Is this Ruth real? JSA says yes

[packs]

Well I admit I didn't travel to Chicago to look at this one particular baseball. What I have available to me is the auction photo and my eyes. To you, the stamping isn't similar? You don't see the same dot pattern in the signature and stamp?

[Duluth Eskimo]

I didn't say it doesn't appear similar, it does at first glance. I know the seller and he is a very honest person and I would give him the benefit of the doubt and did. I also looked with my own eyes and it is different. I don't think there's an issue.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by packs

You don't see the same dot pattern in the signature and stamp?

I am not offering an opinion on the authenticity of the signature. But the "dot pattern" is simply the grain of the leather. When the surface ink wears away, it still remains in the depressions. Thus, the dot pattern will be identical, and does not depend at all upon the way the ink was applied to the ball. Notice the dots in the Ruth signature below.

[etsmith]

The "Ruth" in the signature looks too sloppy to be stamped. Most of the Babe Ruth stamped signatures show every letter more clearly, don't they? The signature also shows signs of fading in parts of the lettering while the stamps on the ball are more even.

[David Atkatz]

As far as I know, there are no Ruth rubber-stamped signatures. Anyone have a photo?

[djson1]

So, is there a way to have something printed on the leather versus "stamped"? I also think this Ruth is not a real signature because of the size. Doesn't the signature appear to be small compared to the usual way Ruth signed? Unless this is a large ball.....that signature appears rather small and compact, which is why it seems printed or stamped on there.