What would you do?

[daves_resale_shop]

So I picked this ball up recently... Looks like the only baseball signature on it is Musial...(see previous thread for back story). My hypothesis is that it was obtained (autograph and ball) on opening day of 1956. Initially I though the date was darkened, but it's not... Regardless, Musial hit a homer to win the game on opening day of 1956, and another hofer (Frank Robinson) made his debut and acquired his first hit...

Frank is signing at a local show this weekend and I was hoping to get some opinions on wether or not I shoud have him sign the ball?

Greatly appreciate any input.

Dave

[daves_resale_shop]

Pic

[w7imel]

I personally would not mix a vintage and non vintage autograph...JMO but its your ball. If you ever resale I think it would adversely affect the price. Again opinion not fact. Let us know and post a picture id like to see ball as is now.

[packs]

I agree. I don't think I'd have Robinson sign. His signature is shaky now. For him I think I'd rather try to track down a ticket to the game.

[almostdone]

Originally Posted by packs

I agree. I don't think I'd have Robinson sign. His signature is shaky now. For him I think I'd rather try to track down a ticket to the game.

Agreed. I understand the pull being his first game and hit but as a Musial collector I would much rather have the vintage ball and signature of Stan the Man without a modern, added signature.
Drew

[theshleps]

agree with all the above tho it depends in some ways. if you are solely a collector, then whichever you like best. if a reseller don't combine

[39special]

I agree that a modern signature on a vintage ball like that would not look right,and his signature is not very good . I would leave it as it is.

[GrayGhost]

Leave it as is. Have fun at the show. I miss those times

[Scott Garner]

Dave,
Frank Robinson's current autograph has deteriorated to the point it's almost illegible. Don't even consider it. Keep the ball as is. Just my 2 cents...