Seeking opinions on Lou Gehrig signed ball...

[Kzoo]

Hello all, I'm looking for opinions on this 'Lou Gehrig' signed baseball. I purchased this ball via Ebay in early January of the year 2000, from Inside the Park Collectibles. I've never had it examined by any 'experts' like JSA or PSA. The ball itself is obviously in 'used' condition and heavily worn. Opinions on the signature from the Net54 community would be greatly appreciated. Thanks......Matt

[MGHPro]

Im no expert, but I don't like it.

[roarfrom34]

unfortunately no good IMO

[perezfan]

Not a fan of this one either... sorry

[Big Dave]

Any particular reasons why this is no good?

[Lou Criscione]

I think you are mistaken. We (Inside the Park Collectibles) never sold you this or any other lou Gehrig signed baseball. In fact, in our over 25 years in the hobby- we have never owned or sold a Lou Gehrig ball. Please look back on your records and post the proper seller.

Thanks!
Lou
Inside the Park Collectibles

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Any particular reasons why this is no good?

I'll refrain from commenting on who sold the ball, as it appearss to be self-evident.

But to answer your question, I don't like the letter formation (especially the big "G"). There was a fellow named Robert Prouty about a decade ago, who was peddling big name fakes by the truckload. I forget the name of his company, but he had an impressive website with prices just low ebough to lure unsuspecting and/or novice collectors into making a big purchase. Prouty's name was later listed as one of the "bad apples" in Operation Bullpen.

I'll stop rambling... just wanted to say that this ball has the exact characteristics one of his Gehrigs.

[murphusa]

Sorry but the poster clearly put Lou in the spotlight by saying the ball came from him. Lou did what he should have and defended himself and then the poster pulled his rabbit out of his hat by producing the receipt.

I honestly believe that Lou did not remember making the sale as autographs are not his business. Most autographs I have seen he had for sale where Hartlands that had signatures.

If the poster was as genuine as all of you want to make him out to be, he should have produced the receipt in an email or PM instead of throwing it back in Lou's face.

Again, sorry, but next time any of you are put on the spot I hope you act as good about it as Lou has.

BTW, If I was standing next to Lou on the street right now he would not know who I am

[Lou Criscione]

Hi Guys! Thanks for the kind words of several of the posters. I have sold so many items over the last 25 years that many have become a blur. There are no hard feelings on my part for the original poster- I would be upset too if I had bought an expensive autograph that may not be an original. I guess I should have remembered a Lou Gehrig ball - but I honestly don't. If it comes back as bad, I will gladly refund the purchase price and display it on my mantle and pretend it's real. Most of my friends will be impressed anyway.
Lou
P.S. I'll be a little shameless and tell you guys we are having an auction ending June 3, You can view the auction at our web site: www.insidetheparkcollectibles.com All the autograph items come with COA's (lol)

[thenavarro]

Matt,

IMO, you shouldn't have to spend $200 plus shipping both ways in order to get a refund on that ball, just in order to get a "questionable authenticity" from PSA/DNA or JSA.

You might ask the seller if their are some cheaper alternatives they would accept for refund. For example, Richard Simon is great, and I could be wrong, but I don't think he'd charge you anywhere near that amount to come on this thread, take a quick look, and email you both to let y'all know that it's no good.

If the original seller is going to insist on a PSA/DNA or JSA "denial", then call Roy Alcala at PSA, and explain the situation to him and he might be willing to cut you a nice discount. Roy has always been very fair to me with pricing, and if you explain that you have a bad ball and the seller is requiring you to get it "un-authenticated" in order to get a refund, then he might be willing to work with you.

Or, another option that the seller should be willing to accept IMO, would be a PSA/DNA quick opinion "questionable authenticity" and that would only cost you $7.49. You simply place it on ebay with a high starting bid, put a clear picture, request the quick opinion from PSA/DNA, and you should have your results in about 48 hours or less. If anyone happens to bid, just cancel the bids.

Take care,

Mike

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by thenavarro

Or, another option that the seller should be willing to accept IMO, would be a PSA/DNA quick opinion "questionable authenticity" and that would only cost you $7.49. You simply place it on ebay with a high starting bid, put a clear picture, request the quick opinion from PSA/DNA, and you should have your results in about 48 hours or less. If anyone happens to bid, just cancel the bids.

I was going to suggest the same thing. It would hurt to sink another $200 on an item you are almost certain is bad.

[mdschulze]

Originally Posted by murphusa

Sorry but the poster clearly put Lou in the spotlight by saying the ball came from him. Lou did what he should have and defended himself and then the poster pulled his rabbit out of his hat by producing the receipt.

I honestly believe that Lou did not remember making the sale as autographs are not his business. Most autographs I have seen he had for sale where Hartlands that had signatures.

If the poster was as genuine as all of you want to make him out to be, he should have produced the receipt in an email or PM instead of throwing it back in Lou's face.

Again, sorry, but next time any of you are put on the spot I hope you act as good about it as Lou has.

BTW, If I was standing next to Lou on the street right now he would not know who I am

I don't know Lou or Matt but I do know this forum is full of threads pertaining to bad sellers, ebay scams, and fake autos/cards. A lot of us do not have the expertise as some of the other members here and rely on their expert advice.... for learning purposes. I personally do not have a problem "outing" a potential bad seller. Maybe I purchased something from the same seller a few years ago and need to recheck the validity of the item. Had Matt (and others) not posted their experience(s) publicly, how would I know any different?

Lou publicly claimed that it was his mistake and he would make it right... no PR harm done at all. If anything, this thread will likely help future sales for Lou... everyone can see that he backs his items and displays good customer service.

I personally support everyone who suspects or has been victim of fraudulent activities within the hobby to make those experiences publicly known... it helps us all out in the long run!

[Mr. Zipper]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

I don't know Lou or Matt but I do know this forum is full of threads pertaining to bad sellers, ebay scams, and fake autos/cards. A lot of us do not have the expertise as some of the other members here and rely on their expert advice.... for learning purposes. I personally do not have a problem "outing" a potential bad seller. Maybe I purchased something from the same seller a few years ago and need to recheck the validity of the item. Had Matt (and others) not posted their experience(s) publicly, how would I know any different?

Lou publicly claimed that it was his mistake and he would make it right... no PR harm done at all. If anything, this thread will likely help future sales for Lou... everyone can see that he backs his items and displays good customer service.

I personally support everyone who suspects or has been victim of fraudulent activities within the hobby to make those experiences publicly known... it helps us all out in the long run!

This is such good advice.

More than once I had to revisit items that I previously thought were slam dunk good because I heard information about the seller long after the initial sale.

In my short tenure here, I have shared my bad Mantles and the Marino No Hit Kings ball. Embarassing as it may be, hopefully it will help others.

When I get the courage up, I have a few more question marks to share... but I can only take so much bad news in one calendar quarter.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by mdschulze

I don't know Lou or Matt but I do know this forum is full of threads pertaining to bad sellers, ebay scams, and fake autos/cards. A lot of us do not have the expertise as some of the other members here and rely on their expert advice.... for learning purposes. I personally do not have a problem "outing" a potential bad seller. Maybe I purchased something from the same seller a few years ago and need to recheck the validity of the item. Had Matt (and others) not posted their experience(s) publicly, how would I know any different?

I personally don't have a problem with outing fraudulent sellers, but I DO have a problem with outing a seller before they've been shown to be fraudulent. I think if the OP wanted to get a truly unbiased opinion of the authenticity of the autograph, his original post should have shown only the ball and not named where it came from. If he's only trying to decide whether or not it's a waste of money to send it in for authentication, then who sold it to him is irrelevent. Once he's gotten several opinions and checked with the seller on how they want to handle the situation, then report back on what an upstanding guy he is or, if there are problems, THEN call the bum out. But when you name names in the first post, you are automatically putting the seller on the defensive and potentially tainting any feedback about the signature itself.

It's all water under the bridge now, and I will add my applause to the others going out to Lou for his handling of the situation. But I don't think it's appropriate in these situations to get out the spotlights and air horns as an opening move. Later on, sure, we should all be informed when there's a rotten apple, but for goodness sake have some proof before you start using names. Suppose Lou hadn't been around to give his side? Just because there was no PR damage this time doesn't mean that this sequence of events should be accepted.

Am I off in my thinking on this? It just seems like gentlemen should settle matters between themselves and only resort to public accusations when those private conversations break down. I can't imagine this thread would have gone as smoothly if Lou had not piped up as soon as he had, and I don't think a seller should be required to patrol the boards for their name just in case they have to defend themselves.

Lance

[Shoeless Moe]

....how do u not remember a Gehrig ball.......it's not like it was Richie Zisk.....Lou friggin Gehrig.

They even have the same 1st name for pete sakes! and both from NY, c'mon!

[stone193]

Originally Posted by Shoeless Moe

....how do u not remember a Gehrig ball.......it's not like it was Richie Zisk.....Lou friggin Gehrig.

They even have the same 1st name for pete sakes! and both from NY, c'mon!

Isn't this a bit harsh?

I've done some business with Lou and believe he's top notch. In fact, I made a mistake on a purchase with him and he went out of his way to insure I was satisfied.

Just like some feel that the OP posted this item honestly - without an agenda...

With all due respect - if Lou said he didn't remember - why not give him the same deference?

[canjond]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I personally don't have a problem with outing fraudulent sellers, but I DO have a problem with outing a seller before they've been shown to be fraudulent. I think if the OP wanted to get a truly unbiased opinion of the authenticity of the autograph, his original post should have shown only the ball and not named where it came from. If he's only trying to decide whether or not it's a waste of money to send it in for authentication, then who sold it to him is irrelevent. Once he's gotten several opinions and checked with the seller on how they want to handle the situation, then report back on what an upstanding guy he is or, if there are problems, THEN call the bum out. But when you name names in the first post, you are automatically putting the seller on the defensive and potentially tainting any feedback about the signature itself.

It's all water under the bridge now, and I will add my applause to the others going out to Lou for his handling of the situation. But I don't think it's appropriate in these situations to get out the spotlights and air horns as an opening move. Later on, sure, we should all be informed when there's a rotten apple, but for goodness sake have some proof before you start using names. Suppose Lou hadn't been around to give his side? Just because there was no PR damage this time doesn't mean that this sequence of events should be accepted.

Am I off in my thinking on this? It just seems like gentlemen should settle matters between themselves and only resort to public accusations when those private conversations break down. I can't imagine this thread would have gone as smoothly if Lou had not piped up as soon as he had, and I don't think a seller should be required to patrol the boards for their name just in case they have to defend themselves.

Lance

I actually think this cuts both ways. Had everything been handled back channel, Lou would not have had the opportunity to show what a stand-up business he is running. Look, most of us have had bad things pass through us. Seeing how Lou handled this situation, to me, made him a more attractive option for future purchases. I'd much rather spend my money with the good guys than those who feign responsibility.

[thecatspajamas]

I'm not saying that everything has to happen through the back channel. Post on the board and get everyone's opinions. No problems with that for sure. But if you're going to put someone's name out there, at least have the decency to give them a heads-up. By the OP's own admission he still has not contacted Lou personally to discuss this with him. I don't think he had bad intentions, but what if Lou had been out of town for a couple weeks and hadn't heard his name come up on the boards? I'm sure Lou would have handled the situation in the same upstanding manner once he was aware of it, but do you really think the crowd would have held onto their stones to wait and hear what Lou had to say on the matter before the accusations started to fly?

The fact that it worked out okay for Lou this time doesn't mean that the next stand-up guy to get thrown under the bus will come out so well. I for one would much rather have seen the OP's original post minus Lou's name, the opinions of knowledgable board members, and then a report from the OP or Lou on how they had worked the matter out and it was taken care of. Lou still comes up smelling like roses, but he would have to crawl out from under the bus to do so.

I don't mean to get preachy I just see a LOT of threads that start out similarly go south rather quickly, and sometimes I wonder if it's truly deserved.

And again, kudos to Lou for being a stand-up guy and dealing with this honorably. Even if the OP does wind up having to shell out for a full authentication, remember, THIS IS AN 11-YEAR-OLD TRANSACTION we're talking about! Even Wal-Mart won't take back something that was bought that long ago!

Lance