified by PSA. Cha-ching, cha-ching.

There are really only a couple of people who participate here and are incapable of having intelligent conversations. It's a select club that I'm sure you are incapable of qualifying for.

So I am incapable of qualifying for a club whose criteria is to be unable to have an intelligent conversation?

All I am going to say is that if "Pickles" (hi Bernie) wants to continue to have spirited debate then he is going to need to have his full name in posts, per the board rules. I believe everyone should know who they are sparring with. This goes for all members, all of the time. thanks

I hope so.

Pickles and Big Train
 

The issue Bernie here is that we are all collectors and have many things in common and that includes a love of baseball and collecting its memorabilia and history, in this particular case it is autographs. Regardless of our academic backgrounds, our professions, our niche in autographs , and our ability to spend and acquire on a budget or without spending limits we all have been taken advantage of, overpaid for items, been screwed by 3rd party TPAs ( including PSA and JSA) and auction houses and at times by dealers. From these experiences , whether we have been collecting for 40+ years like me , or just entered this great and , at times cruel and unforgiving hobby, we all learn from these experiences , gain great knowledge , form friendships, and yes, develop an ego and attitude. It just comes with the territory.
The attitude we develop can influence a lot of things on this forum.
People here can be skeptical, but above all I find them to alarmingly honest with no financial gain expected for their opinions, which can for the post part be absolutely correct....regardless of what TPAs or money say.
But if you make an assertion please be ready to back it up.
So Pickles please address the issue of the Ruth ball, and back it up with substance not a mathematical formula and statistics because with TPAs there is no logical formula. Logic gets thrown out the window. Either it is good or it is not but back it up with facts not statistics.

Now Tom I would get the ball certed , as much as I hate to say it. Because if you are "trying to get things in order" for your family a COA will help them greatly in reselling or consigning the item, especially if they are not interested in your collection or lack the knowledge to judge authenticity and value. Although I never bought anything from "Broadway" Rick I remember his name and his SCD ads well. Best of luck with your decision.

All I wanted is to hear some educated opinions on the ball...how did it come to all this drama? Dont get me wrong its fun drama...haha I love these discussions

So, back to the ball for a second... I thought the form of the signature looked right and the ball was ok, my question was the ink and whether the shellac caused the ink to have that sort of thick bled look to it and preserved it in such a bold manner, which is what slightly troubled me... Thoughts?

You nailed it. Being "troubled" by it is a massive hint. I was troubled by many Babe Ruth signed baseballs before I finally bought one that I was not troubled by, and I'm sure I passed up many legitimate ones.