1927 Yankees baseball. Opinions, please.
 

This baseball has recently been put on display. I have no knowledge of any TPA certification. What do y'all (especially those fans of perfectly formed and uniform signatures) think?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ps82cc62ce.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ps5394dcef.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j2...ps57a434bf.jpg

No photos are showing up.

Fixed.

Where's the picture of the Pat Collins signature and the Tony Lazzeri? :)

Looks like it could be in the gallery at Yankee Stadium.

You are right... every letter of every signature sure looks carefully and neatly formed. I'll let others opinion if that means fake or not.

I'm glad you mentioned the gallery at Yankee Stadium. Are those balls real? Every single one looked fake to me, even the Don Mattingly.

I should clarify. Fake as in manufactured, not signed by someone else.

It almost looks like a stamped ball to me?? I will wait to see what OP says!

It isn't stamped, I can see the ink lines from some of the overlaps. Does Lou have an extra letter in his first name???

No, it certainly isn't stamped.

David--
 

The whole thing looks bogus & contrived to me.

This ball looks too clean to me.

I'm certainly no expert, but i have owned a few Ruth signed checks in the past, so i guess i can comment. the Ruth sig actually looks fine to me, it's the Lou that looks off- maybe club house?

The only clubhouse Gehrigs known appear on late thirties team balls--almost always 1939--and look nothing like a genuine Gehrig.

1927 Yankees Baseball
 

Since no one asked yet, what do the markings look like on the ball as you can't see them in any pictures

What you see is all that is visible on display. I'm sure the markings are fine, though, for a 1927 OAL ball, as you can see a bit of the Ban Johnson signature in the first photo.

1927 Yankees Baseball
 

I looked at the 1927 Ban Johnson baseball on http://www.bigleaguebaseballs.com/ and the Ban Johnson signature is in a different position then this baseball, on this one the Johnson lines up with the signatures and the others would line against them.

The Johnson signature was applied by hand with a rubber stamp--it's in a different position on every baseball.

Yes, the position means nothing, this ball is cleanly stamped (but with a metal stamp, not rubber). Whomever owned it, or had the team sign it picked a very nice brand new ball, and probably told the guys it was for someone important, so sign it good!

The Gehrig looks traced over does it not?

But did they? That's the question.

D, tough call. I wouldn't buy it, but thats not the question you present. Off hand don't like the single quote marks, the lead into the "e" in Babe and the cross of the "t" in Ruth. I also don't like the long Louuuuu. Odd because some of the flow feels right doesn't it. Tough one. And Ruth did make the "R" error with regularity and the under flow of the "R" though off in location, the flow is on. Do we receive a clear answer? This feels like a test. :cool:

No test. I have nothing to reveal.
I don't know--not sure myself. Really just want to see how others feel.

I'm really disappointed that the two guys with the trained "autograph eye" haven't offered their opinions.

Could this be one of those reproduction balls?

Note how the Cedric Durst hits the seam, yet cleanly goes across the hole. You'd think there would be a "catch" in the fountain pen there.

I don't think so. It seems to be a real OAL ball, while the "reproductions" are totally bogus--including the stampings.

If you look at the "S" in Shocker, I am almost positive you can see the line of the ink overlap so it wouldn't be stamped. If I HAD to say yes or no, I would probably say yes it looks authentic. Some of the names look a little slow but it could be that they were signing a presentation ball for someone important, etc. I used to have a 1925 Yankees ball with Jacob Rubert and barrow on the sweet spot, all the other guys on the panels and it was arranged quit neatly. I always assumed with Ruppert taking the ss that it must have been a ball for someone special.

Thanks to all who have offered opinions.

Still waitin' for those "autograph eyes." (Perhaps if the ball was signed in green... )

Hi David. You're the self-proclaimed expert on '27 Yankees balls - why would you care what anyone else's opinion was?

And you don't have to keep flagellating yourself over that green-ink team-signed ball. Everyone blows one every now and then...or two...or three.

Just confirms what we all knew. Gutless.

:):p;):D:o:rolleyes::cool::eek:
:eek::cool::rolleyes::o:D;):confused::)
You are a funny guy Scott.

I though for sure that someone with your expertise would offer his professional opinion. What a disappointment that all we get are smileys.
(And more of your puerile sh*t-stirring.)

As I read it, I think he was pointing out the sh*t stirring of another.

There's no sarcasm in Richard's post, Ken.

Sounds like I stirred a lump.

I was only pointing out what a humorous guy Scott is, I quoted his post and thought that it would be obvious that I appreciated his humor.

More useless drivel. Have an opinion, Richard?

Ricjard,
You are trying to explain humor to the most humorless person on the planet. :eek:

Good luck with that! :D:D:D:D

In an attempt to get David's thread back on track I stand by my post 10 that the ball looks "too contrived" & the sigs are bogus. I may be wrong, but I made a stand & will live w/ it. Why can't some of the others do the same thing?

Thanks very much, Fred.

To dream the impossible dream,,, and spell my name right :D:D

What a Dick.
Simon.

What ever came of this one? real or not?