It was obvious, even before Chris mentioned something. I'm not gonna get into any arguments with you. But I call it how I see it. If you've got issues with people not going into details about what they know, then just suck it up and deal with it, instead of constantly poking them and trying to antagonize them into something.

Sorry Chris for jumping to any conclusions for you. But I thought it was that obvious, and it kinda pissed me off a bit

I never thought you did. I wasn't talking to you, Chris. I was addressing David, whose post follows yours.

You're right on the money, David. There are some things that I won't talk about and there are other things that I can't talk about.

Sorry Chris for singling you out, and dragging you into his mess. It's been brought to my attention that the post wasn't necessarily intended for you. At least not solely.

Well, the fact that Mr. Atkatz mentioned my name in his reply tells me that it was an intended shot at me.

He might've mentioned you because I brought it up though. I'm just gonna bow out of this before it gets any worse.

Enough of this please

My original post about "knowledge" had nothing at all to do with you, Chris. Believe me, you never came to mind when I wrote it. After David mentioned you, I answered him, letting him know that. I apologize for the "flatter himself" bit, though. That was completely uncalled for on my part.

Not to worry David N.,I will take the advice given to me by others on this thread to ignore the baiting.
There have been so many negative posts directed at Atkatz recently that I don't have to say anything.
Scott - I will no longer post about him. It is done.

I am not baiting you, Richard. I'm letting it be known that I-and others--are extremely tired of your "I know, but I can't tell you" posts. If you can't offer enough information to be useful, than why post at all? And don't give us that "I'm afraid I'll be sued" BS. In 1997, three years before I purchased the '27 ball, Richard Galasso was not afraid to publicize "Johnny's" work in SCD, complete with photos. But you, who claim to have been aware of his work for twenty years, never contacted me with your doubts about the ball--photos of which I had posted here many times over the years. Nope. But then one day I pissed you off by commenting on your habit of withholding any and all actually useful information in your enigmatic "where's Johnny F*** today?" post, and then you tell me "well, you should know who I'm talking about--you have some of his work," in order to upset me the only way you can think of.

Now, I'm not saying you were obligated to have let me know of your suspicions, long before, but it sure would have been the decent thing to do.
So keep on pretending to take that high road.

David, explain to the board, how does Richard Galasso's advertisement place him in danger of being sued? He pictures and publicizes a baseball; he does not state who forged it. Did you think that Johnny was going to sue Galasso over that ad? I know you are not stupid, but are you really serious? I can see it now, Johnny saying: "Yeah, I forged that baseball and now I am going to sue." What legal system do you live in David?


And I want to remind the board of something; you’re the one who immediately stopped posting when the Frank Prisco thread was running. You can’t make your phony claim that you stopped posting because you had nothing else to add to the thread, because you always have something to say. Richard has been sued two times because of his courage to speak out. You have no right to question Richard when it comes to that subject of confronting the bad guys. You ran when confronted; you can deny it all you want, as I know you will, but we know what really happened.

Your ridiculous attempt to have Prisco answer your silly thread, when you had to know he would never answer you was laughable. "Hey Frank, this is David, I called you a crook, please help me now." Seriously?


As for your “1927 Yankees” team-signed baseball, I for one, had never seen the complete photos of your baseball on Net54. Then one day back in August 2011, I took a look at your avatar and something struck me as "weird." It was then I emailed you and asked you to send me photos of your ball. After examining your photos, I knew the sigs on your ball were not authentic. I remember sending you an email and writing “Nice ball.” That was during the time when we were cordial and I didn’t have the heart to break the news to you. Why should I be the messenger when it is always the messenger who gets blamed

In this thread and in others, there have been some who have expressed sentiments along the lines of “This is why I would never collect autographs,” etc., etc.

I think it is important to keep this in perspective. While I feel terrible for David’s situation, one assumes much higher risk when going into the deep end of the pool. High dollar items attract master forgers and con men – the types of items that may even fool credible experts.

For the vast majority of “average” collectors (of which I include myself) who collect autographs of Mantle, Williams, Koufax, et.al., there is much less risk. Certainly forgeries of these figures exist, but they are not the master forgeries that can typically fool experts. By educating yourself, networking with experienced collectors, frequenting places like this and buying from good dealers, you can have an autograph collection that is relatively worry-free. Dare I say it lest I risk the scorn of the alphabet bashers :p , with your Mantles, DiMaggios, etc., PSA and JSA are reliable with these types of autographs the vast majority of the time and are a relatively safe way to build a collection.

How did the two suits go against Richard? I would think if you have evidence that they are forgers then they sure wouldn't want to take you to court..that opens them up to a whole lot of questions they probably wouldn't want. Nobody in here is afraid to accuse Coaches Corner of all kinds of illegalities. Is the proof against this Johnny F guy too flimsy?

Dan - Both lawsuits against me were dismissed. Though my attorneys still got paid, they did very good work and billed me accordingly for that.
I am happy to also say that I did sue an ebay autograph seller for libel and won. He and his wife did write out a check to me and issue a formal apology.
Though the money I got from them did not come close to my expenses involved in defending myself in the two lawsuits against me.
It is not cheap to get sued in America. I could have taken ten really nice vacations for what it cost me to defend myself. The English have a much better system. If you sue someone in England and lose, you pay the legal fees for yourself and the person you sued.
Proof against Johnny is non existent. Nobody even knows where he is, though I do think I see his work at times. It migt have been work that was done many years ago.
There are lots of deserved accusations made here against CC.
Who knows what will happen there?

It's not dead, it's just pining for the fiords!

hahah-awesome

Scott, that cracked me up, but you make a good point; but at the same time I will not tolerate that kind of attack.

Some people have suggested that I ignore some of David's comments; for the most part I do, but some I cannot. I don't like getting into a pissing match here on Net54. But some comments cannot be ignored and must be addressed.

But here's an idea; let's address the below.

David, you are the self proclaimed Yankee expert. Why would you need someone else's help? Why did you have to go to Jodi? I bet you thought of yourself as the best guy in the hobby regarding Yankee autographs and yet you went to a former TPA. As a matter of fact, from what I've read here on Net54, you were studying vintage Yankees autographs well before you purchased your "1927 Yankees" team-signed ball. How did that ball fool you for twelve years?

again!!!

Anyway to stop that guy from beating his horse? :):).
Poor animal has taken a lot today.

I too share some of David's sentiments on knowing the guys ball was probably fake, but not being able to tell him??? It would have started the same pissing match we have now...probably even worse. Situation just smells foul for everyone, but no one is more damaged than the poor guy who was duped.

I also see Richard's point about putting a guys name out there and then getting sued by the crook. Sort of the way Steve Cyrkin is being sued by Christopher MoralLESS for moderating and putting up a blog that states the truth about this boob and his rubber-stamping services??????? A complete joke! But it can happen. So I can see the flip side of the coin on this as well. It is expensive to get sued in America.

I wish I knew more about the whole forgery thing going on too, like Richard and Chris do. They do share as much as they feel comfortable sharing. I personally don't care about sharing everything I know, (which isn't much) so It's a good thing they don't tell me:D otherwise, I could crack under pressure.:D

This question is for David regarding your mint 1928 Babe Ruth signed baseball. Is it possible for that ball to be a "replica" Babe Ruth signed ball? I have seen a strikingly similar ball being offered several times over the past year or so as a replica. I have attached a couple pictures for you to look at. The first is your ball, and the second is a picture I found in my history of the replica. Please also note, this same replica was also offered in various forms considering pen color and ball condition.

The plot thickens. Nice observation.

I don't think those two balls look alike(Notice the B). You have to remember the autos that guy used for his reprint balls came from real ones. And I'm pretty sure David bought his ball before the guy started making those reprints you showed.

Those autos are exact. The bad news would be that this is a repro. The good news would be that the artist used David's ball as his exemplar. I sure hope it's the latter, for David's sake.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

Look at the loop in the B. The reprint one is alittle thinner, while David's is bigger.

same auto... Not sure if it matters but the stitching is going in opposite directions...:) def diff ball..so hopefully David's was used to make the reproductions.

Same exact auto... note the placement of the quotes. Brock... the smaller picture may just distort it a little.

Also hoping that David's was the exemplar used to make the repros :eek:

not the same, look at the line from the B to the E. one goes straight the other to the top of the E. I have to disagree

forgery
 

Looks like the same auto to me also. Look at that small little extra line hanging down on the lower bottom of the R. :eek:

Looks exactly the same to me. Perhaps if the smaller image was enlarged and the ball rotated to the same angle and size as the ball in the larger image the similarities would be more pronounced.

Looks like the same auto to me. The quotes are placed in the exact same place.

I don't think there is much question about whether they are the same or not. I believe they are absolutely the same. The big question is, is David's the original one? For this artist to make a replica of this ball; he either had to have possession of the original ball while doing so, or he would have to have very detailed close up images of the original in order to make a replica as detailed as that one is.

I did do a pretty thorough search through all of the major auction houses in the last 10 years to see if any of them had sold that particular Babe Ruth ball in the past and I was not able to find it. In order for the artist to get close up detailed images of the original Ruth ball he had to have gotten them from somewhere. There are not any on the internet of the original. If David has had possession of the original this whole time, where did this artist get such detailed pictures to make the replica? This ball looks like it would be a 50K+ Ball. It is usually not very difficult to find the Ruth's that sold for that much.

As much as it is going to kill many people on this forum for me to say, a simple PSA or JSA letter would be the end of this conversation. This is one of the exact reasons why I believe they are so important in this hobby. These replica's that are being made are actually pretty dam good. You really need to have the ball in person to know for sure. If you are just looking at pictures on the computer it can be very difficult to know the difference. The "indentation" of the pen really only shows up in person under magnification, or if somebody has extremely good vision they can tell the difference easily with the naked eye. But still needs to be done in person to know for sure.

I remember seeing the Replica baseballs start selling a couple of years ago on eBay, I questioned the seller as to the ball that they were on and was told that they were replicated baseballs made to look like the originals. I was also told that the "artist" only needed a photograph of a real ball to use as the digital replicated signature. David's ball was obviously the sample ball being used as this is the same signature. And I can also tell you, as I have seen one of these replicas in person, David's was absolutely not made by the same process.

this makes me sick. Now i know why i dont do autos...

David, it's not like you to be so quiet. Can you tell us how the artist copied your ball? Has it been in your possession for a long time?

Regards,
Ken

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe I recently received an Ebay email stating that Ebay would no longer allow sellers to list replica coins. Maybe Ebay should consider banning replica signed baseballs also.

eBay should also ban replica tickets. There seems to be a growing trend of sellers listing more and more of these. Everyone mentions that they are replicas, but it's just a matter of time that someone unscrupulous idiot buys and relists it as authentic. There undoubtedly is collector out there that will sadly get duped by the ruse....

I personally do not like replicas, period. Replicas = fake!! :mad:

To play devil's advocate, replicas can help fans on a budget build a display. But, IMO replicas should be indelibly marked.

It was my understanding that replica coins had to be marked by law... otherwise it is a counterfeit. :confused:

I wholeheartedly agree with the marking of replicas as such. There will always be those unscrupulous sellers though who either remove the marking or photograph in such a way that it doesn't show and then conveniently leave out words like "original" from their description. So when they're selling a "Babe Ruth Autograph Baseball," well, technically it is a baseball that displays a Babe Ruth autograph on one panel. The seller's feedback usually won't stand up to too many dupes like that, it happens in all areas of collecting, but if the items are marked as replicas, the marking (or scratched-out remainder thereof) should at least raise the necessary red flags for the buyer.

In David's defense on this Ruth ball issue, as Brandon pointed out previously the counterfeiter replicator only needs a photograph of a real signed ball to go from, which means that all it took was one case of David showing off his ball in a public forum with a nice, large, close-up photo of it, and the counterfeiter artist who produces these has all the ammo he needs.

Replicas = fakes
 

In David's defense on this Ruth ball issue, as Brandon pointed out previously the counterfeiter replicator only needs a photograph of a real signed ball to go from, which means that all it took was one case of David showing off his ball in a public forum with a nice, large, close-up photo of it, and the counterfeiter artist who produces these has all the ammo he needs.

Like Lance! :p

question...
 

I've posted my Gehrig signed post card several times over the last few years. Now, can a "replicator and/or forger" then use my autograph to create a single signed sweet-spot on an original c. 1930's slightly toned American League Ball?

Attachment 54617

King, I think you would have to ask the replicator that question.
Maybe if we stopped showing off our stuff (me too) they would have nothing to replicate :D:D

Jimmy

One thing that can be done to make it more difficult is to add a watermark

Max

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/93/248...086abdd0_o.jpg

I think that would be the realization that, at worst, he has the same replica autograph, albeit on a better ball. Or, at best, this ball has lost much of its value with there being 'near exact' duplicates easily available.

To King , I make my own repo balls, I buy my balls custom stitched in red/black or red/blue, it would take me about 10 minutes to replicate that sample on the sweetspot of a baseball.I do not sell my creations, or even really show them,the photo I posted yesterday in the other thread was the first and only time, they are for the most part just impossible to find balls or non existant combos like Waddell and Plank or McGinnity and Matty.Today, I did a 1920 Indians team ball with Chapman and a Janis Joplin single signed Giles ball, I can use the same process for bats as well,keep in mind as I said, I am not making these for resale it's just a hobbly not looking to ruffle anyone's feathers.

That's amazing Mike. Thanks for being so straightforward. That's a quality that I deeply respect. Best regards, Jimmy

BTW... Those bats make great display pieces.

"Maybe if we stopped showing off our stuff (me too) they would have nothing to replicate"

Thanks for the input Max and Richard. However, I think my horses all left the barn a long, long time ago. ;)

BTW... That's a tough looking, well seasoned bunch of ballplayers you got there, Max. And I just love the little kid stuck at the end of the row!

Thank you for the kind words, I bought the bats through Louisville Slugger, they are the dark brown ones with the gold foil branding, I really had to spend some time on them to de-modernize them , but it was a heck of alot cheaper than trying to find vintage store bats that have become so expensive.

I don't see how the existence of 'replica' balls would much affect the value of an authentic Ruth ball. The larger problem, especially in today's 'climate,' could be establishing the authenticity of the Ruth ball to the satisfaction of potential buyers.

Henson,
I know you cant talk about it to much. But I'm curious how you print a auto on a ball or a bat.

I think the previous posters were referring specifically to the particular ball used as a template for the replicas. In and of itself, the value isn't diminished. If a collector has seen 100 replica balls that look very much to exactly like the original though, there will be that bit of doubt that makes them wonder if this one really is authentic, or if the replicas have just gotten better than their discerning eyes. Doubt in the mind of the buyer, however minor, will always affect the price they are willing to pay for an item.

As another example, consider autopen signatures. Presidents and other famous individuals have certain known autopen signature patterns. The pattern or template is based on an actual signature, so somewhere (presumably, for the sake of this example) there exists that actual hand-signed autograph that the autopen template was based on. Yet if you offered that original hand-signed autograph to a collector, it would be difficult for him to dispel from his mind all the autopen duplicates of that signature he had seen in order to pull the trigger on the purchase, despite the signature being 100% authentic.

The same thing happens in other areas of collectibles too, where counterfeits of certain items are so prolific that it becomes harder for a buyer to gain the necessary confidence when an authentic example comes up for sale.

I think we are saying much the same thing. A person who wants and can afford an authentic Ruth ball is not going to find a 'replica' ball very satisfying. However, given the 'sophistication' of the replicas, potential purchasers are likely to insist upon a high standard of proof of authenticity before making the purchase.

ball
 

Hi David,
I see in the other thread that they used your ball as a reference in the Halls Of Shame . Love to hear your story about that. Al

I wonder. Is the Grabowski signature that appears on my ball a replication, too?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...owski_grab.jpg

None of the fountain pen "structure" appears on the replica balls--the double lines produced by the split nib, the places where one line crosses another, etc. All of this is easily visible on my ball because the pen was relatively dry--it did not have a strong ink flow. There are pen impressions, as well. There is no doubt the ball was signed.

i posted large close-ups of this ball--and other autographs--here years ago. I will NOT be doing so again.

I'm sure no laws were broken here, but if the artist said "Hey, that Atkaz ball has a sweet auto! I'm going to copy it for art balls," I'd at least think it'd be common courtesy to let the owner of the original know!

That's why I brought this back up, not to say that David had another bad ball or anything. I was wondering if he was even aware his ball had been copied.

Ken
earlywynnfan5@hotmail.com

I was not aware. But my eyes have been opened, again.
Thanks.

Most of these repos look like stamped, like generic stadium bought novelty balls. I like realism,and anything can be reproduced,even fountain pen splits. David I AM NOT SAYING your ball isn't authentic, just saying with an eye for detail, and the know how,the sigs can look very good, and chipping,fading,ink slit ect. can also be manually added. Someone that is selling replicas on Ebay for 50.00 won't look that impressive,but I seem to like realism with my collection. Here are a few of mine.

There doesn't appear to be near that level of detail in the replicas which you posted. Under magnification--and even to the naked eye, at times--fountain pen writing is easily distinguishable from facsimile.

Of course, anything can be "copied." But the ball has not been out of my possession for the last ten years; if the replicas are copies of this signature they were made from photos I posted--and the replicas cannot show more detail than is present in those photos. The ball shows structure at all levels of magnification--far more detail than appears at the resolution of the photos.

C'mon, Mike. Surely you're not saying that those blotchy, thick-lined signatures look real.

All I am saying is don't be so quick to assume what is possible and what isn't . What does thick lined ink have to do with anything? These were taken from documented autographed balls that sold at auction,you commented on the split in the ink, all I did was show you it can be replicated, Here is the thick ink Chance ball real or not ,who knows? But,being splotchy and having a thick lined signature, it sold at auction. http://legendaryauctions.com/LotDetail.aspx?lotid=68017

Notice the grain perforations in the leather. Notice where the ink has filled in some of them, producing extremely tine dots.

Did the replicator align the printed signature exactly with the microscopic pattern?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...z/ruthcu-1.jpg

Good point. That would be impossible IMO to replicate. I have always thought your ball was an ink signature, it was not replicated using the technique I use. The ball and autographs could be but you are 100% right, under a microscope it would be noticeable.

Could you please post a larger scan? 300 dpi perhaps. :D

:p

Mike,

I mean no disrespect, but I'd have to agree with David on this one. I wouldn't be fooled by either the Big Ed Walsh or Cy Young facsimile balls. Both look pretty clumsy, IMHO.....

Sorry. This is the best I have right now.

No offense taken Scott,it is not my intention to try to fool anyone.

I'd be very surprised if the various licensing agencies for the estates of the ball players didn't take a dim view of any unauthorized replication