Ruth Ball in Mastro

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Interesting Babe Ruth signed ball in the current Mastro Auction... Lot 1509. It comes with James Spence LOA, but PSA apparently declined it.

Any opinions on why PSA may have rejected it? Experts... please chime in! This is perhaps an unparallelled example, if legit.

The lack of a PSA certification is apparently keeping the price down, as there is a significantly lesser example currently selling for $9,000 more than this one. Any thoughts as to what PSA might know, that Spence doesn't?

[Archive]

Posted By: David Atkatz

So tell it.

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jimmy

I have had the same problem with Ted Williams autos, Mantle autos and sometimes team balls.

one company says okay and the other not

and then I go to someone that got signatures with the players in person a dozen times and says the autograph is just fine

with the team balls, its always the clubhouse issue

crazy hobby, but I still love it

Jimmy

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

I have no idea, and am not holding back an answer to this. I am purely inquiring, as this Ruth auto looks like a splendid example to me. Just curious as to what specifically PSA didn't like about it...

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

David was replying to a post that got deleted...I don't know why the post got deleted...I didn't do it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

The deleted post was from a board member who has much experience in the autograph market and said with conviction that the signature was a forgery.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I did not see that post...the only thing I saw was a post that said "It's a long story".

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I deleted the post at the request of the poster. Most of the times if a poster asks me to delete their post I will do it. Sorry for the confusion. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Paradis

Withdrawn. Does anyone know why?

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Does anyone know if it is unusual for a ball that is at least sixty years old to be in what appears to be perfect condition?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

It is unusual, but not unheard of....someone came on this forum a little while back with a 1940's team signed Yankees ball that was pristine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard S. Simon

It is hardly unparalled to have differing opinions among authenticators.
In this case I would agree with PSA.
--

I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.
Unknown author
--
We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.
No retreat baby, no surrender.
The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

Mastro has now withdrawn this ball (Lot 1509). Wonder what led to the decision to pull it? They must have had some new insight, or perhaps just too many doubts surrounding it. Interesting...

ps. Richard, I meant "unparallelled example" in that the ball was a near perfect example, if indeed legitimate. Not unparallelled that two authenticators would be in disagreement over it. I know that must happen frequently.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe Jesselli

According to an e-mail from a principal at the auction house, the lot was pulled "based on the fact that James Spence determined he was not comfortable with the autograph."

Also, in response to a query as to why PSA failed to provide a letter of authentication, the principal wrote, "authenticators rarely issue letters as to why they are not willing to authenticate items just the fact that they are not rendering an opinion."

It was wise for Mastro to disclose the PSA/Spence conflict in their original description. It was wiser for them to now pull the auction after flags were raised. It would have been wisest if they didn't offer the lot in the first place.

[Archive]

Posted By: Edward Cowens

edited for anonymity...please put full name and email on post

[Archive]

Posted By: Ed Cowens

edited for anonymity...please put full name and email on post