Very, very, interesting...

[prewarsports]

Two thoughts on this story with full disclosure that do not own a high end Ruth ball and never have.

1. Why do we assume that just because someone is a relative that they are also handwriting experts? I had a lady e mail me about an autograph I had (one of 25 on a MINOR LEAGUE team ball vintage from the 1930's) and she insisted that the autograph of her grandfather on the ball was a forgery. He was a complete common who died in the 1990's, totally worthless autograph. She was REALLY pissed that I would have the audacity to sell a forgery of her grandfather! She was 100% wrong but standing on the soapbox of "I'm his granddaughter and I know for sure!", no amount of evidence was going to prove her wrong, she was the expert by birthright appearantly. We give relatives and descendants WAAAY too much credit in this hobby. Aside from a signed letter of provenance stating that the item comes from the relative or ther persons estate, their opinions shouldn't mean much when evaluating a signature 80 years after it was signed. Unless this Ruth relative was sitting in a room watching Ruth's secretary sign for him or some other intimate first hand knowledge, why would we care what her opinion is?

2. By the end of Ruth's life autograph collecting was pretty big so it makes sense to me that there would be WAY more people getting his autograph and keeping it nice (in the sock drawer or something) as opposed to getting a signed Ruth ball in the 1930's when he was still playing when people did not collect autographs as much and the value was merely intrinsic. By the mid-late 1940's people were already thinking of autographs as "valuable" and "collectible" so it does not surprise me at all that SOME of these would survive in High Grade. How many is a completely different story that I would not dare to even guess at. I bet the optomists will be shocked at how many are fake and I bet the pessimists will be shocked that a large number of them are actually real, but regardless of how this ends, some people will be pissed!

Just my 2 cents worth (1 cent for each thought)

Rhys

[David Atkatz]

You may be correct, Rhys, about the number of balls Ruth may have signed in the 1940s, but I must disagree with your contention that these autographs were regarded as particularly valuable then. Even up to the early 1960s--when I began collecting--widows were still giving away signed checks--Ruth, Cobb, Mathewson... the list goes on. In 1966 I was given a signed and inscribed Gehrig photo by a relative of the original recipient. These autographs held only sentimental value in those days. I can only imagine the situation in the 1940s!

[RichardSimon]

You probably could have bought a Ruth signed ball for a buck in the 1940's, if someone even thought enough of it to sell one.
I don't think money was any kind of influence in the baseball autograph hobby in the 1940's.

[travrosty]

I agree, just read a story yesterday about a guy who had ruth sign some balls, and later sold them for 1 dollar or 1.50 and now he is kicking himself for doing so but back then that's what they were worth. Another guy sold babe ruth baseball cards for 10 dollars each.

People were not thinking about collectible value back then. If they were and bought the highest condition material, they could have cleaned up, but it didnt happen. People saved a ruth ball for sentimental reasons only.

even as late as 1980's boxing collectors were selling Jake kilrain signed letters for 10 dollars each, now they are 2000 each or more.


They just werent worth much money at all and people didnt think about the collecting for future value until the 1980's, with a few early birds who collected in the 1970's and saw a financial future for it. The term 'dealer' and 'collectible show' wasn't even a glint in peoples eyes.

[prewarsports]

I wasn't saying that autographs were worth money in the 1940's necessarily, but that people by the 1940's were starting to think of these signed baseballs as more than just whimsical things and started to put them away and keep them nice. A much higher percentage put some type of value on a Babe Ruth ball in 1947 than in 1927 absolutely 100% for sure. If a kid got a Babe Ruth signed ball in 1930, he would show his friends and then a few weeks later probably play with the ball or handle it A LOT. By the 1940's shortly before Ruths death people were starting to understand that signed baseballs of Ruth were a treasure and SOME people (not everyone obviously) were starting to keep stuff like this in sock drawers and treasure them. And yes a small percentage of the population (again, not everyone) put a monetary value on autographs increasingly by the 1940's, if you dont believe me I can post the fly page of any Watermans Autograph Contest Album from 1932 where they spend a full page talking to kids about collecting and saving autographs for their future monetary value! I bet only 1 in 1000 people put any type of value on autographs in the 1940's, but that is better than the 1 in 1,000,000 who put any type of value on them in the 1920's and that is why you see some high grade Ruth balls from the 1940's but never any mint or near mint ones from the 1920's in my opinion. How many fakes there are I have no idea, I am just speaking to why there will be more high grade ones from later in Ruths life than during his career.

[David Atkatz]

An exception to every rule. Here's a mint Ruth from 1928:

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

I wasn't saying that autographs were worth money in the 1940's necessarily, but that people by the 1940's were starting to think of these signed baseballs as more than just whimsical things and started to put them away and keep them nice. A much higher percentage put some type of value on a Babe Ruth ball in 1947 than in 1927 absolutely 100% for sure. If a kid got a Babe Ruth signed ball in 1930, he would show his friends and then a few weeks later probably play with the ball or handle it A LOT. By the 1940's shortly before Ruths death people were starting to understand that signed baseballs of Ruth were a treasure and SOME people (not everyone obviously) were starting to keep stuff like this in sock drawers and treasure them. And yes a small percentage of the population (again, not everyone) put a monetary value on autographs increasingly by the 1940's, if you dont believe me I can post the fly page of any Watermans Autograph Contest Album from 1932 where they spend a full page talking to kids about collecting and saving autographs for their future monetary value! I bet only 1 in 1000 people put any type of value on autographs in the 1940's, but that is better than the 1 in 1,000,000 who put any type of value on them in the 1920's and that is why you see some high grade Ruth balls from the 1940's but never any mint or near mint ones from the 1920's in my opinion. How many fakes there are I have no idea, I am just speaking to why there will be more high grade ones from later in Ruths life than during his career.

its not true, his autograph in the 40's was worth about zero, and people werent socking them away for future resale monetary value. just didnt happen. a few socked them away because they wanted a sentimental momento but not because they were 'worth' anything or had the potential to be 'worth' anything. there was no resale market for ruth balls, because there was no demand, thus no expectation of demand in the future.