Mays opinion?
 

Bought this weird ball off the bay. Rusty Staub, Keith Hernandez and Willie Mays. What do we think?

https://i.imgur.com/fHLNKCgl.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/kciKUucl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/EZoAkqdl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jYmd3wdl.jpg

not a favorite. dont like Mays or Staub. Dont know Hernandez enough to comment

Not good

The trepidation others are having is understandable, as it's a very odd Mays and that Staub is even sloppier than his usual IP scrawl, but the autographs are fine IMO. Not sure what happened with that W in Willie, but just cover that up on the screen and look at the rest of it.

The Mays and Hernandez both have the appearance of having been on that ball a long time. The Staub could appear fresher and more recent. There are no clubhouse versions that come anywhere close to these, either, and no forger is going to put these three on the same item, as it would make no sense to their prospective financial gain.

I recall examining a bunch of Staub's personal collection many years ago which was about to be auctioned. For whatever reason, the auction house had him sign all his vintage baseballs at that time. Single-signed, team signed...it made no sense. Balls with U.S. Preisdents and top-tier HOFers, all formerly single-signed and many with unique inscriptions to Rusty now have his scrawl on a side panel. I'm not saying with any certainty that this ball is from his collection; I just happened to be reminded of that experience. Whoever was behind that ridiculous decision ended up ruining a lot of nice autographed baseballs. Their lack of comprehension of very basic autograph Do's and Dont's proved they shouldn't be in the industry.

Thanks for the opinions guys. The one thing I forgot to mention, is the personalization.

https://i.imgur.com/FoFsTtBl.jpg

The only common denominator on this ball is that they all were on the Mets at some point in their careers . Mays and Staub were on the 1973 Mets together .
That being said there are tells in each of these signatures that to me say this ball IMO is not good . Again I’m going on 1st impression as I always do.

My gut feeling is no, but I like Billy's rationale. Playing into that the major issue I have is unsurprisingly the W in Mays auto... I actually think the last name looks fine. One positive the W has going for it is whoever signed it, Mays or a blind child, had the direction (can't really say flow) correct. I've seen quite a few forgeries of Mays start at the bottom of the W and end at the top of it, effectively writing it backwards. I think people forget it's a W which maybe is the reason why they do it that ways. Also, considering the notorious curmudgeonly reputation of Mays, is it outside the realm of possibility that he just scribbled his name on a ball for some snot-nosed kid to get rid of him? Couple that with everything Billy said and you may have an authentic ball!

Yeah, it's fine. If anyone needed further convincing, there's the personalization.

I'd have absolutely no hesitation in authenticating that Mays. In spite of its flaws, the good aspects of this autograph stood out to me instantly. Sometimes, you just get a dud of a signature for whatever reason. They're not all going to follow a perfect template.