Louis f sockalexis autographed ball
 

I have a ball that is signed by Louis F Sockalexis. It was given to me 42 years ago by an old neighbor. He knew that I collected baseball cards and memorabilia and he had it in a box in his garage. He said that his father gave it to him. I know that his family lived in the Chicago area but I don't know much more than that.
I had one person who authenticates autographs look at the ball and he told me that the ball is from the correct era and that he believes that it is authentic, but he said that it would be very difficult to actually authenticate the signature. The ball was coated with shellacque at some point after being autographed.
I'm just asking for opinions or any information on the steps to take to possibly authenticate this. If it's real, it should be in a museum, and not locked away. Thank you!!

Wow. If that is legit, that is unbelievably cool.
I am not aware of any signatures in the hobby.

However, I believe I know where there are exemplars. While they will not sell them, they might be willing to look at your signature, and compare it to their own to verify it ( I doubt they will let you or anyone look at theirs).


Perhaps someone on here has some more information?

Thank you for your reply. I might try to get hold of someone at Holy Cross. That's a great idea.

What does the rest of the ball say?

It's actually signed twice. One side says "Compliments Louis Sockalexis" but there's a smear in the ink. The side that you can see in the pictures says "Compliments From Louis F Sockalexis". Almost as if when he signed the ball the first time, a finger or something smudged the signature, so he signed it again.

I have studied Sockalexis and researched him probably more than anyone in the hobby. I have tracked down the only couple of known signatures in various archives (none in public hands). Without having the ball in person I would say there is a pretty close to 0 percent chance that ball was signed by Sockalexis. A couple things to note.

First; after 1897 he was embarrassed and ashamed, essentially hiding out from the world and in poor health. He played on some local teams, but was FAR from a celebrity. Any autograph of Sockalexis would have been obtained prior to that time. I do not believe that ball dates to that time period.

Second; people assume he was similar to early minority players of the era that Sockalexis was uneducated (such as the crude print of the ball) but in reality he attended school all the way through high school and then spent several years (not just a token cup of coffee) at two of the leading colleges in America and did quite well. His handwriting was ornate and beautiful and his proficiency with a pen would have exceeding the average baseball player of the era by a considerable margin.

Third; single signed baseballs essentially do not exist before the 1910's. There are perhaps a few dozen total of all baseball players on this medium from that time period, all of which were stars at the time the ball was signed. The odds of a reclusive alcoholic in Maine who was considered a joke essentially at the time period would have been asked for his autograph on a ball is basically zero.

The only known autographs of Sockalexis are in a church in Maine where he witnessed some services and signed on behalf of the priest, and a single signed cabinet photograph in the archives of Notre Dame, both of which were signed with beautiful penmanship. I believe the best you could hope for would be that he gave an unsigned ball to someone and they penned the inscription as a rememberance. There would be no way to prove a chain like that.

I am not knocking the item, I am sure there is a story there and some history and maybe he really did touch the ball at one time and gave it someone (not likely but possible I suppose), but the odds of it being an autograph of Sockalexis are basically zero.

Thank you for your reply. Not what I wanted to hear but definitely informative. The difference in penmanship would almost assuredly mean that the signature is not authentic. I just can't figure out why anybody in circa 1910 would have tried to fake a signature of Sockalexis.

I do not think it is faked. What probably happened is the ball had an oral history that was then memorialized with ink at some point. As long as the ink is underneath the shallack (I have seen older shellacked balls with signatures added on top) I am sure this ball had a really cool story at some point that has been sadly lost to history. Someone then probably wrote the inscription in a way people write on the back of ancestors photographs to identify or remember. I am sure the ball is somehow linked to Sockalexis, just not signed. Too bad, there is only a few known pinbacks and perhaps ten vintage photographs and some real photo postcards of Sockalexis who is one of the greatest stories in baseball history. I think the ball is still significant if even as a loose connection to the ballplayer.

Perhaps "Compliments Louis Socalexis" references that the ball was given to the original owner by him. Could there be a small "of" written there as well that is hard to see or was ruined by shellac?

Here's my two cents - I think the signature needs to be ruled out by exemplars, not by assuming he was not in the public eye anymore and that singles were nearly non existent at that time. Also he may have had advanced penmanship but that does not mean he didn't print his name on occasion. I can say with absolute confidence that many players during that time period neatly printed their names on baseballs rather than using cursive penmanship. To be honest I would go as far as to say it was common for players to print their names on baseballs in the late 1800s early 1900s. I think in this case the best way to determine if that is Sockalexis signature would be to find other examples of his printed handwriting. The ball and ink certainly look period so it is worth researching IMO. The way it was signed with the "Compliments" and "From" certainly suggest that Sockalexis signed it rather than someone just writing his name.

I think taking the probability of something actually occuring into account when authenticating autographs is a good place to start as well as looking at handwriting examples. For example, it is common today for basketball players to sign shoes. Do you think Honey Russell or James Naismith was ever asked to sign a sneaker in 1930? So if one came up you should be VERY skeptical before you even get into handwriting analysis. It is a modern thing and single signed baseballs did not occur with even the rarest frequency until the WWI era. You are right about printed signatures, but even those did not start popping up until years after Sockalexis had left the game.

Sockalexis was living on an Indian reservation and working logging camps pretty much since he left the minor leagues, around 1902. I dont think a true "single signed" baseball exists in the entire hobby from before 1902 of anyone. If there is one, I am not aware of one, it just didn't happen. Even ten years later they were rare, but they existed as display pieces at bars and restaurants etc, but almost never signed to fans.

I don't think "From" or "Compliments" means anything more than the baseball came from Sockalexis, not that it was signed by him. As a previous poster suggested, the ball is probably associated with him in some way versus signed by him.

It was not common for highly educated players to print their names. Look at any Christy Mathewson signature of your choosing. He attended Bucknell. Take a look at Eddie Collins' signatures. He attended Columbia. Sockalexis attended Notre Dame and Holy Cross. This was a highly educated guy in a time when people barely made it out of grammar school.

Echoing what prewarsports said about his handwriting being very nice...