Very, very, interesting...

[perezfan]

Of course there are plenty of pristine near-white balls from that era still in existence. Especially if they contain Babe Ruth's signature. Even if there was no established monetary value back in the 30s/40s, there was sentimental value and pride of ownership. Even back then, most people had the common sense to stash away a keepsake like this (as opposed to mis-handling it or playing with it).

With that said, there are undoubtedly tons of fakes as well. But to say that a large number of these balls couldn't remain near white/near mint is just a ridiculous assumption.

[David Atkatz]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Of course there are plenty of pristine near-white balls from that era still in existence. Especially if they contain Babe Ruth's signature. Even if there was no established monetary value back in the 30s/40s, there was sentimental value and pride of ownership. Even back then, most people had the commmon sense to stash away a keepsake like this (as opposed to mis-handling it or playing with it).

With that said, there are undoubtedly tons of fakes as well. But to say that a large number of these balls couldnt remain near white/near mint is just a ridiculous assumption.

+1

[David Atkatz]

The series continues...
http://haulsofshame.com/blog/?p=10608#more-10608

[Exhibitman]

Honestly, I am not impressed by the latest article. Everyone has an opinion; unlike stolen artifacts, there's no smoking gun there. It isn't like the Ruth sigs in question are obvious fakes like the crap in Coach's Corner. Plus it is a little misleading to compare scans of flats with pictures of signatures written on a curved surface. Not only do the conditions affect the signer but there is some flattening of the image on the latter that results in a distortion that our eyes compensate for when we look at a curved object directly.

[GrayGhost]

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.

I know from an untrained eye that the signatures on the balls in the article have basically NO slant on the small b in Babe, save for one example. Many of them look nearly identical.

Point is, nobody has a signature thats identical all the time, tho there are many times they are close. What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

IMO, the article does seem to be aiming to shoot down the Alphabet guys, but from what I see, even with the "flat exemplars" only, there is ENOUGH here to at least give a serious look at some or all of those balls being fake. That is, unless you are one of those who think that the Alphabet guys' s*** doesn't stink.

[mschwade]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

What I mean is, suppose in the photo there w Babe w a bunch of balls on the dugout to sign. The group. signed right after another, would probably be fairly close to the same, while one signed later, days or hours, or w/e, may vary some.

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Honestly, I am not impressed by the latest article. Everyone has an opinion; unlike stolen artifacts, there's no smoking gun there. It isn't like the Ruth sigs in question are obvious fakes like the crap in Coach's Corner. Plus it is a little misleading to compare scans of flats with pictures of signatures written on a curved surface. Not only do the conditions affect the signer but there is some flattening of the image on the latter that results in a distortion that our eyes compensate for when we look at a curved object directly.

like

Originally Posted by mschwade

You ever closed on a house? My signature at the end of the document was much more sloppy than when I first started signing at the closing.

like

[19cbb]

Originally Posted by GrayGhost

I think the article is fascinating, and at the VERY LEAST should be serious food for thought. The Alphabet authenticators have garnered such a name, based on advertising dollars, and apparently a level of Skill (how much?), that their work is basically just "taken for granted" as real.

Like

[travrosty]

you can sign your first name with the sweet spot a little to the right, then rotate, then sign your last name. so you are signing with the ball still, and no rotation as you sign.

you cut down on the uphill/downhill signing which isnt that negligable to begin with.

why isnt mantle, williams, dimaggio mentioned as balls looking different than flats? because they don't look different. only ruth? its the twilight zone.

[travrosty]

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair facing to the right. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers, weight bearing forward. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

The real ones sometimes exhibit a skip here and there, from the a to the b in Babe for instance. there is ink loss in some examples, he is signing fast.

The balls look methodically dark and uniform. Like someone was trying to put the perfect slow dark signature on it when in reality someone signs fast and if there is a skip or ink loss from one letter to another, they don't throw it away, the ball still gets handed out, but in all the questionable balls, I see a 'managed' autograph. Using a ballgame analogy, instead of playing to win, they are playing not to lose.

But that's my opinion.

I defer to Ron K. though. If he sees similar characteristics, I would go with that, with what he observes. He's the man. That's why part 4-10 should be interesting.

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by travrosty

It is pretty obvious.

The real signatures are at a considerable slant to the right compared to the balls. The ball signatures stand upright, like someone patiently waiting at a bus stop.

The real signatures flow to the right, they slant and look like they are running for the bus. Look at just the capital letters, the B and R. The capital B is like a rocking chair. In the real examples, it's leaning forward on its rockers. On the balls, it is back upright, on its haunches.

The real ones are constantly pushing/leaning to the right, like they are falling over. The balls feature B and R's that stand up, they look lackadaisical, not signed fast enough.

+1. The things I am learning from all these type threads, not just this one, is to look for "drawn characteristics", and pen pressure. AS Trav said, they look really slow, the ball sigs. Some would say he "took his time" signing them, well. I don't think that holds water, especially when there are many "real Ruth signed balls", that are not like that.

[mr2686]

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

[GrayGhost]

Good points by everyone, for the balls being ok, and not. I just did a Google for Babe Ruth signed balls and looked at about a dozen photos. Most, if not all, had the "standing small b", which the ones in the article do, which kinda blows my theory next to the paper exemplars.

Also, I have never closed on a house..hahaha. but that point is well taken, plus, signing a ball is very difficult too. Ive done it once in an amateur baseball league I work for, for a kid w Downs Syndrome, and my signature, back when I had more than a sloppy scribble did look very different too, than on a check.

Can't wait for the next article tho. I love this stuff.

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by mr2686

I'm not taking a position one way or another, but what I will say is that I'd like to see people sign their name on paper, and then take a ball in one hand and sign their name on it and then compare sigs. I think you're going to see some variation in height and slant on some letters. I guess that brings me to what I really wanted to ask. What are the exemplars that are being used to authenticate not only the Babe Ruth's in question, but any autographs? It used to be, before the internet etc, that most people used first hand autographs and legal documents as their exemplars. Now I believe that people are using 3rd party authenticated autographs as examplars. The problem with this, of course, is that if a mistake was made, and there are some "unusual characteristics" in the 3rd party auth sig, then that gets perpetuated down the line untl you have a bunch of people believing they know what a real sig looks like. What I would have liked to have seen in the article is first hand examples of Ruth on paper and on balls to show any differences, and then show the balls in question. But that's just me.

like