What do you think of this Heritage offering?

[David Atkatz]

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

Maybe he didn't much care for the scrubs. And, except for the sweetspot (and who's gonna sign there? Giard?) there's no more room on the ball. He got the starters, and the major pitchers--the guys he played with almost every day.

Look. The ball may or not be real. I think it is. Others don't. But the observations that the sweetspot is blank, or it's signed in green ink, or there aren't more signatures, or there aren't fewer signatures, or... provide absolutely no evidence either way.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but these types of observations are the only evidence we ever have for authenticating autographs, other than provenance, and no one's interested in checking the provenance for this item.

[slidekellyslide]

I have no expertise at all in autographs, but my gut tells me this ball is real...I do think it's hard to believe that a forger would get the exact 1927 ball for the 1927 team with what little knowledge was/is out there regarding balls...the crowded sigs and perhaps deliberate could be a sign that the guys wanted to make their best signature for Combs, and perhaps he even told them to make sure where to sign and to not make it too big since he had plans to get everyone on it.

Just my completely uneducated opinion.

[shelly]

Dan, I went out to people that you would not have any idea who they are. I questioned them about the ball not what was signed on the ball. Here is there reply.

The 1927 ball was a one year style because it was Ban Johnsons last year and Barnard followed him. There is a newer top logo with the patent date and the cursive logo.
This has been known for 20-30 yrs its nothing new. Any forger would have figured it out looking at the many 1927 attributed balls (including many Phila A's balls) To say its authentic based upon the style of ball is so flawed, I don't know what to say.
These are from people that I trust.

[shelly]

That being said, I have a question to David. Would you buy this ball? No Caveat emptor.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by shelly

Dan, I went out to people that you would not have any idea who they are. I questioned them about the ball not what was signed on the ball. Here is there reply.

The 1927 ball was a one year style because it was Ban Johnsons last year and Barnard followed him. There is a newer top logo with the patent date and the cursive logo.
This has been known for 20-30 yrs its nothing new. Any forger would have figured it out looking at the many 1927 attributed balls (including many Phila A's balls) To say its authentic based upon the style of ball is so flawed, I don't know what to say.
These are from people that I trust.

A forger would have to be an idiot to buy a 1928 ball, as it wouldn't have Johnson's name on it, and he would have to be an even dumber idiot not to buy the one with the 1925 patent stamp. Even if he ONLY had these two bits of obvious information and guessed from there, he still would have a 1 out of 3 chance of getting it right by complete accident. Not bad odds.

Dan - I completely understand going with your gut. If my gut agreed with your gut, my next step would be to prove that it is a good ball (not the opposite) - we need to adapt the Communist approach of 'guilty until proven innocent' (in my opinion), rather than the opposite, Democratic style. The Communist method caught all the guilty and some of the innocent. Not good for human beings, but great for baseballs. If we did this, the ball would have to be tossed in the trash, as there is nothing other than alleged circumstantial evidence - can you get any worse?

The Democratic style would be to assume the ball is real (which is what we are doing here), and have to prove that it is 'guilty'. But we are further limited by the Democratic approach, in that we can't even produce evidence - provenance is apparently disallowable in our 'autographed ball court', as is questioning the authenticators, and as is any sort of forensic testing.

The above is why so many forged baseballs are floating around.

[slidekellyslide]

I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach when it comes to autographs...I think that same approach should be used with game used memorabilia as well. Maybe I'm off on the ball...don't know, I sure wouldn't buy anything like that with out rock solid provenance.

[shelly]

Originally Posted by slidekellyslide

I don't think there's anything wrong with that approach when it comes to autographs...I think that same approach should be used with game used memorabilia as well. Maybe I'm off on the ball...don't know, I sure wouldn't buy anything like that with out rock solid provenance.

That is what anyone with a brain would say.