View Single Post
  #152  
Old 12-14-2011, 05:21 PM
slidekellyslide's Avatar
slidekellyslide slidekellyslide is offline
Dan Bretta
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Posts: 6,122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thebigtrain View Post
What makes these Ruths so unlikely to be authentic isn't the sig itself, but rather that utterly pristine condition of the balls themselves. I could see maybe 1 or 2 surviving in that condition, but not the quantity posted on Hauls of Shame.

It was common practice back then to coat signed balls in shellac. I believe some of the letters Ruth sent along with signed balls (when he anwered & fufilled such requests) even noted "cover this in shellac and it will preserve my signature" or words to that effect.

Couple that with the fact that, at the time (and for a long, long time thereafter) the balls had no tangible monetary value. Even in the early 80s you could buy a signed Ruth for a hundred bucks or less. My argument is that these kinds of items would've occasioanlly been "pulled out" over the years to show friends and such, and as such would show more soiling/handling that evident on these examples. Hard not to imagine some guy at a cocktail party in the 1960s not whipping out the Ruth ball and passing it around, or letting his kids play with it a bit, bring it to school for show n' tell, etc. See what I'm getting at? Here are some other thoughts:

A.) A large number of people must have presumably presented pristine balls for Ruth to sign, rather than balls that were game-used (fouls, bouncers etc) or balls they themselves (or their kids) had "used" a bit beforehand. New baseballs were relatively expensive at the time for the average Joe, and the idea you'd buy a brand new ball, take it to Ruth, have him sign it, and then put it away where it wouldn't fade or acquire the slightest bit of soiling/handling for 50+ years is just too hard to swallow with respect to the QUANTITY of them out there in the auction circuit.

B.) Ruth did sign a great deal for his era, but nowhere near the amount of a Pete Rose or other former MLB'er out on the autograph circuit. A full 40 years elapsed from the time of his death to the time his autograph became a big-$$$ collector's item. That's a LOT of time for stuff he signed to get soiled, played with, lost, tossed in the trash, etc. That's to say nothing of fading- presumably, those who possessed these artifacts for the 40 years before they became $$$ didn't all keep them in a safe deposit box or home safe. Many must have been in bookcases, on mantles and such where they'd have faded/aged much more than these examples.

I wouldn't be surprised if the balls that are verified to be authentic to the period were 'cleaned up" a great deal before the sig was forged. That's assuming that many of the balls have a marking that does in fact date them to pre-1948. I'm sure the FBI has a way to test the composition of the balls themselves to determine if they are indeed made of pre-1948 materials. If not, then no further analysis is needed, similar to the bogus $1 Ruth/Gerigh bills with the wrong Treasurer on them.

One final thought is that I believe several authentic Ruths have surfaced on Roadshow over the years, some with the old geezer bringing a photo of them having Ruth sign it for them, thus supplying an impeccable provenance. None of these balls looked anywhere near as good as the Haulsof Shame examples, and most were in downright crap condition, as you'd expect for a 70+ year old item.
Most of the shellacked balls that I've come across were 1930s...not sure I've ever owned an autographed ball from the 40s that was shellacked...and as far as pristine balls go I've seen newsreels and/or photos of Ruth hanging out of a hotel window with brand new cases of baseballs...signing them and dropping them into the crowd. Now I doubt that he did this in the 1940s though, but I don't think it would have been unusual for him to have cases of brand new balls that he kept around to sign and give to people who requested them.

I also don't think it's all that unusual for an item like that to survive 70 years in pristine shape...even in the quantity that have surfaced in the last 20 years. The internet, ebay, auction houses and the explosion in value for certain collectibles has brought a ton of stuff out of the woodwork.

With that said I know all of the variables I mentioned above also have led to an explosion in forged/fake items too so I have no idea if those Ruth balls are legitimate or not, but to think that 70 year old pristine items can not exist in any quantity I think is wrong.
__________________
Looking for Nebraska Indians memorabilia, photos and postcards
Reply With Quote