Knot Hole Ball with Lou's signature

[jeffects]

This is so classic on this board. "Forgery" "Forgery" Rarely, if ever, is a reason given to qualify your opinions. What a bunch of 'genius experts'. shooting off your mouths without any explanation to substantiate your "opinions". So, why don't you tell us. with all your devine wisdom, and no information about this ball, what led you to your difinitive conclusion that it's a forgery.

Jeff Clark

[David Atkatz]

God speaks to me, Jeff. She's never wrong.

Happy now?

[oriolesbb6]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

God speaks to me, Jeff. She's never wrong.

Happy now?

lol

[Big Dave]

You can sell that ball at coach's corner. Doesn't matter what anyone thinks about the autograph.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by jeffects

This is so classic on this board. "Forgery" "Forgery" Rarely, if ever, is a reason given to qualify your opinions. What a bunch of 'genius experts'. shooting off your mouths without any explanation to substantiate your "opinions". So, why don't you tell us. with all your devine wisdom, and no information about this ball, what led you to your difinitive conclusion that it's a forgery.

Jeff Clark

Jeff
Why don't you go to David's stats that everyone on the board can see. Go check out some of his posts and threads. He has collected Yankee Autographs for several decades. Maybe that is how he knows? Whatcha think?

[steve B]

I'm far from an expert, but I'll take a shot at a straight answer as to what would make me nervous about it.

Overall it looks like a ball that's old and had been played with. wear and fading. Ok so far.
I'm not familiar with the knothole balls, but the 1927 Yankees stamp seems odd for a ball given to kids as a premium in 1934. Kids would be much more interested in current players, or simply having a good ball to play with.
One red flag.

The ball looks like it's been shellacked, a common practice to supposedly preserve autographs back then.
But....The Shellack hasn't darkened evenly as it should have. Darker in the middle of the panels, almost too dark. But very light around the seams. To me that means the darkening is probably artificial. Unless the ball has been damp, which lightens shellack. The "water rings" you'd get on old furniture if you didn't use a coaster.
2 red flags

despite the wear and fading the signature is very dark and legible, still black with no sign at all of fading, which is unusual for ANY written object that age. Especially one that's been subject to bad enough storage that the shellack darkened that much.
3 red flags.

So overall there's 3 things that each might make me uncomfortable spending a lot of money on it. I could be wrong of course, but having those 3 things in combination really makes me doubt that that item is genuine.

Now if it was cheap enough I might take a chance. But the ball would have to be very cheap for me to do that.

Steve B

[debbiewiggins@gt.rr.com]

ok

[David Atkatz]

The ball is worthless.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by David Atkatz

The ball is worthless.

Is that your final offer, and if so, who pays shipping?

[GrayGhost]

I like the ball, isn't it a knothole gang ball? Good conversation piece, but it probably isn't worth much. 10.00 I'll offer.

Great collections always trump civility. Look how long the Bruces survived 'round here.

View Post Today, 01:37 AM
This message is hidden because David Atkatz is on your ignore list.

Ahhh...much better.

[David Atkatz]

Ahhh... the little child, who a) first tries to insult you, and then b) puts his fingers in his ears while yelling "nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you!"

[Lordstan]

To Jeff and all others who have posed the same quandary,

Most on the board who are expert, or at least very experienced, in the realm of autographs will most times not go into detail about why signatures are bad.
The reasons for this, I believe are two fold. First, some on here actually get paid to offer their opinion and won't do it for free. Second, and I think most common, is that by going through the exact details of why a signature looks forged gives those who forge an instructions manual in how to make their items more realistic.
Perhaps if you asked in a private email, you may be able to get a more detailed explanation.

Best,
Mark

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

To Jeff and all others who have posed the same quandary,

Most on the board who are expert, or at least very experienced, in the realm of autographs will most times not go into detail about why signatures are bad.
The reasons for this, I believe are two fold. First, some on here actually get paid to offer their opinion and won't do it for free. Second, and I think most common, is that by going through the exact details of why a signature looks forged gives those who forge an instructions manual in how to make their items more realistic.
Perhaps if you asked in a private email, you may be able to get a more detailed explanation.

Best,
Mark

I agree especially with the 2nd part of your explanation. There are certain characteristics about cards that I won't share publicly, on how to detect fakes, with some esoteric sets. There is 100% possibility that scammers read our board. I have even been criticized by one idiot for not doing so.

[steve B]

I agree too. Sometimes information is great for learning, but sometimes it can be misused.

That's one of the reasons I stuck to fairly generic stuff about age in general. The look and feel of something old is very hard to fake even if you know how something should appear.

Some people pick up on that stuff quickly, others never seem to get it. And seeing the actual item often enough is the best way to get familiar with it.
I thought Stradivari were just expensive violins till I saw a couple in a museum along with 2 or 3 from other famous makers. (Nothing like standing next to a glass case containing 20 million or more worth of stuff)
Not only very diferent from anything I'd seen before, but all different from each other.

Sadly knowledge not shared is eventually knowledge lost.

Steve B