<< <i>I would think that someone wrote over it thus enhancing it.
Steve >>
This is right. It was a ball that was signed by the Babe at some point. But over time, the sig was probably really faded, so someone re-traced the signature. Obviously not as desirable as one that hasn't been re-traced, but still has some value.
And it was probably re-traced innocently enough many years ago by someone who just wanted the signature to stand out. But now the enhanced portions have faded over time as well, so that it doesn't stand out as something recently touched up.
<< <i>And it was probably re-traced many years ago, so that the enhanced portions have faded over time, so that it doesn't stand out as something recently touched up. >>
On the LOA it says irregular overlapping of strokes, lacks spontanaity, rhythm, conviction and or movement , drawn slowly and exsessive pen pressure and or improper shading .
Yea, possible , I have saved the pic and am looking at it under different conditions , also looks like the Right leg of the R in Ruth has been touched up , very hard to say , I don't think they went over the whole sig , because as was stated , it would look a little better .
Still though , it is authentic the ball it's self holds some value as it is vintage .
Whenb someone does that they really remove a lot of the desirability of the ball , better to just leave it alone , they will always be able to tell even if the sig is invisible .
I have seen some where they say there is a RUTH sig on the ball, but I can't see it . . .LOL < Shrug > I think they have special lights they use to look at the ball with , it can see the pressure on the ball or something .
It took JSA months to authenticate mine , so I know they go through hell and high water with his sig to make sure they are not authenticating a bogus sig .
Video Spectral Comparator (VSC4) A powerful workstation designed to examine questionable documents and autographs using sophisticated color and infrared imaging, magnification, coaxial lighting, and side lighting on-screen. The VSC detects erasures, reveals masked and obliterated signatures, differences in ink types, and several other features useful for autograph forgery detection.
The way I see it , if someone can draw a picture of a face perfectly , to where you can barely tell it is a drawing or a painting , why couldn't they fool an authenticator with letters ?
They have to be looking for something other than the letters themselves .
Ruth's sig does not look all that hard to duplicate , a lot of the vintage does not look that hard to duplicate either .
Ink Analysis Has the ink permeated the paper or does it sit on top of the fibers just recently applied? Does the ink use for the signature and/or writing match the time period.
Completely different R , the a is too small and the E is so easy to spot , I don't know whow he ever got over .
I have seen many I suspected of being fake that are authenticated , that look exactly like Marino's Ruths . . . Babe Ruth did everything BIG even signing his name
I suppose that is not impossible , but highly improbable Babe Ruth traced over this baseball , it is a more likely scenario that someone else traced over a faded sig .
I did find this story though . . . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have two autographs of Babe Ruth. In 1930 when I was 6, I ran out onto the field and went up to Babe Ruth. I have a picture from the old Boston Post, a couple of cartoons from the papers about the incident and an article about it. I also had my picture taken with Ruth and my mother after it happened. Ruth also gave me his autograph. I met Ruth again in 1935 and he again signed my autograph. This time, he signed in ink right over the original signature that was in pencil. I am matting all of these items together in a frame. John Belton, Nashua, N.H.
Whew, that's quite a story. Unfortunately, when it comes to autographs, too much of a good thing can be bad. That's the case for you. It sounds to me as if Ruth signed for you in pencil after the on-field incident. Five years later, he signed again in pen - but this time, he traced over the pencil signature. Instead of having a couple of signatures worth several thousand dollars, you now have one "questionable" signature because it will look like someone tried to enhance or save a pencil signature by tracing over it in pen. With your documentation, you might be able to convince someone of the authenticity, but the value will only be a small percentage of what a clean signature would bring.
"I think it would be fairly easy to figure out if Ruth did it or not (trace it)," said Mike Breeden, a Sports Collectors Digest columnist and autograph expert. "If Ruth did it, he'd make little effort to trace it exactly. If someone were copying, they'd take great measures to duplicate it exactly." A traced signature on paper is probably worth $100. If you have two separate Ruth signatures - one in pencil and one in ink - they're probably worth $1,000.
That JSA certificate mentions multiple ink colors. I don't know if that's just the ink composition or a reference to multiple inks used...but you can do the math.
Comments
Giovanni
Steve
<< <i>I would think that someone wrote over it thus enhancing it.
Steve >>
It really dosen't look enhanced to me Steve.
I would think it would look much better than that if somebody wrote over it???
Giovanni
<< <i>I would think that someone wrote over it thus enhancing it.
Steve >>
This is right. It was a ball that was signed by the Babe at some point. But over time, the sig was probably really faded, so someone re-traced the signature. Obviously not as desirable as one that hasn't been re-traced, but still has some value.
how much of it was enhanced
etc.
Steve
<< <i>And it was probably re-traced many years ago, so that the enhanced portions have faded over time, so that it doesn't stand out as something recently touched up. >>
Why not re-trace it again to add more value???
Giovanni
Giovanni
Steve
The person traced over certain parts of the sig .
Still though , it is authentic the ball it's self holds some value as it is vintage .
Whenb someone does that they really remove a lot of the desirability of the ball , better to just leave it alone , they will always be able to tell even if the sig is invisible .
I have seen some where they say there is a RUTH sig on the ball, but I can't see it . . .LOL < Shrug > I think they have special lights they use to look at the ball with , it can see the pressure on the ball or something .
It took JSA months to authenticate mine , so I know they go through hell and high water with his sig to make sure they are not authenticating a bogus sig .
A powerful workstation designed to examine questionable documents and autographs using sophisticated color and infrared imaging, magnification, coaxial lighting, and side lighting on-screen. The VSC detects erasures, reveals masked and obliterated signatures, differences in ink types, and several other features useful for autograph forgery detection.
They have to be looking for something other than the letters themselves .
Ruth's sig does not look all that hard to duplicate , a lot of the vintage does not look that hard to duplicate either .
Ink Analysis
Has the ink permeated the paper or does it sit on top of the fibers just recently applied? Does the ink use for the signature and/or writing match the time period.
We are not sure, we did not believe it to be enhanced when we sent it in.
Thank you,
- brsz-2
I have seen many I suspected of being fake that are authenticated , that look exactly like Marino's Ruths . . . Babe Ruth did everything BIG even signing his name
Exactly ! Mantle's sig looks way harder to duplicate than Ruth's
I agree - it looks like someone traced a bit over the original sig.
Not sure what that's worth? I don't care for that myself.
And Broadway Rick. An all-time favorite of mine!
mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have two autographs of Babe Ruth. In 1930 when I was 6, I ran out onto the field and went up to Babe Ruth. I have a picture from the old Boston Post, a couple of cartoons from the papers about the incident and an article about it. I also had my picture taken with Ruth and my mother after it happened. Ruth also gave me his autograph. I met Ruth again in 1935 and he again signed my autograph. This time, he signed in ink right over the original signature that was in pencil. I am matting all of these items together in a frame.
John Belton, Nashua, N.H.
Whew, that's quite a story. Unfortunately, when it comes to autographs, too much of a good thing can be bad. That's the case for you. It sounds to me as if Ruth signed for you in pencil after the on-field incident. Five years later, he signed again in pen - but this time, he traced over the pencil signature. Instead of having a couple of signatures worth several thousand dollars, you now have one "questionable" signature because it will look like someone tried to enhance or save a pencil signature by tracing over it in pen. With your documentation, you might be able to convince someone of the authenticity, but the value will only be a small percentage of what a clean signature would bring.
"I think it would be fairly easy to figure out if Ruth did it or not (trace it)," said Mike Breeden, a Sports Collectors Digest columnist and autograph expert. "If Ruth did it, he'd make little effort to trace it exactly. If someone were copying, they'd take great measures to duplicate it exactly." A traced signature on paper is probably worth $100. If you have two separate Ruth signatures - one in pencil and one in ink - they're probably worth $1,000.