Very, very, interesting...

David Atkatz · #1 12-16-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 12-21-2011, 02:07 AM

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

Exhibitman · #3 12-21-2011, 07:27 AM

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 · #4 12-21-2011, 08:07 AM

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 · #5 12-21-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 12-21-2011, 08:21 AM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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 · #7 12-21-2011, 01:49 PM

Quote:

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 · #8 12-21-2011, 03:26 PM

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.

GrayGhost · #9 12-21-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travrosty

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

like

RichardSimon · #10 12-21-2011, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travrosty

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

Have we changed the old +1 to the word "like" now ??

I guess I have to cover both bases: like, +1

it is a large advertising budget that has helped convince some collectors that there is a hierarchy of people in the hobby who know more than the rest of the peasants down below.
Give me a good experienced dealer or certain experienced collectors any day of the week over any combination of alphabet soups.
I would take Keuragian, Stinson, Corcoran, Albersheim, Gordon, Keating, Cariseo, Marks, Hefner, Evans and a few more over the alphabet soups any day of the week.

Mr. Zipper · #11 12-21-2011, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by travrosty

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

One could reasonably speculate that it could vary by signer because everyone signs at a different angle, etc. And in my opinion, Mantle on a ball does look slightly different than flat signatures.

Given the seriousness of the allegations it is a legitimate question. Why not make a like comparison?

travrosty · #12 12-21-2011, 08:09 AM

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 · #13 12-21-2011, 08:14 AM

Quote:

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 · #14 12-21-2011, 08:29 AM

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 · #15 12-21-2011, 08:37 AM

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.

travrosty · #16 12-21-2011, 08:50 AM

If you imagine the capital B in Babe as a stack of books, would the stack fall over?

In the real examples, the B is leaning considerably to the right. It certainly looks like the stack would fall over. On the questionable balls, I think not in most of the examples, maybe tilt to the right a little, but the book stack stays up. In the real paper examples, the stacks falls right over.

The exemplars question is interesting.

---------------------------------

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.

I agree. It looks like the article used some solid real signatures of Ruth to do the comparing to. Lettters and personal correspondence, a signed check.
Many times Ruth autographs that have been authenticated and stickered are now the new exemplar, which is dangerous. If you keep doing that, you end up with autographs from first (known exemplar) to last (authenticated signature using other authenticated signatures as templates) that looks vastly different from one another.

If you compare a candidate for a Ruth signature to a known exemplar, and it looks mostly the same, and you authenticate it after careful research, fine. But then the next candidate has to be compared to the known exemplar and not the second one. Otherwise you can have an autograph that looks mostly like the second one, and then another than looks mostly like the third one, and then another that looks mostly like the fourth one, and after 50 times you have a known exemplar of Ruth on one end, and something totally different on the other and you can't figure out how you got there.

One mistake has to be an isolated one, and you isolate it by doing the prudent thing and not using it as an exemplar for another candidate. Only verifiable autographs should be exemplars. Otherwise they can spawn many more mistakes.

Like a game of telephone we played as kids. Johnny went to the beach and fell asleep becomes Johnny went to the bench and felt his sleeves.

egbeachley · #17 12-21-2011, 08:53 AM

I think I see what he's talking about, but since I am a novice I am easily influenced. I need to read all the installments.

But if I was to choose one ball that is definitely not real, it would be the 5th one. And that is supposedly the $300,000 one.

Mr. Zipper · #18 12-21-2011, 08:57 AM

I'm not taking a position one way or another either, but the first few letters in signing a ball you are signing "up a hill" and the last few you are "going down a hill." Depending on the angle of your wrist, etc., it makes sense this could affect slant significantly as compared to flat signatures. A side-by-side to known authentic balls would be a more valid comparison.

mschwade · #19 12-21-2011, 09:00 AM

I can tell you that the flat I own was sold to me by the guy that got it as an 11 year old boy back in 1947.. It also has the slants that are exhibited on the left-hand column, but like I said, it's also on a flat (business card). When comparing mine, the photo (#8) circa 1940's appears most like mine (without the from though).

FYI - I don't own a Ruth ball, nor do I have any desire to own one. Would love to hear from someone that owns one though and knows for a fact that it is indeed authentic.

thekingofclout · #20 12-21-2011, 09:15 AM

Quote:

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

GrayGhost · #21 12-21-2011, 09:22 AM

KOC's mind seems closed, so to say not really open to the chance that the alphabet guys could be wrong, but that's an informed opinion too, by many of the posts.

Chris, that is a very interesting test and certainly would debunk the theory of the signatures compared to the flats being SO DIFFERENT. Putting a test to these was an excellent idea, NICE JOB.

Even if I had the means, I'm not sure Id buy anything, cept legal documents and checks, tho there is even a chance, albeit smaller, of those being bad. Fascinating stuff though.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
What's the most interesting collection you've heard of that is not yours?	almostdone	Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980)	0	08-07-2011 07:49 PM
Share an interesting fact about a t206 player	David R	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	46	10-18-2010 09:26 PM
Interesting & Funny 19th Century Baseball Stories	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	04-02-2009 07:21 PM
Interesting story regarding the T-206 Wagner	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	7	11-29-2007 06:27 PM
I saw three very interesting items today (N310 Anson, E90-1 Clarke, E103 Lajoie)	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	24	11-18-2004 08:18 AM