|
Author
|
Topic: 131961511225: Neil Armstrong signed baseball
|
Kurt
Member Posts: 83
From: Santa Clara, CA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 11-02-2016 10:30 PM
  
What do you guys think of this Neil Armstrong signed baseball? It's a Coleman NL baseball (1994-1999 President) and is "authenticated" by PSA/DNA. If I recall correctly, Neil stopped signing in 1997.I've never seen one signed on the sweet spot and hence have some doubts. Thoughts? Comments? |
Chuckster01
Member Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 11-03-2016 04:26 AM
I would avoid that one. I never understand PSA/DNA authentications on some items. Unless there is a video of him signing the item, I would not purchase that baseball. |
Wehaveliftoff
Member Posts: 2343
From:
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 11-06-2016 09:08 PM
The "e" and "I" are not right, and I'll bet no video exists of any of Neil's signatures, so that was... |
JasonIUP
Member Posts: 282
From: PA
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 11-06-2016 10:47 PM
Neil had a habit of signing balls more quickly than other items, perhaps due to his dislike of them. That can cause variations. I don't see anything wrong with this ball, other than it being priced at about twice its value.When one listens to the opinions of others regarding this ball, one must wonder how many Neil-signed balls the other person has seen, or, better yet, owned. |
spaceflori
Member Posts: 1499
From: Germany
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 11-07-2016 10:01 AM
It does look good to me, too, probably early 1990s signature. I've seen quiet a few in-person from various golf tournaments obtained by the late Richard Stonely and they all varied a bit so I'm with JasonIUP here. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-07-2016 10:46 AM
The concern here appears to be the timing; according to Kurt's post, the ball was produced between 1994 and 1999. Armstrong ceased signing most items in 1994 (by 1999, he was turning down Congress members who asked). So either this was one of the last baseballs he signed or he didn't sign it. |
JasonIUP
Member Posts: 282
From: PA
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 11-07-2016 11:20 AM
Neil signed balls golf tournaments in Ohio (and perhaps elsewhere) in 1995/1996. Personally, this being a Coleman ball doesn't bother me at all. This is a loose guess, but I believe he stopped signing balls at some point in 1996, perhaps after a being "hit up" at a golf tournament.I think it's safe to say that he stopped doing mail in 1994, but he did sign in person through 2000 or 2001. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-07-2016 11:39 AM
I watched Armstrong turn away members of Congress and the public alike in 1999. I spoke to him in 2000 when he said he only then signed for friends. That, and my own experience suggests he was not signing readily for the general public in 2000 or 2001. |
JasonIUP
Member Posts: 282
From: PA
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 11-07-2016 01:19 PM
I thought I saw something that was signed in 2000 or 2001 but don't have quick access to it now. Perhaps I remember wrong, however.Anthony Pizzitola wrote, "Neil Armstrong: The Quest for His Autograph", a UACC publication. On page 69, he show a photo he had Neil sign in 1999 at an Astros game with the "new" style. It's safe to say that Neil got tougher and more leary as the mid-to-late '90s went on (and perhaps 2000 or 2001), causing him to eventually shut it down altogether. But, it may be impossible to prove exactly when that was. Going back to the ball, one made as early as 1994 is within the time frame that Neil signed, even if reluctantly. |
Wehaveliftoff
Member Posts: 2343
From:
Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 11-08-2016 09:49 PM
Signing baseballs are preferred by some, because the signature is better than others. As the coarse texture and curvature make it harder to sign, thusly a person must slow down, not speed up their signature on a baseball, usually producing a better signature than the scribbling presented otherwise on a glossy picture or golfball. |
JasonIUP
Member Posts: 282
From: PA
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 11-09-2016 12:43 AM
But not necessarily in Neil's case. |
Chuckster01
Member Posts: 873
From: Orlando, FL
Registered: Jan 2014
|
posted 11-09-2016 05:38 AM
I have been researching signed Neil Armstrong baseballs with solid providence. I stand by my assertion that I would not purchase that particular ball. Opinions are subjective and I am not an authority but I do have several Armstrong signed items, I work in a space museum and I have seen several signed baseballs (never owning one). |
Kurt
Member Posts: 83
From: Santa Clara, CA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 11-16-2016 10:28 PM
First, thanks everyone for your opinions.While the item is no longer available for sale on eBay, it is being auctioned on Iconic Auctions. Having said that, Iconic allows sellers to set reserve prices, so even though as of today, the auction is only at $825. I'm 100% positive the item will not sell unless it gets close to that original 6K asking price on eBay. As Jason has mentioned, even if real, it seems too much. Regarding when Neil stopped signing in person, I met him in February 2001 before a lecture and without doubt, he was done by then. I asked him to sign an index card as I figured it was my best chance — and he simply turned to me and said "Sorry, I can't," even though I was the only collector waiting for him. He also turned down a collector on the way out of the event, although he was happy to pose for a picture with me at the time. |
advertisement