Affect of shellac on a signed baseball

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Always best to collect balls without shellac, in my opinion. If two balls have comparable sigs, the non-shellacked ball will be the more desirable...

* Shellac can turn color over tme (anything from beige to yellow to dark brown)

* Shellac can flake off over time, leaving an uneven surface.

* Shellac can actually lift off and can chip the signature off the ball.

I have seen extreme examples where the shellac starts flaking off, and lifts the ink right off with it.

In many cases, the shellac doesn't do this, but why take the chance? I always hold out for non-shellacked balls for these reasons. As a general rule, a shellacked ball will sell for 25 - 30% less than a comparable non-shellacked ball. Of course there are exceptions that go both ways.

There is a reason that this practice is now antiquated and obsolete. If the auction house is putting a positive spin on it (such as "Signatures are well preserved under a protective layer of shellac"), they are just engaging in puffery and trying to inflate its value. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the extensive response. I don't know that the auction houses were putting a positive spin on it this way. Just that they were mentioning it and I wanted to understand the ramifications.

The focus of my collection are items that are at the nexus between baseball and general history so there aren't a ton of items I am really looking to buy (especially since my preference is signed baseballs). I picked up a couple of WWII team signed baseballs from the Musial Estate Auction from Heritage a year ago and both of them have shellac on them, and picked up a 1931 US tour to Japan team signed ball and it too has a layer of shellac. Aesthetically for me they all look great (I actually like the look of the browned Musial ball) partially because of the uniqueness of the item and the fact that this is how Musial had the ball and I was comfortable with the prices I paid, but I wanted to better understand the relevance of the shellac.

This Musial definitely displays some of the effects you mention:




While the 1931 AS one looks a little cleaner:

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Topnotchsy

.......

While the 1931 AS one looks a little cleaner:

That's the best you can hope for. It seems to me that these shellacked balls are now so old that we are 'probably' okay basing our purchase on how they look today.

I only have one shellacked ball (I would never say that anywhere but here), and while nowhere near as nice as yours, I think it looks pretty good:

[perezfan]

Great stuff... and with regard to this topic, beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Some of those older balls look pretty cool with the shellac, as referenced above.

My personal fear is that the shellac could flake off and take the prized signatures with it. Just a little pessimism with some OCD sprinkled in for good measure. That's why I've personally avoided them. If you look at prices realized in the major auctions, you'll see the general collecting population feels the same. Of course a lot depends on the severity of the shellacking.

Not sure why some shellacs and varnishes flaked and changed color, and others didn't....

Perhaps it was the particular brand of shellac
Perhaps it was the way in which the varnish was applied (i.e. sprayed vs. brushed on)
Perhaps it was the storage method and/or exposure to the elements (light/heat/cold/humidity) over the years

Maybe someone here with a science degree can chime in and enlighten us a bit more

[1880nonsports]

such a discussion won't devolve into "when water is not a chemical".......