Does the specific ball actually matter?

[Tripredacus]

I had a question after my father picked up an autographed Brooks Robinson baseball at a garage sale over the weekend. After trying to research the value, I tried to find an exact match since prices seem all over the place. The auto has no COA and no inscription. The ball itself is an American League ball with Bobby Brown's fascimile auto on it. This would mean the ball was from between 1984 and 1994 or so, when he was the President of the AL, and also would mean it would have been signed after Robinson was elected to the HOF.

So does it matter what the actual ball is that a player signs? I'd expect that an older ball would be worth more... say if the ball he signed was prior to his election, or even from his playing days.

PS: I know the value of this ball so I'm not asking about that, more of a general question.

[borisplante]

I believe that having it on an AL ball helps with authenticating it as legit. AL balls are pretty hard to find these days. Certainly Brooks played during the days of separate balls, so I would think that would increase the value. Obviously you can go out now and get him on a current day official ball, but for the older stars I've always tried to get them on the old balls (if I can find them).

[indyreds]

I always feel that it is worth a premium to have the player sign a ball from during their playing era. It would seem silly to have a Mike Trout sign an older ball that he did not play in the era for instance an official American League baseball vs the current MLB baseball. Who would not met sooner buy a Mickey Mantle on an 1950's baseball vs the Bobby Brown era ball you used as an example? Yeah, the ball does make a difference.