Robert Edwards preview is up

[MooseDog]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I'm intrigued by the inclusion of a LOA from "legendary handwriting expert Charles Hamilton," which was part of REA's original sale of this ball in 1995. Never heard of the dude, but I wasn't buying autos then, just getting them IP. Anyone know what makes that guy so legendary? Morales is pretty legendary around here as well...

Yikes, please don't take this the wrong way, but if you're going to collect autographs it would really pay off in the long run to learn a little history. Hamilton literally "wrote the book" (several, in fact) on autograph collecting and while he certainly was a self-promoter, his writings, passion and his catalogs certainly had a lot to do with fueling the fire that led people like me into this fascinating (and frustrating) hobby.

Get a copy of "The Book of Autographs" or "Great Fakes and Forgers" each about $10 used on Amazon. Great reads and highly educational.

[RichardSimon]

"They say the acquisitive desire, strong in a magpie and even stronger in a human, is nothing more than a savage instinct, an uncontrolled desire to seize upon a treasure and hoard it away."
----Charles Hamilton in Auction Madness*
(kind of sounds like everyone on this board)

*Reference:Auction Madness by Charles Hamilton, Everet House, New York, NY, 1981.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

"They say the acquisitive desire, strong in a magpie and even stronger in a human, is nothing more than a savage instinct, an uncontrolled desire to seize upon a treasure and hoard it away."
----Charles Hamilton in Auction Madness*
(kind of sounds like everyone on this board)

*Reference:Auction Madness by Charles Hamilton, Everet House, New York, NY, 1981.

Richard, what I don't get is how badly collectors can "wish" a signature into being authentic. I once threw away a Mickey Mantle signed postcard because I didn't think it was authentic, and couldn't stand the thought of having a forgery in my home. It might have been real - not an obvious forgery - but this was long, long ago, when he was still alive, so the value wasn't huge. If I'm not 99.9% sure it's authentic, it can't stay in the house - no exceptions.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have people paying amounts that I could almost retire on, to have a forged baseball sitting on their mantle. I'm sure that some of them are either a bit under 90% sure, or possible certain that it's fake - I just don't get it. And we could all cite examples of board members who are in this latter category - far too many who want something to be real so badly that they become incapable of telling the difference.

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Richard, what I don't get is how badly collectors can "wish" a signature into being authentic. I once threw away a Mickey Mantle signed postcard because I didn't think it was authentic, and couldn't stand the thought of having a forgery in my home. It might have been real - not an obvious forgery - but this was long, long ago, when he was still alive, so the value wasn't huge. If I'm not 99.9% sure it's authentic, it can't stay in the house - no exceptions.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have people paying amounts that I could almost retire on, to have a forged baseball sitting on their mantle. I'm sure that some of them are either a bit under 90% sure, or possible certain that it's fake - I just don't get it. And we could all cite examples of board members who are in this latter category - far too many who want something to be real so badly that they become incapable of telling the difference.

As long as it has that piece of paper that so many promote then everything is kosher.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Richard, what I don't get is how badly collectors can "wish" a signature into being authentic. I once threw away a Mickey Mantle signed postcard because I didn't think it was authentic, and couldn't stand the thought of having a forgery in my home. It might have been real - not an obvious forgery - but this was long, long ago, when he was still alive, so the value wasn't huge. If I'm not 99.9% sure it's authentic, it can't stay in the house - no exceptions.

On the opposite end of the spectrum you have people paying amounts that I could almost retire on, to have a forged baseball sitting on their mantle. I'm sure that some of them are either a bit under 90% sure, or possible certain that it's fake - I just don't get it. And we could all cite examples of board members who are in this latter category - far too many who want something to be real so badly that they become incapable of telling the difference.

I don't think anyone really could be 100 percent on a Brouthers auto that wasn't on a legal document. It seems to me that if a collector wants (and has the money for) a Dan Brouthers auto, they will never get one with perfect provenance.

It has long been said here that the only 100 percent certainty is seeing the person write their name. Outside of that perfection, you just seem to have slightly higher standards of certainty than others.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

It has long been said here that the only 100 percent certainty is seeing the person write their name. Outside of that perfection, you just seem to have slightly higher standards of certainty than others.

"Slightly" compared to some, "massively higher" compared to others.

Someone could slip into your home at night and switch the 'real' ball with a forgery. Aliens could descend and implant new memories in your brain while you are sleeping. Granted, these things are unlikely, but given the care I've taken to avoid doing so, so are the odds of my purchasing a forgery.

I disagree with using the logic that unless you see it signed, it could be fake - it's an excuse that a lot of people use to collect items that have a high chance of being forgeries.

No offense intended - I realize that my response might seem confrontational, but it really isn't intended that way. Your view probably represents the majority on this forum, and I completely understand it. If you didn't use that logic, you could never feel comfortable buying single-signed baseballs.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I don't think anyone really could be 100 percent on a Brouthers auto that wasn't on a legal document. It seems to me that if a collector wants (and has the money for) a Dan Brouthers auto, they will never get one with perfect provenance.

Do you think that the Brouthers signature on that ball is legit? I realize that a renowned TPA said it is, but it's hard to get past that 'B'.

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Do you think that the Brouthers signature on that ball is legit? I realize that a renowned TPA said it is, but it's hard to get past that 'B'.

I have no idea and almost refuse to think about too much unless I was considering buying the ball. I know I would never be 100 percent certain, but I was trying to say in my last post that if I had to be that, I would own half of the autographs that I do, because that is impossible for me if I didn't see it signed.

Let me ask you, do you think you COULD ever own a Brouthers autograph? What would it take, a legal document? Because it seems to me that the scant evidence we have of his auto (and Rochard's seemingly rhetorical question of who actually has any expertise on Brouthers) that the writing itself cannot make us 100 percent.

[prewarsports]

If you do some study on Brouthers and his life, its hard to imagine anyone would have

a. Known where he was in the 1910's to ask for his autograph

b. Cared about his autograph (people were not really collecting sports autographs in 1919, let alone those of former players)

c. Has the foresight to get his signature on a ball

etc. etc.

You basically just have to assume that every single signed ball from before about 1925 is fake until proven otherwise. People just were not getting autographs on baseballs like that back in the day unless it was a "Trophy Ball" such as the last out or whatever and they almost all come from the family. Even team signed balls back then were basically trophies and that is why so few of them exist. There are exceptions to every rule, but not many.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by mighty bombjack

I have no idea and almost refuse to think about too much unless I was considering buying the ball. I know I would never be 100 percent certain, but I was trying to say in my last post that if I had to be that, I would own half of the autographs that I do, because that is impossible for me if I didn't see it signed.

Let me ask you, do you think you COULD ever own a Brouthers autograph? What would it take, a legal document? Because it seems to me that the scant evidence we have of his auto (and Rochard's seemingly rhetorical question of who actually has any expertise on Brouthers) that the writing itself cannot make us 100 percent.

My thoughts and yours are completely in line.

No, unfortunately I could never own a Brouthers unless it was a handwritten letter that had what I considered unquestionable provenance (not even sure what that would take).

Also unfortunately, I might never own a Ruth. I don't like signed checks or most legal documents, wouldn't trust a single-signed ball, most signed photos or any Ruth cuts. That only leaves hand-written letters and certain balls and photos, all of which would cost a fortune. But you have to ask: why would these latter items cost a fortune? Because we feel much more certain they are real. So why would you buy a Ruth that is on the other end of the 'certainty scale'?

[mighty bombjack]

Originally Posted by MooseDog

Yikes, please don't take this the wrong way, but if you're going to collect autographs it would really pay off in the long run to learn a little history. Hamilton literally "wrote the book" (several, in fact) on autograph collecting and while he certainly was a self-promoter, his writings, passion and his catalogs certainly had a lot to do with fueling the fire that led people like me into this fascinating (and frustrating) hobby.

Get a copy of "The Book of Autographs" or "Great Fakes and Forgers" each about $10 used on Amazon. Great reads and highly educational.

Interesting. I pretty consistently read about the history of baseball, as that is my love. Further, baseball and autographs have always been intertwined for me, though the history of autographs is something I have not really considered. I do know, that in many years of perusing high end baseball autos, this is the first time I've seen Hamilton's name.

[RichardSimon]

Charles Hamilton was highly regarded but he was not infallible. Here is a brief summary of a very fascinating story, you can get more details on Wikipedia.

"Mark William Hofmann (born December 7, 1954) is an American counterfeiter, forger and convicted murderer. Widely regarded as one of the most accomplished forgers in history, Hofmann is especially noted for his creation of documents related to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement.[1] When Hofmann's schemes began to unravel, he constructed bombs to murder two people in Salt Lake City, Utah. He is serving a life sentence at the Utah State Prison in Draper since 1988.

In 1983, Hofmann bypassed the Historical Department (of the LDS Church) and sold to Gordon B. Hinckley, a member of the First Presidency of the Church, an 1825 Joseph Smith holograph purporting to confirm that Smith had been treasure hunting and practicing black magic five years after his First Vision. Hofmann had the signature authenticated by Charles Hamilton, the contemporary "dean of American autograph dealers," sold the letter to the Church for $15,000, and gave his word that no one else had a copy"

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by RichardSimon

Charles Hamilton was highly regarded but he was not infallible. Here is a brief summary of a very fascinating story, you can get more details on Wikipedia.

"Mark William Hofmann (born December 7, 1954) is an American counterfeiter, forger and convicted murderer. Widely regarded as one of the most accomplished forgers in history, Hofmann is especially noted for his creation of documents related to the history of the Latter Day Saint movement.[1] When Hofmann's schemes began to unravel, he constructed bombs to murder two people in Salt Lake City, Utah. He is serving a life sentence at the Utah State Prison in Draper since 1988.

In 1983, Hofmann bypassed the Historical Department (of the LDS Church) and sold to Gordon B. Hinckley, a member of the First Presidency of the Church, an 1825 Joseph Smith holograph purporting to confirm that Smith had been treasure hunting and practicing black magic five years after his First Vision. Hofmann had the signature authenticated by Charles Hamilton, the contemporary "dean of American autograph dealers," sold the letter to the Church for $15,000, and gave his word that no one else had a copy"

I believe I saw a television special on Hofmann and this whole forgery scam with the LDS. Hofmann was certainly a skilled and brazen forger....

[RichardSimon]

Originally Posted by Scott Garner

I believe I saw a television special on Hofmann and this whole forgery scam with the LDS. Hofmann was certainly a skilled and brazen forger....

And don't forget, a murderer too,,, I don't think the baseball forgers we are aware of have any intent of going that far .