"Vast Majority of HOF Autographs Are Fake"

[Runscott]

There are those who feel that there is no such thing as 'clubhouse' - autographs are either real or forgeries. That thinking probably is the result of auction houses selling balls that have a forged 'Ruth' crammed onto them, as 'authentic' except for a 'clubhouse' Ruth.

Most clubhouse signatures don't look very much like the real thing - if it looks like an attempt was made to copy the signature but it isn't real, then there were probably shenanigans going on and AH's (and/or TPA's) that call such stuff 'clubhouse' should be called out for it.

[djson1]

Originally Posted by Runscott

There are those who feel that there is no such thing as 'clubhouse' - autographs are either real or forgeries. That thinking probably is the result of auction houses selling balls that have a forged 'Ruth' crammed onto them, as 'authentic' except for a 'clubhouse' Ruth.

Most clubhouse signatures don't look very much like the real thing - if it looks like an attempt was made to copy the signature but it isn't real, then there were probably shenanigans going on and AH's (and/or TPA's) that call such stuff 'clubhouse' should be called out for it.

+++1

Totally agree and think the term "clubhouse" is way over-used and abused. Plus, how do we ever know it was really "clubhouse" (not that it makes it less of a forgery) versus some scumbag adding a forged signature at home (his/her evil lab)?

I also think "secretarial" is misused so that a perceived malicious intent to deceive does not affect the rest of the signed item. No, a forgery is a forgery. Many times I will just stay clear of a team ball that has one "clubhouse" signature because it makes me feel like something has been tainted with (although I must admit that I have bought a few with clubhouse sigs if I felt like the others were really genuine).

[khkco4bls]

exactly the reason why I don't deal with autographs

[David Atkatz]

An actual "clubhouse" signature or a "secretarial" signature is not a forgery. It is a proxy. Proxy signatures are made with the knowledge, consent and authorization of the would-be signer. Forgeries are not.

[drcy]

I've seen old MLB contracts where there is a 'clubhouse' (proxy) signature and just below the signature is written the identity of the person who signed the signature. Once it was a team VP signing the name of the President on the dotted line, then signing his own 'signed by' name underneath. In that case, the VP himself was a well known old time Yankees executive, so it was no major autograph collecting disappointment.

[David Atkatz]

E. G. Barrow signed contracts as Yankee owner Jacob Ruppert quite often. Occasionally he would initial the proxy signature, but most often would not.

[Scott Garner]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

An actual "clubhouse" signature or a "secretarial" signature is not a forgery. It is a proxy. Proxy signatures are made with the knowledge, consent and authorization of the would-be signer. Forgeries are not.

+1

[shelly]

I will ask this question on this thread as well.
I feel that there is no such think as a single signed clubhouse ball. Know just pretend there is such a thing. Would a Ruth with a clubhouse signiture be worth more than a forged ball? I am going by how David described the difference between the two.

[djson1]

At least to me as a collector, I wouldn't distinguish between something that was "secretarial" or "clubhouse" versus a flat-out forgery. The proxy or consensual definition doesn't make it any less of a fake signature. So, the ball player knows consents and authorizes somebody else to sign his signature...but it's still not his. I don't want Charlie "The Brow's" scribbling even if Gil Hodges WAS watching him sign the ball. Plus, how do we know if something really was secretarial or clubhouse anyways? (not that it makes any difference to me anyhow)