[thecatspajamas]

I could see this question going two ways:

1) Is it better to have a vintage player's signature on a type of ball that was in use during their playing days that now shows signs of its age (toning, etc), or to have a modern snow-white ball with that same player's modern signature. In that case, unless the vintage ball was just in terrible shape, as others have said, I would always go with the vintage ball/signature, with the ball itself giving a shred of verification to the age of the signature (won't actually date it, but will provide a "could not have been signed before this date" kind of verification based on the manufacture date of the ball).

2) If I'm going to get a retired player's signature, should I find a ball that matches those in use during his playing days for him to sign, or just go with a new OMLB ball? That I would say is more a matter of personal preference, and in many cases, locating a nice-condition vintage ball for the signing will be more difficult than getting the signature. In cases where a player's signature has evolved since their playing days, I personally don't see any real cache with getting their modern signature on a vintage ball (especially if it's a shaky scribble-job). If the signature is pretty much unchanged, then it makes more sense I guess. But maybe that's just me, and autograph hounds are certainly welcome to get their signatures on whatever makes sense to them.

A related story: I had a gentleman on the phone once who was purchasing a number of various vintage balls from me for his autograph seeking for just this reason. During the course of the conversation, he mentioned having obtained a brand new ONL Ford Frick ball, in mint condition and still sealed in its original box, to have signed by Willie Mays. I coughed, wished him luck in his upcoming meeting with a player that he obviously held in high esteem, and suggested that he not relate that story to any ball collectors who may well have held his pristine "canvas" in higher regard than the modern signature he planned to have added to it. Only in retrospect did I consider that, depending on the style of the Frick ball he had purchased, his ball might not have actually been used when Mays played in the majors (Frick balls were produced from 1935 until 1951 with various subtle changes in the stamping over those years, so with Mays making his MLB debut in 1951, there would be a narrow window in which he would have played with a Frick ball). It's quite possible that this guy didn't care about such subtle nuances, but it's the kind of thing that would bug me if I later found out I had gotten his signature on an earlier ball.