[thebigtrain]

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.